Energy Policy

The IPCC Summary for Policymakers asserts that climate change is causing more frequent and more intense extreme weather events, including tropical cyclones, tornadoes, droughts, floods and heat waves; and, that climate change is increasing the loss and damage these events cause. These assertions are repeated frequently by the US Secretary General, other members of the UN Secretariat and numerous national leaders. The UN Secretary General combines these assertions with a variety of hyperbolic descriptions of the current situation. Interestingly, these assertions regarding causation are not supported by the analyses of IPCC Working Group I. However, they are widely accepted and repeated by the global media.

The UN and numerous of its member nations have requested that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) rule on the legal obligations of governments regarding reducing CO2 emissions to limit the climate change they are accused of causing. While an ICJ ruling would be advisory in nature, it would likely be “played up” by the UN secretariat and the media as requiring “greater ambition” on the part of global governments to reduce CO2 emissions. Nations failing to adhere to the ICJ ruling would likely be accused of Ecocide and subjected to additional lawfare.

Extreme weather events have occurred throughout history. The loss and damage they cause has increased over time, largely as the result increasing infrastructure investment, land use changes and GDP growth. Roger Pielke, Jr. and others have determined that when loss and damage from extreme weather events are adjusted for growth in GDP, the trend lines are flat or slightly negative, indicating that climate change is not exacerbating the effects of the weather events.

Tropical cyclones are an interesting case in point. While there is a defined “tornado season” during which they normally occur, we do not know when a disturbance will occur, whether a particular disturbance will develop into a tropical depression, tropical storm or hurricane/typhoon. We also do not know the track a particular storm will follow or whether it will eventually make landfall and, if so, at what intensity. These uncertainties make it effectively impossible to identify and quantify the extent to which any particular storm might have been affected by climate change, though the purveyors of Attribution Analysis assert that they are able to do so. The damage caused by a storm is a function of its intensity, its track and the value and durability of the infrastructure in its path.

Flooding is another interesting case. Flooding can result from heavy precipitation and/or from storm surge associated with storms offshore. Each conversion of landscape (exposed soil) to hardscape (buildings, parking lots, roads and sidewalks, etc.) increases the runoff resulting from heavy rains and increases the geographical extent of storm surge. The likelihood of flooding increases if facilities to handle runoff are not expanded as the percentage of hardscaped surface increases.

Numerous Pacific Island nations have expressed concerns about the potential effects of rising sea levels. However, sea level has been rising since the trough of the Little Ice Age, prior to the increase in anthropogenic CO2 emissions. The rate of rise of sea level has not increased as the result of climate change according to the tide gauge records. The area of most of these islands has increased or remained stable as sea level has increased.

From: JD Supra

By: Alan Claus Anderson, Andrew Schulte, Christine Soares

Date: January 23, 2025

What President Trump’s Energy Plan Means for the State Regulatory Environment, the Generation Mix and Electric Transmission

Signaling the prioritization of energy, President Donald Trump declared a national energy emergency on inauguration day. He issued several Executive Orders (EO) and Presidential Memoranda either unwinding the Biden administration’s energy policies or entering his own Orders to address what he described as inadequate energy supply in the United States and to encourage the expedient development of fossil fuel resources. Here, we will outline the key Orders and what they mean for the state regulatory environment, generation mix and electric transmission construction.

The Rescissions
Let’s start with the rescissions. President Trump revoked most of President Biden’s EOs and Presidential Memoranda on energy matters, some of which were entered in the weeks before he left office. The following is a summary of the key rescissions:

• EO 13990 of January 20, 2021 (Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis) entered on President Biden’s first day in office. The Order revoked the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline, established an Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases and directed federal agencies to support a transition to clean energy.
• EO 14008 of January 27, 2021 (Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad) that paused “new oil and natural gas leases on public lands or in offshore waters pending completion of a comprehensive review and reconsideration of Federal oil and gas permitting and leasing practices.”
• EO 14057 of December 8, 2021 (Catalyzing Clean Energy Industries and Jobs Through Federal Sustainability) setting forth the policy of achieving a carbon pollution-free electricity sector by 2035 and net-zero emissions economy-wide by no later than 2050.

(continue reading)

What President Trump’s Energy Plan Means for the State Regulatory Environment, the Generation Mix and Electric Transmission

The consensed climate science community and their allies in government, environmental organizations and the media are focused on Net Zero by 2050.  They assert that solar and wind can power an economical, stable and reliable electric grid and that all energy end uses can be powered electrically. Neither of those assertions has been demonstrated, nor is there a plan to achieve Net Zero by 2050.

However, there are numerous cautionary tales which should cause them to question their assertions. Two relatively small and relatively isolated communities built their electric systems to rely on renewable generation plus storage. Both have failed to achieve stability and reliability.

El Heirro in the Canary Islands built a system consisting of wind turbines and a pumped hydro storage reservoir system. The system, designed to provide all of the island’s electricity, has averaged approximately 50% and has required backup from a diesel generator system. The island does not have the potential to replace its non-electric energy consumption with additional electricity generation which would require more than quadrupling the island’s generating and storage capacity.

The community of Broken Hill NSW, Australia has a 36 MW load which is served by ~200 MW of wind capacity,,~60 MW  of solar PV and ~50 MW / 100 MWh battery storage system, plus backup diesel turbine generators. While Broken Hill had more than adequate generating capacity, it experienced blackouts when it lost connection to the larger grid, which provided reliability services. While generating capacity is ~7 times load, storage capacity is woefully inadequate.

Every jurisdiction which has installed renewable generation has experienced increased electricity rates and the rates have continued to increase as the percentage of renewable generation has increased. The UK and Germany have both experienced electric rate increases by a factor of 3-4, which have made many of their industries uncompetitive and have caused energy poverty to spread among their populations.

California has the highest electric rates of the contiguous 48 states and frequently produces excess solar generation which must be sold at discounted prices or wasted, while it must also import electricity during periods of high demand.  California’s storage capacity is woefully inadequate to time shift generation to periods of high demand.

Numerous states on the US East Coast have had offshore wind installations cancelled because the existing contracts had become uneconomic. Recent proposed contracts are for delivered wholesale electricity prices 3-4 times the current wholesale cost of electricity in the states.

It is highly likely that the Trump Administration will dramatically reduce or eliminate the federal subsidies for renewable generation, particularly offshore wind, and for grid-scale storage. It is also highly likely that the Trump Administration will reduce or eliminate subsidies and incentives for residential and commercial gas to electric appliance and equipment conversions to achieve “all-electric everything”.

Industries which depend on federal or state subsidies and incentives are subject to changes in the political priorities of the current political administrations, as well as the interest of the buying public in their products and services. The buying public has clearly lost some of its enthusiasm for electric vehicles and the all-electric everything transition.

From: The Honest Broker - Substack

By: Mike Hulme

Date: January 13, 2025

From Idealism to Realism

This is a guest post by Mike Hulme, Professor of Human geography at Cambridge University. Mike is one of the world’s most accomplished climate scientists. Hulme participated in the IPCC second and third assessments, was part of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, where he subsequently founded the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at UEA. He has been at Cambridge University since 2017. Mike and I are long-time collaborators, and we co-authored The Hartwell Paper (2009). Mike’s publication record is expansive and involves many collaborators around the world. He maintains an active website where you can find his research and commentary. Now over to Mike . . . —Roger Pielke Jr.

Geopolitics, History and Climate Change: A Personal View[1]

Mike Hulme, University of Cambridge

“To think that we can draw some useful analogies from history dramatically underestimates the novelty and scale of the climate challenge.”[2]

“In the contest between geopolitics and sustainable climate policies, the former takes precedence.”[3]

Starting in the early 1980s, I have spent my entire professional life studying climate change, as well as teaching, writing and speaking about it in universities, conferences, and public forums around the world—in 43 countries at the latest count. With such a professional and personal investment in the idea of climate change, it is not surprising that for a long period I uncritically absorbed the notion that climate change represented the pre-eminent challenge facing humanity in the twenty-first century.

Since first immersing myself in the topic in the 1980s, and subsequently being part of the scientific and public story of climate change in the 1990s and 2000s[4], I was easily convinced that the growing human influence on the world’s climate would be a reality that all nations would increasingly need to confront, a reality to which their interests would necessarily be subservient and that would be decisive for shaping their development pathways. For more than half of these 40 or so years, it seemed to me self-evident that relations between nations would forcibly be re-shaped by the exigencies of a changing climate.

But now, in the mid-2020s, I can see that I got this the wrong way round. And I can also see why this was so. Rather than geopolitics having to bend to the realities of a changing climate, the opposite has happened. The unyielding force of political realism—the pursuit of the changing and unpredictable interests of nations and great powers—means that the framing, significance, and responses to climate change need continually to adapt to shifting geopolitical realities. Except that too often they haven’t. Whilst the world’s climate has undoubtedly changed over these 40 years, the geopolitics, demography, and culture of the world has changed even more.[5] Too often the language, rhetoric, and campaigning around climate change remains wedded to a world that no longer exists. (continue reading)

From Idealism to Realism

The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference of the Parties 21 (COP21) in Paris, France produced the Paris Accords, a non-binding agreement under which the participating nations agreed to take actions necessary to achieve a goal of Net Zero CO2 emissions by 2050. The developed nations of the world have undertaken various efforts to proceed toward that goal and have reduced their CO2 emissions with varying levels of success over the past 9 years. However, global annual CO2 emissions have continued to increase, largely due to rapid growth in fossil fuel consumption in the developing nations, led by China, India and Indonesia among others.

The continuing increases in global CO2 emissions have made it obvious that the globe is not going to achieve Net Zero by 2050. However, the developed nations are now beginning to realize that they are not going to achieve Net Zero by 2050 either. Their efforts so far have increased government debt, increased electricity prices, spread energy poverty, threatened the reliability of their electric grids, encouraged de-industrialization and left them flailing around seeking workable solutions.

It has become increasingly clear that, while the developed nations adopted the Net Zero by 2050 goal, none of them have developed a detailed plan to achieve the goal, nor have any of them analyzed in detail the cost of achieving the goal. Also, none of them has demonstrated that the transition to renewable generation they are pursuing would lead to a stable, reliable and economical energy economy. In spending hundreds of billions of dollars in pursuit of the goal without a plan or a demonstration, they have clearly “put the cart before the horse”.

Several individuals and organizations have suggested demonstration programs to no avail. More recently it has been suggested that rigorous engineering planning efforts might substitute for demonstration programs. Such engineering plans would begin with an analysis of the projected load on each grid in 2050 after an all-electric transition, with an allowance for market growth and economic development. The planning teams would then analyze the current grid and the generation which serves it and would be replaced, identifying areas where new generation capacity could be installed and the transmission enhancements necessary to move the output of the new generation to market. The planners would then determine the technology mix and capacity of the new generation assets to be installed.

The generation technologies evaluated would include intermittent renewable generators such as solar and wind, as well as dispatchable generators such as nuclear, hydro and geothermal. The intermittent generation capacity would require procurement and installation of storage capacity sufficient to render the intermittent generation dispatchable or installation of additional dispatchable capacity sufficient to replace the output of the intermittent generators when they were unavailable.

Storage technologies to be evaluated would include short-duration, medium-duration and long-duration battery storage, pumped hydro and Green Hydrogen. This component of the planning process would be greatly complicated by the fact that medium-duration and long-duration battery storage systems are not currently available, that pumped hydro systems are very location specific and subject to significant local resistance, and that no plan for the production, transmission, storage and utilization of Green Hydrogen currently exists.

The planning process would then prepare a detailed schedule for the transition. Each new generation site would be identified, the generation technologies to be sited there determined, their capacity established, the transmission interconnection designed and the cost of the installed and interconnected capacity calculated. An installation schedule which replaced the existing generation and kept pace with demand and consumption growth resulting from the all-electric transition would be prepared. Transmission and distribution system enhancements to accommodate the new generation and storage capacity installations and the anticipated load growth would be scheduled and costed.
I believe that such detailed plans, developed by corporations experienced with utility construction projects would determine that achieving Net Zero by 2050 reliably and economically in the developed nations would be as implausible as it is unnecessary.

“A goal without a plan is just a wish.”, Antoine de St. Exupery

The US and most of the developed nations have set various energy and climate goals, either in legislation or by executive action. These goals are typically intended to achieve Net Zero by 2050. Goals were set for specific sectors of their economies. In the US, these included achieving net zero emissions in the electric sector by 2035 and banning the sale of fossil fueled vehicles and residential and commercial appliances and equipment by 2035. Oil and gas lease sales were cancelled or delayed, restrictions were placed on oil and gas exploration and production on oil and gas pipelines were denied approval.

The common approach was to replace fossil fuel electric generation with wind and solar generation. Some governments also chose to eliminate nuclear generation and replace it with wind and solar. This approach deprived electric utilities and their regulators of the freedom to select the mix of generation technologies which best supported the demand and consumption characteristics of their markets.

Massive subsidies and incentives were offered to encourage investment in wind and solar generation, largely to the exclusion of the investments in storage necessary for intermittent renewable generation to replace fossil generation in a stable and reliable electric grid, rather than merely displace a portion of the output of the fossil generators. The failure to invest in sufficient storage deprived the utilities of the freedom to retire the fossil generators, since they were needed to back up the intermittent renewables. This also resulted in significant increases in electricity costs.

The goals for elimination of fossil fueled vehicles were intended to deprive vehicle manufacturers of the freedom to produce the vehicles their customers preferred and to deprive customers of the freedom to purchase the vehicles they preferred. Significant incentives were offered to manufacturers to produce electric vehicles and to customers to purchase them. Significant funding was also committed to incentivize and support the installation of public electric vehicle charging infrastructure.

The goals for elimination of fossil fueled appliances and equipment were intended to deprive purchasers of the freedom to select the appliances and equipment which best suited their needs. Significant incentives were offered in some nations for the replacement of gas boilers with electric heat pumps. However, the incentives proved insufficient to offset the much higher installed cost of the heat pumps and the higher operating costs resulting from electric rate increases. There were also pilot programs proposed to convert existing natural gas distribution systems and end use appliances and equipment to operate on Hydrogen. Those pilot programs were abandoned after strong consumer resistance.

The new US Administration appears poised to terminate the range of programs put in place in support of the Net Zero goal and to restore the freedoms they threatened. The Administration proposals are not intended deprive utilities of the freedom to choose renewable generation or to deprive consumers of the freedom to choose electric vehicles, electric heat pumps or other electric appliances and equipment. However, it is likely that the subsidies and incentives which had been offered will disappear or be dramatically reduced.

While the energy and climate goals have had significant impacts on the economies of the developed nations which have adopted them and would continue to have massive further impacts on those economies, it has become clear that there are no plans in place to achieve the goals. Several recent non-government planning exercises suggest that achievement of the goals which have been established is implausible, especially in the timeframes which have been established for their achievement.

From: ZeroHedge

By: Tyler Durden

Date: January 8, 2025

People Are Catching On To The Truth

Authored by Chris Martenson via PeakProsperity.com,

Is Biden Trying To Destroy The US’s Energy Future?
Energy is THE master resource.  Have that and everything is possible.  Without it, nothing is possible.

The level of sheer petulance on display by the Biden administration on their way our to door is staggering.  They’ve tried and failed, thankfully, to kick of WW III by lobbing long-range missiles into Russia.  They treated the Western North Carolina hurricane victims so horribly, and continue to do so, that it’s a miracle that hasn’t erupted into violence.  They ran an extremely poorly conducted drones-over-Jersey PsyOp.

Then Biden pardoned some of the worst possible people on the planet, including a judge that shanghaied kids into a prison-for-profit program for infuriatingly stingy kickbacks given the fact that some of the kids committed suicide as a result, and lives were derailed and ruined in all cases.

The two terror incidents were immediately utilized as weapons-grade PsyOps by who knows which over-funded “intelligence” agencies to distract and divide and divert civilian attention while they dialed-for-dollars in a new political landscape where their relevance may have suddenly come into question.

But all of that pales in comparison to the truly stunning attempts by the Biden administration (which we still have no idea who or what we’re really speaking of when we type that out) to hamstring American’s access to affordable, reliable energy and efficient equipment.

The headlines begin with Biden invoking the 1952 Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, meaning Trump would need Congressional involvement to reverse this action:(continue reading)

People Are Catching On To The Truth

Current US climate policy is aligned with the UN climate objectives embodied in the 2015 Paris Accords. It is focused on Net Zero by 2050, “All-electric Everything” by 2050, ending the use of fossil fuels, transitioning to an electric grid powered by wind and solar and a transportation system reliant on electric vehicles. Current policies provide substantial incentives for wind and solar generation, electricity storage, electric vehicles and electric heat pumps. Fundamental to these policies is the 2007 Supreme Court finding that CO2 is a pollutant and the 2009 EPA Endangerment Finding regarding CO2.

The incoming Trump Administration is not supportive of the UN climate objectives. It has several climate and energy policy revision priorities it intends to pursue rapidly and aggressively. Its first action is likely to be withdrawal from the Paris Accords and cessation of funding of the UN Green Climate Fund. The Administration is being encouraged to submit the Paris Accords to the Senate as a treaty, which the Senate would almost certainly fail to approve.

The Administration is also likely to seek reversal of the EPA Endangerment Finding which is not in compliance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act under which it was issued. The CAA requires EPA to rely on its own research (not the IPCC) and to issue a National Ambient Air Quality Standard for CO2, which has not been done in the 15 years since the Finding. The Administration might also seek to reverse the Supreme Court finding in the wake of the Court’s Chevron Deference position. The Administration will also seek withdrawal of the EPA Powerplant Rule which would require installation of CCS systems on coal and natural gas electric generators or their retirement.

The Trump Administration will seek to eliminate or drastically reduce incentives for electric grid conversion to renewable generation, for electric vehicles and charging infrastructure, and for natural gas and propane appliance and equipment replacement with electric appliances and equipment. These incentives are currently being debt funded, adding to current government deficits and the national debt. The incentives for parallel electric grid infrastructure and for parallel vehicle charging infrastructure add to inflation as they unnecessarily duplicate existing infrastructure without increasing utility. These incentives also distort markets, placing existing businesses in competition with government incentivized businesses.

The Trump Administration will also seek to get government out of the way of US fossil energy exploration and production activities. It will resume the legally required oil and gas lease sales on federal land and offshore. The Administration will also attempt to reverse the recent Biden ban on offshore oil and gas exploration and production  It will likely support oil and gas pipeline construction, including the Keystone XL pipeline, and end the current moratorium on LNG sales.

The previous Trump Administration ended the practice of “sue and settle” used by US EPA to resolve issues in its favor in cooperation with environmental advocacy groups. The practice was resumed under the current Administration and has metastasized to other agencies. Trump will again end the practice and might attempt to have it banned by law to prevent its readoption in the future.

The new Department of Government Efficiency will likely seek to make significant impacts on US EPA and US DOE, as well as on NOAA and NASA GISS, regarding their involvement in climate and energy policy.

From: Critically Thinking About Select Societal Issues - Substack

By: John Droz Jr.

Date: January 6, 2025

Critically Thinking About Select Societal Issues

When I wrote the original version of this last year, some attentive readers said that although my list of ten costs were spot-on, I should have added more. My original list was intended to be a summary, not all inclusive. That said I believe that several of their suggested additions are not trivial, so I am reposting this commentary which now has fifteen typically ignored costs of industrial wind energy…

————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Periodically I get asked: what is the TRUE cost of industrial wind energy?

It seems like that should be a relatively straightforward answer, but it is anything but.

To appreciate what is going on, we need to understand the Big Picture regarding wind energy. (FYI, the same applies to solar.) The system is setup to grease the skids for wind energy developers — not ratepayers. When it comes to wind energy, we are dealing with 21st century snake oil salespeople. They have a sophisticated multi-part strategy to profit at the public’s expense…

Their FIRST major strategy is to sell politicians on the bogus concept that our electrical Grid should be inclusive — i.e., include ALL electrical energy sources (whether they are good or bad. An all of the above policy makes no technical or economic or environmental sense. (For a discussion of this, see here.) My alternative motto is that our electrical grid should include all of the sensible.

Their SECOND major strategy is to sell politicians on the false belief that we need enormous amounts of industrial wind energy to “save the planet from pending climate catastrophe.” Ignoring the accuracy of the Climate Change fear-mongering aspect, the reality is that there has never been a genuine scientific study that has concluded that wind energy saves a consequential amount of CO2! In fact, there have been multiple scientific studies that have concluded that wind energy can make Climate Change WORSE! (See here for some examples.)

Their THIRD major strategy is to sell politicians and the public on the illusion that industrial wind energy is inexpensive — so we should do it anyway (irrespective of points #1 and #2 above). So what is the true cost of industrial wind energy? (continue reading)

Critically Thinking About Select Societal Issues

Today marks the changing of the guard for the government of the United States. The new Administration promises many changes to programs and priorities throughout government. However, few areas will experience changes of the magnitude of the changes which will affect energy and climate, which expect to experience an almost complete reversal.

The ”War on Fossil Fuels” is over at the federal level, at least for the next 4 years, though it will still persist in some states. The federal government will return to regular oil and gas lease sales and will cease “slow walking” exploration and production permits. The LNG export “pause” will be un-paused and new LNG export terminal construction will again be determined by market demand and project economics. Pipeline expansion and new construction will not be banned by federal executive action.

Federal goals for utility-scale renewable generation installations, including offshore wind installations, will be terminated, as will the federal subsidies and incentives for their installation. Wind and solar are mature technologies which should compete for market share with fossil and nuclear generation. Grid scale batteries (2-4 hour) are also mature technology and should compete in the market as well. Offshore wind is already far more expensive than any of the alternatives, even with subsidies, and interest in future projects will likely diminish as the interest in currently proposed offshore wind projects has already done.

The EPA “mandate” for electric vehicles will be un-mandated, though individual state mandates will likely persist. Federal government incentives for the production and sale of EVs will be dramatically reduced or eliminated. Federal support for EV and EV battery manufacturing facilities will cease. Federal promotion and incentivization of EV transit and school buses will cease. The federal program to install fast charging facilities for EVs will be dramatically scaled back.

Program planning and development in support of the DOE “Decarbonize the Building Sector” blueprint will be deferred because the decarbonization goal has been abandoned and the federal funding required to incentivize the required investments will not be available. Federal incentives for building solar installations will also be reduced.

These changes do not mean that utilities and other investors cannot proceed with economically viable wind, solar and electricity storage projects. However, they do mean that utilities and investors will have the choice of developing fossil and nuclear generation capacity if they are the economical and/or operational choice and are not constrained by state Renewable Portfolio Standards. Utilities would also have the freedom to insist that new renewable facilities connected to their grids be dispatchable, which would significantly increase their value to the grid but also their cost.

These changes do not mean that individual customers or fleets cannot choose EVs, or that transit operators and school districts cannot choose EV buses.

These changes do not mean that homeowners and commercial establishments cannot choose to improve their buildings’ energy efficiency, install solar and battery storage or purchase electric heat pumps, water heaters, cooking and laundry appliances and equipment. Rather, it means that they can continue to make free choices based on preferences and economics.

For the next 4 years at least, the US federal government will allow markets to function without undue government interference or pressure.

From: The Washington Times

By: Matthew Daly

Date: January 6, 2025

Biden, in 11th hour action, bans new offshore oil and gas drilling in most federal waters

WASHINGTON — President Biden is moving to ban new offshore oil and gas drilling in most U.S. coastal waters, a last-minute effort to block possible action by the incoming Trump administration to expand offshore drilling.

Biden, whose term expires in two weeks, said he is using authority under the federal Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to protect offshore areas along the East and West coasts, the eastern Gulf of Mexico and portions of Alaska’s Northern Bering Sea from future oil and natural gas leasing.

“My decision reflects what coastal communities, businesses and beachgoers have known for a long time: that drilling off these coasts could cause irreversible damage to places we hold dear and is unnecessary to meet our nation’s energy needs,” Biden said in a statement.

“As the climate crisis continues to threaten communities across the country and we are transitioning to a clean energy economy, now is the time to protect these coasts for our children and grandchildren,” he said.

Biden’s orders would not affect large swaths of the Gulf of Mexico, where most U.S. offshore drilling occurs, but it would protect coastlines along California, Florida and other states from future drilling.

Biden’s actions, which protect more than 625 million acres of federal waters, could be difficult for President-elect Donald Trump to unwind, since they would likely require an act of Congress to repeal. Trump himself has a complicated history on offshore drilling. He signed a memorandum in 2020 directing the Interior secretary to prohibit drilling in the waters off both Florida coasts, and off the coasts of Georgia and South Carolina until 2032. (continue reading)

Biden, in 11th hour action, bans new offshore oil and gas drilling in most federal waters

The US federal government is supposed to conduct cost / benefit analyses of proposed programs to establish their cost effectiveness. In practice, the costs are often grossly underestimated and the benefits grossly overestimated.

Much has been written about the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC), which is shorthand for the social cost of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. SCC is a computer model generated estimate of the potential future societal damage which might be caused by continued CO2 emissions, typically through 2100. SCC, as it has been practiced by our government and others is an extremely malleable estimate. Pick a computer model, pick an estimate of climate sensitivity to CO2, pick an estimate of climate feedbacks, pick an estimated discount rate, push the button and “viola!”, there’s your estimate of the SCC. Current SCC estimates range from $0 up to $5500 per ton of CO2. The higher estimates can be used to justify almost any CO2 emissions reduction program.

While a search of the term “social cost of carbon” produces more than 19 million “hits’, a search of the term “social benefit of carbon” produces “crickets”. It would appear that the benefits portion of the government cost / benefit analysis is “missing in action”. However, the benefits are real, current and documented, while the costs are uncertain, future and computer model projected.

The most dramatic benefit is global greening, which has been documented by NASA  and NOAA  satellites. Studies attribute ~70% of the measured greening to the availability of increased CO2 in the atmosphere. The increased CO2 not only acts as a fertilizer, but also increases the efficiency with which plants and trees use available moisture, This has manifested in a decrease in the global desert area as plants and trees have advanced across the desert perimeters.

The availability of increased CO2 has also contributed to growing crop yields for a large number of plant species, including many of the cereal crops essential to the food chain. These crops also use available moisture more efficiently, reducing the need for crop irrigation. The increased CO2 also contributes to the growth of the grasses which feed ruminant animals including domesticated animals such as cattle, sheep and goats as well as wild ruminant animals including deer and antelope.

Crop science suggests that current atmospheric CO2 levels are still well below the ideal levels for plant growth. The CO2 levels maintained in commercial greenhouses are approximately 5 times the current atmospheric level. It appears that many crops would continue to benefit from increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations, though the effects would not be constant or universal.

Most government focus has been on the potential future costs of increased atmospheric CO2, in support of the climate “crisis” narrative and climate policies intended to reduce, halt and reverse the increase in atmospheric CO2. However, increased atmospheric CO2 has contributed to substantial societal benefits which should be recognized and valued. Reducing atmospheric CO2 concentrations would reduce those benefits and increase the strains on global food production.

From: Climate Etc.

By: Russ Schussler

Date: December 5, 2024

Wind and Solar Can’t Support the Grid

In October of 2024, the isolated small city of  Broken Hill in New South Wales, Australia with a 36 MW load (including the large nearby mines) could not be reliably served by 200 MW of wind, a 53 MW solar array, significant residential solar, and a large 50 MW battery all supplemented by diesel generators.

Many people falsely believe that wind, solar and batteries have been demonstrated to provide grid support and deliver energy independently in large real word applications. Few people realize that we are a long way away from having wind, solar and batteries support a large power system without significant amounts of conventional spinning generation (nuclear, gas, coal, hydro, geothermal) on-line to support the grid.

Broken Hill Outage – Wind, Solar and Battery Can Not Support the Grid

The recent outages occurring in Broken Hill help illustrate the inability of wind, solar and batteries to support electric grids without significant help from machines rotating in synchronism with the grid. (Note – wind power is produced by rotation but not in synchronism with the grid).

Around 20,000 people live in the Broken Hill area. Over $650 million in investment made Broken Hill home to a 200 MW wind plant, a 53 MW solar array, and a large battery that could provide 50 MW of power for 100 MWh through advanced grid forming inverters. Broken Hill is home to over 6,000 small-scale solar systems providing a per capita energy small solar production level almost twice the Australian average.  The area also contains two poorly maintained diesel-powered gas turbine generators in the area, one which was off-line for maintenance.

Broken Hill became renewable energy industry’s Potemkin Village:

 In 2018, Broken Hill City Council announced its goal to become Australia’s first carbon-free city by 2030. Three years ago, then mayor Darriea Turley welcomed the announcement that AGL was proceeding with plans to build a grid-scale battery, which the company claimed would be a reliable backup power source for 10,000 homes. “This is a great opportunity for Broken Hill and renewable energies,” Turley told the ABC. “What they will see is when there is an outage, the battery would click into operation.” (continue reading)

Wind and Solar Can’t Support the Grid

Misinformation: incorrect or misleading information
Disinformation: false information often deliberately or covertly spread
Malinformation: information which is based on fact, but removed from its original context in order to mislead, harm, or manipulate

UN’s new mission: ‘Fight the climate-related disinformation running rampant on social media’ – ‘Debunk myths & put an end to the narratives of denialism’ – ‘Global Initiative for Information Integrity on Climate Change’

The United Nations, through its General Secretariat, and the IPCC, through its Summary for Policymakers, are primary sources of climate and climate change mis/dis/mal-information.  They are principally responsible for the “climate crisis”, “existential threat“ and “climate emergency” narrative running rampant in the main stream media, which is not supported by the science reported by IPCC Working Group I. The UN Secretary General is famous for such hyperbole as “the era of global boiling has arrived” and  “on the highway to climate hell” among others.

The Global Initiative for Information Integrity on Climate Change is not focused on the honesty (integrity) of the information, but rather on keeping the “crisis” narrative whole and undivided (integrity), to maximize its effectiveness in convincing the public to support government climate change policies. This is becoming increasingly important as those policies result in higher electricity prices, growing energy poverty, reduced electric grid reliability, industrial uncompetitiveness and job losses
It is not clear what constitutes the “narratives of denialism” the UN intends to “put an end to”.  It is not clear what “denialism” denies. It is certainly not the existence of a climate, or the fact that climate changes, or even the fact that humans can affect climate. Certainly skeptics question the UN “crisis” narrative, which constitutes misinformation, based on the IPCC science.

Perhaps the greatest climate “myth” in circulation, though not associated with “denialism”, is the myth that “the science is settled”, which is clearly disinformation. This is simply another aspect of the effort to protect the integrity (wholeness) of the UN climate narrative.

Skeptics question the assertion that climate change is worsening extreme weather events, such as tropical cyclones, tornadoes, floods and droughts, which is clearly disinformation based on historical data. Skeptics also question the focus on current extreme weather events in the absence of the historical perspective, which frequently constitutes malinformation.

Skeptics also question assertions that climate models provide accurate projections of future climate, both because there are still multiple climate models which produce differing projections and because the model projections do not agree with observations. That means that the outputs of the climate models are misinformation.

Skeptics also question studies which lead to the development of “scary scenarios” using climate models and unrealistic Representative Concentration Pathways, such as RCP 8.5. These studies are yet another form of misinformation.

The UN continues to aspire to a role in “global governance”, or more precisely to the role as the global government. It has discovered, as have many current national governments, that mis/dis/mal-information is easiest to “govern” if they are the sources of the mis/dis/mal-information. The UN clearly seeks a monopoly on climate mis/dis/mal-information and has no tolerance for “competitors”, real or imagined.

From: Watts Up With That

By: Rupert Darwall

Date: December 13, 2024

Stern’s Climate Lesson for the Trump Administration

“The 2015 Paris climate should take its place as one of the great triumphs in history,” Jonathan Chait wrote two days after it was concluded. Todd Stern, America’s climate envoy for all but eight months of Barack Obama’s presidency, was indispensable in making the Paris agreement happen. With his new book, Landing the Paris Climate Agreement: How It Happened, Why It Matters, and What Comes Next (MIT Press, October 2024), Stern has written an indispensable history of the genesis, the whys, and the wherefores of the Paris agreement, indispensable both to supporters and critics and therefore for members of the incoming Trump administration as they consider, for a second time, future American participation in the agreement.

Stern’s account starts with the run-up to the 2009 Copenhagen climate conference. Stern knew what needed to be done. The firewall in the original United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), signed at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, had to be erased and a treaty text produced that wouldn’t be sent to the United States Senate for its advice and consent.

Stern had witnessed the Senate’s preemptive rejection of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol because the UN firewall protected China and other major developing countries from future treaty requirements to cap their emissions. This goal was initially opposed by the Europeans, who wanted to bounce the U.S. into a legally binding climate treaty that he knew would fail and premised on the delusory belief that developing countries would follow if the developed world led by example.

Stern had an ally in the Danish conference hosts, who wanted a short, legally nonbinding agreement. The longtime British climate negotiator, Pete Betts, had also suggested that countries should submit their own national plans as part of a new agreement, rather than negotiating emissions targets and inking them into a treaty. But a quartet of China, India, Brazil, and South Africa moved to block any agreement that set a goal for agreeing to a legally binding treaty. “They were not prepared to take the risk that a legally binding agreement would bind them,” Stern writes.

The Copenhagen conference of the parties (COP) is usually portrayed as a disaster. It ended in near-chaos, when a handful of South American countries blocked the conference from adopting the two-and-a-half-page Copenhagen Accord and only just succeeded in “taking note” of it. Stern challenges this assessment. The U.S. side never saw Copenhagen as a failure, he says. “We knew that the accord was an important document that it began an essential pivot away from the old firewall paradigm and was a potentially significant step forward.”

The next COP was in Cancún. “If Copenhagen was cold and gray with wet snow … Cancún was the opposite. The air was soft and warm, the sky was blue, the Gulf of Mexico lapped the edges of the beach,” Stern recalls. Stern’s aim was to embed the Copenhagen Accord in the process, while China did its best to kill it. A European colleague summed up the dilemma: the U.S. would not accept the firewall between developed and developing countries, but China and its allies would not give it up.(continue reading)

Stern’s Climate Lesson for the Trump Administration