Subsidies encourage market participation and support market growth by reducing the market prices of the subsidized products and actions. However, they do not reduce the societal cost of the products or actions and actually increase societal costs since the subsidies are typically provided from borrowed funds.

Back in the days before deregulation, when we had vertically integrated utilities, the cost of generation was less important. The utility owned all the generation they needed; power exchange between large utilities was limited largely to seasonal support and switched back and forth.

Subsidies are used to make the price of an alternative product or action as attractive as, or more attractive than, other available options. The magnitude of the subsidy is determined by the relative cost of the alternatives and their relative acceptability or desirability. Subsidies will cause some percentage of decision-makers to choose the subsidized product or action rather than the available alternatives.

“Canada is warming at roughly double the global average rate,” according to scientists at Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC). But it looks like this claim, regularly repeated by politicians and media across the board, is yet another example of made up evidence to support a politically correct narrative.

Corporations use incentives in a number of ways to “make things happen”. These are typically short duration programs to accelerate market entry for new products or services, such as reduced prices and warranty extensions, which are terminated when the product or service offering has achieved early market acceptance.

We have been fortunate to witness the largest climate event to occur on the planet since the advent of global satellite records, and possibly the largest event since the eruption of Mount Tambora in 1815. It is clearly a naturally occurring, externally forced climate event. However, mainstream climate scientists are not treating it appropriately.

The United States will continue on the path to energy independence and energy dominance, relying largely on natural gas while supporting life extension projects for nuclear and coal generators to maintain grid reliability. The US will also support efforts to expand nuclear generation both at GW scale and from SMRs. Uranium mining and fuel processing will be expanded.

The dream customer for a utility would consume a massive amount of power at a constant rate, 24 hours a day, with no seasonal variation. The data center is about as close to that as there is, with an enormous appetite for power and a typical load factor of 86%. The load factor is the utilization rate, defined as the average consumption divided by the peak. The load factor for a large electricity grid, such as ERCOT or MISO, is ~64%. A higher load factor results in lower costs for consumers by maximizing the use of all the equipment.

The year 2025 was all of the above, depending on who you were, what you did and where you lived. For the citizens of the United States, it was the end of the aggressive pursuit of Net Zero by 2050 with its mandates, subsidies and incentives. It was the end of the war on fossil fuels and its termination of oil and gas leases on federal land. It was the end of federal promotion of offshore wind. It was the end of the federal EV charging station program. It was the end of the federal pursuit of all-electric everything.

The Issue Utility-scale lithium-ion battery energy storage systems (BESS), together with wind and solar power, are increasingly promoted as the solution to enabling a “clean” energy future.1 Advocates argue that batteries can store surplus power from wind and solar generation and discharge it when needed.2 As a result, governments, utilities, and investors have directed billions of dollars toward utility-scale battery installations worldwide.

(Part 3) NGOs and their fellow travelers and hangers-on “flooded the zone” on social media in November 2025, prior to and during the UNFCCC COP30 in Belem, Brazil. They have published more than 50 posts on Facebook promoting renewable generation, raising concerns about the climate and soliciting support from Facebook users. I have sorted these posts into three categories based on their messages:

There is an old scientific maxim that complex systems rarely behave as planners expect. For decades, environmental policy has marched in the opposite direction—insisting that ever-larger interventions can be sketched out on whiteboards, implemented by decree, and assumed to behave as the architects intend. Offshore wind development is one of the latest manifestations of this technocratic impulse.

(Part 2 of 3) NGOs and their fellow travelers and hangers-on “flooded the zone” on social media in November 2025, prior to and during the UNFCCC COP30 in Belem, Brazil. They have published more than 50 posts on Facebook promoting renewable generation, raising concerns about the climate and soliciting support from Facebook users. I have sorted these posts into three categories based on their messages:

In an earlier essay I explained how positive feedbacks can lead to potentially problematic scientific mono-cultures. I also acknowledged that poor research design and data analysis had become commonplace within the behavioural sciences, largely as a result of a ‘natural selection’, driven by the career enhancement that comes with publication.

(Part 1) NGOs and their fellow travelers and hangers-on “flooded the zone” on social media in November 2025, prior to and during the UNFCCC COP30 in Belem, Brazil. They have published more than 50 posts on Facebook promoting renewable generation, raising concerns about the climate and soliciting support from Facebook users. I have sorted these posts into three categories based on their messages:

Any politician faced with the challenge of protecting the public from a natural threat, such as a pandemic or climate change, will be keen to stress how much they are ‘following the science’ — by which they mean they are guided by the dominant scientific narrative of the day. We would want this to be the case because we trust the scientific method as a selective process that ensures bad science cannot hope to survive for very long.

The graph below shows the generation by energy source for Duke Energy Carolina during the 5-day heat dome which occurred in late June 2025. Duke operated pumped storage hydro generation to meet peak demand on each of those hot sunny days and recharged the pumped storage capacity each night using electricity produced by conventional sources, predominantly natural gas and coal generation.

The Politico reporters claim the DOE report “cherry-picks mainstream research and omits context,” “relies on outdated studies,” “cites analyses that were not peer reviewed,” and “revives debunked arguments.” The reporters cite three examples of alleged cherry picking. First, as described by the reporters, the DOE authors claim that during the past 100 years, “the U.S. saw its most intense heat in the 1930s—and that maximum temperatures have never been that hot again.”

We have much to be thankful for this Thanksgiving. Give thanks and celebrate. The 2025 Atlantic hurricane season, originally predicted to be above average, turned out to be average, but with no landfalling hurricanes. Storm surge and heavy surf caused significant damage along the Carolina coast. However, that damage was far less severe than would have resulted had those two CAT-5 hurricanes made landfall.

Politico recently published an article titled “How a major DOE report hides the whole truth on climate change.” The reporters’ objective is obvious and their strategy simple. They aim to discredit the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal to repeal the December 2009 Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding by discrediting a Department of Energy (DOE) draft report which is cited in the repeal proposal’s climate science discussion.

This commentary is the 500th in a series of climate change commentaries which began in the Fall of 2015 with the preparation of a climate change overview report for publication at www.therightinsight.org. The commentaries are archived and searchable on the website. Beginning in August, 2022 the commentaries are also cross-published at Climate Change Conundrum (edreid.substack.com) and at Energy Central (energycentral.com).

This is winning and this is getting the word out to a large audience. Richard Lindzen, PhD, is Professor Emeritus of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. William Happer, PhD, is Professor Emeritus of Physics at Princeton University. Doctors Lindzen and Happer are recognized for questioning prevailing assumptions about climate change and energy policy. https://www.co2coalition.org

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change introduced the concept of “Common But Differentiated Responsibilities” (CBDR) in the global pursuit of climate change mitigation. The intent was to recognize that each nation approached the process from a unique beginning position with regard to economic development status and potential, emissions history and current emissions rates, but that their common goal was to control emissions at a level which would avoid environmental harm.

Net Zero Plans Are Dangerous and Unsupported by Science and the Scientific Method Net Zero initiatives of governments and private organizations are scientifically invalid and will lead to worldwide impoverishment and starvation if implemented, according to a paper published by the CO2 Coalition. The 55-page paper details how the objectives of Net Zero to eliminate the use of fossil fuels and the emissions of greenhouse gases are based on analytical methods that violate fundamental tenets of the scientific method which originated more than 300 years ago.

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change introduced the concept of “Common But Differentiated Responsibilities” (CBDR) in the global pursuit of climate change mitigation. The intent was to recognize that each nation approached the process from a unique beginning position with regard to economic development status and potential, emissions history and current emissions rates, but that their common goal was to control emissions at a level which would avoid environmental harm.

It is a topsy-turvy new energy world where reality bats last. With the physics of energy overcoming the ‘magical thinking’ of renewables and deep decarbonization, and with a push in the U.S. under Trump, the Paris Accord (‘a fraud really, a fake‘) is going the way of the Kyoto Protocol. The forced smiles of Climate Week in New York City last month will be harder to maintain at COP 29 in Brazil.

The US Middle Atlantic and Southeast states experienced five days in a heat dome from June 23-27, 2025. This extensive heat dome stressed the electric generation, transmission and distribution resources of the region, including those of the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO), another of the largest ISOs in the US. MISO issued an emergency declaration in anticipation of the effects of this heat dome on demand and consumption, requiring all generation resources to be available for full capacity operation throughout the period, as displayed on the MISO Live Dashboard.

Nuclear is the cleanest, safest, densest, and most reliable energy source ever discovered. Yet instead of embracing it, we all but banned it in the West. Thankfully we’ve snapped out of it, prompted by the need for a lot more clean energy to feed AI progress. Governments aren’t just allowing nuclear development again… they’re urgently pushing it, clearing regulatory roadblocks and widening loopholes for nuclear entrepreneurs to sprint through.

The US Middle Atlantic and Southeast states experienced five days in a heat dome from June 23-27, 2025. This extensive heat dome stressed the electric generation, transmission and distribution resources of the region, including those of the Pennsylvania / New Jersey / Maryland (PJM) Regional Transmission Operator (RTO), the largest ISO in the US. PJM issued an emergency declaration in anticipation of the effects of this heat dome on demand and consumption, requiring all generation resources to be available for full capacity operation throughout the period, as displayed on the PJM Live Dashboard.

In September of 2025, the American Gas Association published its 2025-2026 Winter Heating Outlook. Here are six slides from their analysis that we thought offered some of the most interesting insights.

Secretary of Energy Chris Wright assembled a Climate Working Group (CWG) this Spring to prepare a report on the state of climate science. The report, A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate, was published in late July. It was prepared by five noted scientists: Dr. Steven Koonin; Dr. Judith Curry; Dr. John Christy; Dr. Roy Spencer; and, Dr. Ross McKittrick. The report focused on the known knowns and the known unknowns regarding climate science.

When the science police don't understand the science they are policing Over at The Climate Brink, Andrew Dessler and Zeke Hausfather have taken on the role of self-appointed sheriffs of climate science, at times in highly partisan and personal terms. Recently, Dessler, along with another scientist, Robert Kopp, and dozens of others, prepared a lengthy response to the Department of Energy’s Climate Working Group (DOE CWG) report.

The Paris Accords established a global goal of achieving Net Zero CO2 emissions by 2050. Essentially this global goal was a “roadmap” leading from wherever to a single destination. Individual nations then established specific goals, not all consistent with the global goal and some ignoring it completely, reflecting their “differentiated responsibilities”.

In the belief that atmospheric CO2 is the control knob of ‘dangerous’ impending climate change, Net Zero emerged in the 2010s as the global rallying cry to ‘save the planet’. By the time the Paris Agreement was concluded in 2015, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) established the arbitrary 1.5°C limit on global temperature increase and established the ‘Net Zero by 2050’ policy target for developed countries around the globe.

Several recent articles have suggested that the growth of AI and data centers is driving up electric rates. This seems counterintuitive and, if accurate, represents regulatory misfeasance.There are fundamentally three approaches to powering data centers: Constructing new, grid-isolated, dedicated power systems Dedicating existing grid-connected generation Constructing new, grid-connected generation

The effect of over two decades of preferential government treatment for wind and solar energy is observable throughout the world. The mix of renewables has been optimized to match each region’s relative abundance or scarcity of renewable resources. In each case, we can assume that engineers have diligently designed and implemented functioning systems based on the constraints imposed by governmental mandates, available renewable resources, and costs of capital, operations, and fuel.

The consensed climate science community has developed a narrative regarding climate change and has been actively working to silence scientists skeptical of the narrative and the research on which it is based. This effort has occurred mostly out of the public eye and has been largely ignored by the media. The extent of the effort and the methods employed began to be revealed by the Climategate scandal. Research which did not support the narrative, or which questioned its validity, was excluded from the IPCC Assessment Reports. Data sharing requests were ignored or refused, even in the face of Freedom of Information Act requests. Researchers even threatened to destroy data rather than share it with skeptical researchers who might question its validity.

Modern political movements have not infrequently laid claim to being based in science, from immigration restriction and eugenics (in the U.S. after WWI), to antisemitism and race ideology (in Hitler’s Germany), to Communism and Lysenkoism (under Stalin). Each of these falsely invoked a scientific consensus that convinced highly educated citizens,

The consensed climate science community has participated in the creation of a climate narrative which portrays climate change as a “crisis”, and “existential threat” and an “emergency” which has been caused by anthropogenic emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases (GHGs). The narrative proclaims that “the science is settled” and is beyond question. The narrative stresses mitigation, the need to rapidly end the use of fossil fuels and achieve Net Zero CO2 emissions by 2050. The narrative is promoted by the UN and numerous national political leaders, with the support of the media. The consensed climate science community has “flooded the zone” with nearly worthless research intended to produce “scary scenarios” to build public acquiescence.

China is pulling a fast one on western nations and it is about time we called them on it. For example, on July 24th , representatives from the EU and China met at a summit in Beijing to discuss their plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Both nations reaffirmed their commitment to the Paris Agreement on climate change and urged greater emission cuts, promotion of “green technology,” and a call for strong action at the COP30 climate summit coming up in Brazil this November.

The consensed climate science community’s focus on CO2 makes the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) of the climate to atmospheric CO2 concentration a critical focus of climate research. Historically, climate sensitivity estimates have been derived from climate model studies. More recently, scientists have been developing data-driven estimates of sensitivity, which tend to be lower than the estimates derived from model runs.

It is one of the enduring marvels of political hubris that a small, deindustrialising island nation contributing less than 0.8% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions believes it can “lead the world” into abandoning fossil fuels.

“There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.”

The National Association of Scholars (NAS) has published the fifth and final report in the Shifting Sands: Keeping Count of Government Science project, False Positives: The Irresponsibility Crisis of Science Policy, which provides a policy-oriented conclusion to the report series.

Lawfare has been a very popular approach for political jurisdictions seeking a “Jerry Maguire Moment” at the expense of the fossil energy industries. The most notorious of these lawfare efforts are the numerous “Exxon Knew” lawsuits, which allege that Exxon “knew” 30 years ago what the IPCC acknowledges it does not “know” today regarding the purported catastrophic effects of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

Since President Trump took office, his administration, along with Congress, have taken over 200 actions to unleash America’s energy potential. See a full list...

The response to global warming began with the apparent expectation of altruism on the part of the global population. Suggestions were made regarding actions people could take to reduce their energy consumption. The results were underwhelming.

On July 29, 2025, the Department of Energy (DOE) published a report entitled A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate, evaluating existing peer-reviewed literature and government data on climate impacts of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions and providing a critical assessment of the conventional narrative on climate change.

The Governors of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Delaware have recently complained about high electric prices in the area served by the PJM ISO. They asserted that these high rates were caused by PJM’s failure to add renewables to the grid more rapidly, rather than more expensive natural gas generators. Governor Murphy of New Jersey said: “PJM has lost the plot.” It appears more likely that the “plot” in question was a political goal rather than an economic plan. However, it is clear that the governors and PJM are not “singing out of the same hymn book”.

The Climate Working Group of the U.S. Department of Energy (John Christy, Ph.D.; Judith Curry, Ph.D.; Steven Koonin, Ph.D.; Ross McKitrick, Ph.D.; Roy Spencer, Ph.D.) published a new study that injects realism and humility into the politicized, climate-model-driven debate. This 141-page summary of CO2 science, climate science, climate economics, and related public policy reverses the John Holdren et al. bias of prior like reports.