Facebook - "Today, three-quarters of Germany's electricity comes from fossil fuels (and biomass delivers most of its renewables) That's because there is almost no wind And remember, electricity (where Germany has most of its renewables) is only 19% of all energy"
50 years of predictions that the climate apocalypse is nigh
The world is ending. The world has always been ending. The world will always be ending. Trust the science!
Facebook - "The reason films like "Don't Look Up" do such a terrible job of identifying why we have such a big issue with addressing climate change is the problem isn't there are a lot of climate change deniers out there, the problem is environmentalists don't actually want a solution... The are environmentalists who want to reduce carbon emissions but only if you ban nuclear energy while doing so (the energy source with the smallest carbon emissions). There are environmentalists out there who want to reduce carbon emissions, but only if carbon pricing schemes aren't used (even tho all the evidence shows they're the most effective way to reduce emissions). There are environmentalists out there who would rather the world end than use carbon capture technology and geoengineering solutions. There are environmentalists who want a solution but only a solution that ends capitalism"
Environmentalists are not primarily concerned about effects on the environment
Meme - "We can't fight homelessness, hunger, or poverty. But we are going to fight 'climate change'. Just let that sink in for a minute"
BBC Radio 4 - Best of Today, M25 protests put lives of police officers and public 'at risk' - "‘If someone does come to harm because of these protests, either an ambulance held up or someone just injured in the roads, when you initially go on to the roads. Will it still be worth it?’
‘Well, we profoundly apologize for all disruption caused by these actions. And it's so important to hold us up against the fact that governments including the UK government have been endangering billions of people's lives by ignoring the science for decades.’...
‘Can I just ask you, one more time? Let me give you the opportunity to say again, one more time it would it be, would it still be worth it? And you've set out very clearly your view of how important this is? Would it still be worth it if someone comes to serious harm?’
‘Of course, that's not what we're, what we're aiming to shoot at. Anyway, that's the last thing that we want’
‘Would it still be worth it?’
‘It's not what we're trying to achieve. Safety has been foremost in our minds trying to do this action. But the government's primary duty is to protect its citizens. And it is failing in that duty, both of the 1000s of people that will die this winter, preventable deaths from fuel poverty, and the millions, if not billions, of people who will come to harm from the failure of all governments including ours to sufficiently reduce emissions.’...
'These causes are undoubtedly laudable... police officers should not be having to patrol the M25 waiting for protesters to turn off. They should be in local areas dealing with crime and antisocial behavior.'"
Classic terrorist logic. "Look what you made us do!"
Of course, the damage caused by climate change hysteria, like fuel poverty, is good, because the Cause is Noble. Meanwhile, the police, instead of being politically neutral, are calling the cause laudable
Tony Abbott says climate change action is like trying to 'appease the volcano gods' - "Policy to deal with climate change is like primitive people killing goats to appease volcano gods, former prime minister Tony Abbott has told an audience in Britain overnight. Mr Abbott has argued that "at least so far it is climate change policy that is doing harm; climate change itself is probably doing good — or at least more good than harm". "In most countries far more people die in cold snaps than in heatwaves, so a gradual lift in global temperatures, especially if it is accompanied by more prosperity and more capacity to adapt to change might even be beneficial"... Mr Abbott said environmentalism combined a "post-socialist instinct for big government with a post-Christian nostalgia for making sacrifices in a good cause". "Primitive people once killed goats to appease the volcano gods, we are more sophisticated now but are still sacrificing our industries and our living standards to the climate gods to little more effect"... He again outlined his opposition to renewable power by arguing it was possible to have "too much of a good thing". "The only rational choice is to put Australian jobs and Australia's standard of living first; to get emissions down but only as far as we can without putting prices up," the former prime minister said, arguing anything else would be a "dereliction of duty as well as a political death wish". He described the reality of climate change as very modest but the consequences of the policy to deal with it as "increasingly dire"."
I heard people slamming him, but without engaging his points, naturally. The Gods can't be angered after all
Meme - "LEFTISTS BE LIKE: MINING FOR COAL *No*
MINING FOR LITHIUM, COBALT, NICKEL, COPPER, MANGANESE, IRON, GRAPHITE, INDIUM, TERBIUM, UNOBTAINIUM... *Yes*"
Trees planted by councils die after 'rush job to show off green credentials' - "Millions in taxpayer money has been spent to plant trees that may not have survived, according to analysis of council data by the Telegraph. At least 80 local authorities are failing to record whether trees planted to help climate change are surviving, despite them spending more than £11 million in council and central Government funds... Experts say a survival rate of 90-95 per cent should be expected if tree-planting schemes are well planned and have adequate aftercare... The deaths of trees planted for carbon offsetting purposes also raises concerns that councils and businesses may be able to greenwash their pollution, by claiming to have offset their emissions with trees that do not survive. The Government has pledged more than £9 million to plant hundreds of thousands of trees in communities across England, to help hit its targets of 30,000 hectares of new woodland annually across the UK by 2025. But Andy Egan, the head of conservation policy for the Woodland Trust, which provides grant funding for council tree planting schemes, said local authorities often lacked the resources to look after newly planted trees. “Too many local authorities lack the additional resources and capacity needed to look after newly planted trees and to help them survive conditions like the drought we had this summer,” he said. “Equally poor planning practice is putting many much-loved mature trees at risk.”"
The power of virtue signalling
Extinction Rebellion activist weeps as she faces jail for causing £100k of damage to Barclays HQ - "An Extinction Rebellion activist wept as she was warned she could face jail along with six other women for causing almost £100,000 in damage to Barclay's London headquarters. Carol Wood cried as she was found guilty at Southwark Crown Court today of causing criminal damage over the incident on April 7 last year, when the seven XR activists smashed the windows of the bank's Canary Wharf office. Wood, 53, Nicola Stickells, 52, Sophie Cowen, 31, Lucy Porter, 48, Gabriella Ditton, 28, Rosemary Webster, 64, and Zoe Cohen, 52, were found guilty by a jury on a majority of 11 to one after more than nine hours of deliberations. Besides Cowen, the six other women all have previous convictions for either criminal damage, wilful obstruction of a highway, breaching directions imposed on public assemblies or a combination of the three offences... During the trial, they argued that Barclays staff would have consented to the damage if they were fully informed about the climate crisis... Porter, a former teacher, told jurors the bank's windows were replaced but 'ecosystems' are irreplaceable and that disrupting bankers over the course of a morning is incomparable with watching a child die of starvation... Cohen became a Barclays shareholder in early 2021 to put forward a resolution asking the bank to phase out funding for fossil fuels which was later voted against. Cohen said she 'honestly' believed that by April 2021 she had run out of other options to try to achieve change, and the repair costs - £97,022 - were insignificant to Barclays, which had spent £100million on refurbishments last year. Both Stickells and Wood told the court they were 'shocked' at how much the repairs cost."
Ironic. Climate change hysteria means more children will die of starvation
Meme - Ben Masta: "Funny how there are people who say both that freedom truckers were evil for blocking traffic even though there was an open lane, and that this protest is 100% okay for blocking roads because they let emergency vehicles through. These are the types of people who are afraid of "the new twitter" lol."
Basically, protests that liberals support are good, and those they don't are bad
Climate activists find a way to get Germany’s attention – stop traffic - "The radical climate activists tried hunger strikes. They glued themselves to famous paintings. They tried to disrupt a classical concert. They confronted lawmakers trying to enter parliament. They even desecrated an official Christmas tree of the city of Berlin. It took them donning neon vests, walking into traffic at rush hour and gluing themselves to the streets in Berlin and Munich, causing kilometres-long backups and bringing drivers to murderous rage, to make their protest impossible to ignore. With their actions, carried out with increasing frequency as 2022 drew to a close, they have attracted enormous attention in a country where cars reign supreme, home to BMW, Mercedes and Volkswagen and the autobahn. But they have also united almost everyone in politics in Berlin, and much of the public, against them. They have become a target for conservatives and embarrassment for the governing Green Party, which has long been working within the political system toward the same goals. And their tactics have stirred debate even within the broader environmentalist movement over how much is too much in pursuit of climate goals. The answer from the protesters, who are the German chapter of an environmental group called Last Generation, is that the climate crisis warrants drastic action... to Last Generation’s members, extreme action is the answer to government inaction... The activists gained a new level of infamy in November when a cyclist in Berlin died after being pinned by a cement mixer during one of the group’s traffic jams. Polls taken just after the accident found that 80 per cent of Germans were critical of the group’s action and 86 per cent thought the actions ended up hurting the cause of fighting climate change."
Looks like the German energy crisis is going to continue
As climate protests get bolder, British police strike back with new powers - "Protests against Britain’s HS2 high-speed railway line, for example, have cost it an added £122 million (S$199 million), a figure that is expected to rise to £200 million, according to the project’s management... “The more that we witness this oppressive behaviour from the state, the only thing it is going to do is galvanize civil society,” she said, placing climate action in a long British tradition of protesting, including the suffrage movement."
Environmentalists want to promote train travel - but only on their terms. This is why things can't get done
Pissing off people is going to galvanize society against them
FIRST READING: The Liberals' weird obsession with censoring the internet - "It wasn’t too long ago that when Canadians were asked to name their leading priorities for the federal government, they often put “climate change” in the top spot. Not this year; on the eve of the next federal budget a new Ipsos Public Affairs poll found that a majority of Canadians are chiefly hoping it will “help with the soaring cost of every day needs due to inflation.” Also leading the pack were “lowering taxes” and “greater investments in healthcare.”"
From Apr 2022. When times are tough, First World Problems are unimportant. Of course, this doesn't stop the Liberals from pushing their agenda
Drax: UK power station owner cuts down primary forests in Canada - "A company that has received billions of pounds in green energy subsidies from UK taxpayers is cutting down environmentally-important forests... Drax runs Britain's biggest power station, which burns millions of tonnes of imported wood pellets - which is classed as renewable energy. The BBC has discovered some of the wood comes from primary forests in Canada. The company says it only uses sawdust and waste wood... Ecologist Michelle Connolly told Panorama the company was destroying forests that had taken thousands of years to develop. "It's really a shame that British taxpayers are funding this destruction with their money. Logging natural forests and converting them into pellets to be burned for electricity, that is absolutely insane"... The Drax power station in Yorkshire is a converted coal plant, which now produces 12% of the UK's renewable electricity. It has already received £6bn in green energy subsidies. Burning wood is considered green, but it is controversial among environmentalists."
Time to cut down more forests to generate "renewable" energy to fight climate change
Of course people were outraged, but almost certainly they're the same ones pushing "renewable" energy and who don't understand base load and intermittency
Cutting Down Trees Can Help Save Climate in Forest Industry Math - Bloomberg - "In densely forested Sweden, the industry is keen to show trees are, overall, sequestering more carbon dioxide than is released. The companies, who make their profit from pulp, packaging and timber, commissioned a study that shows a bigger climate benefit from cutting trees than reducing or halting harvests. The math in the report published on Tuesday centers on displacement effects: fossils can be left underground if wood is used to replace such materials, resulting in smaller carbon dioxide emissions than keeping forests intact but using materials such as plastic instead.
I'm sure wood is lighter than plastic, which is why emissions are less
Nuclear cheaper than wind, solar as Canada greens its grid: report - "Solar and wind are set to make up 60 per cent of the increase in new capacity added between 2019 and 2050, according to C.D. Howe's researchers. But that means added costs for energy storage. “The Achilles heel of wind and solar is provision of adequate storage, at reasonable cost, of power not needed in the middle of the day, but needed when the sun is not shining and/or the wind is not blowing,” authors John Richards and Christopher Mabry wrote in the report. C.D. Howe’s findings follow a report from Royal Bank of Canada in September calling for energy consumption in Canada to surge 50 per cent in the next decade. The bank warned of power shortages as early as 2026."
Nuclear Energy Is the Fastest and Lowest-Cost Clean Energy Solution - "Despite lack of subsidies, and excessive regulatory hurdles, or even purely miserable planning leading to unnecessary delays and growing costs in the construction phase, even when nuclear power plant becomes as ‘scandalously expensive’ as the reactor currently in construction in Finland – even then, the cost divided on the total energy output remains low in comparison to other clean energy forms. As soon as Olkiluoto 3 (which the ‘Nuclear Finland’ column in the table refers to) will come online – in about a year and a half – it will provide 10% of Finland’s electricity, and is expected to decrease the price of electricity in all the Nordic countries, as long as other nuclear plants are not shut down. South Korea on the other hand is an example of a country where the construction costs of nuclear have stayed consistently low. They produce 30% of their electricity with nuclear power, and are in the process of building two more plants."
Weird how nuclear costs are so different in different countries. It's almost as if nuclear is only expensive because anti-nuclear activists want it to be, so they lobby for pointless regulations
Nuclear Energy Is the Fastest and Lowest-Cost Clean Energy Solution - "Despite lack of subsidies, and excessive regulatory hurdles, or even purely miserable planning leading to unnecessary delays and growing costs in the construction phase, even when nuclear power plant becomes as ‘scandalously expensive’ as the reactor currently in construction in Finland – even then, the cost divided on the total energy output remains low in comparison to other clean energy forms. As soon as Olkiluoto 3 (which the ‘Nuclear Finland’ column in the table refers to) will come online – in about a year and a half – it will provide 10% of Finland’s electricity, and is expected to decrease the price of electricity in all the Nordic countries, as long as other nuclear plants are not shut down... Jani-Petri spends quite some time delving into the use of what is called a discount rate: a tool for appraising construction project investments vs their returns in the future. He notes some strange tendencies in the way the authors of chapter seven of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group III -report try to hide proper comparison of the costs of energy forms in their supplementary materials, perceivably for no other reason than because of the discomfort of letting their readers know that nuclear power is almost always the lowest cost energy solution, and always the lowest cost zero carbon energy solution... Take the fresh news about the world’s largest battery, installed in Australia to help buffer wind farms: the quick back of the envelope calculations by Robert Hargraves (Ass. Prof. in Math and founder of a thorium molten salt-nuclear energy company) puts the battery’s estimated added costs for electricity at almost 40 cents/kWh. I am happy to update the piece with a better estimate, if I find one – but for context, even a tenth of that price would still double the price for energy per capital investment (which, as seen in the table before, for European wind is around 4 cents/kWh, vs 1 cent/kWh or less for nuclear). Even this largest battery in the world only adds about 20 seconds worth of buffering capacity for the total electricity consumption of Australia (calculated from the 2014 total) – or about a few hours worth for 30,000 households. It enables a supply during the short transition time it takes to power up the back-up fossil fuel sources – it’s not a solution for reliable long term electricity supply. There are also costs for handling waste. Renewable companies are largely not obliged to take care of their hazardous waste, but costs of waste collection and handling are included in the responsibilities of the nuclear industry... The WNA present OECD estimates on the levelised costs of energy (LCOE) as well as their system costs for four different countries (see below). Nuclear is the cheapest option in all but one: the US – where its ‘only’ the third cheapest, and still cheaper than offshore wind and Solar PV. This trend isn’t surprising, considering that nuclear costs in the US have risen to a class of their own through a few decades of increasing regulatory burdens. Despite all that, it’s still almost as cheap as the cheapest low-carbon energy form (onshore wind)... Hydro power has its own drawbacks, like a few spectacular accidents (largest being the 1975 Banqiao dam failure that cost 170,000 lives), and flooding large areas, nevertheless, it is a great clean source of energy – but we don’t have enough waterways left to harness in order to replace fossil fuels. Wind is intermittent, but it can be a great help up to a point – IPCC does not see a realistic scenario for more than 30% of the world’s energy share for all renewables taken together, by 2050."
End Energy Subsidies — Australian Taxpayers' Alliance - "Subsidies per unit of electricity from 2015-16 showed that coal received 40c per MWh compared to solar which received $214, wind which received $74 and other renewables which received $33 per MWh. We strongly oppose the subsidising of renewables as it is creating gross distortions in the electricity market. If renewable energy was indeed the ‘cheapest’ form of energy, then they wouldn’t need subsidies to stay afloat. The short-term increase in electricity costs from abolishing subsidies would be offset by legalising nuclear energy and deregulating the energy market. Australia’s base load power is under serious threat. If something doesn’t change now, Australia could be facing a dangerous chokepoint; those times where supply from renewables cannot meet the high demand for electricity. Blackouts could become more frequent, hurting individuals, families and businesses."
The opportunity cost of not using nuclear energy for climate mitigation - "A recent U.N. report found that nuclear energy has the lowest lifecycle carbon emissions of any energy technology, underscoring its role as the largest source of carbon-free power in the U.S. and the second largest source globally. Yet some opponents of nuclear power are trying to argue that the “opportunity cost” of investing in nuclear power is too high, and that we should focus entirely on investment in renewable energy. This is a recipe for climate disaster. Focusing on renewable energy while ignoring all other low or zero carbon technologies is based on an incorrect understanding of decarbonization imperatives, system-level energy costs, and investment portfolio principles. Based on the best available facts and analysis, like MIT, Sepulveda et. al., and Vibrant Clean Energy, a broad technology portfolio that includes both nuclear and renewable energy can create the most cost-effective carbon-free energy systems... There are three major flaws in this “renewables alone” argument. First, the argument misses the clear bigger picture: the world is still dependent on carbon-emitting energy sources... Renewable energy should be a means to reducing emissions, not an end in itself. And in the power sector, such emissions must be calculated on a system-wide basis... in some cases, variable renewable energy can actually increase emissions due to system-wide operational inefficiencies at balancing fossil units. In the United States, closures of nuclear power plants in Vermont, New York and elsewhere have led to increased natural gas use and greenhouse gas emissions... Second, the “renewables alone” argument relies upon the wrong cost metric, using costs of power produced by individual plants instead of power system-level costs... Power costs for individual renewable energy plants do not account for transmission costs, a rising and largely unaddressed financial barrier, nor for the system balancing costs to deliver electricity supply as needed... The “renewables alone” arguments use the wrong metric for comparing different climate solutions; even though we want as much clean power as possible, the primary metric is not dollars per clean megawatt-hour for a particular power plant... if renewable energy were to be built in Germany while closing nuclear power plants, it would miss out on emissions reductions from replacing coal in Germany, or emissions reductions from redirecting renewable supply chains elsewhere"
Too bad he must still pretend renewables have a place. Of course he doesn't substantiate that claim
Facebook - "Your frequent reminder that the world could have defeated climate change in the 1980s if all industrialized nations had followed France's lead. This would have been vastly cheaper than what nations are now pledging to spend in order to combat climate change. Most importantly, it would have been a solution compatible with further growth. But environmentalists sabotaged this technological solution. And the same people who now claim that we face an extinction event and that we need to dismantle capitalism are still against nuclear. They claim it is too expensive (more expensive than dismantling capitalism?). They claim it is too dangerous (more dangerous than global extinction?). And they claim that it takes too long (France showed that it can be done quickly.)."
Wind Power Giant Vestas Regrets Message That Renewables Would Always Get Cheaper - Bloomberg - "Renewable-energy producers have long touted the promise of cheap electricity, an assurance that’s helped them eat into the dominance of fossil fuels. But the pledge has gone too far, according to the world’s biggest wind-turbine maker. Manufacturers such as Vestas Wind Systems A/S are seeing losses pile up as orders collapse at a time when they should be capitalizing on the turmoil in natural-gas markets. To blame -- at least in part -- is the industry’s insistence that clean electricity can only get cheaper, according to Henrik Andersen, chief executive officer of the Danish wind giant. “It made some people make the wrong assumption that energy and electricity should become free,” Andersen said in an interview in London. “We created the perception to some extent. So we are to blame for it. That was a mistake.”"
Capacity utilization and variable renewables 2/2 - "I recently read a very interesting book “Fossil Capital” by Andreas Malm on the history of industrial revolution in the United Kingdom. (Note: book is only worth reading until chapter 12. There the author got tired of thinking.) Malm focused on the question of why coal and steam engine won over water power in the early decades of the 19th century. Remarkably coal did not win because water resource would have been insufficient. There was still plenty of untapped potential in the UK. Also coal did not win because it was cheaper. In fact, mechanical power from steam engines was more costly and many were of the opinion that it was also of worse quality. So what happened? There were many overlapping reasons. For example, factories followed labour to the cities. In the early 19th century it was already clear from the demographics that labour was to be found in the cities. Water power was dispersed and getting meek labour to run the machines in the middle of nowhere was harder. In fact, owners of water powered factories were relatively more dependent on the apprenticeship system providing them with, what can apparently with some justification be called, slave (child) labour. Water power was also more variable than steam, which made it even more important to have well behaved labour that would be willing to work long and irregular hours... If excessive reliance on variable renewables end up limiting capacity utilization, is there not a similar risk that water power faced in the 19th century? Who bears the cost of lower utilization? Labour? Lower salaries and/or more irregular working hours anyone? Vacations in the winter since solar power produces mainly in the summer? If push comes to shove and such questions have to be asked, I am quite sure any techno-fetishes we might have, will evaporate. To me conclusion seems clear. It is unlikely humanity will ever be primarily powered by variable renewables. If fuel etc. costs for dispatchable generators are high compared to the cost of electricity from variable renewables, wind and solar might be economically justified as a part of a more diverse fleet of generators. However, it is also possible that on economic grounds they will remain niche producers whose existence is dependent on subsidies and political good will. Future will tell."
Even With Climate Change, the World Isn’t Doomed - WSJ - "In 1900, if humanity had gotten rid of air pollution—mostly indoor pollution caused by smoky fuels like wood and dung—the benefit would have been equivalent to global gross domestic product rising 23%. To a young audience, that might look like an insufficient measure of well-being, but higher GDP means better health, lower mortality, greater access to education and in general a better standard of living. By 2050 the problem of air pollution will be mostly solved. And that’s only one of the many issues humanity has shorn down over the last 100 years, according to data 21 top economists and I gathered... The challenge climate change poses, both to the environment and society, looks rather small compared to those humanity has already met. Nobel Prize-winning climate economist William Nordhaus has shown that a 6.3-degree Fahrenheit rise in world temperatures by 2100—which is probable if policy makers do little to stop climate change—would cost only 2.8% of global GDP a year. The United Nations’ latest estimate puts it even lower at 2.6% of GDP for a 6.6-degree Fahrenheit increase. Moreover, the U.N. expects the average person to be 450% as rich in 2100 as today, absent the cost of climate change. Following current temperature projections, global warming would knock that down to only 434% as rich. That’s a problem, but it isn’t the end of the world."
A climate change hystericist got very upset when I posted this as evidence that climate change wasn't a major problem and that air pollution, illiteracy, sex discrimination, disease, malnutrition, lack of free trade and conflicts would individually all be greater problems than climate change up till 2050, let alone combined.
Another climate change hystericist said this was reading "right wing conspiracy theories and oil company climate change deniers". Cambridge University needs to be torn down, since it is in on the conspiracies. Cultists don't like having their meaning in life taken away
How Is Climate Change Affecting Floods? - The New York Times - "It can be tempting to attribute all floods and other extreme events to the forces of warming planet. But weather is not climate, even though weather can be affected by climate. For example, scientists are confident that climate change makes unusually hot days more common. They’re not as sure that climate change is making tornadoes more severe."
A global-scale investigation of trends in annual maximum streamflow - "One possible cause of the observed changes to flood impacts is the potential role of anthropogenic climate change... the implications of changes to extreme precipitation on discharge should be assessed with care due to the additional influence of a catchment’s antecedent moisture content (i.e. the moisture stored in the catchment’s soils, groundwater, lakes and reservoirs prior to the flood-producing rainfall event), which is affected by a catchment’s long-term water balance (Johnson et al., 2016) rather than the intensity of individual heavy rainfall events. For example, only a third of discharge above the 99th percentile corresponded to precipitation above the 99th percentile (Ivancic and Shaw, 2015), indicating that the relationship between changes in extreme rainfall intensity and changes in flood hazard are complex and unlikely to be direct. This suggests that trends in extreme precipitation are not likely to be the only climatic factor influencing flood hazard, so that it is not possible to infer the direction and/or magnitude of change in flood hazard from information about changes in extreme precipitation alone."
The Journal of Hydrology must be sponsored by the oil industry
Climate-driven variability in the occurrence of major floods across North America and Europe - "There was no compelling evidence for consistent changes over time in major-flood occurrence during the 80 years through 2010, using a very large dataset (>1200 gauges) of diverse but minimally altered catchments in North America and Europe."
