Yager: COP27 – after 50 years, UN-led environmental central planning is failing - "terrifying people about climate destruction and organizing conferences to prevent it have become one of the main reasons for the UN’s existence. The first COP was held in Berlin in 1995, a dedicated climate event conceived at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. This was followed by the Kyoto Protocol for a global emissions trading system in 1997, $100 billion annually in climate mitigation funds for developing countries in 2009’s Copenhagen Accord, and the Paris Agreement in 2015 which set a maximum acceptable global temperature increase and the emission reductions required to achieve it. The UN’s pivot from protecting the peace to protecting the planet began in 1972 in Stockholm. When it was created in 1945, the founding charter opened, “…to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind.” But by 1972, the countries the founding nations united to protect themselves against – Germany and Japan – were members. Environmental concern was a growing political issue. A quarter century of peace and prosperity following the Second World War gave the wealthy west the time and money to worry about less immediate issues than employment and security. For the UN, protecting the planet would maintain financial and public support and vastly expand its mandate. Who would dare call that a bad idea?... Before Stockholm, the Sierra Club was about protecting hiking trails. Greenpeace opposed nuclear testing and saved whales. The Pembina Institute resulted from a sour gas blowout near Lodgepole. Half a century later these outfits are all climate all the time. They are the official conscience of COP gatherings, reminding attending politicians that no matter what issues they may face at home, do what they say or climate disaster is inevitable. So began the gradual subordination of elected governments of sovereign nations to unelected and unaccountable organizations. And why we get Antonio Guterres continually telling us what to do and think and how to live our lives. Don’t forget 2021’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, which Guterres called “a code red for humanity.”"
Meme - "THE NEW YORK TIMES
SUNDAY, AUGUST 10, 1969
FOE OF POLLUTION SEES LACK OF TIME
Asserts Environmental Ills Outrun Public Concern
By ROBERT REINHOLD
PALO ALTO, Calif., Aug. 5 - "The trouble with almost all environmental problems," says Paul R. Ehrlich, the population biologist, "'is that by the time we have enough evidence to convince people, you're dead." While Dr. Ehrlich is gathering that evidence in his laboratory at Stanford University, he is wasting no time trying to convince people that drastic action is needed to head off what he foresees as a catastrophic explosion fueled by runaway population growth, a limited world food supply, and contamination of the planet by man. "We must realize that unless we are extremely lucky, everybody will disappear in a cloud of blue steam in 20 years," the 37-year-old scientist said during a coffee break at his laboratory. "The situation is going to get continuously worse unless we change our behavior."
Trust the Science!
We've all been dead for over 3 decades. We just don't know it yet
When I brought up the long history of failed predictions of climate doom, a climate change hystericst accused me of being a "science illiterate who doesn't understand how science works, evolves and is continuously updated" and to "start with getting your GED and then come back and join the adults when you have a basic understanding of science." Clearly Popper and Kuhn were science illiterates who didn't understand how science works and need GEDs to join the adults. Classic example of scientism
Democratic Donor Arrested and Charged With Setting Destructive Wildfire - "Edward Fredrick Wackerman of Mariposa, Calif., has been arrested on suspicion of aggravated arson, arson that causes great bodily injury, and arson causing damage or destruction of inhabited structures, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, also known as Cal Fire, said"
Maybe this was good because he was trying to "raise awareness" of climate change
Meme - Steve Milloy @JunkScience: "Not the narrative: June 2023 so far is cooler than June 1981 in the US. 140% more industrial era atmospheric over the past 42 years has not produced promised warming. Climate is a giant hoax."
Dave Telvick @DaveTelvick: "To a climate alarmist, cooling is just weather. Heating is climate change..."
Canada’s burning because of bad forest policy, not climate change - "The IPCC, in its latest omnibus climate report, only assigns “medium confidence” to the idea that climate change has actually caused increased “fire weather” in some regions around the world. This, mind you, after desperately seeking to tie real-world events to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations for some 40 years now. In addition, many reports have shown that while fire activity is on the rise in some regions, we’re still not seeing an overall increase when considering the total areas burned at the global level. As the Royal Society, an independent scientific academy in the United Kingdom, summarizes in a 2020 blog post updating its 2016 research on global wildfire extent, “Fire activity is on the rise in some regions, but when considering the total area burned at the ground level, we are not seeing an increase an overall increase.” The 2016 report was more explicit, finding: “Instead, global area burned appears to have overall declined over past decades, and there is increasing evidence that there is less fire in the global landscape today than centuries ago.”... Is it clear that Canada’s fire issues are climate-driven? Unless one believes that inverse correlations suggest causality, the answer is no. That’s according to a 2020 study in the journal Progress in Disaster Science where authors Tymstra et al. show a fairly sharp declining trend in the number of fires (annually) over time, and a mixed record of areas burned, though the authors note an apparent increase in areas burned over the last two decades. In fact, as average atmospheric temperatures have risen from 1970 to 2017, Canadian forest fires have declined sharply in number and show little obvious trend in areas burnt. Crucially, Tymstra’s study also finds that wildfire management policy in Canada comes up short. “A major barrier in Canada… is the inadequate funding to support the vision of an innovative and integrated approach to wildfire management. Mitigation funding has followed wildfire disasters but not at the same level to mitigate flood and earthquake disasters. Despite the increasing occurrence of wildfire disasters in Canada, funding to support wildfire prevention, mitigation and preparedness have not kept pace with the increasing need to mitigate the impacts from wildfires, and be better prepared when they do arrive.” More specifically, Tymstra et al. find that Canada has failed to fund the proactive management of forest fires sufficiently and is not poised to do better moving forward"
Blaming it on climate change means you're not to blame
The countryside's rising cost of living by Best of Today | Podchaser - "‘How do you get the power from the sea to the places inland which need it? Here in East Anglia National Grid is proposing 112 mile long power line. That would mean 50 meter high pylons running through Norfolk Suffolk and Essex Countryside. The debate here echoes one throughout the country how to balance our need for renewable energy with the intrusive infrastructure needed to supply it’...
‘We moved here because we love the views and never thought that we'd be, that will be threatened’...
'I've had people in tears. One friend who is going to have pylons right outside her, well outside her garden, she will be looking out on pylons. And she is in tears. She hasn't slept since this has happened and we love living here and the nature and the wildlife are parts of the life that we've built here and that's now threatened'...
‘One of the the gripes that we have with this project however is that the energy is being transported through our counties and is, most of it is going to end up being used in greater London. We're not actually going to get any benefit from this project but a lot of people in London are going to be able to run their kettles... underground is an option and cost shouldn't necessarily be an issue for the National Grid. They make a lot of operating profit’...
‘You must know, you know that name very well. NIMBYs’...
‘A lot of people that have joined our campaign that will not see a pylon and it won't actually affect them but they know people that it will affect. Also they do walk these lanes, they walk through the countryside and in essence our village will be nestled between two rows of pylons.’
‘And not just ours’"
To ram through the climate change agenda, dictatorship is needed
Other people can pay unlimited amounts to save the environment. Just not us
Creditably, someone else interviewed later talked about the cost of intermittency and transmission for renewables
BBC Radio 4 - Best of Today, What are we doing to tackle climate change? - "‘Kemi Badenoch said its unilateral economic disarmament tackling Net Zero which is frankly economic illiteracy'...
'The price of renewable power is about a quarter of the price of gas. And if we want to avoid the ups and downs of fossil fuel uh the fossil fuel prices and if we want to avoid being at the mercy of petrostates and dictators like Putin then we need to act on a green energy sprint'...
‘The reason why energy bills have gone up. it's not because the green levies’
‘But would you say that that it would be fair to get rid of that? World prices are spiraling so in the short term at least’
‘No not without replacement because if you do that you will, what you will do is you will drive up energy bills because it is those green levies that are helping to deliver the renewable power that we need for our country’"
The agenda cannot be challenged. Of course western countries committing to Net Zero will magically make everyone else do that too, since of course seeing this, everyone will want to cripple their economies too, so no one should be scared they will be left behind
Amazing. No one called out the lie about green energy being cheaper
Weird. If renewable energy is so cheap, why do you need green levies to fund it?
BBC Radio 4 - Best of Today, Labour defends donations from Just Stop Oil backer Dale Vince - "‘Everyone hates you. I'm a North London liberal and a cyclist. You're harming the cause... Is it possible Mr Vince that you are harming the cause that you think you're supporting?... The Labour Party's enemies are now trying to say, ah look, those are the sorts of people'...
‘I think it is a desperate uh stretch for the right-wing press and Tory MPs actually to be saying there's a link here, this money should be given back. Look, the money's not dodgy. I'm not dodgy. It's all tax paid. I'm completely transparent. Almost the only person in the political sphere giving money that will talk about it on camera. The Tories get all kinds of dodgy money through offshore companies and it's, and it's just not clear who's giving them money that's not happening here.’...
‘They could make the same sort of allegations that people do about Tory donations that there's a link between money and influence and policy. Are you saying there's no link between your one and a half million pounds to the Labour Party and the fact that it's just about to announce that it opposes is any new oil or gas exploration in the North Sea?’
‘Yes, there is no link of the kind that you're referring to, actually’"
Ahh... direct action. And whataboutism! As usual, conflict of interest is never a problem for the left when it benefits them
14m trees have been cut down in Scotland to make way for wind farms - "NEARLY 14 million trees have been chopped down across Scotland to make way for wind turbines. The Scottish Government expects to be generate 100 per cent of its electricity from renewable sources this year – but concerns have been raised about finding a balance between green energy and sustaining forests. Now statistics, released by Forestry and Land Scotland, show that 13.9 million trees have been axed to make way for 21 wind farm projects since 2000."
Solid state batteries: Toyota has history of talking big on EV breakthrough, but not delivering - "Reports this week from major media outlets say Toyota has made a breakthrough on solid state batteries that could revolutionise the future of electric vehicles. But the claims should be taken with a grain of salt: Toyota has a history of unfulfilled big promises on batteries going back over a decade... Toyota’s track record of battery spin was picked up today by climate and energy researcher Ketan Joshi, who posted screenshots of Toyota’s unfulfilled battery claims going back to 2009."
Road trips lose power as charger outages leave northern Ontario EV drivers stranded - "Some electric vehicle drivers in northern Ontario say the charging network between Thunder Bay and Sault Ste. Marie is failing those who don't drive Teslas. CCS and CHAdeMO fast chargers in Marathon, White River and Wawa were down for most of June; the Ivy location in White River has been out of service since mid-April... McEwan set off on a road trip to Halifax last month in his new Ford F-150 extended range vehicle. He topped up his charge in Nipigon and Terrace Bay, but the Petro-Canada app listed the company's chargers in Marathon in Wawa as out of service. McEwan decided to get his car juiced up instead at the Ivy charger in White River. But when he got there, he discovered the charger was down too. "Do I go forward, where I have enough power to get to, but not past [Wawa]? Or do I go backwards and hope I have enough [charge] to make it back to Terrace Bay?" he asked. Complicating the risk assessment was the fact mobile phone service is spotty between cities in parts of the region, meaning a person with a dead battery could easily find themselves at the side of the road with no way to call for help. In the end, McEwan pressed forward to Wawa, but was unable to find a working charger. So he booked a room in a hotel and arranged a tow truck to get his vehicle to Sault Ste. Marie the next day. "I was talking to the tow truck driver and he said, 'Oh this happens a lot because it has been down for at least two months,'" he said... "People would be losing their minds if gas stations all went down in this whole area — that's the reality of EVs right now.""
Canadians less keen to buy EVs, despite government policy push: Study - "Canadians are less keen to purchase electric cars in 2023 than they were a year ago, according to a consumer survey out Thursday, despite a government policy push for widespread adoption of zero-emission vehicles. J.D. Power’s Canada Electric Vehicle Consideration (EVC) Study, the second annual report on the topic, found that 66 per cent of Canadians said they were unlikely to consider buying an electric vehicle for their next car purchase – higher than the 53 per cent of respondents who felt that way in 2022... For Canadians, “range anxiety” – or fears about driving distance per charge – was the most-cited worry about buying an electric vehicle. The high upfront purchase price of the vehicles came in at second place, and availability of charging stations came third."
LETTER: Don't drink electric vehicle 'Kool-Aid' - "I was travelling to South Carolina last week in my electric hybrid car and thinking about going back to the same non-electric model of the same car I had previously owned. What was really bugging me was the electric motors never engage at highway speeds and I’m carrying all that extra battery weight. The extra 30 horsepower the electric version has over the standard gas 300-hp engine has less performance than the gas model because of the extra weight. There is no savings or payback for folks that drive highways year round. Anyone can confirm this on YouTube, which shows comparison testing. The first night, we got to Virginia and I looked out the back window of my hotel room and there were 10 Tesla chargers all occupied and most drivers were sitting there reading a book. There were several other vehicles waiting for access to chargers. We went for dinner and an hour and a half later we came back and half of the same cars were still charging. Those cars were probably on their second charge of the day if they were covering the kind of distances I was covering. You can’t leave yourself on a commercial charger and go to sleep for the night. You’ll wake up with your car towed. So, I guess the answer is a bio break every two hours? Not the way I want to travel. Tesla has a J.D. Power score near the bottom in the automotive industry for reliability... My friend’s model S got three years before it required battery replacement. Google ‘Tesla battery replacement costs’ and get informed... Only about five per cent of lithium batteries are recycled and no one wants to take them because to transport them is a fire risk and old lithium ion batteries are classified as toxic... New York is considering banning electric bikes because they are a huge contributor to fires in people’s homes."
Using Electric Vehicles as Grid Storage: Another Green Fantasy - "electrification requires, well, electricity. Lots of it. And it requires that electricity to be available at all times. Greens envision most of that electricity will come from wind and solar power, along with hydrogen-burning generators that don’t yet exist and battery storage to meet the demand for power when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine. Recognizing that building enough battery storage facilities will be prohibitively expensive, a new push has developed: using electric vehicles as a source of back-up power storage to meet electricity demand. It’s called “vehicle-to-grid” (V2G) technology and means using the millions of electric vehicles that consumers and businesses will be forced to buy to supply electricity to the grid when wind and solar do not. Proponents claim it will make the electric grid stronger and more reliable, and provide a quick path to the “net-zero” future that supposedly will save the planet. But like other green energy fantasies, the math doesn’t add up... Suppose that, on a cold winter’s day in 2050, all 3.5 million EVs are connected to the state’s power grid. None are being driven and all are fully charged. And suppose that improved battery technology means each provides an average of 100 kWh of electricity. That’s 350 million kWh in total, or 350 gigawatt-hours (GWh). Sounds like a lot. According to the most recent forecast prepared by New York Independent System Operator (NYISO), which oversees operation of the state’s electric generating plants and transmission system, total electricity demand in 2050 will be just under 200,000 GWh. That’s an average of 540 GWh per day. So, on an average day these EVs could provide around 15 hours of electricity. But extra electricity will be most needed on cold, windless, and cloudy winter days, which are not uncommon for New York. According to NYISO, electricity demand on such a day will peak at almost 45 gigawatts. If that load persisted for an entire day, it would be over 1,000 GWh of electricity. Suppose, though, total electricity consumption on a peak day is just 50% higher than an average day, or around 800 GWh. Then those 3.5 million EVs could supply enough back-up electricity for just 10 hours. In reality, of course, not all of those EVs would be connected to the power grid. Many would be in use. And not all of them would be fully charged. If only 50% of total EVs are available to supply electricity to the grid, they would supply just five hours of back-up. Moreover, once those batteries were drained, they would have to be recharged. Were a second consecutive cloudy, windless day to occur – again, not uncommon in New York – millions of EVs would sit useless in garages and parking lots. Then there is the cost of the infrastructure needed for V2G. Getting power from all of those parked EVs to the grid will require all sorts of new technology, which will cost billions of dollars. It will require upgrading local distribution systems – the poles and wires running down the street. And what happens if consumers and businesses don’t want their EV batteries drained by the local electric utility? So far, few EV owners are signing up for managed charging programs that allow their local utilities to control when EVs can be charged in exchange for rate reductions. Then again, will EV owners ultimately even have a choice?"
Reliability is a big problem with renewables. Relying on individual consumers to cover base load is a fool's errand
Have You Ever Tried Pulling a Camper with an Electric Truck? The Real Costs and Benefits of Ottawa’s EV Revolution - "buried deep within the government’s own regulatory filings is the stark admission that electric trucks are very, very bad at towing and hauling. So bad, in fact, that if the true cost of towing with an EV were included in Ottawa’s own cost/benefit analysis, it would turn the entire result on its head, flipping an allegedly positive outcome into a negative one. This is not the only disturbing conclusion to be found tucked away in the government’s official assessment. A close reading of the document reveals numerous other costs – higher taxes, more accident fatalities, less consumer choice – that are otherwise ignored in the federal calculations but will still ripple throughout Canada’s economy and society. The shift to an allegedly zero-emission world is going to be vastly more expensive, disruptive and restrictive than the Trudeau government admits... No car can ever be considered “zero-emission” given the continued necessity of gas-fired electricity throughout the country as well as diesel back-up power in remote areas plus the ample emissions entailed in mining and transporting the materials required to manufacturer EVs... New Year’s Eve is not a date typically associated with major government announcements, which suggests Ottawa is not particularly interested in having Canadians read the contents of its EV scheme too closely... Proper methodology suggests making a policy decision only after it has been established that a proposal makes sense on a financial basis. Instead, the Trudeau government announced its intended policy first and only later published a cost/benefit study to see if it makes sense. This document proves it does not... It beggars the imagination that EVs (which currently cost approximately $13,000 more than equivalent gas-powered cars) will be only $3,300 more expensive three years hence. Ottawa is counting on economies of scale and technological innovations that have not yet been achieved to reach its goals. It seems wishful thinking. Furthermore, the federal analysis does not take into account the massive increase in demand for the minerals and other materials used to create EV batteries, which will almost certainly increase the overall cost of the vehicles... [subsidies] are not included in the cost/benefit analysis, but will fall on Canadian taxpayers nonetheless. As this C2C analysis explores in more detail, the higher purchase price is only one of multiple new multi-billion-dollar cost categories that the transition to EVs will impose on Canadians. In addition, an earlier C2C story looked at the impact EVs will have on government revenues, given the disappearance of the gas tax and the expected appearance of new taxes and/or road fees. One way or another, we will be paying much more for EVs than Ottawa admits... The federal government assumes most EVs will be charged at home, at night, when electricity costs are cheaper. This is based on U.S. evidence that 80 percent of EV owners currently charge at night. But even if the 80 percent figure is correct today, this is likely because existing EV owners have self-selected for ease of charging vehicles at home. That will not be true when everyone is forced to switch. What will happen to the millions of people who currently park on the street? They cannot run hefty charging cables across public sidewalks to their cars. Nor is it reasonable to expect older buildings to be retrofitted with accessible parking/charging spaces. Many vehicles will have to be charged at higher-speed public chargers during the day, at considerably higher cost... the calculation does not include installation costs, which can be several times the actual cost of the chargers themselves... As for electricity costs, upon which the entire EV mandate hangs, the government’s Impact Statement assumes a whole-of-country switch to EVs will only increase electricity consumption by a paltry 2.6-4.8 percent... Natural Resources Canada states, “the total annual additional electricity required due to EV charging…represents approximately 3.4%, 16.1%, 22.6% of today’s domestic electrical power demand for 2030, 2040 and 2050 respectively.”... The Liberal government has no plan to pay for all these required charging stations... the Ford F-150 Lightning has a maximum payload of 2,000 pounds (907 kilograms). The “extended-range” model has an even smaller payload of 1,800 pounds due to the extra weight of its additional batteries. By comparison, a gasoline-powered F-150 V-8 can carry 3,325 pounds... pulling a trailer with an electric truck means a dramatic drop in carrying capacity and a doubling of required recharging stops. If you are hauling a boat to the cottage, this likely means stopping every hour or two for a half-hour recharge – if you can get a spot at the recharging station during congested cottage season... Under Ottawa’s new proposed rules, PHEV sales are to be capped at 20 percent of all vehicles in 2028 and beyond. As these will be the only trucks on the market with any reasonable towing capability, we can expect demand will be high. This will presumably push their cost up even further... ratcheting up of vehicle prices, as the federal Impact Statement observes, is “expected to have a disproportionate impact on low-income households.” It will thus become more difficult for low-income families to afford a vehicle. This is bad news, given ample evidence that having access to a car is crucial to finding and keeping a good job and escaping poverty. The news gets worse. “Low-income households are also more likely to live in rental units, which…may not be suitable for at-home charging equipment”"
As electric vehicles become more common, experts worry they could pose a safety risk for other drivers - "Tests performed by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) show EVs hold up well in a simulated crash. Their batteries make the vehicles heavier, offering better protection to the passengers inside, but that extra weight — hundreds to even thousands of pounds — has traffic safety advocates concerned about the potential risk to other drivers. "I think it does present significant challenges for safety," National Transportation Safety Board chair Jennifer Homendy told CBS News. "If you think about an impact in a crash with a lighter vehicle with a pedestrian or a cyclist or motorcyclists, it's going to have a much different outcome than we've seen in the past. Terribly tragic.""
Liberals want to ban pickup trucks because they are more dangerous than normal cars. So...
Electric vehicle drivers get candid about charging: 'Logistical nightmare'
Meme - The Meme Policeman: "This Green New Deal meme completely strawmans this MIT tweet, as it was actually a part of a longer thread and article where scientists make a solid point about the pitfalls of solar. It has absolutely nothing to do with “infinite electricity,” here’s the breakdown.
Solar produces lots of electricity in the middle of a sunny day, but little to none at other times. It doesn’t have the ability to throttle up and down according to need, like fossil fuels or nuclear, it’s only available when it’s available.
Thus, supply and demand drops its value at peak generation, when there might be an over abundance of electricity in the grid. Sometimes even to a negative value, which means they actually have to pay other grids to accept their surplus electricity (too much electricity is a major problem in a grid).
This phenomenon caused California’s avg solar wholesale prices to fall 37% relative to the avg electricity prices for other sources since 2014. So far, heavy solar subsidies and the rapidly declining cost of solar power has offset the falling value of solar electricity in California.
But this will likely change as CA attempts to go from 19% solar to 60% in the next 2 decades. It’s estimated the avg wholesale price for solar will drop 85% relative to other sources by then, decimating the economics of solar farms. No one will want to build them, absent huge and wasteful subsidies.
It has nothing to do with “infinite electricity” or capitalism, that’s a total strawman. It has to do with the reality (aka science) of how solar and economics work. People don’t want a bunch of electricity midday and none at night, they want it on demand throughout the day, and solar doesn’t deliver that....
As usual, Green New Deal claims they love science and that no one should ever disagree with a scientist, except when scientists contradict their agenda. Then, they’re happy to elevate a left wing activist account with no science expertise above MIT scientists"
World Atmospheric CO2, Its 14C Specific Activity, Non-fossil Component, Anthropogenic Fossil Component, and Emissions (1750–2018) - "After 1750 and the onset of the industrial revolution, the anthropogenic fossil component and the non-fossil component in the total atmospheric CO2 concentration, C(t), began to increase. Despite the lack of knowledge of these two components, claims that all or most of the increase in C(t) since 1800 has been due to the anthropogenic fossil component have continued since they began in 1960 with “Keeling Curve: Increase in CO2 from burning fossil fuel.” Data and plots of annual anthropogenic fossil CO2 emissions and concentrations, C(t), published by the Energy Information Administration, are expanded in this paper. Additions include annual mean values in 1750 through 2018 of the 14C specific activity, concentrations of the two components, and their changes from values in 1750. The specific activity of 14C in the atmosphere gets reduced by a dilution effect when fossil CO2, which is devoid of 14C, enters the atmosphere. We have used the results of this effect to quantify the two components. All results covering the period from 1750 through 2018 are listed in a table and plotted in figures. These results negate claims that the increase in C(t) since 1800 has been dominated by the increase of the anthropogenic fossil component. We determined that in 2018, atmospheric anthropogenic fossil CO2 represented 23% of the total emissions since 1750 with the remaining 77% in the exchange reservoirs. Our results show that the percentage of the total CO2 due to the use of fossil fuels from 1750 to 2018 increased from 0% in 1750 to 12% in 2018, much too low to be the cause of global warming."
