I have been so busy lately with net-zero transition implementation issues that I have not had time to put together an article about every relevant topic I have discovered. This is a summary of articles that I think would be of interest to my readers.
I have been following the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) since it was first proposed and most of the articles described below are related to the net-zero transition. I have devoted a lot of time to the Climate Act because I believe the ambitions for a zero-emissions economy embodied in the Climate Act outstrip available renewable technology such that the net-zero transition will do more harm than good. The opinions expressed in this article do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other company I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.
Video
In a new short film written for Net Zero Watch, Dr John Constable reminds us that human wealth in the broadest sense, from the smallest gadget to a tolerant and diverse society, is an improbable state of physics that results from work done by energy.
Video description of a new motion picture entitled Climate: The Movie funded by the CO2 Coalition, Heartland Institute, and CFACT.
Let’s Discuss the Facts Now About New York’s Energy Future
I highly recommend this description of the New York Jobs new social media campaign, “Energy Red Flag for NY” intended to raise public awareness of the opportunities, challenges and costs of implementing New York’s ambitious efforts to decarbonize the state’s economy. Working closely with The Business Council of New York State, New York Jobs Now’s goal is to provide data and analysis to help educate the public on the impact of these ambitious climate goals. Our reasoning is very clear and we write this op-ed with an eye towards clearly stating our goals and reasoning behind this campaign.
The summary concludes:
Responding to climate change, and implementing New York’s CLCPA, can provide immediate and long-term benefits for New Yorkers, but will also be complex, expensive and disruptive. The implementation decisions we make will determine how well we balance costs and benefits. New Yorkers should be demanding more complete, more accessible information on major state climate change programs – how much they cost, how they are being paid for, what they are achieving, and how New Yorkers are benefiting.
Hatred of Fossil Fuels
Francis Menton asks “What is it about fossil fuels and the people who produce them that brings forth such uncontrolled hatred, anger, and vengefulness in a very large segment of the population?” After pointing all the value of concentrated and affordable energy he points out that those who advocate to ban fossil fuels continue to use them. He suggests:
Here’s my proposal for the next phase of this game. The fossil fuel producers, either individually or through trade associations, should pick a state, logically a relatively small one (Vermont might be a good place to start), and go to the legislature with this proposition: Ban us! Make the sale or use of fossil fuels in your state illegal, starting at some early date, like for example tomorrow. We will then withdraw. And your citizens will then find out whether they prefer life with fossil fuels, or without them.
In other words, stop being such pansies. It’s time to call their bluff.
My only disagreement with his proposal is that I would start smaller with a virtue-signaling college town. My candidate for calling the bluff is Ithaca, NY.
On the other hand, Maine was considering legislation that would prohibit natural gas companies from charging ratepayers for the construction and expansion of gas service mains and gas service lines beginning Feb. 1, 2025 (see Maine Debates Democrat Bill to Limit New Natural Gas Customers). Jim Willis notes that the language of the bill has been modified to account for reality.
Note that the usual suspects are clamoring for similar natural gas limitations in New York. They hope to sneak it through as part of the budget because if it was considered openly the public would catch on and demand a reality slap.
New Jersey Referendum on Fossil-Fired Power Plants
A state Senate committee on Monday advanced a bill that would authorize a public referendum on amending the state’s Constitution to ban construction of new power plants that burn natural gas or other fossil fuels. But the measure was changed to allow the construction of such plants if they are to be primarily used as emergency backup power sources. This addresses the fact that wind and solar resources have their lowest availabilities when needed most.
Offshore Wind
I have been meaning to do a post on offshore wind issues. David Wojick has done some good work lately.
- Offshore wind violates the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts
- Proposal to Use Different Foundations One of my concerns is that the monopiles proposed for the monster turbines require disruptive pile driving that I think will adversely affect fisheries. Wojick describes a less disruptive method.
One of the “features” of the wind and solar deployment is the use of “community benefit agreements” aka bribes. Robert Bradley notes that Ocean City, MD refused offshore wind developer payola.
Heat Pumps
Ed Reid describes the ultimate risk of heat pumps – what happens when there is a blackout.
Parker Gallant notes that heat pumps increase electric usage a lot:
A contact of mine here in Ontario had recently informed me he had a heat pump installed to replace his furnace and told me his electricity usage had quadrupled* since having the heat pump installed! Quiring him about the total costs of installation and the potential rebate he informed me the total, including conversion of his service from 100 amp to 200 amp as well as a new hydro line cost almost $21K and his grant rebate will be $7,100 so his net costs will be almost $14K!** At a current approximate cost of 18 cents/kWh we should suspect that will add somewhere between $1,200 to $2,000 per year to his electricity bill or perhaps about what he was previously paying for a natural gas supply!
Blair King writing at the A Chemist in Langley blog has been a continuing inspiration to me because of his pragmatic approach. In this post he addresses claims by the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment that air pollution from fossil fuels has severe health impacts. They claim that “air pollution from the burning of fossil fuels is one of the leading causes of premature mortality in Canada” but King shows “the citation used does not support that claim.” The second claim to be examined is “the suggestion that fossil fuel pollution is responsible for one in seven premature deaths in Canada”. He demonstrates that the claim is “so obviously wrong as to be incredibly puzzling and clearly represents a failure in the peer review process”.
Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York 