This is an update of articles that I have read that I want to mention but only have time to summarize briefly. I have also included links to some other items of interest. Previous commentaries are available here.
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.
Videos
Recommended – Steve Koonin – Is there a climate emergency
Alex Epstein and Jordan Peterson – How to Solve All of America’s Energy Problems Transcript and Video
Brian Gitt – Confessions of an environmentalist.
Sea-Level Rise News
I recently described the responses by the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to my comments on the Amendment to Part 490 Projected Sea-Level Rise. My primary criticism was that the DEC methodology yields absurdly high estimates of sea level rise. The biggest driver of that was because they rely on estimates of the future global warming based on emission projections that are acknowledged by most scientists as impossible. I did not mention that they also relied on a limited number of controversial analyses that claimed that rapid Antarctic ice melt was possible.
Kip Hansen recently reported that:
Antarctic ice melt has been an ongoing scientific controversy for more than a decade. Oddly, the warring parties are all at the same U.S. Federal Agency. The war, which involved salvos of papers between the NASA’s GRACE Ice Mass team and H. Jay Zwally and his team.
Hansen reports the news that:
The news is that some clever scientists — Collin M. Schohn, Neal R. Iverson, Lucas K. Zoe , Jacob R. Fowler, and Natasha Morgan-Witts — had decided that instead of blindly following the long-standing formulas for glacier ice flow, maybe they ought to find out, using real experiments, if those formulas actually reflect what happens in the physical universe where glaciers, ice under pressure, are flowing and melting. It took them ten years.
The story is covered in this SciTechDaily article: Glacier Experts Uncover Critical Flaw in Sea-Level Rise Predictions. The article is a press release from Iowa State University (the by line is theirs). It says:
“New research shows temperate glacier ice flows more steadily than previously thought, leading to lower projections of sea-level rise.
The bottom line described by Hansen is further evidence that the sea level rise projections in Part 490 are unacceptably high:
New research shows temperate glacier ice flows more steadily, linearly and not exponentially, contrary to our previous understanding, and this leads to far lower projections of future sea-level rise due to any glacier melt in Greenland and Antarctica.
Climate Discussion Nexus (CDN)
CDN is run by John Robson and produces a highly recommended weekly newsletter. The latest edition includes a story about access to electricity. His piece starts with complaints about some technical problems with electronic gadgets including Gmail’s “The operation cannot be performed because the message has been changed”, surely the most useless bug in history”. He goes on to say “If you think we’re being petty and whiny about First World problems, you’re right. Because what people should hate is that, for instance, 17 million human beings in Latin America and the Caribbean alone never face any of those issues because they don’t have access to electricity, never mind a frozen web page.” Robson goes on to point out:
Half a billion people don’t have to worry about the light switch not working because there isn’t one. And yet countless well-fed activists with more selfies on their phone than they can sort look at those numbers and think we must prevent them from burning natural gas or coal, stop them building nuclear reactors and keep inhaling particulates from wood and dung if they stupidly persist in cooking what little food they’ve managed to obtain. While hating us for lacking compassion and concern for the future.
Energy Transition Challenges
Rick Dunn described the visions, delusions, and nightmares of the proposed energy transition in a well-documented piece that includes good graphics. He made a good point that transition challenges are related to primary energy consumption. In 2023 “wind and solar only represented 2.6% of total U.S. primary energy consumption in 2023, and ‘evil’ fossil fuels (hydrocarbons) represented 83%.” He notes:
To help digest the stunningly low numbers for wind and solar it is important to keep in mind that energy represents the capacity to do work and that direct use of combustible fuels in residential, commercial, industrial and transportation sectors is where the vast majority of work on the planet is being done today.
I concur with his conclusion that “Dogma has replaced physics, engineering, and economics in shaping energy policies. Citizens must demand far more from their elected officials and utility leaders.”
Americans rejected Biden’s expensive climate agenda, but New York still offers it a safe haven
Kevin Killough wrote an article describing New York’s climate agenda that I mention here because he referenced my work extensively. I think he captured my concerns well.
Caiazza said that nuclear power is the only viable DEFR option. Though there are financial challenges that need to be addressed with nuclear energy, that’s true of any emissions-free, reliable option. And nuclear energy would overwhelm intermittent resources.
“Here is the thing. If the only viable DEFR solution is nuclear, then the wind, solar, and energy storage approach they are advocating cannot be implemented without nuclear power. I estimate that 24 GW of nuclear can replace 178 GW of wind, water and battery storage. Developing nuclear eliminates the need for a huge DEFR backup resource and massive buildout of wind turbines and solar panels sprawling over the state’s lands and water,” Caiazza said.
California Withdraws EPA Clean Truck Waiver Request
Here is another reason that the Climate Act transition is not going to happen. The regulations necessary to convert heavy duty trucks to zero-emissions alternatives are not going forward. According to a Reuters news report:
California said on Tuesday it has withdrawn its request for a federal waiver to require commercial truckers to transition to zero-emissions vehicles, preempting an expected denial from the incoming administration of President-elect Donald Trump.
The withdrawal was among several pollution-fighting waiver requests filed with the Environmental Protection Agency that was dropped by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), according to documents posted on Tuesday.
“The withdrawal is an important step given the uncertainty presented by the incoming administration that previously attacked California’s programs to protect public health and the climate and has said will continue to oppose those programs,” CARB Chair Liane Randolph said in a statement.
California’s Advanced Clean Fleets rule aimed to set timelines for operators of trucks carrying everything from U.S. mail and UPS packages to 40-foot containers of goods and other cargo, to switch to zero-emissions vehicles such as those powered by electric batteries.
Exxon Litigation
Doomberg described (paywalled) an Exxon lawsuit against California Attorney General Rob Bonta personally, along with five environmental groups, accusing the defendants of disparagement, defamation, tortious interference, and civil conspiracy after Bonta and these groups sued Exxon for their advanced plastic recycling technologies. “Exxon’s opening 40-page salvo in this case is quite the page-turner. The brief says “It is also a case about the corrupting influence of foreign money in the American legal system and about the sordid for-profit incentives and outright greed that tries to hide behind so-called public impact litigation.”
The thrust of the Exxon’s argument is that Bonta’s legal assault was actually the brainchild of the brash Australian billionaire Andrew Forrest, founder of Fortescue Mining Group. The article explains that Forrest had a scheme to address plastic pollution that Exxon refused to join because it was a clear violation of US antitrust law. Now Forrest is funding this high-profile environmental litigation attack through the State of California and stand-in environmental groups. Doomberg closed by asking how many attacks on fossil fuel energy infrastructure might be funded by wealthy foreign interests with hidden agendas as opposed to truly spontaneous political uprisings funded by concerned citizens? In my humble opinion, the irrational and over-the-top attacks on natural gas is likely one such example.
Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York 