This is an update of articles that I have read that I want to mention but only have time to summarize. I have also included links to some other items of interest. Previous commentaries are available here.
I have been following the New York 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 organization I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.
Videos
- Mike Rowe’s podcast interviews Alex Epstein to talk about the greatest climate myths and misconceptions.
- John Robson from Climate Discussion Nexus describes the origin of the LA fires.
- Matthew Wielicki notes that alarmists blame every weather event on climate change and explains why this is erroneous in a Prager University video.
Ill Wind
Robert Bryce notes that wind energy projects are taking a hammering. He notes that:
A few days ago, Jason Grumet, the head of the American Clean Power Association (annual revenue: $62.3 million), told Heatmap News that “probably more than half” of all new wind projects under development in the US could be killed due to President Trump’s executive order requiring a “comprehensive assessment” of federal permitting. Heatmap explained that Trump’s policies pose “a potential existential threat to the industry’s future. Just don’t expect everyone to say it out loud.
This has big ramifications for New York State’s net-zero transition efforts. The NY plan calls for zero emissions from the electric sector by 2040. State 2040 capacity (MW) projections call for 12% onshore wind, 12% offshore wind and 36% solar. State energy generation (GWh) projections call for 17% onshore wind, 22% offshore wind, and 30% solar. Solar in New York in the winter is a horrible resource due to latitude and the fact that a large portion of the state is affected by lake-effect clouds and snow that reduce solar irradiance. Solar cannot be expanded to cover the lack of wind development so now what?
Bryce also published an article noting that:
The bad news for offshore wind keeps coming. On Monday, New Jersey canceled plans for another offshore wind solicitation, citing Shell’s decision to abandon the Atlantic Shores wind project “as well as uncertainty driven by federal actions and permitting.” Recall that New Jersey has some of the most ambitious offshore wind plans of any state on the Eastern Seaboard. And now, all those plans appear headed for Davy Jones’ Locker. But it’s not just New Jersey. This week, Danish wind giant Ørsted said it was slashing its planned investments through 2030 by 25% due to its beleaguered US offshore projects and said it would take a “stricter, more value-focused approach to capital allocation.” The same day Ørsted made its announcement, Equinor, Norway’s state-owned oil company, said it was slashing its renewable energy targets and increasing its focus on… wait for it…oil and gas production.
Vermont Insanity
Mark Whitworth describes Vermont’s Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA). Incredibly it includes an extraordinary requirement that not even New York has incorporated. Whitworth explains the essence of the GWSA;\: “I’m gonna flap my arms and fly over the Statehouse dome. And if I should fail, I will punch myself in the face.” He goes on:
The “flap my arms and fly” portion of the GWSA is a set of unachievable carbon emissions reduction targets. The “punch myself in the face” part is the GWSA’s invitation to sue Vermont at taxpayer expense when the unachievable targets are not met. We will then face the prospect of a judge ordering the Secretary of Vermont’s Agency of Natural Resources to make rules that accomplish the impossible. It won’t be pretty.
Just like in New York proponents of the law established aspirational targets that cannot be met. New York does not have an explicit mandate for a lawsuit funded by the state if the targets are not met. However, on November 2, 2021, New York voters approved an Amendment to the State Constitution’s Bill of Rights providing that: “Each person shall have the right to clean air and water, and to a healthful environment.” In those sixteen words, “the right to a healthy environment was, for the first time, cloaked in constitutional protection in New York and deemed the equivalent to the sixteen current constitutional guarantees in the state Bill of Rights.” There is no doubt in my mind that someone will sue when New York’s targets are not met citing this amendment.
Oil Merits
Meredith Angwin describes the importance of oil generation in New England. Everything she says is relevant to New York too. Her article is notable also because it nicely describes how generating plants are dispatched. She explains why even though natural gas is cheaper than oil, there are times when oil must be burned because natural gas is simply not available. Green energy proponents look at this situation and argue that it proves the desirability of wind, solar, and energy storage but always ignore a key point. They claim that these weather-dependent resources increase resiliency, but the resources invariably fail to show up when needed the most so that won’t work. Angwin concludes “we need to think about being overly dependent upon any one fuel”.
Natural Variability
Jamie Jessop explains that two natural climate drivers were the primary drivers of the recent global temperature peak. The world warmed because of the Hunga Tonga undersea volcano that injected water vapor in the upper atmosphere, then some more because of a strong El Nino. She notes that “The effect of both natural events is now fading rapidly.” Now we are at an inflection point. If the climate models are correct such that the alarmists screeching about an existential threat has some basis, then temperatures will cool to a plateau maintaining or even accelerating the long-term warming trend.
On the other hand, if “nature is in control of our climate”, then two climate cycles will cause global temperatures to fall. According to Perplexity AI: “The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) and Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) are two important climate cycles that significantly influence global weather patterns and temperatures.” Jessup concludes:
If you’re not a natural climate change denier and you consider that a positive AMO plus PDO has contributed significantly to global warming since 1950, then you might expect the globe to cool significantly in the coming decades. In that case, the end of the Era of Global Boiling might turn out to be the far more significant end of the era of global warming – which will mean that the climate crisis loons will be trying to convince us all that warming really means cooling (because AMOC shutdown or something).
CO2 Cannot Explain Current Warming
Matthew Wielicki explains that because during the last interglacial period global temperatures were significantly warmer than today but CO₂ levels were much lower CO₂ levels cannot be the primary driver of global warming.
This glaring inconsistency should give pause to anyone who accepts the idea that CO₂ is the sole or even primary climate control knob. If CO₂ is truly the driving force behind global temperature, why was it hotter 120,000 years ago when CO₂ was only 275-280 ppm? Why have climate models consistently failed to accurately recreate past climate conditions? If climate models cannot reliably reproduce known historical warm periods like the Eemian, how can we trust their projections for the future? These discrepancies highlight fundamental flaws in the assumptions underpinning climate modeling, raising serious doubts about their ability to predict long-term climate trends with precision.
In his article he explains that natural factors such as orbital shifts, solar insolation, ocean circulation, and long-term feedback mechanisms have played a much greater role in shaping past climate changes than CO₂. This is completely consistent with Jamie Jessup’s article mentioned above and I think his explanation is readable. Wielicki concludes “Ignoring these factors in today’s climate debate is not just bad science; it’s deliberate deception.”
Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York 