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
- The Heart of Climate Deception Temperature. Good summary of the issues related to global temperature measurements
- Roger Pielke, Jr. on the best kept secret of climate science
- Mapping Offshore Wind Projects And Critically Endangered Whales Robert Bryce produced a four-minute video that clearly shows:
The Biden administration has approved a slew of projects that could result in hundreds of offshore wind turbines being placed right in the middle of the North Atlantic Right Whale’s habitat. As you likely know, the North Atlantic Right Whale (Eubalaena glacialis) is one of the world’s most endangered whales. Only about 360 individuals are left. So why are so few climate NGOs speaking out against the industrialization of our oceans and the danger that offshore wind poses to the whale?
The Climate Industry’s Misdirection Campaign
Jessica Weinkle has written a highly recommended description how institutions are being delegitimized in the name of climate catastrophism. She concludes:
Dark money may or may not be a problem the public wants to address.
Concerning however is the extent to which the sprawling empire of the multifaceted climate industry has managed to discredit critique of its methods.
Those who do are dubbed obstructionists, and in no insignificant part by the billionaires moving money around in opaque ways.
Policymakers unwilling to acknowledge this dynamic are also turning their back on genuine problems in scientific integrity, misleading policy, courts, public health research, and threatening food security and development. The public is left with a sea of technocratic propaganda and limited ways to engage because the expertise barrier is too high.
Robbins claimed that “it is not what you look at that matters… It’s what you see.” All around us we look at the massive influence of the climate industry on climate change science and public messaging. But what most see are flashy graphs, dire futures, and get rich quick investment opportunities.
All the while, the legitimacy of our democratic and scientific institutions are being snatched before our very eyes.
Climate Change Reality
The CO2 Coalition published a paper prepared by Richard Lindzen, William Happer, Steven Koonin on April 16, 2024 titled Fossil Fuels and Greenhouse Gases Climate Science that is an excellent summary of reasons why there is no climate crisis. Three sections are included: There will be disastrous consequences for the poor, people worldwide, future generations and the west if fossil fuels, co2 and other ghg emissions are reduced to “net zero”; The IPCC is government controlled and thus only issues government opinions, not science; and Science demonstrates fossil fuels, CO2 and other GHGs will not cause catastrophic global warming and extreme weather. John Robson at Climate Discussion Nexus also praises the paper: “The paper does not break new ground, but summarizes the grounds for skepticism about the real impact of climate policy, the credibility of the IPCC, the reliability of climate computer models and claims that CO2 has made the weather worse and will only continue to do so”.
Judith Curry gave a great presentation Climate Uncertainty and Risk to the Global Warming Policy Foundation. Video of the presentation [here]. Powerpoint slides can be downloaded here [ GWPF uncert & risk (2)]. She makes the point that the political strategy by the UN and New York’s Climate Act is “deeply polarizing, whereas the strategy on the right seeks to secure the common interest of communities.” She concludes that:
Once you separate energy policy from climate policy, the way forward for energy policy is fairly straightforward. A more pragmatic approach to dealing with climate change drops the timelines and emissions targets, in favor of accelerating energy innovation. The goal is abundant, secure, reliable, cheap & clean energy.
The problem with climate policy is that it is a “wicked problem” that necessitates an approach that recognizes the deep uncertainties we have associated with climate understanding. Of course those concerns are routinely ignored by the advocates for the Climate Act.
Social Cost of Carbon
The Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) is a contrived parameter used to justify policies that are designed to eliminate fossil fuels. It is a difficult parameter to describe and show how it is used. Jonathan Lesser from the National Center for Energy Analytics wrote an excellent article that describes it well.
Electric Vehicles
Ford lost a lot of money on each electric vehicle it sold in the first quarter of 2024. CNN claimed that Ford sold 10,000 electric vehicles for a loss of $132,000 per vehicle but Robert Bryce said Ford sold 20,233 electric vehicles for a loss of “only” $65,272 per vehicle. Words fail to describe this madness.
Chinese EV manufacturers are poised to flood the American car market with cheap, high-quality SUVs by exploiting loopholes in tariff laws utilizing plants built in Mexico as the jumping-off point. This will happen even sooner. Chinese-owned carmaker Volvo (a subsidiary of China’s Geely) is about to beat the competition as soon as this summer with the introduction of a small battery electric SUV, the EX30, in the US.
The EX30 will directly compete with the Tesla Model Y in terms of performance and features, but at a price tag of $35,000, $8,000 less than the Model Y’s current cost. Reuters writes that, “[t]he competitive price reflects an unusual combination of Geely’s China-specific cost advantages and Volvo’s ability to skirt US tariffs on Chinese cars because it also has US manufacturing operations.” Even better, Volvo says that, even at that market-undercutting price, it expects to realize a 15-20 per cent profit margin on the EX30, meaning it has room to cut the price further should Tesla or other companies find ways to meet its initial price tag.
Used EV timebomb – Many EVs could become almost impossible to resell because of their limited battery life.
Experts said that the average EV battery guarantee lasts just eight years. After this time, the battery may lose power more quickly and so reduce mileage between charges. Many EVs will lose up to 12 per cent of their charge capacity by six years. Some may lose even more.
The cost of a replacement battery can be more than the value of the car. As a result used EVs have little value which increases the total lifetime cost of an EV compared to a internal combustion engine.
Irina Slav describes the possible last straw for EV that i wrote up for Watts Up With That. She notes that governments need to start thinking about a tax to replace their lost income from fuel duty collection when EVs predominate. There is no option that will not either add to the purchase price or be regressive. Her conclusion sums it all up:
For the umpteenth time, then, we have our dear Western governments try to have their transition cake and eat it, too, and not gain a single ounce of extra weight. They wanted combustion engine cars out but forgot that these cars bring in billions in tax income. They wanted a fully electrified transport but forgot it wouldn’t bring in money unless they made it more expensive. They wanted a revolution but forgot rule #1 for revolutions: the successful ones never start from the top. They start from the bottom.