Guest essay by Eric Worrall
h/t The White House; Even Forbes, whose deep green editors recently censored Michael Shellenberger for criticising the climate movement, has sharply criticised California’s headlong rush into a new dark age of unreliable electricity.
Blackouts Expose Perils And Costs Of California’s ‘Electrify Everything’ Push
The blackouts that hit California over the past few days exposed the fragility of one of the most-expensive and least-reliable electric grids in North America. They also show that California’s grid can’t handle the load it has now, much less accommodate the enormous amount of new demand that would have to be met if the state attempts to “electrify everything.”
The push to electrify everything would prohibit the use of natural gas in buildings, electrify transportation, and require the grid to run solely on renewables (and maybe, a dash of nuclear). But attempting to electrify the entire California economy will further increase the cost of energy at the very same time that the state’s electricity rates are soaring. That will result in yet-higher energy costs for low- and middle-income Californians.
California may be known for Silicon Valley and the beauty of its mountains and beaches, but it also has the highest poverty rate of any state in America. When accounting for the cost of living, 18.1% of the state’s residents are living in poverty. For perspective, that means that roughly 7 million Californians — a population about the size of Arizona’s — are living in poverty.
Years of misguided policies have left Californians plugged into a tattered electric grid that can’t handle a heatwave. Californians now rely on an electricity network that looks and acts more like a grid you’d find in Beirut or Africa than ones in Europe or the United States.
In short, the blackouts that hit California a few days ago appear to be only a taste of the pain to come. And the state’s consumers are going to be paying even higher prices for that pain.
In my opinion California has until now concealed the true scale of their electricity supply problems from voters, by quietly importing vast amounts of power from other states when their own unreliable green electricity system falters.
But this time the green energy charade failed. Spare power from other states was not available – during the recent widespread heatwave, demand in other states also surged, so other states did not have enough spare electricity to cover California’s needs.
Renewable advocates claim that the unreliability of renewables can be overcome by smart grids. But there appears to have been nothing smart about the allegedly incompetent management of California’s grid over the last week.
via Watts Up With That?
August 22, 2020 at 12:50PM
Kamala Harris co-sponsored the Senate resolution to support the Green New Deal. Now Joe Biden has endorsed the plan.
Naturally, people want to know what the GND will cost – usually meaning in state and federal government spending. But that is the wrong question.
The real question is, how much do Green New Dealers expect to get out of it, at what total cost? Mr. Biden says he wants the feds to spend nearly $7 trillion over the next decade on healthcare, energy and housing transformation, climate change, and other GND agenda items. But that is only part of the picture.
Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (who has a degree in some socialist version of economics) and the folks who helped her write Biden’s so-called Climate Plan have a clear idea of how much money they want, and pretty much know where they expect the money to come from.
Here it is in its clearest form, as stated by Rep. Ocasio-Cortez’s then-chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti:
“The resolution describes the 10-year plan to transform every sector of our economy to remove GHG [greenhouse gases] and pollution. It says it does this through huge investments in renewables, at WW2 scales (which was 40-60% of America’s GDP).” [emphasis added]
World War II was a time of great sacrifice and hardship, as part of a dramatic and historic mobilization to win a horrific global war. However, that hard reality doesn’t matter to these folks.
They say we are now waging a war to stop catastrophic climate change. So money, sacrifice, and disruption are irrelevant.
Our nation’s GDP is around $20 trillion a year, or $200 trillion in ten years. 40-60% of that is $80-120 trillion. For simplicity, let’s call it an even $100 trillion to finance the Green New Deal utopian dream.
$100 trillion! The ways and means of raising this stupendous sum are also clear in their minds. It will be done the same way WW2 was financed, however that was.
To them, it’s obvious that we can simply do this because we did it before. The specifics don’t matter. Government elites will figure them out.
But even this arrogant, cavalier attitude is only part of the picture.
If you read what Green New Dealers say, confusion arises because people think the GND is an ordinary policy proposal: “Here’s what we want done, and this is what it should cost.”
It is nothing like that. The Green New Deal is more along the lines of, “Here’s the level of effort we require to transform our entire economy, and this is what we should be able to do with that much money.”
People tend to interpret Green New Dealer talk of a WW2-like mobilization as a simple metaphor. But these folks mean it as an actual measure of what they are determined to do.
So far they have glossed over and ignored the extreme hardships of mobilization. Here’s just one example – not from front lines mayhem, but from the United States home front during World War II.
Gasoline, meat, and clothing were tightly rationed. Most families were allocated three US gallons of gasoline a week, which sharply curtailed driving for any purpose.
Production of most durable goods, like cars, new housing, vacuum cleaners, and kitchen appliances, was banned until the war ended. In industrial areas, housing was in short supply as people doubled up and lived in cramped quarters. Prices and wages were controlled. [Harold Vatter, The US Economy in World War II]
No doubt the Green New Deal mobilization would impose different hardships. But all mobilizations are oppressive. You can’t commandeer half of the GDP without inflicting severe disruption on people’s lives.
The argument is sound in its way, provided there is a need for all-out war – which there is not.
The minor-to-modest temperature, climate, and extreme weather changes we’ve been seeing (in the real world outside computer models) explain why most Americans see no need for a painful war. So does the fact that China, India and other emerging economies are not about to give up fossil fuels anytime soon.
In fact, polls show that roughly half of Americans do not even believe in the idea of human-caused global warming, much less that it is an “existential threat,” as Senator Harris claims it is.
The latest Gallup poll found that only 1% of US adults consider “climate change/environment/pollution” to be “the most important problem facing this country today.” That’s down from a meager 2% in the May 28-June 4 poll.
Even more revealing, a 2019 AP-NORC poll found that 68% of adult Americans were unwilling to pay even an extra $10 on their monthly electricity bill to combat global warming.
Indeed, 57% of them would not be willing to pay more than $1.00 in added electricity charges to fight climate change!
Just wait until they see what the Biden-Harris-AOC-Democrat Green New Deal would cost them.
And it’s not just that their costs would likely skyrocket from an average US 13.2¢ per kilowatt-hour (11.4¢ or less in ten states) to well beyond the nearly 20¢ per kWh that families are already paying in California and New York, or the 30¢ that families are now paying in ultra-green Germany.
Or that factories, businesses, hospitals, schools and everyone else would also see their costs escalate – with blue-collar families, the sick and elderly, poor and minority communities hammered hardest.
It’s that the GND would force every American to replace their gasoline and diesel cars and trucks with expensive short-haul electric vehicles; their gas furnaces and stoves with electric systems; their home, local, and state electrical and transmission systems with expensive upgrades that can handle a totally electric economy.
They’ll see their landscapes, coastlines, and wildlife habitats blanketed with wind turbines, solar panels, transmission lines, and warehouses filled with thousands of half-ton batteries. Virtually every component of this GND nation would be manufactured in China and other faraway places.
The cost of this massive, total transformation of our energy and economic system would easily reach $10 trillion: $30,000 per person or $120,000 per family – on top of those skyrocketing electricity prices.
And that’s just the intermittent, unreliable energy component of this all-encompassing Green New Deal.
These are stupendous, outrageous costs, and personal sacrifices. Every American, at every campaign event and town meeting, should ask Green New Deal supporters if they think America needs to – or can afford to – cough up $10 trillion or $100 trillion over the next ten years.
And not let them get away with glib, evasive answers, or attempts to laugh these questions off as meritless or irrelevant.
The American people are not about to be mobilized into an all-out war against dubious climate change, with price tags like these coupled with repeated blackouts, huge personal sacrifices, and massive joblessness in every sector of the economy – except among enlightened government ruling classes.
They’ve already seen news stories about the latest rolling blackouts in California (here, here, here and here) – resulting from one-third of that state’s electricity coming from “renewable” sources, and with another third of the state’s electricity imported from other states that also get heatwaves.
They should ponder what their lives, livelihoods, and living standards would be under 100% wind and solar power.
And yet, once again, even all this insanity is only a small part of the picture.
Remember, the Green New Deal is also about government-run healthcare – and an economy and nation where “progressive” “woke” legislators, regulators, judges, and activists tell companies what they can manufacture and sell … and tell us what we can buy, eat and drink; how and how much we can heat and cool our homes; and what we can read, hear, think and say, as they “transform” our culture and traditions.
The GND is being promoted by politicians, news and social media, “educators” and “reformers” who also want to eliminate free enterprise capitalism; have totally open borders, even for criminals and people who might have COVID and other diseases; and want to defund the police, put anarchists, looters, and arsonists back on our streets, and take away our right and ability to defend ourselves, our homes and our families.
The time to think long and hard about all of this is NOW. Not sometime after the November 3 elections.
Paul Driessen is a senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of books and articles on energy, environment, climate, and human rights issues. David Wojick is an independent analyst specializing in science, logic, and human rights in public policy, and author of numerous articles on these topics.
“Galactic Cosmic Radiation in Interplanetary Space Through a Modern Secular Minimum” is a new paper just published in the journal Space Weather.
The paper’s abstract opens with: “Recent solar conditions indicate a persistent decline in solar activity‐‐‐possibly similar to the past solar grand minima. During such periods of low solar activity, the fluxes of galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) increase remarkably…”
From here, the researchers’ primary focus is on the impact low solar activity and increasing GCRs have on interplanetary space missions (well how else would it have gotten published), however, they do leave a number of GSM truth-bombs along the way, and their conclusion is an admissible one: “GCRs are bad–and they’re only going to get worse.”
“During the next solar cycle, we could see cosmic ray dose rates increase by as much as 75%,” says lead author Fatemeh Rahmanifard of the University of New Hampshire’s Space Science Center.
This spells bad news for astronauts, limiting the time they can work safely in interplanetary space (from 1,000 days back in the 1990s to just 290 days for men and 204 days for women).
Why are cosmic rays growing stronger? “Blame the sun,” writes Dr. Tony Phillips in his excellent article over at the always excellent spaceweather.com.
The sun’s magnetic field wraps the entire solar system in a protective bubble, normally shielding us from cosmic rays. In recent decades, however, that shield has been growing weaker–a result of the sputtering solar cycle.
Solar activity isn’t what it used to be, continues Dr. Phillips. In the 1950s through the 1990s, the sun routinely produced intense Solar Maxima with lots of sunspots and strong solar magnetic fields.
The most famous example of a Grand Minimum is the Maunder Minimum of the 17th century when sunspots practically vanished for 70 years.
“We are not in a Maunder Minimum,” stresses Rahmanifard. “The current situation more closely resembles the Dalton minimum of 1790-1830 or the Gleissberg minimum of 1890-1920.”
During those lesser Grand Minima, the solar cycle became weak but didn’t completely go away.
Nevertheless, the Dalton still brought-about immense suffering and misery to the people of the time. Like the deeper Maunder and Spörer Minimums preceding it, the Dalton brought on a period of lower-than-average global temperatures.
The Oberlach Station in Germany, for example, experienced a 2C decline over 20 years, which devastated the country’s food production.
The Year Without a Summer also occurred during the Dalton Minimum, in 1816. It was caused by a combination of already low temperatures plus the aftereffects of the second-largest volcanic eruption in 2000 years: Mount Tambora’s VEI 7 on April 10, 1815 (for more on the link between reduced solar activity, cosmic rays, and volcanic/seismic upticks click here).
One Virginia resident recalled, “In June another snowfall came and folks went sleighing. On July 4, 1816, water froze in cisterns and snow fell again, with Independence Day celebrants moving inside churches where hearth fires warmed things a mite.”
Clothes froze on the line in New England, ice on ponds and lakes was reported in northwestern Pennsylvania in both July and August, and Virginia had frosts in August.
The temperature occasionally got into the 90s, but then would drop to nearly freezing in just a few hours.
Crops that had managed to sprout were frozen out in early June, replanted, and frozen again in July. Very few crops were actually harvested, and of those that were, the yields were very poor.
In turn, food and grain prices skyrocketed — for example, in 1815, oats sold for $0.12 a bushel but by the next year, a bushel would set you back $0.92.
Read rest at ElectroVerse
Dozens of prominent media outlets have published stories in the last few days claiming climate change is causing wildfires and a deadly heatwave.
Objective data, however, show there has been no increase in either one as the Earth modestly warms.
A story on the Colorado Public Radio website, titled “Colorado Wildfires Are Climate Change ‘In The Here And Now’ — And A Sign Of Summers To Come,” explicitly links wildfires in the state to human-caused climate change, warning of worse to come.
The Washington Post (“Why California Wildfires are So Extreme Right Now,”) and Capitol Public Radio News (CPRN), “As Californians Deal With Heat, Lightning, Fire, Scientists Point To Climate Change,” also claim a heatwave and wildfires in California right now are caused by climate change.
“The heatwave, the fires and weather patterns are in part related to climate change, says UCLA climate scientist Daniel Swain, because warming temperatures are ‘with great certainty’ increasing these conditions,” CPRN’s reporter writes.
“This whole event started as a record-breaking heatwave … and we also know that climate change is increasing the severity and the acres burned by wildfires in California,” Swain told CPRN.
The CPRN reporter doesn’t question Swain’s asserted link between climate change and wildfires, despite the fact he provides no evidence to back it up. In fact, no such evidence exists.
Data show the number and severity of heatwaves, droughts, and wildfires have all decreased over the past century and a half, even as the planet has modestly warmed.
As summarized in Climate at a Glance: Heatwaves, data from the U.S. Climate Reference Network and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration prove climate change has not increased the number or severity of heatwaves.
Indeed, in recent decades heatwaves have been far less frequent and severe, for example, than in the 1930s – nearly 100 years of global warming ago.
In fact, 40 states’ record-high temperatures were set before 1960, with 25 of the record highs being set or tied in the 1930s alone.
The most accurate nationwide temperature station network, implemented in 2005, shows no sustained increase in daily high temperatures in the United States since at least 2005.
Concerning droughts and wildfires, the data is just as clear – there has been a downward trend during the past century.
Data from the National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS) cited in Climate at a Glance: Drought shows droughts have not become more frequent or severe in recent years.
In point of fact, the evidence shows the United States is undergoing its longest period in recorded history without at least 40 percent of the country experiencing “very dry” conditions.
Indeed, in 2017 and 2019, the United States registered its smallest percentage of land area experiencing drought in recorded history.
And the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports with “high confidence” precipitation over mid-latitude land areas of the Northern Hemisphere (including the United States) has increased during the past 70 years, while IPCC has “low confidence” about any negative trends globally.
Regarding wildfires, since drought is the key contributing climate factor, one should not be surprised to find, as reported in Climate at a Glance: Wildfires, records from the U.S. National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) show wildfires have declined in number and severity in recent decades.
The NIFC tracks data on U.S. wildfires back as far as 1926, and it shows the number of acres burned is far less now than it was throughout the early 20th century.
As the Figure below shows, current acres burned run about 1/4th to 1/5th of the record values which occurred in the 1930s.
Globally, the data on wildfires is just as clear. On page 67 of Bjorn Lomborg’s book False Alarm, he points to research demonstrating:
“There is plenty of evidence for a reduction in the level of devastation caused by fire, with satellites showing a 25 percent reduction globally in burned areas just over the past 18 years … In total, the global amount of area burned as declined by more than 540,000 square miles, from 1.9 million square miles in the early part of the last century to 1.4 million square miles today.”
While the economic costs of wildfires have increased in recent decades, that is due to ever greater numbers of people moving into, and communities expanding into, areas historically prone to wildfires.
Also, people are erecting ever more expensive homes, commercial developments, and related infrastructure there. Urban development in formerly rural, wildfire-prone areas is the reason economic costs from wildfires are increasing.
Scientists can say what they want and journalists can write what they want about climate change, but, if they say climate change is causing an increase in the number or severity of heatwaves, drought, and wildfires, they are lying. The data prove it.
Read more at Climate Realism
California’s Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom is urging the residents of his failed state to turn their thermostats up to 78 degrees.
Here are some highlights from the governor’s August 20 guidelines:
- Set your thermostat to 78° or higher between 3 and 10 P.M.
- Refrain from major appliance use between 3 and 10 P.M.
- Postpone using major appliances like the oven, dishwasher, clothes washer, and dryer until cooler times of the day to avoid heating up your home.
- Run your dishwasher and clothes washer only when full. Wait until after 9 p.m. to use these and other major appliances.
- When possible, wash clothes in cold water. About 90 percent of the energy used in a clothes washer goes to water heating.
After years of being unable to deliver the citizens of California enough water, this failed state now cannot deliver enough electricity.
Fact: when you cannot deliver the basics — and few things are as basic as water and electricity — you are officially a failed state.
And all of this was avoidable.
But the Luddite Democrats who run California, who have enjoyed a veto-proof majority in the former-Golden State for a decade or so, who own the state’s government lock, stock, and barrel with no Republican opposition whatsoever — they are solely responsible for not delivering electricity and water to residents because they refuse to build the power plants necessary to deliver the desired electricity, and they refuse to build the reservoirs necessary to guide the state through its periodic droughts.
In fact, California is shutting down power plants in some lunatic, backward crusade to deliver the unicorn of “emission-free” power in less than 25 years.
You want to know why Governor Luddite is telling people to turn their thermostats up to five degrees over comfortable…?
You’re going to think I’m kidding but I’m not…
Just like the cavemen and other ancient savages were unable to escape the elements, California is so unenlightened, so backward and primitive, that if the wind doesn’t blow and the clouds cover the sun — even though we are now living in the 21st century — Californians suffer…
Officials blame weekend blackouts on the “unexpected loss of a 470-megawatt power plant Saturday evening, as well as the loss of nearly 1,000 megawatts of wind power,” the San Jose Mercury News reported. In addition, cloud cover over the desert meant solar energy was in short supply.
I’m sorry, but if your personal indoor comfort exists at the mercy of the weather and depends on the elements, depends on wind speed and sunlight, you are not living in a progressive state. You’re not even living in a modern state.
There is no reason for anyone in the United States of America to be uncomfortable indoors anymore.
More than fifteen years ago — when I just so happened to be living in Los Angeles, by the way — I purchased a brand spanking new 5,000 BTU air conditioner for $49.00 — and it came with remote control.
I still have it.
See, that’s what the free market can do.
That’s what capitalism and free enterprise and free people can do — they can make the miracle of air conditioning available to every American regardless of income, gender, sexual preference, handicap, hair color, or shoe size.
But the primitive, superstitious Gaia worshipers who run California cannot.
The primitive, superstitious Gaia worshipers who run California cannot deliver water, even though there would be plenty of it for everyone if the primitive, superstitious Gaia worshipers who run California would simply build some reservoirs.
We could all be comfortable, we could all enjoy homes and offices as comfortable as a shopping mall — the only thing in our way is…
Read rest at Breitbart
LIST OF POSTS ON OCEAN ACIDIFICATION
- OCEAN ACIDIFICATION BY FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/09/29/ocean-acidification-by-fossil-fuel-emissions/
- OCEAN ACIDIFICATION 2019 https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/12/14/ocean-acidification-2019/
- TBGY DOES OCEAN ACIDIFICATION https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/01/18/tbgy-ocean-acidification/
- OCEAN ACIDIFICATION THE EVIL TWIN OF CLIMATE CHANGE https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/01/26/ocean-acidification-the-evil-twin-of-climate-change/
- AN OCEAN ACIDIFICATION NIGHTMARE https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/02/27/a-co2-nightmare-hydrothermal-vents/
- ONLY YOU CAN PREVENT OCEAN ACIDIFICATION https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/03/26/remember-only-you-can-prevent-ocean-acidification/
- THE ALFRED WEGENER INSTITUT EXPLAINS OCEAN ACIDIFICATION https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/07/22/an-ocean-acidification-horror-chamber/
- KILLER OCEAN ACIDIFICATION https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/08/13/15577/
- CAN THE OCEAN ACIDIFY ITSELF? https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/08/14/ocean-volcanism/
- AN ATMOSPHERE BIAS https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/03/20/an-atmosphere-bias-part-2/
“Not only did more socially responsible firms not exhibit the alleged greater share price resilience during the Covid-induced market decline, but they actually performed significantly less well when the overall market recovered.”
A new study refutes “widespread claims” that environmental, social, and governance considerations improved stock performance during the pandemic.
In the aftermath of March’s coronavirus crash, numerous fund managers and data providers determined that companies with high ESG scores outperformed during the rapid sell-off — and a surge of money followed into funds focused on environmental, social, and governance issues.
A new academic study, however, raises questions about the link between ESG considerations and stock performance during crises.
Researchers from Canada’s University of Waterloo, Tilburg University in the Netherlands, and New York University’s Stern School of Business challenged the “widespread claims by fund managers, ESG data purveyors, and the financial press” that companies with high ESG scores were better situated in the pandemic. In particular, the authors — Elizabeth Demers, Jurian Hendrikse, Philip Joos, and Bauch Lev — cited reports from BlackRock, Morningstar, and MSCI, which all found that ESG funds outperformed during the crash.
BlackRock, for instance, reported its sustainable funds achieved better risk-adjusted returns during the first quarter, while 24 of 26 ESG-tilted index funds tracked by Morningstar also outperformedtheir “closest conventional counterparts,” according to the analytics firm.
According to the academics, however, ESG scores “offer no such positive explanatory power for returns during Covid-19.”
“ESG is not an ‘equity vaccine’ against declining share prices in times of crisis,” Demers and her co-authors argued. “Following all this hyping of ESG as downside risk protection, there was no surprise in CNBC’s report that the first quarter of 2020 saw record inflows into sustainable funds.”
Instead of ESG, they found that stock movements during the first quarter appeared to be driven by firm leverage and cash positions, as well as industry sectors and market-based measures of risk. Returns were also positively associated with measures of intangible assets, according to the study.
“These results suggest that innovation-related assets rather that social capital investments offer the greater immunity to sudden, unanticipated market declines,” the authors wrote.
Looking beyond the initial crash in March, the researchers found that ESG factors were negatively associated with returns during the recovery in the second quarter, while investments in innovation-related assets continued to positively impact performance. “Not only did more socially responsible firms not exhibit the alleged greater share price resilience during the highly unexpected Covid-induced market decline, but they actually performed significantly less well when the overall market recovered,” they wrote.
Including the 2008 financial crisis, the authors determined that liquidity and intangible assets were the best predictors of returns during crisis periods, rather than ESG factors.
via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
August 22, 2020 at 12:18PM