Climate News – September 2020

Climate News – September 2020

Alan Moran

1 September 2020

A review and commentary on topical matters concerning the science, economics, and governance associated with climate change developments.

Political and economic issuesTilak Doshi analyses the differences between the Biden and Trump energy policies. Biden has adopted the key Bernie Saunders policies. Though he would not phase out fracking, he favours “near-zero” emissions by 2040, ending the sale of gasoline and diesel cars by 2030, denying federal permits for new fossil fuel infrastructure projects. As James Taylor points out, Kamala Harris sought 100% renewables by 2030. The Democrats plan to spend more than $400 billion a year (11 per cent of federal revenue) to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. This excludes cost-enhancing renewable regulations. Only one per cent of Americans place climate change issues as their major consideration in spite of which it is central to Biden’s policies.  However, as well as with fracking he diverges from radical Democrats in promoting nuclear, reversing 50 years of Democrat dogma. Perhaps his advisers recognise the economy-crushing implications of a renewables-rich electricity supply, especially one lacking a counterbalance to wind/solar’s inherent instability.   Woke California shows the consequences of replacing fossil and nuclear plant with wind/solar. Francis Menton explains the rolling blackouts effect of a heat wave (predictably, blamed on climate change). To meet demand of 42-44 GWh California has 76 GW capacity, but 33 GW of this is wind/solar and often useless. Here is the daily production from renewables.
As Frank Wolak points out, 33 per cent of supplies are required by state law to come from renewables.  By relying increasingly on these variable supplies, California has put itself “in a position where regular intentional blackouts are inevitable”.  Christopher Horner notes increasing blackouts were predicted by the main supplier, PG&E, after those in October 2019. The State legislature is having second thoughts about going deeper green, as is renewables advocate Governor Newsom.  Due to its renewables policy, prices in California are 60 per cent above the US average.  Virginia too is plumping for zero net emissions in a policy that will cost households over $500 a year in higher energy bills as well as reducing reliability. EU governments are committed to spending 30% of the EU’s budget on climate — a 10% jump from the 2014-20 budget. With a total package of 1.8 trillion euros ($2.1 trillion), the climate tag comes in at 600 billion euros. But environmental groups claim half of this is actually being spent on subsidies within the Common Agricultural Policy.  Angela Merkel wants to accelerate the carbon phase-out with a new pricing mechanism, the euphemism for a carbon tax. In a report prepared for Senator Roberts, I estimated the annual cost of renewable energy policies in Australia at $13 billion a year. The cost per household in electricity alone is $536, representing 39 percent of the bill.  The $536 total comprises $90 in requirements for renewable energy itself, $75 for increased network and administrative costs, $219 due to increased wholesale prices and $151 in taxpayer subsidies for renewables.   Australian committed new investment in wind and solar has fallen markedly. 
Pursuing additional subsidies, the renewables lobby group attributed this to, “challenges associated with the grid connection process, unpredictable government policy interventions and underinvestment in network capacity creating congestion and constraints.” Work has commenced on the government owned $10 billion Snowy2 pumped storage facility, designed to iron out the volatility inherent in renewables. Marc Morano draws attention to a plea from WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus: “the Covid-19 pandemic has given new impetus to the need to accelerate efforts to respond to climate change. (It) has given us a glimpse of our world as it could be: cleaner skies and rivers.”  Tedros calls for the world to use the virus to rid economies of fossil fuels. Bill Gates would agree, he says COVID-19 is awful but climate change could be worse, with a death rate that could be fivefold greater.  Similarly, according to Australia’s peak medical groups, “The world is in the middle of two global health emergencies: the viral pandemic and climate change”; they urged the Prime Minister to act on climate change as part of the COVID-19 pandemic economic response.  And, seeking a share of carbon sequestration subsidies, Australia’s peak farmer group calls for net zero CO2 emissions. Supported by NGOs and vested interests, UN Secretary-General Gutteres led calls urging India to avoid coal power investments and embrace renewables which, he claimed, are cheaper.  In a statement that inadvertently demonstrated the uncompetitiveness of wind/solar energy, he also argued that they create three times as many jobs – that is cost three times as much in labour! The Global Warming Policy Foundation reports that, contrary to some broker claims, high rating environmental, social and governance (ESG) shares have not been well-performing and have made a trivial contribution to the overall stock market growth.  Looking beyond the initial crash in March, Canadian, US and Dutch researchers found that ESG factors were negatively associated with returns during the recovery in the second quarter.
Scientific developmentsThis was not supposed to happen.  A new temperature reconstruction indicates today’s sea surface temperatures are colder than all but a few millennia out of the last 156,000 years.
A new paper by McKitrick and Christy (who unveiled Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” that fraudulently depicted a unique rise in modern temperatures) shows all 38 IPCC climate models overpredict warming.  Similar findings of climate models over-predicting temperature increases were also made in a paper by Mitchell et al Particularly in 2019, due to high-pressure systems over Greenland, drawing in warm air from North America and causing melting, the earth is losing lots of ice.  The net effect is estimated to be responsible for 0.55 inches of sea level rise since 2003. Other estimates put the increase in global-average sea levels by 0.3 mm/yr.
WhimsyScare of the hour – climate change threatens the chocolate we eat due to the usual suspects:  different precipitation, temperature variability and more heat. This year marks thirty years of last chances to prevent catastrophic global warming given by The Guardian. At last, some pushback against low flow showers.  Designed to save greenhouse gases, legislated by Bush in 1992 and pilloried by Seinfeld, Trump is looking to deregulate the highly regulated flow.
In August, I published the following climate-related articles: The Bill Comes Due for Renewable Energy
Quadrant Online, 24 August 2020California dreamin’, our cheap and reliable electricity nightmare
The Spectator, 24 August 2020We can still have a V-shaped corona recovery. Here’s how
The Spectator, 11 August 2020
Posted by Geoff on September 01, 2020

Author: uwe.roland.gross

Don`t worry there is no significant man- made global warming. The global warming scare is not driven by science but driven by politics. Al Gore and the UN are dead wrong on climate fears. The IPCC process is a perversion of science.