Skip to content

Forget The Russians! NATO To Combat Climate Change!

October 5, 2020
tags:

By Paul Homewood

 

Now NATO want to fight climate change!

 

 image

Growing up in Norway, I learnt in school that temperatures in Svalbard, arctic home of the polar bear, would hardly ever rise above freezing. But this year, thermostats in Svalbard reached a record 21.7 degrees. And this is just the latest peak in a pattern of rising temperature that is turning sea ice to slush and is melting the Norwegian permafrost.

We all know examples like this. Of a warming climate melting the ice caps, causing droughts, giant storms and forest fires. The facts of climate change are undeniable, and the situation is getting worse.

I have been passionate about climate change all of my life. My first job in government was as Deputy Environment Minister, and I had the privilege of serving as UN Special Envoy on Climate Change. Now, as NATO Secretary General, it is my responsibility to address the threat climate change poses to our shared security.

Climate change is one of the biggest challenges of our time. As the planet heats up, our weather becomes wilder, warmer, windier and wetter, putting communities under pressure as sources of food, fresh water and energy are threatened.

We can see this today in the Sahel region of Africa, where climate change is driving migration. In the Arctic where  as the ice melts, geopolitical tensions heat up. Or here in Europe, where record-breaking floods and wildfires increase year on year.

Climate change threatens our security. So NATO must do more to fully understand and integrate climate change into our all aspects of our work, from our military planning to how we exercise and train our armed forces.

Climate change also makes it harder for NATO troops to keep people safe. Our soldiers work in some of the most difficult environments on earth. For example, NATO’s training mission in Iraq where, this summer, temperatures regularly exceeded 50 degrees. Imagine just being in that heat, let alone coming under fire while wearing full combat gear. 

It is essential that we adapt to this new reality. That means better combat gear, vehicles and infrastructure. And it means explicitly including climate change in NATO’s work to improve the resilience of Allies and partners, something that we have been doing for decades in areas like infrastructure.

NATO must also be prepared to react to climate-related disasters just as we have during the COVID-19 crisis. This year, NATO countries have delivered hundreds of tons of medical equipment around the world, set up almost a hundred field hospitals and transported patients and medical staff.

NATO and its member countries also have a responsibility to help reduce climate change by producing fewer emissions without compromising our core tasks. We have long focused on fuel efficiency to improve our military effectiveness. Reducing our dependency on fossil fuels, for instance by using solar panels to power military camps, will not just help combat climate change, it can make our troops and equipment more secure, by improving our ability to operate independently and flexibly.

Members of the NATO Alliance are taking a lead with plans to cut emissions from our armed forces through initiatives such as using biofuels, developing hybrid vehicles and improving the energy efficiency of bases and other infrastructure.

As many countries increasingly plan to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, NATO can also do more to help our armed forces contribute to this goal. It is time for NATO to raise its ambition and help drive down emissions. A first step could be to help our members measure their military emissions. The next step could be to agree voluntary cuts in their carbon emissions.

Climate change is making the world more dangerous. NATO’s task is to preserve peace and keep us safe. So to fulfil our main responsibility, NATO must help to curb climate change for our security today and for the security of future generations. 

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_178334.htm

 

You might have thought the head of NATO would stick to facts. But you would be wrong.

Let’s start with this claim:

Growing up in Norway, I learnt in school that temperatures in Svalbard, arctic home of the polar bear, would hardly ever rise above freezing. But this year, thermostats in Svalbard reached a record 21.7 degrees.

They obviously did not teach him very well then! Summer temperatures in Svalbard hit the mid teens every year. Although this year hit a record of 21.7C, it was only slightly warmer than the previous highest temperature of 21.3C, set in 1979. Hardly an excuse to turn NATO upside down!

time series

https://climexp.knmi.nl/gdcntmax.cgi?id=someone@somewhere&WMO=SV000001008&STATION=SVALBARD_AIRPORT&extraargs=

 

Then there’s this ridiculous statement:

Of a warming climate melting the ice caps, causing droughts, giant storms and forest fires….

As the planet heats up, our weather becomes wilder, warmer, windier and wetter, putting communities under pressure as sources of food, fresh water and energy are threatened. 

Even the IPCC have said there is no evidence for any of this.

 

Or this one:

We can see this today in the Sahel region of Africa, where climate change is driving migration.

The Sahel’s disastrous drought was during a period of global cooling in the 1970s. Since then it has greened.

And then there’s this:

 Or here in Europe, where record-breaking floods and wildfires increase year on year.

There is no evidence that floods are any worse, and a recent study found that fires have actually been declining in Mediterranean Europe.

 

But what has any of this to do with NATO, whose goal is to guarantee the freedom and security of its members through political and military means?

Stoltenberg is worried about his troops getting hot in Iraq. Try telling that to the Desert Rats!

He says they need better combat gear, vehicles and infrastructure to cop with climate change. Yet NATO forces are already expected to operate in every conceivable climate, from the Arctic to the Sahara. What more gear does he need?

He goes on to say:

NATO must also be prepared to react to climate-related disasters just as we have during the COVID-19 crisis.

I think he means “weather”, not “climate”!

 

The whole article is, needless to say, an exercise in virtue signalling, something which is made obvious when he writes:

NATO and its member countries also have a responsibility to help reduce climate change by producing fewer emissions without compromising our core tasks.

We have long focused on fuel efficiency to improve our military effectiveness. Reducing our dependency on fossil fuels, for instance by using solar panels to power military camps, will not just help combat climate change, it can make our troops and equipment more secure, by improving our ability to operate independently and flexibly.

Members of the NATO Alliance are taking a lead with plans to cut emissions from our armed forces through initiatives such as using biofuels, developing hybrid vehicles and improving the energy efficiency of bases and other infrastructure. 

No. NATO only has one responsibility, and that is to guard the freedom and security of its members. And it has a duty to do this in the most effective manner possible, unencumbered by conflicting objectives.

Meanwhile, I don’t think those troops will be too pleased when those solar panels go to sleep at night!

50 Comments
  1. bobn permalink
    October 5, 2020 2:03 pm

    NATO has passed its ues by date. It has morphed into a terrorist sponsoring bloated Quango. Stoltenberg and his cronies have their noses in the trough and want the trough refilled even though we dont need NATO anymore.
    Disband NATO.
    (I was a serving Officer when NATO had a purpose, but by the end of the 90’s it had lost its purpose and become a corrupt money waster).

    • angryscotonfragglerock permalink
      October 5, 2020 2:42 pm

      I, too was a serving Officer from ‘73 to ‘94. These NATO politicians were as arrogant and ignorant then as they are now. Not a Military man amongst them and certainly no backbone. But, disband at our peril – Macron will get his Euro army!

    • Curious George permalink
      October 5, 2020 5:28 pm

      What do you expect for mere 2% of GDP?

    • George Jenatsch permalink
      October 6, 2020 6:30 am

      An opportunity for keeping busy without doing any real harm. Great news.

  2. Broadlands permalink
    October 5, 2020 2:06 pm

    “As many countries increasingly plan to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, NATO can also do more to help our armed forces contribute to this goal.”

    Reaching a NET-zero emissions goal by 2050 cannot possibly be achieved simply because the amounts of CO2 to be captured and stored are simply much too small. One part-per-million of CO2 is almost 8 gigatonnes. Many more than one ppm will need to be stored. This simple fact needs to be part of the common knowledge of those intent on removing fossil fuels from our energy needs.

  3. Harry Passfield permalink
    October 5, 2020 2:19 pm

    “I have been passionate about climate change all of my life”

    After spending so long being passionate about it and investing so much hubris in it, it would be impossible for him to admit that he could be wrong – so he just doubles down on his argument knowing full-well he hasn’t anything to prove. But he’ll continue taking the money while also knowing that he will be long gone before the argument is settled either way (a few cold Norwegian Winters could help settle that).

    BTW: As Attenborough is now all for rewilding across the globe (news this morning) I bet Stoltenberg would have a lot to say about wolves (say) making a meal of a polar bear or two..)

    • Phoenix44 permalink
      October 6, 2020 8:12 am

      Assuming he’s about my age that means he was worried about global cooling at first!

  4. October 5, 2020 2:29 pm

    Well, if they can save the poor cuddly polar bears it will all have been worth it. I guess!
    https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/09/29/bear-hunting/

  5. October 5, 2020 2:43 pm

    They cannot make peace but they can stop climate change. Stoltenberg was a B or C grade politician in Norway at best. What positive influence has he had on NATO exactly? The climate bullcrap wagon offers all kind of publicly funded jobsworth their dream get out. Stop doing your real job which you are useless at.. champion the fight against the imaginary climate change dragon instead.
    Notice NONE of these maggots ever provide any reference to when climate change started…or when it sped up…nothing. Instead they parrot garbage fed to them by activist infiltrators./ So there were no storms before 1850…or floods…or wildfires or warmer temperatures in Svalbard…..hmm where did all that coal come from dunderhead? Seems he did not pay attention during physical geography, geology or bible classes!
    I am sure Putin is really worried as will be the rest of those who would do us harm when they read this kind of self aggrandizing bullcrap! While we are at it, let us make none harmful bullets and electric tanks, fighters and warships all full of diversity because that is what will really frighten our enemies. If it was not so serious it would be a black comedy.

  6. Mad Mike permalink
    October 5, 2020 3:06 pm

    Off topic.I need some help here. I’m in an argument about constraint payments. As I understood it constraint payments are mainly made to wind farms when there are capable of producing electricity but are asked to stop by the Grid. I also understood that fossil fuel generators actually pay the Grid when asked to stop producing as the Grid reckoned they were saving money on fuel.

    Now I’ve been given this which is from the NG’s monthly balancing sevices summary August 2020

    Constraint actions by fuel type
    This section shows how the constraint costs for the reporting month break down by generator fuel type (excluding ROCOF).
    Table 3 and Table 4 show the costs of the two types of payments we make, in pounds sterling (£ million):
    • payments to manage the constraint – our costs in constraining electricity generation
    • payments to rebalance the system – our payments to participants to bring the system back into
    balance
    Positive values show the costs to National Grid, negative values show receipts. “Other” includes all fuel types not reported separately and includes hydro, open-cycle gas turbine (OCGT), demand side suppliers, and nuclear.
    Most of the constraint costs are payments for suppliers to reduce or increase their output of electricity. But when managing constraints, we incur costs in other ways too. For example, we might use an intertrip service or bilateral contract to reduce the overall costs to consumers. As these costs arise because of the constraint, we’ve included them in the tables.

    Breakdown of constraint costs by fuel type, for August 2020
    COAL 1.01 3.79
    GAS 8.06 34.51
    INTERCONNECTOR -3.62 1.77
    WIND 7.59 0.10
    OTHER 19.07 2.55
    T otal 32.10 42.71
    Table 3
    Breakdown of constraint costs by fuel type, for the year to date
    4.80 42.57 -1.86 7.69 21.61 74.82
    17.43
    267.81
    -4.00
    73.61
    87.22 442.08

    Fuel Type Payments to Manage Constraint

    Payments to Net Cost Rebalance System

    COAL 5.90
    GAS 61.71
    INTERCONNECTOR -13.93
    WIND 68.94
    OTHER 76.93
    T otal 199.54
    Table 4
    11.53
    206.10
    9.94
    4.68
    10.29 242.54

    The 2 tables Nos 3 and 4 are not very clear. The whole lot can be seen here on page 36

    Click to access mbss-august-2020.pdf

    As can be seen payments to gas are £267.81 mn so far this year. £73.61 to wind.

    How are they coming up with these figures?

    • It doesn't add up... permalink
      October 6, 2020 4:25 am

      Lots of different things happening. Remember that the balancing mechanism applies to the period after gate closure, by when all advance trades to sell and buy power have to be reported and matched: the incentives are for the market to be balanced ahead of time, because the penalties for securing balance through the balancing mechanism can be severe if a retailer fails to cover his customer demand, or a generator fails to perform against contracted volumes – they will pay a share of the balancing cost for which they are deemed to be responsible.

      Let’s start with the Interconnectors. In Ireland’s case, the UK acts as its grid balancing mechanism to a significant degree, taking in surplus wind, and supplying them with extra energy when winds are slight: if you look at the flows to and from Ireland on the E-W and Moyle routes, you will see how it varies. Occasionally we provide support for Continental rush hour demand by at least backing off our imports on the connectors there, if not actually exporting. Sometimes we may look for extra power from the Continent to help meet a supply shortfall if the interconnectors aren’t already maxed out. It is the variations from forecast and nominated flows that give rise to additional trading, and the need to adjust generation to accommodate them. The most likely beneficiary will be gas CCGT, which can be turned up and down to match changes in demand reliably.

      Next, transmission constraints. These mainly arise when there’s too much wind in Scotland for it to be exported to England (or even on the internal transmission lines in Scotland at times), and can rise dramatically when the Western Link HVDC subsea cable goes AWOL. Wind farms get paid to shut down, but other generation has to be brought on in England and perhaps Wales to make good the wind not being supplied that had been sold in the market prior to gate closure. It’s quite often the case that when there is a large amount of wind generation, prices go very low, or even negative (the wind farms are still collecting their subsidies provided they generate). So any generator making good the energy constrained off may need a substantial incentive to operate in these conditions.

      When grid supply is dominated by renewables the amount of inertia – energy stored in the rotating machinery of the grid and the largest industrial motors – falls, particularly when demand is low. That energy is measured in GVAs, which you can think of as GWseconds: divide by the demand in GW and you have a measure of how few seconds you may have to bring on any spinning reserve power, as inertia is converted to electrical energy. Having too little inertia in the system makes it very difficult to deal with sudden losses due to trip-outs on generators or transmission lines – this was effectively the cause of the blackout on August 9th 2019. Since then, the grid have been a little more cautious, and so even though there may be no transmission constraints, they may constrain some wind and solar off, and call for extra power from grunt inertia providers (coal and CCGT may be added – nuclear plant will already be running anyway unless it is shut down for maintenance).

      Of course part of the need is to have spinning reserve to handle outages and trips: here hydro offers very rapid performance – Dinorwig can go from spinning in air to providing most of its 1.7GW capacity in just 12 seconds. But it can make sense to have generators that either were recently needed to cover a demand peak, or will be soon, warm up slightly early or stay spinning and provide some spinning reserve – partly because Dinorwig is somewhat isolated on the transmission network, and when the Western Link is operating at capacity there is insufficient transmission capacity for it to feed into the wider network.

      In addition to spinning reserve, there is also fast start reserve that gets paid for being available, and paid at premium rates if called on – this is STOR, and mainly consists of diesel and OCGT plant that can start up and synchronise in a matter of minutes, which can be important if the wind starts dropping unexpectedly.

      Thermal plant is usually in the forefront of providing second to second balancing via a combination of inertia and adjusting fuel flow: the amount of such adjustment is limited to a few percent of output – but again, this is something that wind and solar cannot do other than by discarding some of their power into e.g. a resistor (you can see this in operation on King Island when wind output is high https://www.hydro.com.au/clean-energy/hybrid-energy-solutions/success-stories/king-island ). The newcomer on the block in this area is grid batteries, which switch from charging to discharging as the grid frequency rises and falls either side of the 50Hz target.

      A CCGT plant may get paid under several different headings at once . Wind farms will demand compensation for their loss of subsidy. The consequence is that the cheapest to constrain are the ones with the lowest subsidies which so far are onshore, and we get saddled paying full whack for expensive offshore wind.

      • patrick healy permalink
        October 6, 2020 5:41 pm

        It dosen’t add upp,

        Brilliant – why are you not the Energy Minister? sorry I forgot you have an IQ higher than room temperature.
        I live in Carnoustie Scotland where the main occupation is Golf.
        We have three top class golf courses. In a normal year visiting golfers bring several million pounds into the local economy as most macho golfers want to pit their puny skills against the great Open Champions who have been brought to their knees by our monster golf course.
        This year due to Wuhan Flu, visitors are an endangered species, consequentially the local economy has collapsed. Unfortunately it does not end there.
        As I type I have a million dollar vista over the North Sea out towards Robert Lewis Stephenson’s iconic Bell Rock Lighthouse. This will soon be desecrated by up to 160 Chinese sourced unreliable un dispatchable intermittent wind mills. All paid for by the tax payer subsidies to Jug Ears Charlie and the rest of the Crown Estate who claim sovereignty over the Sea Shore. Maybe Nichola Sturgeon can claim the tax if she become our next Sovereign.
        To add insult to injury THEY (Sea Green) have closed down one of our Golf Courses to install a cable which is 10 foot wide along side the unused Army Firing Ranges which adjoin our Buddon Links Golf Course.
        Mean time – and you could not make this shit up – our third course the Burnside which predates all the other two, has been closed these past two days do to flooding.
        The reason for this is that we have a bunch of idiots in Scotland called SEPA.
        The Scottish Environmental Protection Agency. For hundred of years local farmers and Golf Course Greenkeepers dredged drains and rivers over the winter in anticipation of winter rains inundating their property. Think of the Summerset Levels fiasco. In fact where I come from with my farming background, it was a legal responsibility to dredge you drains in case you flooded you neighbours down stream.
        So what happened in Carnoustie?
        On Saturday we had a normal Autumnal downpour which flooded our Burnside Golf Course because this “Jobs Worth’s” at SEPA forbid our green staff from dredging the Barryburn of two years of overgrowth.
        It does not get much more stupid than – well stupid.

  7. CheshireRed permalink
    October 5, 2020 3:21 pm

    ‘Combat’.
    ‘Fight’.
    ‘Tackle’.

    Has there ever been so much hyper-ventilated garbage about any single subject in history?

  8. Alan Ground permalink
    October 5, 2020 3:33 pm

    I trust you will forward your comments directly to Mr Stoltenberg as well as to our Secretary of State for Defence.

  9. GeorgeLet permalink
    October 5, 2020 3:58 pm

    Climate Change Busters
    Just like the movie “Ghost Busters”. It is now Climate Change Busters. And based on as much verifiable evidence to say there is climate change due to fossil fuel CO2.

  10. October 5, 2020 5:11 pm

    NATO and its member countries also have a responsibility to help reduce climate change by producing fewer emissions without compromising our core tasks

    That’s where he goes off the rails. The rest is the usual dumb propaganda based on empty box climate mythology.

  11. Nancy & John Hultquist permalink
    October 5, 2020 5:37 pm

    My first job in government . . . I had the privilege of serving as UN Special Envoy on Climate Change

    I sense this man has been a government type all his life, and was indoctrinated by UN crap from an early age.
    As Paul shows, the man’s lack of facts about weather and climate indicate not only that he doesn’t know squat, but that he isn’t inclined to learn.

  12. Jackington permalink
    October 5, 2020 5:53 pm

    General Stoltenberg belongs in a ‘allo ‘allo sketch – he certainly makes me laugh.

    • bobn permalink
      October 5, 2020 11:18 pm

      He’s not a General, he’s a professional politician. Military men dont talk that much crap.

  13. alexei permalink
    October 5, 2020 6:10 pm

    One of the grey ‘yes-men’ one finds in all government positions.

  14. October 5, 2020 6:39 pm

    BBC1 7:35pm Australia Burning
    BBC Panorama hears from the people living in the path of last year’s bush fires in Australia, and asks whether such events are to become normal

    Thirty-four people died in Australia last year as the worst bush fires in living memory swept across the country. An area roughly the size of England was devastated and thousands of homes were destroyed. A year on, Panorama hears from the people living in the path of the fires and the firefighters who risked their lives to save them. And as this year’s fire season gets underway, Clive Myrie asks if these levels of destruction are to *become normal*
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000n9j1

  15. October 5, 2020 6:51 pm

    9pm ITV Documentary following the Duke of Cambridge as he embarks on a campaign to champion global action on conservation and climate change.

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      October 5, 2020 9:03 pm

      I shall be watching Death in Paradise. Far more realistic and much better actors. Not to mention, no sign of Attenborough.

  16. Pancho Plail permalink
    October 5, 2020 7:00 pm

    ” But this year, thermostats in Svalbard reached a record 21.7 degrees.” If they are worried, perhaps they should set them lower.

    • Nancy & John Hultquist permalink
      October 6, 2020 1:18 am

      “thermostats”
      I missed that. So much trash in the statement; my boggled mind just couldn’t take it all in.

  17. Graeme No.3 permalink
    October 5, 2020 9:51 pm

    Didn’t the main island Spitsbergen have ice-free water around the entire island in 1922 or 1924 even in the winter?
    Contrast that with the difficulties of ships rescuing climate activists this past summer.

  18. AndyG55 permalink
    October 5, 2020 10:38 pm

    Wjy is it that a drop in Arctic sea ice from the extreme highs of the LIA and late 1970s is always considered a bad thing.

    Not only is the Arctic land surface greening, but the seas are also springing BACK to life after being TOO COLD and frozen over for much of the last 500 or so years (coldest period of the Holocene)

    The drop in sea ice slightly toward the pre-LIA levels has opened up the food supply for the nearly extinct Bowhead Whale, and they are returning to the waters around Svalbard.

    https://partner.sciencenorway.no/arctic-ocean-forskningno-fram-centre/the-ice-retreats–whale-food-returns/1401824

    The Blue Mussel is also making a return, having been absent for a few thousand years, apart from a brief stint during the MWP.

    https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0959683617715701?journalCode=hola

    Many other species of whale are also returning now that the sea ice extent has dropped from the extreme highs of the LIA. Whales cannot swim on ice. !

    https://blog.poseidonexpeditions.com/whales-of-svalbard/

    Great thing is, that because of fossil fuels and plastics, they will no longer be hunted for whale blubber for lamps and for whale bone.

    The decrease in Arctic sea ice, just like the increase in atmospheric CO2, is highly beneficial to a lot of creatures on the planet, and harms none.

    • Phoenix44 permalink
      October 6, 2020 8:08 am

      Ah but it’s not what it was when I was a boy. So it’s wrong.

      These people live in an emotion-dominated romanticism where the past was perfect and has been ruined by evil businesses.

  19. markl permalink
    October 6, 2020 12:06 am

    NATO and the UN are nothing but quangos. NATO is trying to be useful while the UN is trying to further Marxist ideology. Time to put them both to pasture.

  20. dennisambler permalink
    October 6, 2020 12:14 am

    Stoltenberg is a Socialist and former leader of the Norwegian Labour Party. After Copenhagen COP in 2009, he was Co-Chairman of a “High Level” advisory group set up by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon, to look into the issue of Climate Change Financing. They were seeking to garner $100 billion a year from Western nations for “climate” investment in developing countries, the forerunner of the Green Climate Fund.

    Their report was released three weeks before the Cancun COP in 2010. Other members included Chris Huhne, Lord Stern, George Soros and Christine Lagarde, now President of the ECB, a couple of African dictators, Deutsche Bank and various regional development banks.

    Their recommendations:
    A carbon price in the range of US$20-US$25 per ton of CO2 equivalent in 2020 as a key element of reaching US$100 billion per year.

    Taxes on aviation jet fuel, airline passenger tickets, and bunker fuel the heavy diesel fuel used by ships. (Gordon Brown brought in aviation taxes and the EU is this week proposing taxing shipping for its emissions).

    Carbon taxes on carbon emissions in developed countries raised on a per-ton-emitted basis.
    https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=cd57caaa-d3d4-4c72-8e10-ad6845bd764b
    July 2020: “UK Carbon Pricing Updates: UK Emissions Trading System and Carbon Emissions Tax Consultation”

    Use the Multilateral Development Banks (MDB’s), which are part of the World Bank and the United Nations system to leverage additional “green” investments. The Green New Deal is the result of many years of these UN behind the scenes meetings, often involving the likes of Stern, Deben, Prescott etc and their EU and US counterparts, with developing nation heads included with their wish lists.

    • Chaswarnertoo permalink
      October 6, 2020 8:37 am

      That’s where the stink is coming from, then.

  21. October 6, 2020 2:45 am

    Maybe a few nuclear bomb explosions will do the trick with aerosols.

  22. Phoenix44 permalink
    October 6, 2020 8:04 am

    Quite mad. Solar panels aren’t going to power anything at night so NATO forces will have to carry around a generator as well. So more stuff carted about at a higher cost and with higher emissions to do so. And nice glints panels during the day for the enemy to spot and target.

    All bonkers.

  23. dennisambler permalink
    October 6, 2020 9:28 am

    OT but important, via Lockdown Sceptics, sign this petition: https://gbdeclaration.org/
    You don’t have to be a health professional.

    This abuse of power is what they will use to force through the New Green Deal, Boris says that UK electricity will be totally supplied by offshore wind in the next ten years. (joke, but it’s at our expense).

    https://lockdownsceptics.org/
    “Three sceptical public health experts – Professor Martin Kulldorff (Harvard), Professor Sunetra Gupta (Oxford) and Professor Jay Bhattacharya (Stanford) – have come together in Great Barrington, Massachusetts to launch the Great Barrington Declaration, a petition calling on governments around the world to adapt a more proportionate approach to managing the pandemic that they call “Focused Protection”.

    They are the three main signatories, but the co-signatories include Dr Michael Levitt, Dr Gabriela Gomes and Professor Karol Sikora among others, as well as several scientific contributors to Lockdown Sceptics.”

    • MrGrimNasty permalink
      October 6, 2020 9:59 am

      Boris will say:

      “Your kettle, your washing machine, your cooker, your heating, your plug-in electric vehicle – the whole lot of them will get their juice cleanly and without guilt from the breezes that blow around these islands.”

      https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54421489

      By 2030 (with no allowance for EVs), I calculate we’d need 168GW name plate to do what Boris says in theory, but still wouldn’t work in reality.

      Using reasonable assumptions (household number growth 6.8% a decade) and industry standard figures (household electric + gas energy use + on/offshore combined capacity factor + 9GW for electric cars) I calculated we’d need about 200GW (name plate) of installed wind turbines to supply 100% of UK homes by 2050 (full time equivalent).

      But that still wouldn’t do it because that doesn’t include losses from the necessary storage etc.

      But storage is irrelevant as no storage system exists or will exist that could supply 200GW for 10 days if a winter anticyclone settled and wind was becalmed.

      So you also need (the cost of) 200GW of fossil/nuclear being inefficiently used.

      • MrGrimNasty permalink
        October 6, 2020 10:05 am

        Actually I used 2019 household figures for the base and forgot 1 decade of growth to 2030, make that 213GW!

  24. Coeur de Lion permalink
    October 6, 2020 9:42 am

    Joined the navy in 1948. Became a Cold War Warrior, leaving in 1989 when, to the horror of Moscow-funded CND ‘useful idiots’, we won. The system held up and under the umbrella of American nuclear deterrence, freedom lovers (Havel, Solidarnosc) flourished. My last piccy is me hacking a chunk off the Berlin Wall. I doubt the USA will continue to support a toothless greenie confabulation against the threats confronting Europe.

  25. Harry Passfield permalink
    October 6, 2020 9:46 am

    O/T: Boris is getting slain in comments on his idea for 100% wind over at the DT:
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/10/05/wind-power-every-home-within-10-years-boris-johnson-pledge/#comment

    • MrGrimNasty permalink
      October 6, 2020 10:01 am

      I’ve had a crack in a comment above ^. Boris is delusional and listening to liars or idiots.

      • El Toro permalink
        October 6, 2020 11:46 am

        If everything’s going to be powered by off-shore wind by 2030, why are we spending so much on new nuclear?

  26. C Lynch permalink
    October 6, 2020 10:11 am

    Off topic but interesting article in Telegraph today about autumn leaves. Apparently climate change is causing more frequent and severe storms in summer and autumn causing trees to lose their leaves earlier!?!
    It’s hard to know where to begin with this kind of sophistry. Quite apart from the fact that there is zero evidence that storms are becoming more frequent and severe – it has been an article of faith of CAGW theory from its inception that climate change is causing leaves to stay on trees later.
    No wonder so many of them these charlatans are trying to discredit Popper’s theory of falsifibility.

  27. October 6, 2020 11:46 am

    I suggest that Mr. Stoltenberg be worried, not about his troops getting hot in Iraq, but President Donald J. Trump getting hot about the latest NATO move. After all, it was President Trump who put the screws to the NATO nations and got them to cough up much of what they owed, but graciously allowed the United States to pay to keep their precious buns out of the fire. Europe is long overdue for a good old-fashioned swamp draining, beginning with the “faculty lounge” elitists.

  28. BLACK PEARL permalink
    October 6, 2020 12:00 pm

    Who is pulling all the strings on these people

  29. Brian permalink
    October 6, 2020 3:25 pm

    The costliest exercise of stupidity in human history. Why?

    https://notrickszone.com/2020/10/05/new-study-finds-robust-statistical-probability-temperature-drives-co2-changes-upending-scientific-perception/

    One can only hope that public outrage conveys the message to Boris – before the damage has become irreversible.

  30. Ralph permalink
    October 6, 2020 4:03 pm

    Weather forms when warm air and cold meet. The less the difference between warm and cold the milder the weather, something climate alarmist continually ignore and make their comments about extreme weather look silly.

  31. Shoki Kaneda permalink
    October 6, 2020 6:39 pm

    Shouldn’t they also be fighting for LGBTQXYZ rights?

  32. October 8, 2020 3:46 pm

    “And it means explicitly including climate change in NATO’s work to improve the resilience of Allies(sic?) and partners,…”

    Climate change can “improve the resilience of allies and partners?” HOW? Inefficiency never improves anything. That’s like saying eating sand can improve nutrition. Just saying it doesn’t make it so.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: