By Paul Homewood
Well, that did not last long then!
The French government is set to drop plans to introduce a carbon tax, French financial daily Les Echos said on Thursday.
The newspaper, quoting several sources, said the socialist government will not include the carbon tax in a draft 2016 budget update currently being discussed.
Environment Minister Segolene Royal had said in May that France would unilaterally introduce a carbon price floor of about 30 euros ($33) a tonne with a view to kickstart broader European action to cut emissions and drive forward the December 2015 United Nations-led international climate accord.
The plan had pushed power prices higher in the spring.
Les Echos quoted a source as saying that the measure is too complicated to put in place and might be unconstitutional.
The paper said that state-owned electric utility EDF, which produces mostly carbon-free nuclear power, was in favor of the measure, but that gas utility Engie SA had lobbied against the tax because it would make its gas-fired power plants less competitive than similar plants in neighboring countries.
A source close to the French government told Reuters that nothing had been decided yet on the carbon tax but confirmed there were doubts about it.
"In the current context, it is difficult, due to concerns about employment, legal difficulties and security of supply," the source said.
French power prices have spiked higher in recent weeks as a series of unplanned nuclear reactor closures have led to worries about security of supply.
The government is due to receive a report about the carbon tax in coming days and will decide on it mid-November, the source said.
Meanwhile the UK govt is still committed to a Carbon Price Support, a carbon tax in effect, of £18/tonne CO2, on top of the EU traded price for carbon.
By Paul Homewood
Wind power could supply up to 20 per cent of the world’s power needs by 2030, according to new analysis.
In its latest Wind Energy Outlook, released this week, the Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC) predicted that worldwide wind capacity could reach 2110 GW by 2030, with annual investment in the sector growing to €200bn ($220bn). By 2050, under GWEC’s best-case scenario, global installations could reach 5800 GW.
The world’s wind power installations totalled 433 GW at the end of 2015, with a record number of new projects amounting to 63 GW and representing a 17 per cent increase on 2014, the report found. China maintained its lead with capacity additions of 30.8 GW and an installed base of 145 GW, followed by the US with 74 GW, Germany with 45 GW, India at 25 GW, Spain with 23 GW and the UK with 13 GW. Also in 2015, Brazil entered the 10 GW+ bracket for the first time.
And the industry is set to grow by around 60 GW in 2016, GWEC predicted. However, challenges still remain for many regional markets. In Europe, where there are 148 GW installed, a cocktail of policy changes, economic crises and austerity measures is viewed as likely to produce a “difficult” year ahead, although a shift in investment away from fossil fuel-fired power could provide a boost, GWEC noted. In Asia, curtailment due to transmission bottlenecks remains a significant problem in the largest market, China, and a slowdown could be seen in 2017. Continuing growth is predicted for North America, where the US is experiencing a ‘wind rush’ due to unwonted policy stability.
“With new markets developing rapidly across Africa, Asia and Latin America; unprecedented policy stability in the US market; strong and continued commitment from India and China; and the rapidly dropping prices for wind power both on and offshore – on the whole things look very good for the industry,” GWEC said, adding that “but of course much could go wrong…history rarely follows the smooth curves in this and other reports. But at least now the direction of travel is the clearest it has ever been.”
The full report is available here.
We need to remember that the GWEC exists to promote the interests of wind farm operators, so we need to take this with a large pinch of salt. And as they say themselves, but of course much could go wrong…history rarely follows the smooth curves in this and other reports.
The target of 2110 GW is actually derived from their Advanced Scenario, the most optimistic of four. It would imply capacity of 112 GW added each year up to 2030, nearly double that added in 2015.
Their base case, New Policies Scenario, is much more realistic, already taking account of Paris and other commitments made by governments. Under this, wind capacity would be much lower by 2030, at 1259 GW.
But even assuming that the higher projection is correct, there is still another problem. The claim that wind could supply 20% of the world’s power is based on CURRENT electricity consumption.
It is widely accepted that electricity demand will increase sharply in years to come. The BP Energy Outlook reckons that demand will increase by 43% by 2035.
If we assume a figure of 40% for 2030, the claimed 20% share actually drops to 14%. The more realistic New Policies Scenario only amounts to 8%, compared to a current level of 3%.
And, of course, there is one more fly in the ointment – electricity only accounts for a fraction of total energy consumption. According to BP, the share of power generation will be 45%.
In other words, wind power will be unlikely to supply more than 4% of global energy consumption even by 2030.
And the cost for this paltry contribution? $220 billion a year, or $3.3 trillion in total.
By Paul Homewood
Dellers writes for Breitbart:
Alarmist scientists are trying to cover up the good news that rising CO2 levels are making the planet turn greener. And that even includes one of the scientists who made the discovery in the first place.
By Paul Homewood
h/t Green Sand
From the Telegraph:
National Grid is to be guaranteed a minimum of £1.3bn income for building the world’s longest subsea power cable to import electricity from Norway.
Energy regulator Ofgem on Tuesday announced plans for consumers to guarantee the utility giant at least £53m annual revenues for 25 years in return for its 50pc investment in the £1.4bn North Sea Link interconnector.
The 450-mile cable from Blyth in Northumberland to Kvilldal in Norway is due to be built by 2021 and will be the first electricity link between the two countries.
It will be able to import or export up to 1.4 gigawatts (GW) of electricity – enough to power about three quarters of a million UK homes.
Interconnector owners make their income by selling companies access to their cable to trade power.
However, Ofgem is keen to encourage investment in the cables and has introduced a "cap and floor" regime guaranteeing developers a minimum income, backed up by consumer subsidies if needed, while also limiting their total revenues.
Ofgem said the minimum £1.3bn revenue that National Grid would be guaranteed by consumers compared with estimated benefits to consumers of £3.5bn by accessing cheaper power from Norway.
The proposed cap has been set at £94m a year, or £2.3bn over the 25 year support regime. Beyond that, any revenues would be paid back to consumers.
The “cap and floor” guarantee covers revenues from selling of capacity and any payments received under the capacity market mechanism. Not included is revenue from actual electricity sold.
The cost of the arrangement is passed onto consumers, and is indexed to RPI.
Ofgem have based the guarantee on capacity utilisation of 93%, which therefore would yield 11.4 TWh annually. With a range of £53 to £94 million, this would yield a cost of £4.65 to £8.24 / MWh, on top of the electricity purchased from Norway.
It remains to be seen what price the latter will be.
By Paul Homewood
From The New American:
Expressing nostalgia for the days when just three establishment-controlled propaganda organs dominated the public narrative, President Obama lashed out at what he called the “wild, wild west” media landscape that allows non-establishment voices and viewpoints to be heard. Claiming that “censorship” would not be the answer, Obama called for Americans to submit to a vaguely defined (presumably government-run) “curating function” that would help “discard” unapproved information. Critics, though, warned that an increasingly desperate establishment was plotting all-out war on freedom of the press and the free Internet.
Speaking at an innovation conference in Pittsburgh last week, Obama called for what analysts said sounded like a government crackdown on free speech and online freedom. “We are going to have to rebuild within this wild-wild-west-of-information flow some sort of curating function that people agree to,” he argued, expressing concerns about “conspiracy theorists” and skeptics of the man-made global-warming theory having a platform. Other senior Obama officials, including former “regulatory czar” Cass Sunstein, have even proposed a government “ban” on conspiracy theorizing.
Praising the days when just three TV channels dominated the news and people still “generally” trusted their propaganda, Obama, implying Americans are too dumb to sort truth from lies without government help, said something had to be done about the free flow of information. “There has to be, I think, some sort of way in which we can sort through information that passes some basic truthiness tests and those that we have to discard, because they just don’t have any basis in anything that’s actually happening in the world,” Obama claimed. Apparently he was not referring to the establishment media-created alternate reality that is increasingly falling on deaf ears. Ironically, though, Obama has openly boasted about lying to the American people.
While short on details and how his scheming would square with the Constitution’s First Amendment, Obama’s comments sounded suspiciously totalitarian. “That is hard to do, but I think it’s going to be necessary, it’s going to be possible,” he said at the summit, without giving details on just how it would be done, much less how it would be done constitutionally. “The answer is obviously not censorship, but it’s creating places where people can say ‘this is reliable’ and I’m still able to argue safely about facts and what we should do about it.”
Some have speculated that Obama wants to create a government-run media organ, though that would probably have even less credibility than the government or the establishment media do now. Other analysts suggested that, despite the denial, censorship is exactly what Obama and the establishment have in mind. In the European Union, it is already well underway, with help from America’s biggest technology companies. Essentially, it sounded like Obama was calling for the establishment to set the acceptable parameters of debate, and then tolerate any views within the establishment-approved box while silencing any others.
“The way I would like to see us operate is, yes, significant debate and contentious debate, but where we are operating on the same basic platform, same basic rules, on how do we determine what’s true and what’s not,” Obama continued. “Everything on the internet looks like it might be true. And so in this political season, we’ve seen — you just say stuff. And so everything suddenly becomes contested. That I do not think is good for democracy, and it’s certainly not good for science, for progress, for government, for fixing systems.” Of course, America is a republic, but that is besides the point.
Read the full article here.
By Paul Homewood
From the “Pay us enough money, and we’ll prove that it’s worse than we thought” Dept of Climate Science:
By Paul Homewood
Tony Heller noted this juxtaposition of news from Indonesia this month.
So perhaps it is time to recall just what it was that Indonesia agreed to in the Paris Agreement.
My full analysis of Indonesia’s INDC, which the Carbon Tracker website rated as “Inadequate” from last November is here. But the gist of it is this:
The BAU case projects emissions of 2881 GtCO2e by 2030:
Therefore, a cut of 29% leaves a target of 2046 GtCO2e, still well above 2005 emissions of 1800 GtCO2e.
But this is not the whole story.
As the above makes clear, land use change accounts for 63% of all emissions, totally dwarfing the burning of fossil fuels. This figure reflects the enormous amount of forest that has been cut down, often to make room for palm oil and pulp wood plantations. On top of that, annual dry-season fires that are illegally started to clear land for plantations also release vast amounts of greenhouse gases, particularly when they burn peatlands that store large amounts of carbon.
At best, Indonesia’s INDC implies that such forest clearances will be racked back, and there is certainly no commitment to restore tropical forest lost. There is absolutely no commitment at all to reduce emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.
But even this appears to be an optimistic and naive assumption, as Carbon Tracker report:
Major issues with deforestation data and emissions
While the Indonesian Government’s data shows relatively stable deforestation emissions for the last decade, independent scientific sources indicate a strong increase in deforestation over the same time period. This has happened despite the fact that Indonesia has, temporarily, (2010–2016), prohibited the clearing of primary forest and the conversion of peat lands.
While the Government BAU projections for the future show emissions from deforestation as constant – or slightly decreasing over time – this does not appear to reflect the reality on the ground at present, which points towards increasing deforestation. We find that extrapolating the trend of forest cover loss from one recent study which shows a 20% increase in deforestation annually between 2001 and 2012, results in projected emission levels of above 1.7 GtCO2/year from LULUCF by 2030, roughly twice as high as all emissions in the sector under the Indonesian Government’s BAU. A draft version of Indonesia’s INDC indicated plans to protect 12.7 million hectares of forest areas by designating it to social forestry, ecosystem restoration, conservation and sustainable use (Government of Indonesia 2015). The final INDC no longer mentions these plans.
So Indonesia’s INDC is based upon worthless promises to reduce deforestation, while the consumption of coal, oil and gas is allowed to climb rapidly.
Little wonder then that coal consumption there has doubled since 2010, and tripled since 2005.
By Paul Homewood
Day 1 from the UN’s Habitat III conference in Quito.
This is how the UN have summarised its purpose.
This century will see a substantial majority of the world’s population living in urban centers. The Habitat III Conference therefore has, as its mission, the adoption of a New Urban Agenda—an action-oriented document which will set global standards of achievement in sustainable urban development, rethinking the way we build, manage, and live in cities through drawing together cooperation with committed partners, relevant stakeholders, and urban actors at all levels of government as well as the private sector.
CFACT’s senior policy analyst, Bonner Cohen writes:
In a world repeatedly described as under threat from innumerable challenges, including income inequality, inadequate urban infrastructure, discrimination against minorities of every stripe, and climate change, participants at the UN’s Habitat III conference in Quito, Ecuador were told that comprehensive planning aimed at densely concentrating people in urban areas offered the best way forward to a “sustainable” future.
Addressing Habitat III on the conference’s first day, Serge Salat, director of the Urban Morphology Lab in France, said compact cities with residents living as close as possible to public transportation should be the goal of urban planners. He noted that ready access to public transportation would mean residents would no longer need cars to take them to work and recreation. This, he added, would make forward-looking cities leaders in the fight against climate change. Salat’s panel at Habitat III discussed green solutions to climate change and other urban problems. Salat, it should be noted is an adviser to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Creating Open Spaces and Wild Areas
According to Salat, the city all should embrace as a role model is Stockholm, Sweden. Stockholm, he noted, has created open space “buffer zones” – essentially parkland – running all through it. Just beyond the open space are areas set aside for wildlife, what he termed “wilderness corridors.” With few exceptions, the only place where residential and commercial property is available is in Stockholm proper.
In other words, by making land off limits for people to live and work, they will have little choice but to settle in densely populated urban areas. If parents prefer raising a family in a suburban environment, they will have to think again. Under this scheme, central planners will stack the deck in favor of compact cities.
The New Urban Agenda and the World’s Poor
Welcome to Habitat III’s “New Urban Agenda.” UN functionaries, green NGOs, and their allies in national governments want to see this top-down, globalized agenda imposed around the world.
During an opening of the Habitat III plenary session, speakers constantly said that the world’s poor are “the most vulnerable.” They’re right. But what they refuse to see is that their schemes will put the poor at even greater risk. Limiting the amount of land that is available for homes drives up the cost of housing. Promoting unreliable and unaffordable renewable energy drives up the cost of electricity. In both cases, it’s the poor who end up on the short end of the stick.
By Paul Homewood
Matt Ridley has given the 2016 Annual GWPF lecture at the Royal Society. I strongly suggest you bookmark it, as it is a comprehensive condemnation of current climate policies:
By Paul Homewood
In 2006, Vinther et al published a paper, “Extending Greenland temperature records into the late 18thC”. Below is the Abstract:
Since, they have updated the study, to include temperatures up to 2013. The temperature trends now look like this:
As we are well aware, 2010 was an anomalously warm year, but other than that no year this century has been warmer than 1929, 1941 and 1947.
We also know that the last two years in Nuuk have continued the downward trend.
It is clear that temperatures in SW Greenland saw a dramatic shift upwards during the late 19thC, culminating in the 1940s. But since then there is no evidence at all of the climate becoming warmer, simply a cyclical pattern of cooling/warming.
This, of course, is not what GHG theory predicts.