Climate Initiatives

Alarmist Climate Consensus Collapses

Posted on by Ron Clutz

‘There is No Climate Emergency’ (1,107 Signatories and Counting)

The World Climate Declaration (Global Climate Intelligence Group) follows:

    • There is no climate emergency Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures.
    • Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming. The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming.
    • Warming is far slower than predicted. The world has warmed significantly less than predicted by IPCC on the basis of modeled anthropogenic forcing. The gap between the real world and the modeled world tells us that we are far from understanding climate change.
    • Climate policy relies on inadequate models Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools. They do not only exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases, they also ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.
    • CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. More CO2 is favorable for nature, greening our planet. Additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also profitable for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.
    • Global warming has not increased natural disasters There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent. However, there is ample evidence that CO2 mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly.
    • Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050. Go for adaptation instead of mitigation; adaptation works whatever the causes are.

Our advice to the European leaders is that Science should strive for a significantly better understanding of the Climate System, while Politics should focus on minimizing potential climate damage by priortizing adapation strategies based on proven and affordable technologies

COP27 is several months ahead. The world is recommitting itself to fossil fuels, while only government largesse keeps the wind/solar/battery gravy train going. Global Climate Intelligence Group’s World Climate Declaration stands as a beacon light to a wholly different approach of free-market adaptation, not government mitigation.

See also CLINTEL Declaration Essay

 

Wasting Money on Carbon Capture

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Robert Bryce explains in his Real Clear Energy article Carbon Capture Didn’t Make Sense 12 Years Ago And It Doesn’t Make Sense Now.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

It appears the reconciliation bill that includes some $370 billion in energy-related spending is going to become law. The measure includes a panoply of tax credits for alternative energy technologies, including incentives for electric vehicles, hydrogen, energy storage, and of course, billions of dollars in tax credits for wind and solar energy.

The measure also includes, according to the Congressional Budget Office, some $3.2 billion in tax credits for carbon capture and sequestration, a technology that has plenty of supporters but precious little in the way of commercially successful projects. Back in 2018, Al Gore blasted CCS, calling it “nonsense” and an “extremely improbable solution.”

The new tax credits for CCS remind me that I published a piece in the New York Times on May 12, 2010, about the technology. In looking back, the piece is still relevant today. In fact, I wouldn’t change a word of it. Furthermore, my prediction about the difficulty of siting the pipelines needed to move the CO2 has already come true. For proof, see this August 6, Wall Street Journal article about the opposition to a proposed CO2 pipeline in Iowa.

In any case here’s my 12-year-old take on why CCS is a bad bet:

On Wednesday, John Kerry and Joseph Lieberman introduced their long-awaited Senate energy bill, which includes incentives of $2 billion per year for carbon capture and sequestration, the technology that removes carbon dioxide from the smokestack at power plants and forces it into underground storage. This significant allocation would come on top of the $2.4 billion for carbon capture projects that appeared in last year’s stimulus package.

That’s a lot of money for a technology whose adoption faces three potentially insurmountable hurdles: it greatly reduces the output of power plants; pipeline capacity to move the newly captured carbon dioxide is woefully insufficient; and the volume of waste material is staggering. Lawmakers should stop perpetuating the hope that the technology can help make huge cuts in the United States’ carbon dioxide emissions.

1. An Energy Intensive Process

Let’s take the first problem. Capturing carbon dioxide from the flue gas of a coal-fired electric generation plant is an energy-intensive process. Analysts estimate that capturing the carbon dioxide cuts the output of a typical plant by as much as 28 percent.

Given that the global energy sector is already straining to meet booming demand for electricity, it’s hard to believe that the United States, or any other country that relies on coal-fired generation, will agree to reduce the output of its coal-fired plants by almost a third in order to attempt carbon capture and sequestration.

2. Costly Pipelines for a Waste Gas

Here’s the second problem. The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory has estimated that up to 23,000 miles of new pipeline will be needed to carry the captured carbon dioxide to the still-undesignated underground sequestration sites. That doesn’t sound like much when you consider that America’s gas pipeline system sprawls over some 2.3 million miles. But those natural gas pipelines carry a valuable, marketable, useful commodity.

By contrast, carbon dioxide is a worthless waste product, so taxpayers would likely end up shouldering most of the cost. Yes, some of that waste gas could be used for enhanced oil recovery projects; flooding depleted oil reservoirs with carbon dioxide is a proven technology that can increase production and extend the life of existing oilfields. But the process would be useful in only a limited number of oilfields — probably less than 10 percent of the waste carbon dioxide captured from coal-fired power plants could actually be injected into American oilfields.

3. Impossibly Massive Scale

The third, and most vexing, problem has to do with scale. In 2009, carbon dioxide emissions in the United States totaled 5.4 billion tons. Let’s assume that policymakers want to use carbon capture to get rid of half of those emissions — say, 3 billion tons per year. That works out to about 8.2 million tons of carbon dioxide per day, which would have to be collected and compressed to about 1,000 pounds per square inch (that compressed volume of carbon dioxide would be roughly equivalent to the volume of daily global oil production).

In other words, we would need to find an underground location (or locations) able to swallow a volume equal to the contents of 41 oil supertankers each day, 365 days a year.

There will also be considerable public resistance to carbon dioxide pipelines and sequestration projects — local outcry has already stalled proposed carbon capture projects in Germany and Denmark. The fact is, few landowners are eager to have pipelines built across their property. And because of the possibility of deadly leaks, few people will want to live near a pipeline or an underground storage cavern. This leads to the obvious question: which members of the House and Senate are going to volunteer their states to be dumping grounds for all that carbon dioxide?

For some, carbon capture and sequestration will remain the Holy Grail of carbon-reduction strategies. But before Congress throws yet more money at the procedure, lawmakers need to take a closer look at the issues that hamstring nearly every new energy-related technology: cost and scale.

Footnote:  The project is not only impractical, its deluded objective is to deprive the biosphere of plant food.

In Defense of Fertilizers, Farmers and Food

Posted on by Ron Clutz

The UN and WEF have declared a War on Fertilizers with conflicts erupting in Sri Lanka, the Netherlands and Canada.  Fear of “greenhouse gases”  provide the moral justification for mandating reductions in the production and use of fertilizers.

This will in turn deprive many farmers of their way of life.  As a group, farmers belong to the “yeomanry” social class: independent, self-reliant small businessmen and women who don’t trust government and want it only to leave them alone.  This makes them (like truckers) public enemies no.1, according to the control freaks increasingly entrenched in public authorities.

Most important is the objective to take over and regulate the food supply, along with governmental direction of the energy sector.  The reason for this was well articulated by Leon Trotsky decades ago.

U.N. War On Fertilizer Began in Sri Lanka

Michael Shellenberger:  UN Environment Programme launched its anti-fertilizer efforts from Sri Lanka in 2019

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) describes itself as “the global authority that sets the environmental agenda… and serves as an authoritative advocate for the global environment.” Through its “Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for Agriculture and Food” program launched in 2014, the UNEP advocates that nations “steer away from the prevailing focus on per hectare productivity.”

But today the world is in its worst food crisis since 2008.

The number of people suffering acute food insecurity increased by 25% since January 2022 to 345 million, according to the United Nations World Food Programme. Why, then, is the UNEP trying to steer nations away from fertilizers that increase food production?

The UNEP’s Acting Director in 2019 said the reason was humankind’s “long-term interference with the Earth’s nitrogen balance.” In October of that year, the UNEP hosted a meeting in the capital of Sri Lanka, Colombo and issued a “road map” to push nations to cut nitrogen pollution in half.

But the Netherlands proves that nations can slash nitrogen pollution
from livestock by 70% while also increasing meat production. Same for crops.

Since the early 1960s, the Netherlands has doubled its yields while using the same amount of fertilizer. While rich nations produce 70 percent higher yields than poor nations, they use just 54 percent more nitrogen.

One month after the Colombo meeting in 2019, which generated significant media attention in Sri Lanka, voters in that nation elected an anti-fertilizer president, H.E. Gotabaya Rajapaksa, who claimed, without scientific evidence, that synthetic fertilizers were causing kidney diseases. In April 2021, he banned fertilizer imports.

In June, 2021, two months after the fertilizer ban, Sri Lanka hosted a UN-sponsored “Food System Dialogue” aimed at influencing the UN’s broader anti-fertilizer agenda for the world. “Sri Lanka’s inaugural Food System Dialogue is part of a series of national and provincial dialogues conducted by the Ministry of Agriculture ahead of the 2021 UN Food System Summit set to take place in New York later this year.”

Netherlands and Canada Invoke Nitrous Oxide (N2O) Hysteria

LifeSiteNews While the event went mostly unreported, a large group of Canadians formed a convoy late last month in Winnipeg, Manitoba to voice their support for Dutch farmers currently protesting their government’s fertilizer reduction policies.

In the footage, many of the vehicles can be seen donning the Netherlands flag, with some of the flags being flown upside-down, which is a practice done throughout the world as a way to signal distress.

One large tractor had a sign on it that read, “No fertilizers, No Farmers, No food,” while a pick-up truck had a sign reading, “Government is lying. Fight for freedom.”

As reported by LifeSiteNews, for the past month farmers in the Netherlands have been protesting the fertilizer reduction policies put forward by their World Economic Forum-linked Prime Minister, Mark Rutte.

Under the guise of “climate change,” Rutte and his government have created a “nitrogen and nature” ministry to curb nitrogen oxide and ammonia emissions in the country, and told farmers that failure to comply with the new policies would lead to an expropriation of their land.

According to the Dutch farmers, compliance with the policies would mean far smaller crop yields and insufficient food production – nitrogen and ammonia are integral ingredients in fertilizers – and would lead to a massive loss of income or having to sell their farms altogether.

Despite the pleas of thousands of farmers to have the implementation of the policies reconsidered, Rutte dismissed the group as “small” and “unacceptable,” echoing the statement made by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau earlier this year, when he called the anti-COVID mandate “Freedom Convoy” protesters in his country a “small, fringe minority.”

In addition to the similar attitude they express to disgruntled citizens, both politicians are members of the World Economic Forum, and have both signed their countries up for the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

In fact, a December 2020 press release from Canada’s Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food shows that Trudeau has been planning to implement fertilizer policies similar to those being imposed by Rutte for quite some time.

“However, nitrous oxide emissions, particularly those associated with synthetic nitrogen fertilizer use have also grown significantly. That is why the Government of Canada has set the national fertilizer emissions reduction target, which is part of the commitment to reduce total GHG emissions in Canada by 40-45% by 2030, as outlined in Canada’s Strengthened Climate Plan,” adds the release, which includes references to “the 2030 Agenda” and the U.N.’s “17 Sustainable Development Goals.”

The World of N2O

Just as CO2 is a small part of a planetary Carbon Cycle, so too is N2O an even smaller part of a global Nitrogen cycle.  Some charts below provide a perspective on how N2O fits into a larger picture.

Sources of Atmospheric N2O

Source: Global Carbon Project

The chart above shows several important things to know.  First, the atmospheric inputs of N20 from natural sources are about 60% and human sources 40%.  Note that the estimates of inputs have a range of +/- 20% for natural sources, and +/- 50% for human sources.  Over time N2O breaks down into the main atmospheric gases N2 and O2.  No uncertainty is provided for the removal of N2O, leading to suspicion it is not measured but calculated to make a balance.

Source: Global Monitoring Laboratory

The second chart informs on the scale of N2O concentrations.  At first glance, it appears comparable to CO2, but on closer inspection the amounts are in ppb (parts per billion), not ppm (parts per million) as with CO2.  To get comparable amounts requires dividing by 1000, thus the vertical axis goes from 0.315 ppm to 0.340 ppm.  Yes, the dramatic rise over the last 22 years is 0.025ppm.

Then we have the annual global increase of N2O from all sources ranging from about 0.5 to 1.3 ppb.  Does anyone believe they can measure N2O down to 0.0005 ppm?

Then there is the matter that Nitrous oxide emissions in the United States decreased by 5% between 1990 and 2020. During this time, nitrous oxide emissions from mobile combustion decreased by 61% as a result of emission control standards for on-road vehicles. Nitrous oxide emissions from agricultural soils have varied during this period and were about the same in 2020 as in 1990. So any increases came from elsewhere, including the majority natural sources.

About Global Warming Potential

IPCC puts out a table like the Ten Commandments listing the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of all the “greenhouse gases.”  CO2 is assigned “1”, and all others are given a number as a multiple of CO2.  As noted above N2O is assigned ~300, making it a fearful GHG, depending of course on how much warming CO2 actually generates.

Source: GHG Institute

There are no details on the N2O GWP calculation of 300, but one suspects it is mainly due to the projected long residence time (100+ years) compared to about 5 years for CO2 (much shorter for CH4).  But no matter the half-life of N2O, consider the above absorption spectra of ghgs.  Note that N2O has no peaks, more like three pimples, all on the low energy longer IR wavelengths.  Moreover, the one at 4.5m overlaps entirely with CO2, the second at 7.9m is overwhelmed by H2O, and the third at 17.0m can only absorb what CO2 has not.

Getting Perspective on N2O Climate Fear

The Claim:  Nitrous Oxide is claimed to be a GHG 300 times as powerful as CO2; claimed to cause 7.5% of warming effect.  Nitrous oxide is a potent greenhouse gas with an atmospheric half-life of 120 years.  Environmentalists and ecologists share the consensus that there should be an 80% reduction in the total greenhouse gases below the 1990 level.

The Facts:

Start with a wholistic picture of IR active gases (so-called “GHGs”) .  H20 is 95% of all such gases, water vapor in the atmosphere ranging from 0 to 4%.  CO2 is a trace gas by comparison, 4% of GHGs, at 400 ppm, amounting to 0.04% of the atmosphere, presumed to be well mixed in the troposphere.

Consider that claimed N2O IR activity is less than 1%.  And in fact constitutes roughly 1/1000 of the gold blocks representing CO2.  An earlier graph showed N2O is presently ~ 0.340 ppm, or 0.00034% of the atmosphere.

Add in the estimation by Dr. Happer regarding IR activity in our atmosphere.  The black line shows gases absorbing radiation at various wavelengths from near IR on the left (shorter wave, higher energy) to far IR on the right (longer wave, lower energy). The big black line notch in the 600s is CO2 absorption in its modern concentration of 400 ppm.  The red line shows what will be the absorption should CO2 double in amount to 800 ppm. [See Climate Change and CO2 Not a Problem]

Notice that the difference between the red and black lines is miniscule. Notice also the microscopic effects of N2O across the spectrum.  Mathematically, 300 times miniscule = negligible.

Summary

This is a bogus war on fertilizers, farmers and food.  Everything is exaggerated for the sake of an extreme agenda to impose controls on free enterprise developed societies.  It is true that use of fertilizers results in some release of N2O into the air, but even this has been overstated. And as the video demonstrates, farmers have a vested interest in using fertilizers wisely and are applying techniques that improve efficiency.  As well, there is evidence of efficiency gains in the process of producing ammonia and then urea from air and natural gas.  The attack on food supply is in effect an effort to reduce the population.

Footnote The Living Soil

“Green” Mentality

 

 

 

Perils of Everything Electrified

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Mark Krebs exposes the unreality of the current drive to electrify everything, including vehicles and home heating. His Master Resource article is All-Electric Forcing in the “Inflation Reduction Act” (up to $14,000 per home).  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

Basics of Peak Demand: Electric vs. Gas

Traditionally, both electric utilities and gas utilities designed peak capacity for worst-case scenarios plus a safety margin of around 10 percent. Electric utilities were summer-peaking due to cooling demand, while gas utilities were winter peaking due to heating demand.

In terms of maximum Btu demand, winter peaks tend to be much higher than summer peaks. The reason is largely a matter of inside to outside temperature differences between summer peaks and winter peaks. For example, assuming a winter design temperature of -10 deg F. and an interior thermostat setpoint of 75 deg. F, the difference is 85 deg. F. Assuming a summer design temperature of 110 deg. F. and the same interior thermostat setpoint of 75 deg. F, the difference is less than half the winter difference.

Without gas utilities to serve heating demand,
electric utilities will become winter peaking,
requiring massive investments of generating capacity and/or battery storage.

The worst-case scenario would then be a prolonged “polar vortex” with no wind (a.k.a., “wind drought”) coupled with snow covered photovoltaics. During such periods, all the heat from a typical electric heat pump will be in the form of electric resistance that is built into it; that’s just how typical heat pumps work.

If your local electric utility has “transitioned’ to all renewables, they will need several days’ worth of battery storage. Also, battery capacity drops sharply in extreme cold. That’s just how batteries work. Altogether, this equates to astronomical costs that get passed on to consumers. In short, if you are “all-electric,” you will need to fend for yourself and should at least consider investing in your own emergency generator system, assuming you can afford it.

Shame on Electric Utility Industry Who Know Better

The electric utility industry deserves much of the blame for these travesties. Leading electric utility industry trade associations support HR 5376. This was documented by an S&P Capital IQ on July 28th in an article (behind a paywall) titled “US climate package contains ‘robust’ clean energy tax incentives.”

What the article inadvertently documented is that the electric utility industry doesn’t like how they too may see income tax increases, and they aren’t holding back their disapproval of such provisions. But, on the other hand, the Federal government is essentially transferring the energy delivered by gas utilities over to electric utilities, and they will be collecting more revenue from increasingly captive consumers as their size at least doubles.

The electric utilities are not complaining about that. Maybe that will change in time as electric utilities realize their product is no longer reliable or affordable. But that may not matter since they became “the only game in town.”

Some of us saw this coming. Electric utility interests have been aligned with those of “all renewables all the time” advocates for several years. This alliance was announced in 2018 at a national conference of utility regulators, which I wrote about: Warring Against Natural Gas: Joint EEI/NRDC Statement to NARUC (crony environmentalism at work). Their efforts are largely being augmented by the Federal government subsidies and DOE’s “national labs,” since the Biden (mis)Administration took control or the lack thereof).

Let Consumers Freeze in the Dark

Politicians and pundits from both parties appear reluctant to question obvious restraint of trade issues and reduced consumer choice impacts. Why?

♦  For politicians, it’s because their interests lie elsewhere, like using “other peoples money” to trade with vested interests in return for campaign donations and insider information. It’s also because they don’t want to risk a reduction in generous campaign contributions from electric utility interests. [1]

♦  For pundits, it’s because most of them cater to environmental interests that are “in on it.” They even have their own trade association: The Society of Environmental Journalism. The one thing they do best is to “stick to the script.”

But who wrote the script? Globalists and global warming activists along with electric utility-oriented organizations like the “nonprofit” Rewiring America boast about their role in drafting these provisions. This is further evidenced by the following yahoo finance article: Inflation Reduction Act would lead to $1,800 in savings for average household, analysis finds.

We have recently begun to witness how Green New Deal variants are failing within the EU. We are also witnessing how the inherent intermittency of renewables put lives at risk. Now “reimagine” the combination of “all renewables all the time” and a major cold weather emergency event (a.k.a., “polar vortex”) like what happened in Texas last year. Further “reimagine” being without coal or natural gas for electric generation as well as natural gas and propane for home heating.

People will die at a far great pace than the 247 that died in Texas last year from Winter Storm Uri. This vicious cycle will just get worse the more reliant our society becomes upon on supposedly “clean” (but unreliable) energy sources. And yet, most politicians are reluctant allow for an opportunity for healthy/democratic debate. Instead, most House and Senate hearings have become infomercials for monied interests.

Renewables Forcing: How Much, How Far

The following EIA based graphic from a recent Washington Post article portrays the magnitude of transforming (perhaps unwittingly) the present energy generation mix to renewables. But be reminded, they are also planning to transfer the energy requirements presently served by the direct use of natural gas over to electricity. This could easily double or triple electric generation requirements. That effect isn’t shown in the following chart.

Another observation to be made from the above chart is that there is still a lot of black (coal) and orange (natural gas) in them. Basically, this means that switching to all-electric may have little if any carbon reduction benefits in such states. It is likely that in at least some states, fuel switching to electricity will increase carbon emissions. So “buyer beware” (in terms of both carbon savings and utility bill savings).

Clearly, the electric utility industry stands to profit from doubling (or more) in size and rate-basing much more expensive renewable technologies, all with the increased cost of “monopoly rents.” The environmentalists also get what they’ve craved: economic control.

Together, they can achieve social control; awarding energy compliance and
punishing energy disobedience; like how the system presently works in China.

Summary & Conclusions

For whatever reason, the gas utility industry has not been very effective in countering these threats. I really don’t have an explanation why, but most gas utilities are owned by electric utilities. This fact is also reflected within gas utility trade associations.

All I know for sure is complacency kills and gas utilities will either capitulate or litigate. I also know that the “Inflation Reduction Act” will cause $billions in stranded gas utility assets.

My advice to gas utilities:

♦  Assuming there is still “fight in the dog,” it’s time to start fighting like your livelihoods (and those of your customers) depend on it, because they do.

♦  Also study up on the takings clause in the constitution and find a way to live with the long-term liability of safeguarding our country’s abandoned gas pipes.

My advice to consumers:

♦  Be prepared to fend for yourself by investing in a natural gas or propane-fueled emergency generator system (if you can afford one). But note that if you have an electric heat pump, you’re going to need a much larger generator than if you didn’t.

I also have some closing advice to regulators: Do your job. Integrated Resource Planning (IRP) should not be Institutionalized Revenue Plundering and Demand-Side Management (DSM) should not be Deceptive/Strategic Marketing. Instead, reconsider Least-Cost Planning that was the standard before it was hijacked by corrupted IRP and DSM.

 

No Stopping Wind and Solar in Cal and NY States

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Hecate Energy, a developer, owner and operator of renewable power projects and energy storage solutions, has received state approval of its siting application for the 500 MW Cider Solar Farm in New York.

Wondering where will be spent hundreds of billions of US$ from the climate bill?  Two states have the inside track by abolishing citizens’ rights regarding siting of renewables projects. Matthew Eisenson explains at the Columbia Climate Law Blog New California Law Allows State to Bypass Local Restrictions in Siting Large-Scale Renewables.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

On June 30, 2022, the State of California joined the State of New York in adopting legislation that allows state authorities to bypass local laws in permitting large-scale renewable energy projects.

California’s new law, AB 205, gives the California Energy Commission (the “commission”) exclusive authority to issue a certificate for any:

(a) photovoltaic solar facility, on-shore wind facility, or thermal energy facility not powered by fossil fuels or nuclear fuels, with a generating capacity of at least 50 megawatts (MW);
(b) energy storage system with a storage capacity of least 200 megawatt hours;
(c) electric transmission line from any such generating or storage facility to an interconnected transmission system; and
(d) facility that manufactures, produces, or assembles wind, solar, or storage systems, with a capital investment of at least $250,000,000 over a period of 5 years. See California Public Resources Code § 25545(b).

AB 205 explicitly supersedes local permitting and local ordinances.

Specifically, it provides that the commission’s issuance of a certificate shall:

“be in lieu of any permit, certificate, or similar document required by any state, local, or regional agency,” id. § 25545.1(b)(1) (emphasis added); and
“supersede any applicable statute, ordinance, or regulation of any state, local, or regional agency,” id. (emphasis added).

The law further requires that applications be decided expeditiously, providing that:

“[w]ithin 30 days of the submission of the application, the commission shall review the application and make a determination of completeness,” id. § 25545.4(a) (emphasis added); and
“no later than 270 days after the application is deemed complete, or as soon as practicable thereafter, the commission shall determine whether to certify the environmental impact report and to issue a certificate” unless an exception applies, id. § 25545.4(e)(1) 

July 26, 2022 Cider Solar Farm is to be built on nearly 3,000 acres across the towns of Elba and Oakfield. Hecate Energy anticipates starting construction on the solar farm by 2023.

In New York State likewise the Accelerated Renewable Energy Growth and Community Benefit Act of 2020, as codified at New York Executive Law § 94-c, charges the Office of Renewable Energy Siting (ORES) with responsibility for permitting “major renewable energy facilities,” which include: (a) renewable energy facilities of at least 25 MW; (b) co-located energy storage systems; and (c) associated electric transmission systems less than 10 miles in length. See Exec. Law § 94-c(2)(h). Developers of renewable energy facilities of at least 20 MW but less than 25 MW may also submit applications to ORES. Id. § 94-c(4)(g).

While those applying for a permit to construct a major renewable energy facility in New York must “consult[] with the municipality or political subdivision where the project is proposed to be located . . . [concerning] the procedural and substantive requirements of local law,” ORES is authorized to set aside local laws on a case by case basis when deciding whether or not to grant a permit. Specifically, the law provides that ORES:

“may elect not to apply, in whole or in part, any local law or ordinance which would otherwise be applicable if it makes a finding that, as applied to the proposed major renewable energy facility, it is unreasonably burdensome in view of the CLCPA targets and the environmental benefits of the proposed major renewable energy facility.”

Id. § 94-c(5)(e) (emphasis added).

In addition, New York’s siting law, like California’s new siting law, requires that applications for large-scale renewables be decided expeditiously. In particular, ORES must:

determine within 60 days whether the application is complete, id. § 94-c(5)(b); and
make a final determination on a siting permit within one year of determining that an application is complete or within six months if the project is to be sited on an existing or abandoned commercial use, id. § 94-c(5)(f).

Notwithstanding these two laws, local restrictions remain a major impediment
to siting renewable energy projects in the United States.

As of March 2022, the Sabin Center had identified 121 local ordinances across the country to block or restrict renewable energy facilities. These policies range from outright bans to temporary moratoria to zoning restrictions so severe that they effectively preclude renewable energy projects. State authorities in California and New York now have the power to bypass such restrictions. However, in most states, there is no legislation allowing state authorities to do so.

Replacing the now closed Indian point nuclear power plant with wind turbines would require land the size of Albany county NY. (320,000 acres)

 

 

Climate Cult Set to Spike Victims of Climate Policy

Posted on by Ron Clutz

The quote is updated with one additional word. Unfortunately, we have today no statesman who is so truthful.

Tyler Durden explains at his zerohedge article The Climate Cult is Eager to Take Advantage of Europe’s Energy Crisis.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

The climate cult never sleeps, and when they see nations in crisis they are always quick to try to exploit the situation by misrepresenting the root problem.  

A heat wave is currently hitting Europe along with wild fires and the mainstream media is beating the global warming drum hard.  This is nothing new; every time the weather gets hot they cry “climate change!”  Every time the weather is extra cold they once again cry “climate change!”  The evidence?  What about the “record heat” in parts of UK, Spain and Portugal?  This is surely proof that the weather is being ruined by that terrible menace known as man-made carbon?

Of course, what they don’t tell you is that the official record for weather and temperatures used by climate scientists only goes back about 140 years (it started in the 1880s). So, millions upon millions of years of Earth weather, and they only count 140 years of it to determine “record temps?” They tend to ignore ice core and tree ring data from centuries ago that indicate much hotter warming periods in our planet’s history (none of which were caused by man-made carbon emissions). In comparison, today’s temperatures are rather tame.

The Earth’s overall temperatures have only risen by 1° Celsius in the past century; this was actually the peak and currently temps have evened out to an increase of 0.8°C. This is the great climate doomsday we are all supposed to be terrified of. This is the looming threat we are supposed to sacrifice all fossil fuel based energy production for – Less than a single degree of heat.

Global warming theory claims added CO2 systematically raises surface temperatures. On the contrary all of the recent warming is episodic, associated with oceanic El Nino events.

It’s important to put the frantic climate change narrative into concrete perspective because the vast majority of climate science is paid for by governments and special interest organizations like the UN, the World Economic Forum and many other globalist groups with an agenda in mind. On average, these governments and institutions spend around $632 billion per year on climate research funding and climate policy initiatives (which they call “meager”). Their goal is to increase this cash flow to $4 trillion by the year 2030. The incentives to jump on the man-made climate change train are MASSIVE; there is almost no monetary incentive for scientists that want to study other potential causes for climate events.

The notion of the stalwart and incorruptible scientist that seeks objective truth rather than cash and notoriety is long dead. Honest scientists are few and far between these days (especially in the medical and climate science fields), and perhaps it has always been that way. The “experts” cannot be blindly trusted because they are just as susceptible to bias and corruption as anyone else.

Climate change hysteria is a nothing burger, but it is being actively promoted by the media to obscure very real threats that the public faces in the near term.

One of those threats is energy shortages, and climate regulations have put a stranglehold on many nations and their ability to adapt. The EU is now implementing carbon policies that call for a 55% reduction of emissions by 2030. Meaning, no new fossil fuel sources are supposed to be utilized. Only reductions are allowed.

Climate scientists and global elitists claim that climate change is the paramount issue of the century and must be dealt with immediately and by any means necessary. They haven’t presented a single shred of hard evidence to support this assertion, but they dictate the policies of most western governments so they don’t really need to. They just initiate restrictions without public input.

In reality, perhaps the greatest threat since WWII is about to land like a hydrogen bomb
in the laps of the European public.

Panic is beginning to take shape as Russia cuts natural gas supplies to the EU down to 20% of their original capacity and alternative sources simply do not exist on a scale that can take up the slack. A large portion of oil exports have also been shut down, and European governments are NOT informing the citizenry of the true gravity of the situation.

At current energy import rates, at least 40% of Europe
will not be able to heat their homes in the winter.

EU plans to replace Russian energy sources in the near term have also been deemed “wildly optimistic.” In other words, the EU public is screwed, and many of them still don’t realize it yet because the government won’t admit it. A disaster of epic proportions is about to strike and this isn’t even counting the enormous price hikes that are coming for the other 60% of people that will still have gas supplies available.

But the climate cult is not letting this visceral reality get in their way. To them, the crisis is an opportunity. A new narrative is rising among intergovernmental bodies, the media and among climate activists; they say this impending disaster is actually “good for Europe” in the long run, because it forces citizens to accept energy reduction policies and carbon controls which climate scientists and globalists have been demanding for years. Inflation in prices means shrinking demand and cuts in the supply chain mean resources are quashed even if demand remains high. Energy is being suffocated slowly leaving room for a “Green New Deal” of sorts.

So, it’s good for the globalists and their agenda, but not really good for anyone else that has to live through harsh winter months with no heat and limited electricity.

If the current trend continues without a dramatic change in the way Europe throttles fossil fuel energy, then there is the very real potential for mass deaths this winter. This is not hyperbole, this is a mathematical certainty. The continued push for even more climate restrictions at this time is making the situation much worse.

There is no impending threat due to climate change, but there is an impending threat due to energy shortages. Europeans need to ask themselves – Why are their governments setting them up for calamity over a non-existent climate bogeyman? Without increased fossil fuel energy from numerous sources including coal and oil the EU is on the path to a historic tragedy this winter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Trudeau Wants Canada to Imitate the Dutch and Sri Lanka

Posted on by Ron Clutz

From The Counter Signal, in italics with my bolds

As per a Government of Saskatchewan news release, both the Alberta and Saskatchewan’s Ministers of Agriculture have expressed “profound disappointment” in Trudeau’s decision to attempt to reduce nitrogen emissions from fertilizer.

“We’re really concerned with this arbitrary goal,” Saskatchewan Minister of Agriculture David Marit said. “The Trudeau government has apparently moved on from their attack on the oil and gas industry and set their sights on Saskatchewan farmers.”

According to Alberta Agriculture Minister Nate Horner, “This has been the most expensive crop anyone has put in, following a very difficult year on the prairies. The world is looking for Canada to increase production and be a solution to global food shortages. The Federal government needs to display that they understand this. They owe it to our producers.”

“Fertilizers play a major role in the agriculture sector’s success and have contributed to record harvests in the last decade. They have helped drive increases in Canadian crop yields, grain sales, and exports,” a news release from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada reads.

And indeed, according to a report from Fertilizer Canada:

    • Total Emission Reduction puts a cap on the total emissions allowable from fertilizer at 30% below 2020 levels. As the yield of Canadian crops is directly linked to proper fertilizer application this creates a ceiling on Canadian agricultural productivity well below 2020 levels….
    • It is estimated that a 30% absolute emission reduction for a farmer with 1000 acres of canola and 1000 acres of wheat, stands to have their profit reduced by approximately $38,000 – $40,500/ annually.
    • In 2020, Western Canadian farmers planted approximately 20.8 million acres of canola. Using these values, cumulatively farm revenues from canola could be reduced by $396M – $441M on an annual basis. Wheat famers could experience a reduction of $400M.

Moreover, Fertilizer Canada doesn’t believe that forcibly decreasing fertilizer use will even lower greenhouse gases but could lead to carbon leakage elsewhere.

Why WEF Elites are Attacking Agriculture

Cameron Smith explains in his ACHS article ‘Regenerative’ Farming: AOC’s Overhyped Climate Change Solution excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently came out in support of “regenerative” farming as a solution to climate change. There is little evidence to justify her advocacy.

The reality is that regenerative agriculture, as commonly defined today, can’t “protect” the global food supply from climate change; it can’t even feed a small country. To achieve the kinds of sustainability gains Ocasio-Cortez described, we need technology-driven farming that utilizes every available tool.

What is regenerative farming?

It’s actually difficult to pin down a clear definition. Most growers and agricultural scientists are interested in sustainable, efficient farming practices that allow us to feed more people while preserving our natural resources. But that’s not what advocates of regenerative farming typically mean when they use the term; their definition is often couched in ideological assumptions.

NRDC went on to explain that “Regenerative farmers and ranchers make every effort to reduce their reliance on synthetic inputs, such as herbicides, pesticides, and chemical fertilizers.” The problem with using this sort of technophobia as a guiding principle is that it excludes workable solutions to the problems everybody wants to mitigate.

Genetically engineered (GE) crops that require less water or naturally fight off pests are two very practical, innovative tools that “regenerative” advocates almost universally disdain. There is no justification for this bias since the genetics of a plant have little to do with how you grow it. A few agroecology advocates have made the same observation; they see no problem in growing GE crops according to agroecological principles.

The same goes for low-toxic pesticides. Widespread use of the weed killer glyphosate, the boogeyman in modern environmentalism, allowed many farmers to reduce or eliminate tillage as a form of weed control, significantly cutting their CO2 emissions. Herbicide-tolerant seeds introduced in the 1990s accelerated the adoption of no- and low-till agriculture.

In 2018 alone, farmers who cultivated these GE crops reduced their carbon emissions by 23 billion kilotons, the equivalent of pulling 15.3 million cars off the road. NRDC acknowledged the value of no-till farming, calling it “a technique that leaves the soil intact when planting rather than disturbing the soil through plowing.” But the group has also lambasted glyphosate as “a toxic weed killer.”

This isn’t to say that agrochemicals have no negative impact on the environment, because they certainly do. But that externality has to be balanced against the enormous production increases pesticides and fertilizers enable, which reduce the amount of land we dedicate to farming while feeding more people.

In any case, the solution isn’t to ban technologies that have proven their efficacy in spades. We instead have to devise new solutions that build upon earlier innovations. The end result is an increasingly sustainable food system. This is the key concept Ocasio-Cortez and other ideologues miss when they wax poetic about “regenerative farming techniques.” Let’s give Nordhaus and Saloni the last word:

… [t]here is no shortage of problems associated with chemical-intensive and large-scale agriculture. But the solutions to these problems—be they innovations that allow farmers to deliver fertilizer more precisely to plants when they need it, bioengineered microbial soil treatments that fix nitrogen in the soil and reduce the need for both fertilizer and soil disruption, or genetically modified crops that require fewer pesticides and herbicides—will be technological, giving farmers new tools instead of removing old ones that have been proven critical to their livelihoods.

Footnote When Will Justin Trudeau Stop Acting Like Dumb and Dumber?

 

Spanish Eyes Imaginary Climate Crisis

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Itxu Díaz  writes from Spain in American Spectator This Hyperventilating Climate Columnist Needs to Calm Down.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

Take a deep breath, buddy.

Let me tell you something. The idiot who presides over the government of my country went a couple of days ago to get his picture taken in front of a still smoldering burnt forest after one of the most serious waves of wildfires in the history of Spain. The origin of the fire was unknown at the time of the visit, although we already knew the causes of its rapid spread: the local people are no longer allowed to manage the forest in the way they have been doing for centuries. Rural people are no longer allowed to keep the forests clear of undergrowth, nor are they allowed to bring in sheep and other animals that help to balance it. A barrage of green laws like the ones you are calling for are behind these bans.

When the Spanish prime minister, Pedro Sánchez, arrived there and made statements, I assumed he would apologize or just show some sympathy towards the victims. But no. All he said was that climate change was to blame for the fire! You might imagine the expressions on the faces of the old farmers as they looked at him from behind blackened faces, their hands swollen and bloody after three days of intense fighting against the flames that had scorched their forest and homes. The funny thing is that he unwittingly told the truth: a reforestation company operating in the area has just admitted that it caused the fire while digging holes for the plantations. This is one of many companies that, driven by climate hysteria, is carrying out massive reforestations to sell greenhouse gas offset credits to large corporations.

So, indeed, climate change was to blame for the fire,
but not in the way you and Sanchez would have us believe.

My prime minister has the same pathology as you. However, Sanchez pretends he cares about the climate because he knows it is the progressive trend of the moment; the truth is that he doesn’t care because of his extreme psychopathy. I’m sure your claim is much more sincere.

I worry about the weather when it’s time to go to the beach, but what keeps me anxious at all hours is inflation, fuel prices, and the threat of a recession in the fall. Things I can touch with my hands. You worry about climate change, and that’s fine, everyone chooses their own ghosts; the bad thing is that the solutions you propose always consist of shearing the middle class with green taxes, sending us to work on bicycles, forcing us to not eat meat, and hindering the work of farmers and ranchers, thanks to whom rich Democrats eat their delicious salads and supreme steaks in Washington.

In short, the solution is to force us to live like back before the first industrial revolution, while the rich and the rulers get to enjoy all the luxuries of the 21st century, use private jets, eat huge steaks, and move around in giant cars escorted by even bigger cars, which I assume all run on rose petals as fuel.

I don’t know, kiddo, go on being overwhelmed by climate change if you want,
but do it with your savings.

You can afford your expensive vices and belief in the climate apocalypse is one of them. Of course, I’m a firm believer in freedom, but you can have them as long as you pay for them with your own damn money. And take a deep breath, buddy, or breathe into a paper bag like in Analyze That, as I heartily wish you a prompt recovery from this nervous climate crisis. I don’t want to even begin to think about your poor nervous system the day you have to deal with, God forbid, a real problem.

Footnote: The Fable of Political Survival

A provincial political leader won the parliamentary election and on the day to take the oath was greeted by the outgoing premier.  Wishing him well, his predecessor gave him three envelopes, explaining it was a tradition.  The envelopes contained advice to be consulted later on if difficulties were encountered.

Not long after taking office, criticisms started up, and the new premier opened the first envelope.  It explained:  “Blame it on the previous administration.”  He followed that advice pointing to past financial mismanagement, and the difficulty undoing bad policies and programs he had inherited.

That calmed things down for awhile, but a year later the excuses were wearing thin.  So he turned to the second envelope which gave the advice:  “Blame it on the federal government.”  A new campaign of announcements focused on delays and shortfalls of federal funding, poor coordination and liaison by federal counterparts, and counterproductive federal policies.

This quieted critics for more than a year, but alas it too began to fall on deaf ears.  It was time to open the third envelope:  ” Blame it on climate change, or else prepare three envelopes.”

See also Climateers Tilting at Windmills 

Growing Backlash Against Covid/Climate Tyranny

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Two Sides of the Same Coin

Andrea Widburg writes at American Thinker Fighting back against COVID and Climate Change tyranny.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

The phrase “New World Order” (“NWO”) is a loaded term. For starters, the people who are pushing for a single world government prefer to call it “The Great Reset.” Additionally, NWO sounds like the ultimate conspiracy theory, complete with indivisible dots, imaginary lines, and tin foil hats. And yet there’s no doubt that the self-anointed elites across the world have coalesced around a single vision that involves ending fossil fuel and achieving total control over individuals to “protect” them from COVID. Still, people across the globe are pushing back and one group has a global vision of what this pushback can look like.

During COVID’s first two years, we learned that most First World governments happily embraced tyranny. Even in the face of mountains of evidence that the lockdowns and mask and vaccine mandates did nothing to improve the situation, governments not only didn’t stop, but they also dug in deeper, systematically taking away people’s rights.

No person embodied this more than Canada’s Justin Trudeau, who went from fuzzy tree hugger to steely-eyed tyrant overnight. Canada is still in deep lockdown mode, right there with China, with millions of gleeful fascist apparatchiks happily imposing the government’s diktats:

With COVID losing its power to frighten people, the world’s budding dictators are reverting to Climate Change to clamp down on power. The most recent outburst of this madness was in Holland, where the government announced that it was shutting down farmland (i.e., the place where food is grown) essentially to stop fertilizer and cow farts. (I simplify a bit but you know what I mean.) The farmers pushed back hard.

The Hague: Thousands of farmers drove their tractors along roads and highways across the Netherlands, snarling morning traffic as they headed for a mass protest against the Dutch government’s plans to rein in emissions of nitrogen oxide and ammonia.

And indeed, although it never makes it to the New York Times or Washington Post unless they can no longer avoid the topic, people all over the world are pushing back at COVID and Climate Change totalitarianism:

According to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, which records protests worldwide, 11 countries are currently seeing protests of more than 1,000 people in response to the rising cost of living and other economic woes in 2022. As of July 5, Carnegie had recorded protests of more than 120,000 people in France, 100,000 in Spain, 10,000 in Greece, 10,000 in Kazakhstan, 10,000 in Sri Lanka, 10,000 in India, 5,000 in Iran, 5,000 in Peru, 1,000 people in Argentina, 1,000 in Morocco, and 1,000 in the U.K.

It’s Americans who are behind the curve on this one for two possible reasons. One, we believe our Constitution will protect us. And while it certainly offers protections in theory, there’s every reason to believe that the Democrats currently controlling the federal government have no intention of letting it offer those protections in fact. Two, the Democrats’ January 6 “insurrection” hysteria has frightened Americans into abandoning their First Amendment rights.

But just as the tech world offers governments unprecedented power to control individuals by monitoring their every word, thought, and move, technology also can still be used to bring people across the world together in one giant, peaceful “NO!” against the gathering forces of tyranny. That’s the goal of an organization called Reignite World Freedom.

The organization’s mission is simple: End the globalism that is wrapping itself around the earth like a giant chain, magnifying the power of world governments stealing away their citizens’ liberty. The organization hopes to have what it calls a “global walk out.”

A unified, global event and convoy to your capital city.

Unelected bureaucracies like The World Health Organization (WHO) and The World Economic Forum (WEF) should not have the power to dictate policies in our countries.

Let’s send them a clear message they can’t ignore.

It’s time for governments around the world to consider replacing and leaving these ‘globalist’ organizations.

I.How will the Global Walkout work?

1.A global WALK OUT from the society they’re trying to enslave us into, including an optional convoy to occupy your capital city. The length of the walkout will depend on the momentum built in each country.

2.We will not announce the walk out dates until we have enough pledges worldwide.

3.If you can’t participate in the convoy, that’s fine. You can still commit to walk out for as long as you can.

4.You can choose one or more of these options when you pledge;

  • Walk out of work and have a holiday.
  • Walk your children out of school.
  • Walk away from spending money at corporations that support globalism.
  • Walk away from consuming any mainstream media or streaming channels.
  • Convoy to your capital city on the scheduled dates (yet to be announced).
    Read more here.

The organizers want people to sign a pledge before setting a date.

I don’t know how well this fascinating idea will work in the U.S., especially because of the January 6 crackdown. Still, if people don’t push back against the COVID and Climate Change cudgels, we will enter a new dark age (literally dark, as in no fossil fuels) in which most Westerners, after decades of prosperity, live in squalor and despair.

 

 

Legal Brief: Biden Climate Order Unscientific, Inhumane and Unconstitutional

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Last month the above brief was put on record in a case challenging the legality of the Biden Executive Order requiring the entire federal government to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.  Excerpts of text in italics with my bolds.  H/T  WUWT Weekly Climate and Energy New Roundup

Brief of Amicus Curiae Dr. William Happer, Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, and the CO2 Coalition in Support of the Plaintiff-Appellee States.

As career physicists, it is our opinion for the scientific reasons detailed below, the District Court’s preliminary injunction should be reinstated because the SCC TSD Rule1 and Executive Order 13990 section 5 are scientifically invalid, and will be disastrous for the poor, people worldwide, future generations and the United States.

I.  Reliable scientific theories come from validating theoretical predictions with observations, not from consensus, government opinion, peer review or manipulated data.

II. The Social Cost of Carbon Rule and Executive Order 13990 are scientifically invalid and disastrous for people worldwide and the United States, and thus the preliminary injunction against them should be reinstated.

A. The SCC TSD Rule and Executive Order 13990 are Scientifically Invalid for Omitting the Enormous Social Benefits of CO2

Executive Order 13990 section 5 dictates that only the social costs of CO2 and GHGs be considered, stating “it is essential that agencies capture the full cost of [CO2 and other] greenhouse gas emissions,” and “accurately determine the social benefits of reducing [CO2 and other] greenhouse gas emissions,” violating basic scientific method by excluding the enormous social benefits of CO2 and greenhouse gases (GHGs).

The IWG estimated the social cost of carbon by combining three models, DICE, PAGE and FUND, together called Integrated Assessment Models (IAMS). However, two of the three models, DICE and PAGE, only computed the social costs of CO2 and excluded data on the enormous social benefits of CO2 (detailed in Part III below).2

This is an example of violating scientific method by omitting unfavorable data. It is like promoting the theory the world is flat by only considering observations as far as the eye can see, excluding all the evidence the world is round.

For this reason alone, the SCC TSD Rule and Executive Order 13990 section 5 mandating that the social benefits of GHGs not be considered violate scientific method and the preliminary injunction against both should be reinstated.

B. The SCC TSD Rule is Scientifically Invalid for Relying on Consensus and Peer Review

The SCC TSD Rule expressly explained it relied on peer review and consensus, not scientific method, to determine its estimates:

“In developing the SC-GHG estimates in 2010, 2013, and 2016 the IWG used consensus-based decision making, relied on peer-reviewed literature and models …. Going forward the IWG commits to maintaining a consensus driven process for making evidence-based decisions that are guided by the best available science and input from the public, stakeholders, and peer reviewers.” Id. P. 36 (emphasis added).

As explained, peer review and consensus do not determine scientific knowledge, scientific method does.

Accordingly, for this reason alone, the SCC TSD Rule is scientifically invalid and the preliminary injunction should be reinstated.

C. The SCC TSD Rule is Scientifically Invalid Because the IPCC CMIP and Other Models Fail to Reliably Predict Temperatures and Thus Should Be Scientifically Rejected

The IWG estimated the SCC as noted, using three climate models abbreviated DICE, PAGE and FUND combined with an economic model, together called Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs). The key variable in the climate model is called the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS). The SCC TSD Rule explained the ECS numbers used in the IAM model calculations were based on models used in the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Synthesis Report in 2007 (IPCC AR4), which were “confirm[ed] and strengthen[ed]” by recent assessments by the IPCC, US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) and the National Academies.

IPCC AR4, in turn, to compute the ECS, used what is called the Coupled Model Inter Comparison Project Phase 4 (CMIP4). Since models are a type of scientific theory, their scientific validity is determined by comparing their predictions with observations to see if they work. If they don’t “work,” they are “wrong” and invalid as science.

The CMIP models don’t “work” and are thus invalid as science, demonstrated next.

IPCC CMIP Models. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”), the dominant source of models, explained that its “Assessments of climate risks … [are] based on climate model simulations [predictions] that are part of the fifth and sixth Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase (CMIP5, CMIP6).” IPCC. Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, Summary For Policymakers (2022), p. SPM-6.

CMIP5.

John Christy, PhD, Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Alabama, applied the scientific method to CMIP5 102 predictions of temperatures 1979-2016 by models from 32 institutions. He explained he used “the traditional scientific method in which a claim (hypothesis) is made and is tested against independent information to see if the claim can be sustained,” and produced the following chart:3

At the bottom, the blue, purple and green lines show the actual reality temperature observations against which the models’ predictions were tested. The dotted lines are 102 temperature “simulations” (predictions) made by the models from 32 institutions for the period 1979-2016. The red line is the consensus of the models, their average. The graph clearly shows that 101 of the 102 predictions by the models (dotted lines) and their consensus average (red line) fail miserably to predict reality.4

Focusing on the consensus red line, he concluded:

“When the ‘scientific method’ is applied to the output from climate models of the IPCC AR5, specifically the bulk atmospheric temperature trends since 1979 (a key variable with a strong and obvious theoretical response to increasing GHGs in this period), I demonstrate that the consensus of the models [red line] fails the test to match the real-world observations by a significant margin. As such, the average of the models is considered to be untruthful in representing the recent decades of climate variation and change, and thus would be inappropriate for use in predicting future changes in the climate or related policy decisions.” Id., p. 13.

Thus, the models that produced the 101 predictions fail the Feynman test. They do not “work,” therefore they are “wrong.” Scientifically, they all should be abandoned. Rejecting science, the IPCC governments keep using CMIP models, including CMIP6 even though it is no better.

[Note 4: The one model that closely predicted the temperatures actually observed is a Russian model and is the only model that should be used in science. However, the IPCC did not use it but used the models that it should have rejected]

CMIP6.

Steven Koonin, Ph.D., a Cal-Tech physicist, professor at New York University and author of Unsettled (2021), concluded:

“One stunning problem is that … the later generation of [CMIP] models are actually more uncertain than the earlier one[s].” “The CMIP6 models that inform the IPCC’s upcoming AR6 [Climate Change reports] don’t perform any better than those of CMIP5.” Id. pp. 87, 90.

He elaborated CMIP6’s failure using the scientific method in detail:

“An analysis of 267 simulations run by 29 different CMIP6 models created by 19 modeling groups around the world shows that they do a very poor job [1] describing warming since 1950 and … [2] underestimate the rate of warming in the early twentieth century.” Id. p. 90 (emphasis added).  “Comparisons among the [29] models [show] … model results differed dramatically both from each other and from observations … [and] disagree wildly with each other.” Id. p. 90.

Thus, the IPCC CMIP models used by SCC TSD Rule fail the fundamental test of scientific method, they do not work. Accordingly, for this reason alone, the SCC TSD Rule is scientifically invalid and the preliminary injunction should be reinstated.

D. The SCC TSD Rule is Scientifically Invalid for Relying On IPCC Government Dictated Opinions

The SCC TSD Rule also explained that key numbers it used in its estimates were based in part, as noted, on the  IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Synthesis Report in 2007 (IPCC AR4) and that four “recent scientific assessments by the IPCC.” Id. p. 32.

However, unknown to most, two IPCC rules require that IPCC governments control what is published in its Summaries for Policymakers (“SPMs”), which in turn controls what is published in IPCC full reports.  This is not how scientific knowledge is determined. In science, as the Lysenko experience chillingly underscores, and Richard Feynman, as noted,

“No government has the right to decide on the truth of scientific principles.”

The two IPCC rules dictating IPCC governments’ control of what is written in the SPMs and IPCC reports, line by line, are:

IPCC SPM Rule No.1: All Summaries for Policymakers (SPMs) Are Approved Line by Line by Member Governments

“IPCC Fact Sheet: How does the IPCC approve reports? ‘Approval’ is the process used for IPCC Summaries for Policymakers (SPMs). Approval signifies that the material has been subject to detailed, line-by-line discussion, leading to agreement among the participating IPCC member countries, in consultation with the scientists responsible for drafting the report.”6

Since governments control the SPMs, the SPMs are merely government opinions and therefore, have no value as scientific evidence.

What about the thousands of pages in the IPCC reports? A second IPCC rule requires that everything in an IPCC published report must be consistent with what the governments agree to in the SPMs about CO2 and fossil fuels. Any drafts the independent scientists write are rewritten as necessary to be consistent with the SPM.

IPCC Reports Rule No. 2: Government SPMs Override Any Inconsistent Conclusions Scientists Write for IPCC Reports IPCC Fact Sheet:

“’Acceptance’ is the process used for the full underlying report in a Working Group Assessment Report or a Special Report after its SPM has been approved…. Changes …are limited to those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers.” IPCC Fact Sheet, supra.

IPCC governments’ control of full reports using Rule No. 2 is poignantly demonstrated by the IPCC’s rewrite of the scientific conclusions reached by independent scientists in their draft of Chapter 8 of the IPCC report Climate Change 1995, The Science of Climate Change (“1995 Science Report”).

The draft by the independent scientists concluded: “No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of the climate warming observed) to (manmade) causes.” Frederick Seitz, “A Major Deception on Climate Warming,” Wall Street Journal (June 12, 1996).

However, the government written SPM proclaimed the exact opposite: “The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.” 1995 Science Report SPM, p. 4.

What happened to the independent scientists’ draft? IPCC Rule No. 2 was applied, and their draft was rewritten to be consistent with the SPM in numerous ways:

Their draft language was deleted; the SPM’s opposite language was inserted in the published version of Chapter 8 in the 1995 Science Report, on page 439: “The body of statistical evidence in chapter 8 … now points towards a discernible human influence on global climate.”

Thus, IPCC SPM and findings used in the SCC TSD Rule have no value as scientific evidence because they are government dictated opinions, like Lysenko’s. For this reason alone, relying on IPCC government dictated publications contaminates the science in the SCC TSD Rule and renders it scientifically invalid, and therefore the preliminary injunction should be reinstated.

III.  There is overwhelming scientific evidence that fossil fuels and CO2 provide enormous social benefits for the poor, people worldwide, future generations and the United States, and therefore it would be disastrous to reduce or eliminate them.

The SCC TSD Rule, as noted, does not consider the enormous social benefits of CO2, GHGs and fossil fuels.

A. CO2 is Essential to Food, and Thus to Life on Earth.

Nearly all of the food we eat comes ultimately from photosynthesis on the land or in the oceans. The oxygen we breathe was produced by photosynthesis over the geological history of the Earth. In the process of photosynthesis, energy from sunlight forces molecules of water, H2O, and molecules of carbon dioxide and CO2 to combine to make sugars and other organic molecules. A molecule of oxygen, O2, is released to the atmosphere for every molecule of CO2 converted to sugar.

All green plants grow faster with more atmospheric CO2, including the CO2 released by the combustion of fossil fuels, which is almost identical to the CO2 respired by human beings and other living creatures.

What happens with a doubling of CO2? Many experiments and studies confirm that when CO2 is doubled, agricultural yields are increased significantly, especially in arid regions where more CO2 increases the resistance of plants to droughts. Greenhouse operators routinely pay to double or triple the concentrations of CO2 over their plants. The improved yield and quality of fruits and flowers more than pay for the cost of more CO2, with only small and beneficial warming.

Thus we owe our existence to green plants that, through photosynthesis, convert CO2 and water, H2O, to carbohydrates with the aid of sunlight, and release oxygen. Land plants get the carbon they need from the CO2 in the air. Other essential nutrients — water, nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, etc. — come from the soil. Just as plants grow better in fertilized, well-watered soils, they grow better in air with several times higher CO2 concentrations than present values. As far as green plants are concerned, CO2 is part of their daily bread—like water, sunlight, nitrogen, phosphorus, and other essential elements.

B. Greenhouse Gases Prevent Us from Freezing to Death

Greenhouse gases hinder the escape of thermal radiation to space. We should be grateful for them. Greenhouse gases keep the Earth’s surface temperature warm enough and moderate enough to sustain life on our verdant planet. Without them, we’d freeze to death.

To quote John Tyndall, the Anglo-Irish physicist who discovered greenhouse gases in the 1850s:

“Aqueous vapor is a blanket, more necessary to the vegetable life of England than clothing is to man. Remove for a single summer-night the aqueous vapor from the air which overspreads this country, and you would assuredly destroy every plant capable of being destroyed by a freezing temperature. The warmth of our fields and gardens would pour itself unrequited into space, and the sun would rise upon an island held fast in the iron grip of frost.” John Tyndall, Heat, a Mode of Motion pp. 359-360 (5th Ed. 1875).

Tyndall identified “aqueous vapor” (water vapor) as the most important greenhouse gas. Water vapor, and clouds which condense from it, are the dominant greenhouse agents of Earth’s atmosphere. Carbon dioxide, CO2, is also a greenhouse gas, and does cause a small amount of warming of our planet. But it is far less effective than water vapor and clouds as previously explained.

Without the greenhouse warming of CO2 and its more potent partners, water vapor and clouds, the earth would be too cold to sustain its current abundance of life. We would freeze.

C. Fossil Fuels have Enormous Social Benefits

Contrary to the incessant attack on fossil fuels, affordable, abundant fossil fuels have given ordinary people the sort of freedom, prosperity and health that were reserved for kings in ages past. The following chart of the GDP per person for the last 2,000 years powerfully illustrates what has happened:8

In the mid-1800s, CO2 levels that averaged over 1,000 ppm over 600 million years were at a very low level, about 280 ppm. The great news is that CO2 emissions from nature and fossil fuels resulted in CO2 levels rising from this low level to about 415 ppm today.

As a result, crop yields have increased by more than 15% over the past century. Better crop varieties, better use of fertilizer, better water management, etc., have all contributed. But the fact remains that a substantial part of the increase is due to the increase in CO2 from about 300 ppm in 1850 to about 415 ppm from fossil fuels.

Mathematically, the growth rate of plants is approximately proportional to the square root of the CO2 concentration. Thus, the increase in CO2 concentration from about 280 ppm (300 ppm rounded) to 415 ppm over the past century increased growth rates by a factor of about √(4/3) = 1.15, or 15%.

As to temperature, CO2 is a greenhouse gas and adding CO2 to the atmosphere by burning coal, oil, and natural gas as a matter of radiation physics can only modestly increase the surface temperature of the earth. Specifically, physics proves that doubling the CO2 concentration from our current 415 ppm to 830 ppm will directly cause about 1⁰ C in warming.

In summary, the social benefits for people and life all over the world are enormous: 

  • since CO2 is a plant fertilizer, agricultural and forestry yields have risen substantially over the last hundred years. 
  • economies have grown substantially, so that many people have prospered, and poverty has been reduced. 
  • electricity has become more affordable and available to many more people worldwide. 
  • and there has been a small but beneficial warming of the planet, about 2° Fahrenheit. This warming has been caused by a combination of natural causes and CO2 increasing from its low level in 1850 and other greenhouse gases.
Science Conclusion

Contrary to what is commonly reported, CO2 is essential to life on earth. Without CO2, there would be no photosynthesis, and thus no plant food and not enough oxygen to breathe. Moreover, without fossil fuels there will be no reliable, low-cost energy worldwide and less CO2 for photosynthesis making food. Eliminating fossil fuels and reducing CO2 emissions will be disastrous for the United States and the rest of the word, especially for lower-income people.

For the scientific reasons detailed above, in Amici’ opinion the District Court’s preliminary injunction should be reinstated because the SCC TSD Rule and Executive Order 13990 section 5 are based on multiple violations of scientific method and will be disastrous for the poor, people worldwide, future generations and the United States.

Footnote:

The brief goes on to describe how the Biden order assumes legislative authority which belongs to congress, thus is unconstitutional as well.