Climate Policies

IPCC Ethiopia Talks Collapse, Climatism On Life Support

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Image created with ChatGPT

Wim Röst reports at Clintel: The Climate Narrative is Collapsing Excerpts with my bolds and added images.

The climate house of cards is collapsing, as became clear last week at the IPCC meeting in Ethiopia. The climate narrative has never had any substance, and now that the flow of funding is being cut off, there will soon be nothing left, says Wim Röst, Chair of the Clintel Board.

What exactly did we just see happening in Ethiopia? The IPCC, the UN Climate Panel (a self-appointed organisation), was meeting there with representatives from 195 countries to prepare for what was supposed to be a major UN climate summit in 2028. In principle, a new IPCC assessment report (the seventh) was to be produced prior to that summit, but there was no funding and no agreement, not even on the report’s publication date.

Google AI Mode described the conclusion of the summit in Addis Ababa, the capital of Ethiopia, as follows:

“An unprecedentedly fierce political battle raged throughout the week over the timeline for the seventh major climate report (AR7).

 

♦  Proponents of urgency (including European countries and island states): Want the report to be fully completed by 2028 at the latest. This is crucial to serve as the scientific basis for the important UN climate summit (Global Stocktake) in that same year.

 

♦  Opponents (including Saudi Arabia, China, India and Russia): Called for a delay until 2029. Officially, they argue that poorer countries need more time to contribute, but behind the scenes it is believed that this is an attempt to reduce the political pressure on the fossil fuel industry.

 

As IPCC decisions must be taken by full consensus, the outstanding issues regarding the timeline and the budget could not be resolved. The meeting will resume at a yet-to-be-determined date, as soon as possible, to continue the discussion.”

As long as there is still some money left, there will undoubtedly be a follow-up, and 195 delegations will once again fly to a central location to solve ‘the enormous climate problem’ that is ‘entirely caused by fossil fuels’.

This year’s Gulf crisis demonstrated that we cannot do without ‘fossil fuels’. Iran’s blocking of shipping lanes brought the supply of oil and gas ‘to a standstill’, resulting in massive price rises and shortages. Countries such as India, Pakistan and Bangladesh had to use their scarce energy supplies for purposes other than fertiliser production. Their urea plants use natural gas as a raw material to produce the nitrogen-based fertiliser that is indispensable to their agriculture. Without this fertiliser, their agricultural production collapses, with immediate consequences for food prices and food security for tens, if not hundreds, of millions of people.

To enlarge, open image in new tab.

Numerous other factories that rely on ‘fossil fuels’ to produce essential goods also ran into difficulties, and the least of the consequences was massive price rises. In such a situation, the poorest countries and the poorest populations are left behind, and this quickly amounts to a few billion people.

The Gulf War brought to light the utter impossibility of ‘Net Zero’. This is the deeper context of the current conflict within the IPCC. What was being pursued is completely impossible, quite apart from the widespread doubts about its necessity. No one can ignore it any longer: actually, stopping the production of all fossil fuels means nothing other than a ‘Zero Economy’.

And that is why the climate house of cards is now collapsing.

Conrad Black on Carney’s Europe Adventure

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Conrad Black’s article at Brussels Signal is Carney tells Europe what it wants to hear.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

The response to Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s address at the European Parliament in Strasbourg on September 17, a day after European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen opened the door to Canada becoming the EU’s first “associate member”, has reflected and aggravated the public policy and psychology gap between Western Europe and the United States. The federal European institutions began as an admirable attempt by Jean Monnet and others to bury once and for all the profound and sanguinary hostility between the principal European states. These were tariff reductions in the facilitation of cooperation at the economic level, especially between France, Germany and Italy. The original six-nation group, including Benelux, gradually intensified cooperation to a political union and expanded steadily to 28 states, from which the United Kingdom has withdrawn.

It was far from a smooth and constant progress. Several countries required consecutive referenda to accede to the goal that was defined as “an ever closer union”, which clearly indicated ultimately a single senior government for all of Western and much of Central Europe. Britain had only voted for a common market and never to have the political institutions that it had developed fairly consistently for nearly 800 years subsumed into the well-intentioned but comparatively untried government machinery of Europe in Brussels. And when finally consulted, the British voted “no”. This was the first major post-Cold War geopolitical abrasion between Europe and America. President Trump offered the British a fast-track into the North American free-trade area, but Theresa May chose to define leaving Europe as in fact confirming its adhesion to it. Boris Johnson was more receptive but too disorganised and preoccupied with resolving the status of Northern Ireland in Europe to address Trump’s invitation, and soon found himself dealing with the irresolute Biden administration.

Trump, like previous Republican presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, saw that a federal Europe was in some measure a revolt against the primacy of the United States in the West, based on the romantic delusion that the European powers, having squandered their world leadership in the world wars and totalitarian movements that Europe inflicted upon the world, could now stand on each other’s shoulders and regain the headship of the planet. American Democratic presidents have tended to view Europe more positively as potentially a welcome equal partner in Western leadership.

Carney has moved Canada past Britain as another important country
purporting to straddle between Europe and the United States.

When he was the governor of the Bank of England, he made short work of any notion of an independent central bank by joining the fear-mongering campaign of the British government to the effect that if Britain seceded from the European Union, grass would grow in the streets of the City of London. Having returned to his native Canada and become prime minister, he won an upset re-election victory for the Liberal Party which under Justin Trudeau had scandalously misgoverned the country as it tumbled down the comparative tables of the world’s most prosperous states, hobbled by an obsession with climate change and generating discontent through excessive but almost entirely legal immigration. (This is a relatively simple matter for Canada since its only substantial land border is with the United States, a country that almost nobody ever flees away from, and illegal entry by sea requires crossing a great ocean.)

The usual anti-American or naïvely globalist organs of the European and British media, such as The Guardian and The Economist, have grappled Carney to their bosoms as someone who validates the beleaguered European project. The United States economy has been growing more than twice as fast as the European Union’s for 20 years, and where Trump has been somewhat bumptious, he has been effective in reducing absurd trade deficits and warning inconstant allies. The principal European powers have floundered and only Italy can now be said to have a serious government. Germany, France and Spain, as well as the United Kingdom, are waiting for firm government from the civilised Right as Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni is asserting in Rome.

In Strasbourg, Carney revealed more vividly than he has to
his own countrymen his authoritarian, Davosian leftist biases.

He flattered his audience by rewriting modern history and current economic statistics. Freedom was won in Europe “thanks to the heroism of the European resistance during the war”. Of course, this is rubbish: Europe was liberated by the Americans and British and Canadians and protected by the United States until the Soviet Union, under the American containment strategy, disintegrated. Europe is wallowing economically and its enfeebled response to the Chinese penetration of more than a third of its hybrid car market is to ask, unsuccessfully, for China voluntarily to restrain its presence to 15 per cent. Anyone, including apparently the majority of the citizens of the major European countries, can see that a sharp policy change is called for, and the insane climate change bugbear is being put to death at last.

Carney did not mention in Strasbourg that Canadian exports to the United States are 10 times as much as its exports to Europe, or that the United States represents more than a third of the entire economy of Canada while Canadian trade represents about 2% of the US economy. In Strasbourg, both speaker and audience were dreaming and to this end Carney quoted Goethe misleadingly and inflicted a number of hollow bucolic metaphors on his listeners to promote the notion of a reciprocal magnetic interest between Canada and Europe. It is a complete fantasy and it will not last long.

Addendum: Commentary from Europe

Also at Brussels Signal, Karl Pfefferkorn writes: An empire built on sand. Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

After the billing and cooing is over, what does the new partnership between Carney and von der Leyen have to offer their respective citizens? The official announcement suggested greater cooperation in defence, artificial intelligence and the provision of energy. Canada, which once earned its own invasion beach at Normandy, has only the ghost of a military these days and can contribute little to Europe’s efforts to deter Russia. In any case, Canada and the major European powers are guided by NATO’s defence planning, and not any EU attempts to supplant it. Carney clearly hopes to claim a share of Europe’s defence spending bonanza as a preferred partner, but has far less expertise and capacity to offer than the UK, which despite these attributes has yet to earn equal access to the EU’s common defence funds.

Neither Canada nor the EU has sired artificial intelligence companies capable of challenging China or the United States. Cooperation between also-rans is not likely to benefit either. Given their governing tendencies, they are far more likely to cooperate in suffocating their nascent AI industries through overregulation.

Canada does have immense energy resources, but lacks the infrastructure to supply much of it to Europe. Canadian pipelines run west to the Pacific in the service of Asian markets, or east to Ontario, by way of the United States. Any help solving Europe’s energy problems will require the construction of oil and gas loading facilities on Canada’s Atlantic coast, in violation of the environmental orthodoxies espoused by Carney’s Liberal Party. Canada’s oil resources are concentrated in the Alberta oil sands, which are the dirtiest and most carbon intensive of fossil fuels. Large-scale imports of Canadian oil will require a significant relaxation if not the outright abandonment of the EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism.

Carney is reluctant to reveal his country’s most attractive
quality to the EU: a potential net payer into EU coffers.

If Canada can be lured into a bespoke arrangement, complete with new sinecures in Brussels for civil servants desperate to escape Ottawa, she will pay at least as much as Norway, which remits over half a billion dollars a year for its EEA status. Good for EU finances, but what will Canada get in exchange? Relaxed work rules and membership in the Erasmus study programme will benefit young Canadians, but visa reciprocity will also lure ambitious Europeans toward greater opportunities in North America. Industrial tariffs are already minimal under the CETA agreement, and there is no chance the EU will open the Single Market to increased Canadian agricultural imports.

None of this will offset the risks of alienating Canada’s biggest market, the United States. The prosperity of 40 million Canadians is dependent on the trade surplus they run with 340 million American consumers. Canadian industry is comprehensively integrated into the American market in everything from car parts to advertising. The EU cannot offer anything close to a replacement should the US retaliate against any Canadian deal with Europe.

Carney walked away from a good trade offer from Washington
in a fit of performative hubris, preferring to risk the economic
well-being of his people for the accolades of his European peers.

Given her fraught relations with the White House, Ursula von der Leyen sees little downside in her flirtation with Carney. She is empire-building, not in the old way of territorial conquest, but in the post-modern sense of attaining greater elite regard. The average Commission bureaucrat hopes to make the EU into a workable federal state, but von der Leyen sees it as a citadel of self-regarding virtue for affluent Western elites besieged by angry populists. Granting titles of privilege to loyal servants like Carney elevates her office to the status of a royal court in the realm of the global elect, an objective far more important than the tawdry material needs of factory workers in Duisburg or coal miners in Silesia.

Her neglect of the sources of Europe’s prosperity and her failure
to mobilise the resources of the Commission in their service
will expose her true achievement: an empire built on sand.

 

Scary MIT Study: Climate Change Inflates Household Costs

Posted on by Ron Clutz

File this under “They Have No Shame.”  Desperate to regain momentum for Agenda 2030, activists’ new meme is that costs of living are rising because of global warming/climate change.  It’s an obvious attempt to deflect from Greenflation due to the so-called “Energy Transition” and to blame realists who dissent from “consensus Climate Science.”  Here’s the study from MIT disciples: Why climate change is costing U.S. households hundreds of dollars a year.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds,

CAMBRIDGE, Mass., April 7, 2026 – As extreme weather becomes more frequent, climate-related costs are creeping into everyday expenses, adding hundreds of dollars a year to U.S. household expenses. From higher insurance premiums to rising utility bills and disaster-related income losses, climate change contributes to expenses at a time when Americans are already worried about rising food and energy costs. While their list of climate-related expenses is not exhaustive, the researchers found that climate change is already costing U.S. households between $400 and $900 a year, on average. In some places, the burden is far higher: in around 10% of U.S. counties, annual climate-related costs exceed $1,300 per household.

Coauthor Catherine Wolfram:

“A lot of the ways in which we discuss climate now are kind of abstract and in the future — maybe these impacts happen in 2050 or 2100 — but we really wanted to emphasize that this is already occurring and it’s having negative financial implications for households.”

Energy expenses are one important driver in household climate costs.

To estimate the growing household costs of energy from increased use, production disruption, and damage to electric companies’ infrastructure, the researchers compared energy use in 2020 to 2024 with that of 1981 to 1990. Recently, more utility companies have been increasing their rates in response to wildfires and hurricanes, either to fund recovery or to mitigate future damage.

Insurance costs represent another piece of households’ growing financial burden.

The researchers estimate climate change contributed to an average $360 increase in homeowners’ insurance premiums between 1990 and 2023. In some cases, households may be hit twice: by rising utility bills and higher insurance premiums at the same time.

Government climate-related costs are passed on to households

These typically include having to pay to repair schools, roads, bridges, and airports after natural disasters. They found that the annual average per household cost from these expenses from 2017 to 2021 was nearly $150. Other costs, including higher home prices in lower-risk areas and rising food prices from crops damaged during disasters, are likely contributing as well, but are outside the study. Migration costs could also play a role, as people move away from areas experiencing more frequent disasters.

Summary of Costs incurred by households due to climate change

Cost Factor Estimated  Annual Cost
Home insurance premiums  Over $600
Disaster recovery expenses Varies by region
Increased utility bills About $35
Health impacts from air quality  Exceeds $100

What They Are Not Telling You

Insurance Companies Making Record Profits Off Climate Change Panic

US insurers’ profits double as price rises exceed extreme weather claims (Source Financial Times)

US property and casualty insurers nearly doubled their earnings between 2023 and last year despite costly extreme-weather events, according to research that highlights the pay-off from several years of rising customer prices.

A survey of companies that account for at least 97 per cent of US property and casualty cover by rating agency AM Best, found that the aggregate after-tax profits of the industry surged to $171bn last year, compared with $92bn the previous year.

Hurricanes, fires and other disasters caused an estimated $320bn of losses around the world in 2024, about a third more than the year before. In the US alone, five big hurricanes as well as other severe storms struck.

However, the data showed insurers more than offset larger losses by increasing premiums. Helen Andersen, an AM Best research analyst, told the Financial Times that the strong earnings figures were the result of “an aggressive push for significant rate and pricing increases” by insurers.

But some consumers — particularly in states historically less affected by wildfires and extreme weather such as hurricanes — have questioned the justification for price rises that have sometimes outstripped inflation.

Unreliable Wind and Solar Power Drives Higher Electricity Bills

EPA Reports US Air is Clean of Unhealthy Pollutants

Costly Government Emission Schemes

Carney’s Industrial Carbon Tax imposes real costs on Canadians

The economic cost is more than $1,100 per person, while employment is 50,000 lower than it would be under the 2025 policy status quo

See Also:

Insurers Playing the Climate Card

Climate Alarmists Gone?

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Transcript (with my bolds and added images)

Who is still panicking about climate catastrophe?

The Davos crowd? European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen didn’t mention the climate even once in her 2026 annual address—unlike in the past.

U.S. voters? Americans rank climate change at number 28 of 30 problems, and according to the Searchlight Institute, voters in battleground states are prioritizing pocketbook issues over climate.  

Canada? Prime Minister Mark Carney once championed radical climate policies but now wants to increase oil production.

The Europeans? After worrying intensely about climate change for a decade, they have other things to worry about: sky-high energy prices, low growth and the war in Ukraine. In their latest ranking, climate hit a new decade low.

How about global warming poster child Greta Thunberg? She has moved on to other causes.

Certainly, not people in poorer countries. They’re primarily concerned about the necessities of life — health, food and education. According to a recent survey of Africans, climate ranks near the bottom of their priorities, at number 31 of 34. That’s behind unemployment, the economy, health, education, poverty, roads, electricity, hunger, and corruption.

Even media outlets that once peddled climate alarm have backed off. According to a Washington Post analysis, 2025 saw the fewest media mentions of climate change in three years.

What led to this global change of mind? How could so many people
be so worried just a few years ago, and care so much less now?

First, everyone has started to realize that there are many other challenges in the world. 

After the end of the Cold War, people claimed that climate change was the last big challenge to fix. That was a common idea at Davos and among many global leaders. Now, everyone recognizes that climate change is just one of many issues: wars, budget deficits, immigration pressures, declining educational achievements, artificial intelligence, and demographic changes are just a few.

Second, you can only cry wolf so many times. 

How many “the end is nigh” predictions over the last 50 years?

One peer-reviewed study counted at least 78 specific claims, like when King Charles insisted that the world only had 18 months left to fix climate change. That was in 2019. So, that statement was wrong. And every statement by every well-known climate alarmist that has been resolved by 2026 turned out to be wrong. Not to mention when Al Gore told us in 2008 we only had 10 years left.

Third, climate policies are incredibly expensive and do little. 

The world has spent more than 16 trillion dollars to curb climate change, and governments are looking to spend hundreds of trillions more in the future.

A Science study of 1,500 climate policies in 41 countries across the last two decades showed that only 4% worked. In total, they cut less than a quarter of one percent of total emissions. If a private company had this kind of record, they’d be out of business.

Fourth, the alarmist claims are often blatantly misleading. When you’re told that sea level rise could force 187 million people to move, that claim unrealistically assumes nobody will do anything to address the problem for a century. But when people adapt — for example, by building levies — that number goes down 99.8%.

The Dutch solution to floods: live with water, don’t fight it. The same thing applies to climate change.

We’re constantly told more people will die from heat waves. But nobody ever reveals that the cold kills many more. Right now, warming temperatures actually save lives. And of course, when there’s cheap and reliable power, more people can afford air conditioning. As the US warmed in the 20th century, heat deaths declined significantly, exactly for that reason.

Climate economists have consistently shown that by the end of the century, climate change will cost 2-3% of global GDP. It is a real problem, but nowhere near Armageddon.

In fact, as the UN expects the average person to be 450% richer in 2100, climate change simply means it is going to feel like we’re ‘only’ 435% richer than now. That’s still a much better world — just not quite as good as it could have been.

We still need to fix climate change, but we can do so smarter. Don’t pour trillions into policies that don’t move the needle, but billions into green energy R&D. This will help develop cheap green energy alternatives that can eventually outcompete fossil fuels on price.

Ending the climate panic means our kids won’t be needlessly scared, and neither will we. Being frightened without reason doesn’t lead to smart policies.

Rather, we can start focusing more on the many other pressing problems we need to fix now. Putting the climate panic behind us makes that possible.

I’m Bjorn Lomborg, president of the Copenhagen Consensus, visiting fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, and author of False Alarm, for Prager University.

ICJ Opinion and UN Resolution Turbocharge Climate Litigation

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Activists hoping the opinion from the ICJ’s judges will have far-reaching legal consequences in the fight against climate change Image: Peter Dejong/AP Photo/picture alliance

The biased Advisory Opinion came down from ICJ a year ago. At the time I posted of how narrow-minded was the decision process.  For example, this from perplexity.ai:

Question: How did the ICJ address scientists disputing IPCC reports like Clintel in its climate advice?

Answer: The International Court of Justice (ICJ), in its advisory proceedings on climate change, did not address or give consideration to scientists or groups—such as Clintel—who dispute the findings of the IPCC. Instead, the ICJ relied heavily and explicitly on the IPCC as the authoritative source on climate science throughout the process.

Key points from the available evidence:

  • The ICJ held a private meeting with IPCC scientists just before hearings began, reflecting the Court’s view of the IPCC as the “scientific pillar” of the climate change regime1.

  • This meeting was not part of the formal, public hearings and did not include scientists who dissent from the IPCC—states and organizations participating in the advisory proceedings had no opportunity to question or respond to IPCC scientists1.

  • The process was criticized for lacking transparency and procedural fairness precisely because it favored a single scientific perspective (the IPCC’s), with no indication that alternative scientific viewpoints were admitted or reviewed1.

  • The UN General Assembly’s request for the advisory opinion itself referenced the “utmost concern [for] the scientific consensus expressed” in the IPCC reports, reinforcing the Court’s mandate to treat the IPCC’s findings as the foundation for its analysis13.

  • Available commentaries and summaries of the ICJ process do not mention any engagement with scientists or organizations disputing IPCC conclusions, nor do they report that groups like Clintel were referenced or invited as experts13.

  • While the ICJ has, in rare past cases, consulted technical experts informally, in this climate case it only announced consultation with IPCC figures, reinforcing the exclusion of dissident scientific voices19.

In summary, the ICJ’s approach gave exclusive scientific authority to the IPCC and provided no forum, reference, or weight to scientists disputing its reports, such as those from Clintel13. The Court did not discuss or acknowledge the existence of such scientific disagreement in its process, instead treating the IPCC’s consensus as fact. This approach has been criticized for its lack of transparency and its failure to incorporate procedural safeguards for alternative scientific views19.

Neverthless, the ICJ AO prompted headlines like these:

Top UN court says countries can sue each other over climate change, BBC

Legal experts say International Court of Justice ruling provides ‘a clear blueprint to hold major emitters accountable’ The Independent

Opened the door for countries to sue each other over impacts of climate change, phys.org

Nations Can Sue Each Other Over Climate Inaction Under International Law, Daily Guardian

Etc., Etc. Etc.

Now on May 20, 2026 the UN General Assembly passed a resolution affirming the ICJ and suggesting implementation.

UN General Assembly ADOPTS resolution welcoming the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the obligations of States in respect of climate change

RESULT
In favor: 141
Against: 8
Abstain: 28

Activists gloss over the fact that neither the ICJ Opinion nor the UN Resolution are binding, even though it’s expected for them to be referenced in all the climate warfare going on now, and soon to explode.  Thus it is important to look into the vote and the implications from those who opposed, abstained, or were absent

The table below lists the Authors, those Against, Abstained, Absent and Notables Voting for:

Authors (62) Against (8) Abstained (28) Absent (15) For (79 + 62)
Andorra Belarus Algeria Azerbaijan Notables
Angola Iran Argentina Benin Australia
Antigua and Barbuda Israel Bahrain Bolivia Austria
Armenia Liberia Brunei Central African rep Belgium
Bahamas (The) Russia Czechia Dem Rep Korea Brazil
Bhutan Saudi Arabia Quatorial NG Dominica Canada
Bosnia and Herzegovina United States Eritrea Eswatini China
Bulgaria Yemen Ethiopia Kiribati Denmark
Burkina Faso Gambie Madagascar Egypt
Cabo Verde India Nicaragua Hungary 
Chile Iraq Serbia Indonesia
Colombia Kazakhstan Trinidad Tobago Ireland
Congo Kuwait Turkmenistan Italy
Costa Rica Lesotho Uzbekistan Japan
Croatia Libya Venezuela Malaysia
Cyprus Namibia Mexico
Czechia Nigeria New Zealand
Djibouti Oman Norway
Dominican Republic Pakistan Poland
Ecuador Paraguay Singapore
Equatorial Guinea Qatar Sri Lanka
Fiji South Africa Somalia
Finland Sudan Sweden
France Syria Thailand
Georgia Tunisia Uganda
Germany Turkiye UAE
Greece Tanzania UK
Guatemala Zimbabwe Viet Nam
Honduras
Jordan
Kenya
Latvia
Lebanon
Luxembourg
Maldives
Mali
Malta
Marshall Islands
Micronesia Fed States
Monaco
Montenegro
Morocco
Netherlands
Nigeria
North Macedonia
Palau
Panama
Peru
Portugal
Qatar
Republic of Korea
Romania
Samoa
Senegal
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Switzerland
Togo
Ukraine
Uruguay
Vanuatu

Those who voted against or abstained are likely to refuse recognizing the authority of ICJ and UN in this matter.  In addition some of those absent are also “makers” of hydrocarbon fuels and will oppose the many nations wanting to be “takers” benefiting from the legal circus coming to town.  Many of the Notables voting for are likely to be defendants in this lawfare, especially if they were stupid enough to legislate emissions reduction targets.

Background Post

ICJ Issues Biased Advice on Climate Change

Unreliables Made US Power Grid Fragile

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Kite and Key explain how and why US and Canada electricity is on the brink of blacking out when needed.  For those prefering to read, below is a transcript with my bolds and some added images.

Five seconds.  That’s about how long you’ve been watching this video.  And in 2025, it was also the amount of time it took for 60 percent of the electricity supply in Spain … to vanish from the country’s grid.  Which led to 10 hours of darkness — in parts of four countries.  It’s a nightmarish scenario — and there’s a good chance that it’s coming to America soon.

Electricity. It’s the backbone of our entire world.

Your house. Your town. Your … excessive enthusiasm for Christmas. We build our lives around the assumption that when we flip a switch, it’ll be there for whatever we need — whether it’s controlling the climate in our homes, refrigerating our food, or just making sure the neighbors can see you’ve portrayed Santa committing a class B felony.

And, when you consider the history, you can see just how quickly we’ve gotten used to this. When Thomas Edison opened America’s first commercial power plant in 1882, it served 59 customers in lower Manhattan.ii By the time another 40 years or so had passed, America’s electricity consumption looked like this:iii

By 1929, the U.S. was generating more power than the rest of the world combined.iv And in the century since, our appetite has only grown. In 2025, the government’s Energy Information Administration reported that the country consumed 14 times more electricity than it had in 1950.v

All of which sounds like a standard story of progress: As the decades pass, and technology evolves, things that once seemed miraculous become so commonplace that we can take them for granted.

But here’s the thing: We should definitely not be taking them for granted. Because the days of assuming we know what’s going to happen when we flip the switch … may be coming to an end.

In 2023, members of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission — the government body that regulates electricity transmission — appeared before a Senate committee with a series of dire warnings.

One of them testified that “We face unprecedented challenges to the reliability of our nation’s electric system.”vi

Another said that “The United States is heading for a very catastrophic situation in terms of reliability.”vii

And then he added “This problem is coming. It’s coming quickly. The red lights are flashing.”viii

And while we don’t like to editorialize here at Kite & Key … that sounds bad.

The data shows that these concerns aren’t exaggerated.

In 2026, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation — the body charged with making sure that the power grid is dependable — warned that nearly half of America’s population was going to be at high risk of rolling blackouts in the next few years.ix

In fact, by the end of the decade every single region of the U.S. and Canada is projected to be at least elevated risk … with the single exception of the Canadian province of Saskatchewanx — which makes sense because Saskatchewan literally has more cows than people.xi

So, if there’s a blackout there … well, you know what happened.

But all of this leads to an obvious question: How does this happen? It’s been almost 150 years since Thomas Edison got the ball rolling and somehow we’re getting worse at this? What’s going on here?

To unravel this mystery, go back to those officials testifying before Congress.

One of them summed up the problem in four words: “The math doesn’t work.”xii

Here’s what he meant by that: In many cases we’re actually losing power — as in, we’ll have less of it in a few years than we do now.

Take, for example, the PJM Interconnection, the country’s largest power grid operator, which serves 65 million customersxiii in 13 states.xiv

In 2023, PJM issued a report estimating that it might lose about 40 gigawatts of electricity — more than 20 percent of its capacity — by the year 2030, thanks to power plant retirements.xv

Which isn’t the end of the world, right? You just bring on new power sources! Which is what they’re doing!

Here’s the problem: The high-end estimate of those new sources … is a little over 30 gigawatts.

In other words, they’re replacing 40 … with 30.

Also known as: “The math doesn’t work.”

And similar situations are happening all over the country.

Why? Well to understand that, we have to understand how the economics of electricity works.

And you might be thinking “But, Kite & Key, that sounds excruciatingly boring.” And it is, dear viewer!

Or at least it would be if you hadn’t chosen the one channel that understands it’s so boring that you have to explain it with the assistance of adorable puppies dressed as economists.

Here’s the way this all goes down: In any given part of the country, you might have lots of potential sources of electricity — natural gas, solar, coal, wind, nuclear. And at any given moment all those sources are selling power at different prices.

Now, the decision as to which one to use is not made by you, the customer. It’s made by the people responsible for coordinating the system, who take bids from electricity producers — sometimes as often as every five minutes — and buy whatever options are cheapest at the time until they’ve got enough power to meet demand. None of which seems crazy — adequate energy at low prices is pretty much what everyone wants.

But here’s where this gets complicated: In some cases … cheap electricity comes with unintended consequences.

Here’s what we mean.

Not all energy sources are created equal.

Map of Diminishing Capacity Values for Major RTOs (Regional Transmission Operators)

Some of them like nuclear and most coal plants are what’s referred to as “baseload power” — they can essentially run all the time.

Others like natural gas plants are “dispatchable,” meaning you can quickly turn them on or off depending on demand.

Then there are sources like wind and solar which are “intermittent” — in other words, you only get power from them when the weather is cooperating.xvi

And this is where the problem creeps in.

In 2024, the government reported that wind, on average, only produces energy about 1/3 of the time.xvii For solar, it was less than 1/4 of the time.xviii By contrast natural gas was around 60 percent and nuclear was at 90 percent.xix

But when wind and solar are working they can be incredibly cheap. In fact, because they’re heavily subsidized by the government, their prices can actually go negative — they can pay the grid to take their powerxx — and still stay in business.

Needless to say, all the other electricity producers … can’t do that.

Which makes them less profitable.

Which leads an increasing number of them to close.

Which leads to a world where we’re increasingly dependent on
electricity sources that literally don’t produce any energy most of the time.

Those 40 gigawatts PJM may lose? Almost all coal or natural gas. The up to 30 gigawatts that will partially replace it? Mostly wind and solar.xxi

Which is the kind of thing that leads otherwise boring bureaucrats from places like the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to yell “the red lights are flashing!” at members of Congress.

Because by privileging the energy sources that work the best some of the time
… we’re gutting the energy sources that work the best all of the time
— the ones that actually determine whether you’ll have power.

There’s no doubt that wind and solar are going to be important parts of America’s energy future. But imagining that they can carry the burden of the entire system today is risking disaster.

When wind and solar can’t produce, we rely on sources like nuclear, natural gas, and even coal to keep the lights on.xxii But if we cut out that part of the equation — if we don’t build to ensure resiliency — we’re placing our standard of living on a knife’s edge. And if we get that balance even slightly wrong, well…

 

 

Carney’s Energy Ruse–Pipeline to Nowhere

Posted on by Ron Clutz

A recent interview exposes how centrist politics and climate obsession corrupt energy investments, in this case to the detriment of Canada. PM Carney is running a charade which will not bode well for Canada, according to this interview of Energy industry expert David Knight Legg by National Post’s Rob Brackenridge.  Excerpts from the transcript are below with my bolds and added images. First a reminder of where PM Carney is coming from:

Greetings, folks, I’m Rob Brackenridge for National Post and NP Comment. Alberta has now officially submitted a proposal to the federal government Major Projects Office for a new pipeline to the West Coast. Presumably, that will be fast-tracked by the federal government. We’re expecting that designation of this being in the national interest from the Prime Minister by October. But is all of this enough to really get Canada to where it needs to be, to really fully embrace the opportunity that presents itself and to be that destination for investment and be a global energy superpower?

Well, someone who’s been watching all of this very closely is David Knight Legg. He is a director and an advisor to a number of energy, financial and tech firms, a former principal advisor to Alberta’s premier, former CEO at Invest Alberta Corporation. David, so great to have you with us here. Great to be here, Rob. Great to see you again. Likewise.

It’s been an interesting couple of days. Clearly, the current premier of Alberta has put a lot of work into this, and is trying to pull, I think, the federal government in a much different direction from where it’s been over the past decade. How significant is this milestone, do you think, first of all?

Well, Rob, you know, it’s always hard when you sit outside something as complicated as a negotiation between Ottawa and Alberta, which has skeptics in both their bases, as I’m sure you know. And I had a good conversation with Jason Nixon (Alberta Minister of Finance) last night about it, met the premier briefly. I think it’s really important and I think that it’s not perfect. These deals often aren’t.

But I think one of the testaments to how important it is, is how close it came to being derailed in a variety of ways, just as a little bit of the backstory. And I think that, you know, you sometimes have to take the win that you’ve got. Actually there are a lot of things I’d be critical about. I don’t think it goes far enough.

And I think we have a fundamental problem in a regulatory regime,
which means that governments have to get this involved
in getting basic infrastructure built.

In other countries, you don’t need governments announcing these things. You don’t need a most favored nation status for a project. You have very simple, clean regulations, low taxes, and you allow people to build as long as they meet basic criteria. And I think it’s the absence of that that has become more apparent to more people because of the MOU.

So I think one of the benefits of the MOU has been that it has started a conversation that’s been needed for a long time in Canada over just how hard it’s become to build anything here without official government sanction. And I think that’s a conversation that’s going to continue to persist as this project works its way forward. Yeah, even just the existence of the the major projects office, the Building Canada Act, I mean, it’s a recognition that we have all of this red tape in the way and we create this separate track to try to bypass it. But it just kind of leaves everything else still in place. Right.

So in a way, it’s an acknowledgement that we have that problem, but it doesn’t really address it at the same time. That’s a great that’s a great point. In fact, I think that’s a great way to put it. And that’s actually a conversation that really needs a national conversation that needs to happen.

If you have to create an entirely separate bureaucracy to avoid your current bureaucracy, it might be time to reform your current bureaucracy rather than set up a new set of channels and processes that ultimately are privileging things that still require the government to lean in. And it creates a greenhouse for favoritism and, you know, trying to get the attention of the government to trying to do things rather than a level playing field where anybody can come in and innovate and create. And I think as a nation, we’ve got to do better than this.

You know, it just it looks like 1970s style industrial policy rather than a fair, free, open, entrepreneur led marketplace of ideas and and opportunities. And you have to believe that there are really creative ways of thinking about things that would be initiated across Canada right now if the regulations were simple, the taxes were lower and the process was clear. We’re seeing under this prime minister a little bit of slow dismantling of a lot of the Trudeau legacy, which is maybe long overdue and perhaps needs to be expedited to some degree.

But what does it tell us about then the missed opportunity of the last decade and and all of the cost, all that was wasted as we sort of lived and endured under those policies? You know, Rob, I think one of the things that’s really interesting is Mark Carney was the heart of a lot of those policies. And, you know, half of me believes, you know, that’s what makes him the perfect guy to dismantle them because nobody else is going to be as credible with that liberal base as he would be at turning back some of the environmental overreach that’s restricted the ability to build in Canada. On the other hand, I think that there’s this temptation within this Carney government to maintain control over economic development in a way that means that they constantly have their hand on the wheel.

They’re constantly fidgeting with what they can release. And this is problematic because you will never have government sanctioned projects move as fast as projects that are originating in the private sector and originating with people that are, you know, have to make a bottom line work. So I think, you know, the dismantling of the Trudeau era is so important for the country to move forward, but that’s not sufficient.   It’s essential, but it’s not enough to actually start to get the economy rolling again. And you saw this in this really odd condo deal that that happened and a lot of these things where there’s a constant attempt to use government money. We don’t have it.

You know, they’re borrowing it to expand the bureaucracy and also to expand the government reach into things like housing, energy. You know, these are sectors that in most countries are managed without the government having to intervene. Yeah.

And it’s interesting because you mentioned the economy, and obviously that’s an impetus. I know there’s provincial federal dynamics. There’s the energy side of things, but there’s just, you know, when you look at the economic challenges Canada is facing right now and how lethargic our economy has been, the global headwinds we’re facing, the trade uncertainty with the United States.  If we’ve got economic advantages, if we’ve got strength, I mean, now’s the time to exploit those advantages. Is there a dawning realization, just with everything that we’re facing now, that we have all of this in front of us? I think so.

I think it started with a paper by Stephen Miran who went on to be the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers for the US president back in November 24, when he said the United States should embark on this.  This is what the president ended up adopting as formal policy, should embark on a process of integrating its national interests in energy security, military security, and trade security. And immediately they went for Panama. They’re doing deals around the Straits of Malacca. They’re, of course, active in the Straits of Hormuz with Iran, Greenland. They immediately went to taking Venezuelan oil over. I don’t think there’s been enough coverage of that, and that’s one of the things that led to the article that I wrote, which is when the Americans took over the Venezuelan energy supply, the Chinese lost 550,000 barrels of heavy crude, which is chemically identical to what we produce. It opens up an opportunity for us to have a $15 billion a year trade with the Chinese government just on that one replacement supply chain alone. And the idea that we had Northern Gateway effectively blueprinted already, that that’s a 565,000 barrel pipeline that could easily get there.

When you look at why Northern Gateway was ultimately cancelled, it’s a series of just self-imposed rules that have nothing to do with ultimately helping the environment, even though they’re dressed up that way. When you double-click on those rules, they do nothing for the environment, and in some ways they just sort of imagine that Canada can’t do things. We look at a tanker ban and we think the whole world is moving this stuff by tank. Are we the only country incapable of operating shipping and ports in environmentally sensitive areas? We don’t back ourselves enough to figure out that we could still do it as Canadians if they can do it in 50 other countries.

So there’s a lot that I think happened during that Trudeau era that we’re going to have to answer for. And  I think we’re starting at least to have the right conversations. And yesterday’s announcement was an important step towards, I think, government saying we need this pipeline. I still dislike the fact they’re putting themselves in the position of being the ones to back it and treating pipelines more like airports or something. That is maybe being realistic about what you do if you do have a kind of very statist government environment. But it would be better if we could go back to a being a nation where free market entrepreneurialism didn’t require a constant government sanction. Yeah, there’s that.

I mean, I think one of the positives here, I mean, with Trans Mountain, we faced a real backlog when it came to the capacity pipeline capacity. Right. So with this, I think there’s the investment, the spinoff that comes with increasing production to fill this pipe and to fill some of the other projects like South Bow or like the Enbridge Mainline expansion, that the expansion, the growth of production is where we could really see a lot of that investment in the economic spinoffs.

How much does that tie into this? Do you think? Look, I think it’s super important. These are supply demand cycles. And the demand side, when you look at Asia, is unprecedented. You know, and so I think that’s a really the point you’re making is critical. I think you could double or we could get to 10 million barrels. Ultimately, there would be no problem in terms of egress and demand.

Almost all the issues related to the investability of that process are tied to issues like whether or not pathways and CCUS (Carbon Capture) is really the most important thing in the world. Or is it more important than some of these commitments to actually produce and supply and ship? And I think that it’s not. You know, our lesson from a lot of the environmental and to the Prime Minister’s credit, he came out and said $200 billion in 10 years of environmental activism from Ottawa produced absolutely nothing of note. It certainly didn’t change the emissions profile of the country in any significant way. In many ways, it harmed the ability for Canada to play a role in reducing global emissions by shipping a lot more of our gas to offset the coal-fired Chinese grid. And so in so many ways, I think there’s been a decade of strategic irrelevance, but also a decade of real economic decline.

And I think this Prime Minister is faced with needing to get over what’s happened in the trade arena. And I think they’re sort of turning a light past the fact that the Americans have said we’re going to do a deal with the Mexicans and not with the Canadians. You know, we’re going to put you guys on this annual review process. Now, a lot of people are saying that’s fine. I don’t think that’s fine. I think that’s an absolute failure to effectively negotiate the past 18 months. And that is starting to put in. I think the Prime Minister is smart enough to know deep down this is a real problem for the country and for him. And when you look at Canada, the Canadian balance sheet of exports, you know that energy is the only place where you’re going to get an immediate return economically on an investment.

So I think he’s still trying to juggle that kind of absolute realism about what works economically with his desire that there still be kind of a signaling effect, at least to his base, that they’re going to take care of the environment. But I’m just not sure when you look at, you know, sitting on the board of an energy company, you look at the costs related to all of these sort of exogenous environmental commitments that Canada is kind of inventing with the hope that it signals environmental commitments. But they’re not really making that big a difference to the planet. And they’re adding extraordinary costs. And they’re often being managed by government bureaucracies that don’t move at the speed of business or commercial interests. So I think it’s an important step.

It’s raising some important conversations. But I think the answers to some of those questions, those conversations are raising are going to take us further down the path of a much more liberalized economy when it comes to energy and hopefully a smaller government, a government that can live within its means federally and provincially. Yeah, I guess that’s the takeaway here, right? I mean, you know, it’s fine to say that this is a positive achievement. This is a project that is worthwhile, but to avoid maybe patting ourselves on the back too much and recognize some of these broader challenges we face, what do you think should be the next step here? Rather than just say, see this major projects office, this approach is working to have more meaningful conversation about taxes, about regulation, about just the whole picture. Is that really where the conversation ought to be going?

Yeah, look, I think you’re doing it right now, Rob. I think that this kind of conversation that you’re initiating is really important because I think that the baseline is that we want this nation to succeed. We want Alberta to succeed. We want Canada to succeed. We know that, and I think we’ve been sort of avoiding the fact that we’ve allowed the economy to decline and we’ve become very, very dependent on the United States as a result of that.

I mean, one of the great ironies of the past decade is that by refusing to build these things that would have taken our energy to Asia and to Europe, we’ve created a much deeper dependency on the U.S. markets in every way and across every category. And that dependency is now starting to really hurt us. And I think Ontario is an especially tough, tough place when it comes to this.

But I think the first step here is to start to lay out the way forward. And one of the obvious things to do is look at other nations and say, how are they creating these things in a way that’s actually getting things done? You look at a place, I’ve been spending some time in the United Arab Emirates, which is home to both Abu Dhabi and Dubai. And they just decided in the middle of this war that the Straits of Hormuz were not secure enough.

And so they’re going to build a pipeline. They’re going to have that pipeline done in under a year. And that’s going to move 1.8 million barrels of oil. And when you hear that, you sort of think, makes sense. But then you think, imagine if Canada said, we’re going to build a pipeline, 1.8 million, we’re going to have it done in a year. And we’re going to get this stuff to China as a result of what happened in Venezuela.

Here’s the burning question for me. Why not? Why can’t we be that nation? Half the people building these infrastructure projects in the UAE are coming from Canada, because we’re the best in the world at these things. But those experts can’t build those things in Canada at that speed, because they’re beholden to a series of rules that are often rooted in what used to feel like benign green commitments.

But now we just realize these are constraints that are doing nothing for the planet. And they’re significantly slowing down our ability to actually build the kind of economic stability and security and growth we need.

And I really like the framing that you gave about this event. Yes, this step is good. But before we start celebrating, let’s consider where does this actually go next? Are we still talking about a five to 10 year build process? Is that real? Why can they build something in a year in the UAE that carries almost twice the amount of oil as what we can build? And if there’s geographic or geological reasons why, that’s fine. But I don’t think that’s the case.

I think a lot of it is that we’ve just grown used to and accustomed to operating in a manner that is second rate. And it doesn’t keep up with the speed of business. And it certainly doesn’t keep up with what’s happening globally in the world of energy security and energy supply.

Funding Country Prosperity and Self-Reliance vs. Climate Mitigation

Posted on by Ron Clutz

The news from a climatist perspective is reported in the LinkedIn article World Bank and IMF Retreat from Climate Finance Under US Pressure.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

In a significant shift in global financial priorities, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) appear to be scaling back their commitments to climate finance in 2026, likely influenced by pressure from the United States. This development, reported in mid-2025, has sparked concerns among environmental advocates, developing nations, and the business community about its potential to disrupt the global transition to a sustainable economy. Climate finance, which funds projects aimed at mitigating and adapting to climate change, is critical for supporting renewable energy, sustainable infrastructure, and climate resilience initiatives. [ Note: The United States is the largest shareholder of the World Bank, controlling about 16% of voting power. This allows the U.S. to single-handedly block any decision that requires a supermajority, such as extending or replacing the climate financing targets.]

Reorientation Background from US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent

Excerpts from Secretary Bessent IMFC-DC Statement in italics with my bolds and added images.

In recent years, the IMF has suffered from mission creep. Its work has too often extended into areas such as international development, climate change, gender, and social issues, which are disconnected from the institution’s core mandate. To restore its relevance and impact, the Fund must drop these extraneous items and focus on the critical economic work at hand. 

As part of the ongoing Comprehensive Surveillance Review (CSR), the IMF is taking important steps to better calibrate the scope of its surveillance and reverse these concerning trends. Through the ongoing Review of Program Design and Conditionality, we expect the IMF to reemphasize a culture focused on achieving successful program outcomes rather than prioritizing inputs, such as the volume of financing provided.

In a more constrained external financing environment, the IMF should promote domestic revenue mobilization, better governance, and policies that support durable, private sector-led growth.  Moreover, the IMF, together with the World Bank, must continue its efforts to improve debt data reporting, help build debt management capacity for borrowing countries, restore momentum in debt-restructuring processes, and advance progress under the Common Framework.

The World Bank must maintain focus on its core mission of reducing poverty and increasing economic growth. This means:

♦ Promoting a stronger development agenda focused on country self-reliance by directing resources to the countries most in need for foundational investments that increase productivity and growth and graduating countries from Bank support;
♦ Delivering access to all technologies which can provide abundant, reliable, and affordable energy;
♦ Promoting prudent macroeconomic management and the rule-of-law; and improving development outcomes by proactively seeking to expand competition in procurement.
♦ Striving for greater efficiency, discipline, and accountability so that every dollar delivers more impact.

The Bank must do more to advance developing country access to abundant, affordable, and reliable energy to support economic growth and poverty reduction. Energy abundance sparks economic abundance, and the World Bank should support an all-of-the-above approach to energy technologies—including fossil fuels such as gas, oil, and coal, rather than restrict borrower choice. We call on the Bank to further expand its support for affordable, reliable energy by removing constraints on its support for natural gas and increasing the number of gas projects in the pipeline. We continue to welcome the Bank’s removal of the prohibition on financing nuclear power generation last year. We further welcome the Bank’s leadership in a working group on nuclear energy development with other multilateral development banks. Financing that delivers energy abundance will provide a strong boost to growth, which will also support debt sustainability.

Focusing on the Bank’s core mission also means abandoning its distortionary 45% climate finance target, which impedes market efficiency, distorts incentives, and undermines efforts to reduce poverty and spur economic growth. We welcome the coming expiration of the Climate Change Action Plan, and upon its long-overdue expiration, expect the Bank to immediately shift its myopic focus on climate and financing volumes to one that emphasizes high-quality, durable projects rather than shaping and selecting projects to chase arbitrary financing targets that do little to lift people out of poverty. The Bank should turn its attention to whether its investments and the countries they support are resilient to a multitude of shocks, rather than to meeting nonsensical arbitrary targets.

As public institutions, the World Bank and IMF can most clearly demonstrate accountability to their shareholders by ensuring that a sharper focus on their respective core missions is also reflected by restrained budgets. In service of this goal, we are pleased that both institutions have proposed flat real administrative budget growth for the upcoming fiscal year alongside streamlining efforts that will help reverse the mission creep of recent years.

More than eight decades after their creation at Bretton Woods, we must ensure that the international financial institutions remain true to their mandates and fit for purpose. Streamlining policy priorities will allow both the World Bank and IMF to focus limited public resources on effectively fulfilling their core mandates while nimbly responding to crises. The United States will continue to work with Management and staff, as well as other shareholders, to advance these priorities.

 

 

Why Europe Can’t Quit Climate Alarmism

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Members of the European Parliament attend a session to vote on legislation to cut import duties for U.S. products in Brussels, March 26, 2026. (Yves Herman/Reuters)


Even as Democratic activists in the U.S. cool to the cause of climate alarmism, environmentalism maintains its political and economic grip on policymakers on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. Years into a cost-of-living crisis, why is the European Union still so green?

It may be easy to dismiss this as a case of fanaticism: Sure, American progressives may perhaps not have been truly sincere when they proclaimed their faith in the upcoming apocalypse and the gospel of Greta Thunberg, but maybe her fellow Swedes — and other Europeans — are true believers?

While “sincere” environment activists may be a more common breed in Europe, that does not explain the actions of policymakers and civil servants — technocrats who know for a fact that the “climate transition” was sold to voters by giving disproportionate publicity to worst-case scenarios, rather than the more likely, less catastrophic, and less headline-grabbing scenarios outlined by the likes of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Instead, one must first understand that the EU is a slow-moving beast. The legislative process is complicated and sluggish, with 27 countries and an often-equal number of different viewpoints all struggling to be heard. The rules of the union mean that a third of the countries are able to veto most legislation, and in some cases, unanimity is required. Passing the European Green Deal in the first place required truly draconian efforts of political willpower and coordination, and reversing or altering the deal would hardly be any easier.

Making matters worse, the EU has driven past every conceivable off-ramp, events that would have allowed it to change course while saving face. Mere months after the European Green Deal was unveiled, the Covid-19 pandemic went on to turn the world upside down. Mass unemployment and government borrowing followed. At this point, the EU could have cited the pandemic as an excuse as to why climate goals had to be postponed, and some money earmarked for green projects instead used towards health-care or furlough programs.

The next “off-ramp” was the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. With Europe suddenly needing to provide aid to Ukraine and rearm itself, policymakers could have made the case that the original timeline of the Green Deal was no longer feasible. Shortly thereafter, inflation would hit double digits in many EU member states, once again providing an excellent “excuse” to cancel a Green Deal that was negotiated in the bygone Zero Interest-Rate Policy (ZIRP) era, and whose ambitious goals assumed that this era would never end.

Now, policymakers are truly stuck with a project that virtually ensures the EU won’t see much of the global, energy-intensive AI boom, as prohibitive electricity prices cause data centers and tech firms to choose other locations. As slow and complicated as the legislative process in the EU is, that alone cannot explain why none of the off-ramps were taken.

00:12
02:00
Read More

 

It is also, as it so often is in politics, about power. Environmentalism is a convenient ideology for those who wish to transfer power to the state, as it provides justification for the state’s expansion. In Europe, however, environmentalism is chiefly not used to transfer power from the voters to the state, but from the states to the European Union. For a supranational organization whose founding treaty infamously states that it is to strive to be an “ever-closer union,” hardly any excuse for centralization is ever passed by.

It may be easy to dismiss this as a case of fanaticism: Sure, American progressives may perhaps not have been truly sincere when they proclaimed their faith in the upcoming apocalypse and the gospel of Greta Thunberg, but maybe her fellow Swedes — and other Europeans — are true believers?

While “sincere” environment activists may be a more common breed in Europe, that does not explain the actions of policymakers and civil servants — technocrats who know for a fact that the “climate transition” was sold to voters by giving disproportionate publicity to worst-case scenarios, rather than the more likely, less catastrophic, and less headline-grabbing scenarios outlined by the likes of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Instead, one must first understand that the EU is a slow-moving beast. The legislative process is complicated and sluggish, with 27 countries and an often-equal number of different viewpoints all struggling to be heard. The rules of the union mean that a third of the countries are able to veto most legislation, and in some cases, unanimity is required. Passing the European Green Deal in the first place required truly draconian efforts of political willpower and coordination, and reversing or altering the deal would hardly be any easier.

Making matters worse, the EU has driven past every conceivable off-ramp, events that would have allowed it to change course while saving face. Mere months after the European Green Deal was unveiled, the Covid-19 pandemic went on to turn the world upside down. Mass unemployment and government borrowing followed. At this point, the EU could have cited the pandemic as an excuse as to why climate goals had to be postponed, and some money earmarked for green projects instead used towards health-care or furlough programs.

The next “off-ramp” was the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. With Europe suddenly needing to provide aid to Ukraine and rearm itself, policymakers could have made the case that the original timeline of the Green Deal was no longer feasible. Shortly thereafter, inflation would hit double digits in many EU member states, once again providing an excellent “excuse” to cancel a Green Deal that was negotiated in the bygone Zero Interest-Rate Policy (ZIRP) era, and whose ambitious goals assumed that this era would never end.

Now, policymakers are truly stuck with a project that virtually ensures the EU won’t see much of the global, energy-intensive AI boom, as prohibitive electricity prices cause data centers and tech firms to choose other locations. As slow and complicated as the legislative process in the EU is, that alone cannot explain why none of the off-ramps were taken.

00:12
02:00
Read More

 

It is also, as it so often is in politics, about power. Environmentalism is a convenient ideology for those who wish to transfer power to the state, as it provides justification for the state’s expansion. In Europe, however, environmentalism is chiefly not used to transfer power from the voters to the state, but from the states to the European Union. For a supranational organization whose founding treaty infamously states that it is to strive to be an “ever-closer union,” hardly any excuse for centralization is ever passed by.

It may be easy to dismiss this as a case of fanaticism: Sure, American progressives may perhaps not have been truly sincere when they proclaimed their faith in the upcoming apocalypse and the gospel of Greta Thunberg, but maybe her fellow Swedes — and other Europeans — are true believers?

While “sincere” environment activists may be a more common breed in Europe, that does not explain the actions of policymakers and civil servants — technocrats who know for a fact that the “climate transition” was sold to voters by giving disproportionate publicity to worst-case scenarios, rather than the more likely, less catastrophic, and less headline-grabbing scenarios outlined by the likes of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Instead, one must first understand that the EU is a slow-moving beast. The legislative process is complicated and sluggish, with 27 countries and an often-equal number of different viewpoints all struggling to be heard. The rules of the union mean that a third of the countries are able to veto most legislation, and in some cases, unanimity is required. Passing the European Green Deal in the first place required truly draconian efforts of political willpower and coordination, and reversing or altering the deal would hardly be any easier.

Making matters worse, the EU has driven past every conceivable off-ramp, events that would have allowed it to change course while saving face. Mere months after the European Green Deal was unveiled, the Covid-19 pandemic went on to turn the world upside down. Mass unemployment and government borrowing followed. At this point, the EU could have cited the pandemic as an excuse as to why climate goals had to be postponed, and some money earmarked for green projects instead used towards health-care or furlough programs.

The next “off-ramp” was the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. With Europe suddenly needing to provide aid to Ukraine and rearm itself, policymakers could have made the case that the original timeline of the Green Deal was no longer feasible. Shortly thereafter, inflation would hit double digits in many EU member states, once again providing an excellent “excuse” to cancel a Green Deal that was negotiated in the bygone Zero Interest-Rate Policy (ZIRP) era, and whose ambitious goals assumed that this era would never end.

Now, policymakers are truly stuck with a project that virtually ensures the EU won’t see much of the global, energy-intensive AI boom, as prohibitive electricity prices cause data centers and tech firms to choose other locations. As slow and complicated as the legislative process in the EU is, that alone cannot explain why none of the off-ramps were taken.

The video player is currently playing an ad.

It is also, as it so often is in politics, about power. Environmentalism is a convenient ideology for those who wish to transfer power to the state, as it provides justification for the state’s expansion. In Europe, however, environmentalism is chiefly not used to transfer power from the voters to the state, but from the states to the European Union. For a supranational organization whose founding treaty infamously states that it is to strive to be an “ever-closer union,” hardly any excuse for centralization is ever passed by.

It may be easy to dismiss this as a case of fanaticism: Sure, American progressives may perhaps not have been truly sincere when they proclaimed their faith in the upcoming apocalypse and the gospel of Greta Thunberg, but maybe her fellow Swedes — and other Europeans — are true believers?

While “sincere” environment activists may be a more common breed in Europe, that does not explain the actions of policymakers and civil servants — technocrats who know for a fact that the “climate transition” was sold to voters by giving disproportionate publicity to worst-case scenarios, rather than the more likely, less catastrophic, and less headline-grabbing scenarios outlined by the likes of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Instead, one must first understand that the EU is a slow-moving beast. The legislative process is complicated and sluggish, with 27 countries and an often-equal number of different viewpoints all struggling to be heard. The rules of the union mean that a third of the countries are able to veto most legislation, and in some cases, unanimity is required. Passing the European Green Deal in the first place required truly draconian efforts of political willpower and coordination, and reversing or altering the deal would hardly be any easier.

Making matters worse, the EU has driven past every conceivable off-ramp, events that would have allowed it to change course while saving face. Mere months after the European Green Deal was unveiled, the Covid-19 pandemic went on to turn the world upside down. Mass unemployment and government borrowing followed. At this point, the EU could have cited the pandemic as an excuse as to why climate goals had to be postponed, and some money earmarked for green projects instead used towards health-care or furlough programs.

The next “off-ramp” was the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. With Europe suddenly needing to provide aid to Ukraine and rearm itself, policymakers could have made the case that the original timeline of the Green Deal was no longer feasible. Shortly thereafter, inflation would hit double digits in many EU member states, once again providing an excellent “excuse” to cancel a Green Deal that was negotiated in the bygone Zero Interest-Rate Policy (ZIRP) era, and whose ambitious goals assumed that this era would never end.

Now, policymakers are truly stuck with a project that virtually ensures the EU won’t see much of the global, energy-intensive AI boom, as prohibitive electricity prices cause data centers and tech firms to choose other locations. As slow and complicated as the legislative process in the EU is, that alone cannot explain why none of the off-ramps were taken.

The video player is currently playing an ad.

It is also, as it so often is in politics, about power. Environmentalism is a convenient ideology for those who wish to transfer power to the state, as it provides justification for the state’s expansion. In Europe, however, environmentalism is chiefly not used to transfer power from the voters to the state, but from the states to the European Union. For a supranational organization whose founding treaty infamously states that it is to strive to be an “ever-closer union,” hardly any excuse for centralization is ever passed by.

It may be easy to dismiss this as a case of fanaticism: Sure, American progressives may perhaps not have been truly sincere when they proclaimed their faith in the upcoming apocalypse and the gospel of Greta Thunberg, but maybe her fellow Swedes — and other Europeans — are true believers?

While “sincere” environment activists may be a more common breed in Europe, that does not explain the actions of policymakers and civil servants — technocrats who know for a fact that the “climate transition” was sold to voters by giving disproportionate publicity to worst-case scenarios, rather than the more likely, less catastrophic, and less headline-grabbing scenarios outlined by the likes of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Instead, one must first understand that the EU is a slow-moving beast. The legislative process is complicated and sluggish, with 27 countries and an often-equal number of different viewpoints all struggling to be heard. The rules of the union mean that a third of the countries are able to veto most legislation, and in some cases, unanimity is required. Passing the European Green Deal in the first place required truly draconian efforts of political willpower and coordination, and reversing or altering the deal would hardly be any easier.

Making matters worse, the EU has driven past every conceivable off-ramp, events that would have allowed it to change course while saving face. Mere months after the European Green Deal was unveiled, the Covid-19 pandemic went on to turn the world upside down. Mass unemployment and government borrowing followed. At this point, the EU could have cited the pandemic as an excuse as to why climate goals had to be postponed, and some money earmarked for green projects instead used towards health-care or furlough programs.

The next “off-ramp” was the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. With Europe suddenly needing to provide aid to Ukraine and rearm itself, policymakers could have made the case that the original timeline of the Green Deal was no longer feasible. Shortly thereafter, inflation would hit double digits in many EU member states, once again providing an excellent “excuse” to cancel a Green Deal that was negotiated in the bygone Zero Interest-Rate Policy (ZIRP) era, and whose ambitious goals assumed that this era would never end.

Now, policymakers are truly stuck with a project that virtually ensures the EU won’t see much of the global, energy-intensive AI boom, as prohibitive electricity prices cause data centers and tech firms to choose other locations. As slow and complicated as the legislative process in the EU is, that alone cannot explain why none of the off-ramps were taken.

The video player is currently playing an ad.

It is also, as it so often is in politics, about power. Environmentalism is a convenient ideology for those who wish to transfer power to the state, as it provides justification for the state’s expansion. In Europe, however, environmentalism is chiefly not used to transfer power from the voters to the state, but from the states to the European Union. For a supranational organization whose founding treaty infamously states that it is to strive to be an “ever-closer union,” hardly any excuse for centralization is ever passed by.

It may be easy to dismiss this as a case of fanaticism: Sure, American progressives may perhaps not have been truly sincere when they proclaimed their faith in the upcoming apocalypse and the gospel of Greta Thunberg, but maybe her fellow Swedes — and other Europeans — are true believers?

While “sincere” environment activists may be a more common breed in Europe, that does not explain the actions of policymakers and civil servants — technocrats who know for a fact that the “climate transition” was sold to voters by giving disproportionate publicity to worst-case scenarios, rather than the more likely, less catastrophic, and less headline-grabbing scenarios outlined by the likes of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Instead, one must first understand that the EU is a slow-moving beast. The legislative process is complicated and sluggish, with 27 countries and an often-equal number of different viewpoints all struggling to be heard. The rules of the union mean that a third of the countries are able to veto most legislation, and in some cases, unanimity is required. Passing the European Green Deal in the first place required truly draconian efforts of political willpower and coordination, and reversing or altering the deal would hardly be any easier.

Making matters worse, the EU has driven past every conceivable off-ramp, events that would have allowed it to change course while saving face. Mere months after the European Green Deal was unveiled, the Covid-19 pandemic went on to turn the world upside down. Mass unemployment and government borrowing followed. At this point, the EU could have cited the pandemic as an excuse as to why climate goals had to be postponed, and some money earmarked for green projects instead used towards health-care or furlough programs.

The next “off-ramp” was the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. With Europe suddenly needing to provide aid to Ukraine and rearm itself, policymakers could have made the case that the original timeline of the Green Deal was no longer feasible. Shortly thereafter, inflation would hit double digits in many EU member states, once again providing an excellent “excuse” to cancel a Green Deal that was negotiated in the bygone Zero Interest-Rate Policy (ZIRP) era, and whose ambitious goals assumed that this era would never end.

Now, policymakers are truly stuck with a project that virtually ensures the EU won’t see much of the global, energy-intensive AI boom, as prohibitive electricity prices cause data centers and tech firms to choose other locations. As slow and complicated as the legislative process in the EU is, that alone cannot explain why none of the off-ramps were taken.

The video player is currently playing an ad.

It is also, as it so often is in politics, about power. Environmentalism is a convenient ideology for those who wish to transfer power to the state, as it provides justification for the state’s expansion. In Europe, however, environmentalism is chiefly not used to transfer power from the voters to the state, but from the states to the European Union. For a supranational organization whose founding treaty infamously states that it is to strive to be an “ever-closer union,” hardly any excuse for centralization is ever passed by.

It may be easy to dismiss this as a case of fanaticism: Sure, American progressives may perhaps not have been truly sincere when they proclaimed their faith in the upcoming apocalypse and the gospel of Greta Thunberg, but maybe her fellow Swedes — and other Europeans — are true believers?

While “sincere” environment activists may be a more common breed in Europe, that does not explain the actions of policymakers and civil servants — technocrats who know for a fact that the “climate transition” was sold to voters by giving disproportionate publicity to worst-case scenarios, rather than the more likely, less catastrophic, and less headline-grabbing scenarios outlined by the likes of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

It may be easy to dismiss this as a case of fanaticism: Sure, American progressives may perhaps not have been truly sincere when they proclaimed their faith in the upcoming apocalypse and the gospel of Greta Thunberg, but maybe her fellow Swedes — and other Europeans — are true believers?

While “sincere” environment activists may be a more common breed in Europe, that does not explain the actions of policymakers and civil servants — technocrats who know for a fact that the “climate transition” was sold to voters by giving disproportionate publicity to worst-case scenarios, rather than the more likely, less catastrophic, and less headline-grabbing scenarios outlined by the likes of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Polish coal miners protest against liquidation of Polish coal mines.

Instead, one must first understand that the EU is a slow-moving beast. The legislative process is complicated and sluggish, with 27 countries and an often-equal number of different viewpoints all struggling to be heard. The rules of the union mean that a third of the countries are able to veto most legislation, and in some cases, unanimity is required. Passing the European Green Deal in the first place required truly draconian efforts of political willpower and coordination, and reversing or altering the deal would hardly be any easier.

Making matters worse, the EU has driven past every conceivable off-ramp, events that would have allowed it to change course while saving face. Mere months after the European Green Deal was unveiled, the Covid-19 pandemic went on to turn the world upside down. Mass unemployment and government borrowing followed. At this point, the EU could have cited the pandemic as an excuse as to why climate goals had to be postponed, and some money earmarked for green projects instead used towards health-care or furlough programs.

Making matters worse, the EU has driven past every conceivable off-ramp, events that would have allowed it to change course while saving face. Mere months after the European Green Deal was unveiled, the Covid-19 pandemic went on to turn the world upside down. Mass unemployment and government borrowing followed. At this point, the EU could have cited the pandemic as an excuse as to why climate goals had to be postponed, and some money earmarked for green projects instead used towards health-care or furlough programs.

The next “off-ramp” was the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. With Europe suddenly needing to provide aid to Ukraine and rearm itself, policymakers could have made the case that the original timeline of the Green Deal was no longer feasible. Shortly thereafter, inflation would hit double digits in many EU member states, once again providing an excellent “excuse” to cancel a Green Deal that was negotiated in the bygone Zero Interest-Rate Policy (ZIRP) era, and whose ambitious goals assumed that this era would never end.

Now, policymakers are truly stuck with a project that virtually ensures the EU won’t see much of the global, energy-intensive AI boom, as prohibitive electricity prices cause data centers and tech firms to choose other locations. As slow and complicated as the legislative process in the EU is, that alone cannot explain why none of the off-ramps were taken.

Making matters worse, the EU has driven past every conceivable off-ramp, events that would have allowed it to change course while saving face. Mere months after the European Green Deal was unveiled, the Covid-19 pandemic went on to turn the world upside down. Mass unemployment and government borrowing followed. At this point, the EU could have cited the pandemic as an excuse as to why climate goals had to be postponed, and some money earmarked for green projects instead used towards health-care or furlough programs.

The next “off-ramp” was the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. With Europe suddenly needing to provide aid to Ukraine and rearm itself, policymakers could have made the case that the original timeline of the Green Deal was no longer feasible. Shortly thereafter, inflation would hit double digits in many EU member states, once again providing an excellent “excuse” to cancel a Green Deal that was negotiated in the bygone Zero Interest-Rate Policy (ZIRP) era, and whose ambitious goals assumed that this era would never end.

Now, policymakers are truly stuck with a project that virtually ensures the EU won’t see much of the global, energy-intensive AI boom, as prohibitive electricity prices cause data centers and tech firms to choose other locations. As slow and complicated as the legislative process in the EU is, that alone cannot explain why none of the off-ramps were taken.

 

The next “off-ramp” was the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. With Europe suddenly needing to provide aid to Ukraine and rearm itself, policymakers could have made the case that the original timeline of the Green Deal was no longer feasible. Shortly thereafter, inflation would hit double digits in many EU member states, once again providing an excellent “excuse” to cancel a Green Deal that was negotiated in the bygone Zero Interest-Rate Policy (ZIRP) era, and whose ambitious goals assumed that this era would never end.

Now, policymakers are truly stuck with a project that virtually ensures the EU won’t see much of the global, energy-intensive AI boom, as prohibitive electricity prices cause data centers and tech firms to choose other locations. As slow and complicated as the legislative process in the EU is, that alone cannot explain why none of the off-ramps were taken.

It is also, as it so often is in politics, about power. Environmentalism is a convenient ideology for those who wish to transfer power to the state, as it provides justification for the state’s expansion. In Europe, however, environmentalism is chiefly not used to transfer power from the voters to the state, but from the states to the European Union. For a supranational organization whose founding treaty infamously states that it is to strive to be an “ever-closer union,” hardly any excuse for centralization is ever passed by.

And such an excuse was exactly what environmentalism provided: No single EU member can deal with climate change on their own, since none of them contributes to more than 0.7 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. The only way to fight this new threat, Brussels explained, was to do it together, under the benevolent direction of your friendly neighborhood eurocrat. Anyone who did not want to see the Swiss Alps underwater had no choice but to go along with the program.

That the EU as a whole only ever contributed 10 to 15 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions even before the first moves to transition were taken in the 1990s is the type of “inconvenient truth” voters rarely heard when the Deal was passed.

It is now down to less than 6 percent, yet Europe’s
green frenzy continues virtually unabated.

For the EU, the sunk cost has also been far greater than for America. Long before the European Green Deal, the EU made serious — and costly — efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Whereas American emissions wouldn’t peak until 2007, in the EU, they peaked in 1990, after which they have been on a steady decline. Total U.S. emissions were still more than 20 percent higher in 2024 at the end of Biden’s presidency than they had been in Europe in 1990.

Europeans have felt the pain of climate policies in the form of gas prices that (prior to the Iran war) averaged 2 to 3 times what American car owners paid. Higher electricity prices, tied to the shuttering of oil and coal but also nuclear power plants, have prevented air conditioning from taking off in Europe — ironically, this increases the number of Europeans who will suffer and even die as a result of rising global temperatures.

Already, more than 60,000 Europeans die of heat every summer.
More Europeans die from lack of AC than Americans do from gun violence.

Europeans have gritted their teeth and accepted that sacrifice, along with a large chunk of its traditional manufacturing sector — jobs that they were promised would be replaced by roles in “green” manufacturing and other “climate-friendly” industries the EU anticipated dominating on the world stage. That is not how things have turned out.

Instead, China has ascended as a dominating force in green industries
like solar panels and — worse for the EU — batteries and electric vehicles.

Automobile exports are now dropping fast. From 2008 to 2023, over 2.3 million European manufacturing jobs were lost, compared to “only” around 800,000 in the United States during that time period.

There is also no guarantee that lost manufacturing jobs would return and shuttered factories reopen any time soon even if Brussels were to pump the brakes now, much like how the coal mining jobs have so far failed to return despite Donald Trump’s reversal of Biden’s policies (they also declined under his first term).

For EU policymakers, climate transition initially looked like an easy win: First, you implement some harmless green policies. Then, when the prophesied climate apocalypse fails to take place, you can claim credit. It was not just great virtue-signaling, but also the perfect set-up for a “win” for those who wished to demonstrate the greatness of centralized EU efforts.

However, the “harmless” transition policies proved costlier, and voters turned out to be less invested in the project than the policymakers believed. On paper, most voters did support the idea of climate transition. But supporting an idea is different from actually paying the price at the pump and in the form of higher utility bills. (And let’s not forget those abominable paper straws.)

Lawmakers in the European Parliament agreed today, Nov. 13, 2025, to dramatic cuts to the EU’s sustainability reporting and due diligence laws, including significant reductions in the number of companies to be covered by the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), and the elimination of the obligation for companies to prepare climate transition plans. The vote, was 382 MEPs in favor and 249 opposed,

After all these sacrifices, few governments in the EU could afford to admit that it was all for nothing. Their position is made even more precarious as this would be the second such embarrassment: After the 2015–16 refugee crisis, most governments across Europe took steps toward restricting immigration, effectively conceding that the parties they had (and continue to) labeled “far-right” had been correct about the challenges caused by rising immigration numbers.

To give the same parties another win and concede that —
much like multiculturalism — climate transition too had turned out
to be a better idea on paper than in practice would simply be too much.

Since the 2008 financial crisis, the U.S. economy has outgrown the economies of Western Europe, creating a growing wealth gap. As Europe continues down the path of chasing green dreams instead of greenbacks, this gap is only likely to continue to grow until the day its leaders are finally forced to admit that their policies only ever ensured future generations would inherit not a cooler planet, but a poorer continent.

Climate House of Cards Collapsing at Last

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Peter Murphy observes at Washington Examiner The climate change house of cards is finally collapsing.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

The prevailing climate change narrative took a big hit in recent days, as scientists who comprise the United Nations’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are backing away from more outlandish climate predictions for the 21st century.

Extreme forecasts of rising temperatures of 4 to 5 degrees, the scientists wrote in the journal Geoscientific Model Development, “have become implausible.” That means predictions of rapidly growing carbon emissions and higher temperatures, supposedly leading to fast-rising sea levels, floods, crop failures, and even human extinction scenarios, are finally being jettisoned.