The fantasy continues, I'm lost for words at the degree of delusion at the annual waste of time.
28 COP's and oil and gas is being used at an increased rate every year, the rate of energy consumption is linked to growth, and the rate of growth exceeds any renewables capacity, except in Europe where renewables is high and surprise surprise growth is low to non existent.
When I looked recently at a graph of fossil fuel emissions, broken down by UK, USA, Canada, EU and "rest of world" since 1950, it shows those 5 were about 70% of emissions, today those 5 are responsible for about 30% and the "rest of the world" element is screaming upwards
You do have to wonder when the penny is going to drop for these green halfwits, but soon the cost of this when it hits the average household as it soon will, will see such a political backlash that this is going to come to a point of awful realisation by the public and a political backlash like you won't believe.
And this is starting to happen, net zero and immigration is hitting the politics of Holland and Germany hard now, its coming to the rest much sooner than they think.
Can I ask more about the Substitution Method, please? It doesn’t make any sense to me.
In the charts of total energy usage, there are figures for fossil fuels. Are these charts charts of ‘usable’ energy - ie what we get out after all inefficiencies - or of ‘input’ energy - ie calculated by knowing the tonnage of coal used and multiplying by energy content/ tonne?
In either case, what does the Substitution method add? It feels like an excuse to multiply Renewables by 2.6x or so, basically to make them look more important than they are.
Yes, they do multiply renewables by 2.6. The rationale is that they produce useful energy in the form of electricity. Whereas, when coal, oil or gas are burned, much of the input energy is lost as heat and only 30-40% of the input produces useful energy.
As I said in the article, this is reasonable up to a point. But even using their substitution method, there's no way renewables are going to replace fossil fuels by 2050.
I understood those points. But does that mean that your ‘total energy usage’ graphs are calculated off the theoretical energy content of the fossil fuels (before inefficiency losses) or represent the actual useful energy extracted from the fuel after losses?
I ask because I feel there’s a lot of smoke and mirrors in this whole Substitution method, and that even if some people use it correctly, others almost certainly don’t. I’m not meaning you, by the way! But it’s cropping up a lot more now and to me its use is potentially very misleading
A reminder that "renewable energy" is low density i.e high land use power and as such basically transfers the power subsidy from taxpayers to the land owner.
A now major part of the welfare state for The Establishment.
Greenism Green Feudalism is all about maximizing economic rents.
As Robin points out below, the 'deal' agreed at COP 28 emphasises the Paris Agreement and thus, according to the terms and provisions of that agreement, it lets so called 'developing countries' off the hook. But there is also this wording, which appears to be contradictory in that respect:
28. (d) Transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and equitable manner, accelerating action in this critical decade, so as to achieve net zero by 2050 in keeping with the science;
153. Reaffirms its commitment to multilateralism, especially in the light of the progress made under the Paris Agreement and resolves to remain united in the pursuit of efforts to achieve the purpose and long-term goals of the Agreement;
154. Recognizes that Parties should cooperate on promoting a supportive and open international economic system aimed at achieving sustainable economic growth and development in all countries and thus enabling them to better to address the problems of climate change, noting that measures taken to combat climate change, including unilateral ones, should not constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or a disguised restriction on international trade;
155. Notes that the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change states that international cooperation is a critical enabler for achieving ambitious climate action and encouraging development and implementation of climate policies;
'A just. orderly and equitable transition to achieve Net Zero GLOBALLY by 2050, excluding unilateral actions which might constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination'. The unilateral adoption of punishing, legally binding Net Zero policies by western developed nations is ANYTHING BUT just orderly and equitable, and it is blindingly obvious that those 'developing nations' which are not implementing strict net Zero policies now and are indeed significantly expanding their economies using fossil fuels, are NOT GOING TO BE ANYWHERE NEAR ACHIEVING NET ZERO BY 2050. So not only is the whole thing a farce, it is a farce which, contrary to its stated objectives, SERIOUSLY DISADVANTAGES AND DISCRIMINATES UNJUSTLY AGAINST WESTERN DEVELOPED NATIONS. Our politicians can see this clearly - not even they are THAT stupid - but they continue to plough ahead regardless. That makes them guilty of treason - and complicit in democide too probably.
It's notable that contrary to the hype, COP28 didn't actually agree to triple nuclear capacity by 2050, there was just an informal declaration by 26 countries.
The real force behind this push for Energy Poverty through the promotion of nutty scams like Wind, Solar, Agrofuels, Hydrogen, CCS, Carbon Trading & Net Zero, are the Club-of-Rome Malthusian Bankster Cartel, their propaganda is listed under the NGFS title which represents the cadre of privately controlled Central Banks, NGFS=Network for Greening the Financial System. Just look at their latest Climate Change Mitigation Strategy, for Sept 2022, for central banks & supervisors. Which, believe-it-or-not, predicts a 12degC temperature rise by 2100, under the Business-As-Usual scenario:
On page 29 they show their projected World primary energy mix. Undoubtedly under the assumption that they control or own the World. They have the World projected investment through 2050 at Fossil Electricity @ $1T, Fossil Extraction @ $17T, Renewable Electricity & Storage @ $50T, Nuclear @ $2.8T.
And Primary Energy mix 2050 @ Renewables 71%, Oil 18%, Gas 7%, Nuclear 1%, Coal ~0%.
And Capital Costs for 2050 for solar PV dropping to $400/kw in US$2010.
The "Great Reset" Is Real And Wreaking Havoc:
Why are global elites demanding poor nations make energy expensive? Michael Shellenberger
Don't fall for BP's lies about their "substitution method" for determining Primary Energy. What a crock. Why not send BP crooks to school for a course on Introduction to Energy, so they can learn what Primary Energy means?
BP just loves to pump up wind & solar, multiplying their ACTUAL primary energy by 2.6X, their favorite Propaganda & Disinformation energy source, because they know it does zip to replace fossil, but it does increase natural gas consumption, at the expensive of coal & nuclear. So instead of using the scientific & factual method of determining Nuclear primary energy from it's actual heat rate same as is done for any thermal generating plant, they avoid that because their phony method allows them to multiply nuclear primary energy by 0.8X, since current PWRs are 80% the efficiency of avg fossil fuel power plants.
So best CCGT are double the efficiency of OCGT, so why not multiply CCGT primary energy by 2X?
Ultra-supercritical coal is 1.5X the efficiency of conventional coal, so why not multiply it's primary energy by 1.5X?
A lot of fossil & nuclear power plants use cogeneration so they are much more efficient, 80% efficient or more, so why doesn't BP multiply them by 2.5X?
BEVs are 6X the efficiency of gas ICE vehicles, so why not multiply the transportation primary energy used by EVs by 6X?
Norway uses is moving to all EVs & heat pumps, so we would expect its Primary Energy consumption to drop due to increased efficiency. But BP multiplies their Hydro Primary Energy by 2.6X so that expected drop doesn't occur. How does that make sense?
And, as you mentioned, any usage of wind/solar energy storage drastically drops their efficiency, by up to 5X. And curtailment drops their efficiency also. And induced cycling inefficiencies. And transmission inefficiencies. And using wind/solar in heating applications adds no efficiency improvement over fossil. All of which will be getting worse, much worse. Why isn't BP accounting for all of that in their supposed "energy substitution method"?
Conclusion: BP are liars, spin doctors and con artists, so don't use their primary energy data. Use the correct data from the IEA. Sadly OurWorldInData still uses the phony BP primary energy data.
Enjoyable (in a way) read. Enviro-axtivism is indeed performance art begging for an audience. Unfortunately for rational people, it has found several in legacy and new media, corporations, and average westerners who apparently tread the planet in a perpetual state of cognitive dissonance. How else can one explain the inverse proportionality between what they spend on consumables, travel, restaurant meals and drinks, and the like and their wind-mills-or-die beliefs? COP28 is bad art performed for a blind audience.
A problem that’s plagued climate negotiations since the enactment of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992 is the exemption of developing countries from any obligation (legal, moral or political) to reduce their emissions. That was initially made effective by Article 4.7 of the Convention and has continued ever since: it was confirmed by the Kyoto Protocol (COP3) in 1998, at the Copenhagen conference (COP15) in 2009 and, significantly, by The Paris Agreement (COP21) in 2015.
And, although few (if any) commentators seem to have noticed, it was confirmed last week at COP28.
It’s widely recognised that paragraph 28 of the ‘Dubai Agreement’ is its key provision – especially item (d) with its reference to ‘Transitioning away from fossil fuels’ – but few seem to have considered the impact of its opening paragraph. Yet that says that the Parties’ contribution must take ‘into account the Paris Agreement’. And that’s crucially important.
Here’s why: scroll down to paragraph 38. It ‘Recalls Article 4, paragraph 4, of the Paris Agreement, which provides that developed country Parties should continue taking the lead by undertaking economy-wide absolute emission reduction targets, and that developing country Parties should continue enhancing their mitigation efforts and are encouraged to move over time towards economy-wide emission reduction or limitation targets in the light of different national circumstances.’
Get that? Paragraph 28 says that parties must take account of the Paris Agreement. And the Paris Agreement – as specifically stated here in paragraph 38 – states that developing countries are merely ‘encouraged’ to move to emission cuts ‘over time’. And, so there’s no misunderstanding, paragraph 39 ‘Reaffirms Article 4.4’. In other words, as has been the case since 1992, developing countries are under no obligation to cut their emissions. Yet developing countries are the source of about 65% of global emissions.
The effect of the above is that only developed countries are affected by the transitioning provision (whatever it may mean) and, as some major developed countries (especially Russia) have no interest in complying, in practice it can apply only to Western economies. And they’re the source of barely 20% of global emissions. In other words, the Dubai Agreement is an absurd nonsense.
Why are we still classifying China as a developing country?
And why does reducing emissions in developing countries matter when they are over 70% of emissions and rising, any cuts we make are more than trebled every year by the other 70%
China and other large emerging and OPEC economies were classified as 'developing' by the 1992 climate Convention - as confirmed by the Paris Agreement and now by COP28. It's absurd, but there's nothing 'we' (i.e. you and me and like-minded people) can do about it. And yes, the whole shebang is logically flawed. And again there's nothing we can do about it.
We could just remove the legal requirement in law and stop attending. The fact that Sunak spent more time flying there and back than actually there was gratifying, the thought of Der Sturmer leaves me in a cold sweat of energy prices no one can afford
The ruling “elites” are taking us all for fools with their ludicrously-unbelievable stated policy objectives. Dr Reiner Fuellmich is almost the only person in the world who has exposed the evil ulterior motives of our unelected, unaccountable globalist overlords in simple language. He did this mainly in the context of the Covid “plandemic” but also touched on the climate change scam. Just as Covid was never about public health, Net Zero has never been about climate. Both are trojan horses to digitally shackle, impoverish, deindustrialise and depopulate humanity.
Unfortunately, Dr Fuellmich is now languishing in jail on what are almost certainly trumped-up charges. He and his (now ex-) colleagues in the https://corona-investigative-committee.com/ became suspicious of the iatrogenic harms that were being perpetrated in 2020 in the name of “tackling Covid” (cf. the mantra “tackling climate change”). In 2022 they conducted a model Crimes Against Humanity trial, by that time encompassing the even more harmful Covid mass vaccination programme, with hundreds of hours of expert video evidence.
All the trial evidence is recorded online but the only (quite long) summary of the proceedings that I am aware of is mine, recorded online via the good offices of Joel Smalley. It’s a slightly confusing story as there was a hiatus of several months in the middle of the trial, so my summary is in two parts, see https://metatron.substack.com/p/reiner-fuellmichs-grand-jury-court. For an overview, scroll down to Reiner’s closing arguments.
There is comedy in the agreement of Western countries to pay poorer countries for our path into industiralizatiion through the use of a abundant carbon energy while we ignore their use of abundant carbon energy to advance towards...well you get it
And where do these COP’ers think (I know, that’s only rhetorical) the labour, management and intellectual capital resources are going to come from to execute all this? Sure, we can theoretically mine for the raw materials, but with the accelerating decline in demographics in most of the productive countries, there won’t be enough workers to actually get the job done. On top of that, there’s the whole effort to alter our industrial, commercial and private systems away from the current energy mix to use only electricity. Has anyone actually got a battery-powered lawn mower that works as well as a fossil fueled one?
That rather puts thing in stark reality although most politicians are innumerate so wont understand it. As i see it the only way we come off fossil fuels is if they ever run out nothing else will eliminate them. Yes we can displace some usage and that's maybe a good thing, albeit very expensive, but we cant eliminate them and this reality is setting in but politicians are so invested its going to take time.
In terms of increased build out only solar is potentially deliverable as the supply chain can be ramped relatively quickly but wind particularly offshore hasn't got a cat in hells chance. Despite recent negativity around costs the few vessels able to install the large output generators are booked up years in advance. Hornsea 3 is an AR4 project and wont be installing until 2026 for a 2027 commissioning. Remember offshore target at 40GW was unachievable before the buffoon reset it to 50GW. Then there is the transmission constraints which means all too often they are forced off the system at great cost to consumers.
Sorry meant from the wider global goal set at COP. Agree pointless in the UK but what i don't get is how our politicians can't see the bleeding obvious that you need an alternative for solar when the sun aint out. Its more than group think at work its just plain common sense.
Don't forget the inherent gross inefficiency of solar due to its footprint and the mining needs to create the panels. Nobody cares because they have no need of logic or rationality. Fervor is sufficient for greens to explain the unexplainable.
I can’t think of a single UK politician who questions the push to get rid of fossil fuels, despite the impossibility of this transition staring them in the face. Fossil fuels (mostly gas) only just kept the UK lights on over the early days of December when temperatures were below freezing and there was practically zero wind and solar. The current Gridwatch graph from mid-November to mid-December shows what a narrow squeak we had, yet these nutters blithely press ahead leading the country into an abyss: https://gridwatch.templar.co.uk/.
How can you not understand the dire situation as the greens do? We are near death! The people must eat worms and ride bicycles to the glorious unveiling of turbines and solar fields made in slave conditions at plants made possible by coal burning. This is necessary for the West to atone for its illegitimacy! Now go make me an artisanal latte and avocado toast; I am weary from the backbreaking work of gluing my hands to a tea kettle at my parents house to protest their buying non-organic chamomile.
The fixation by these zealots at these COP jamboree on the 1.5c target is how they'll drive humanity to the brink, encompassing the 'phasing out' of fossil fuels, and, the geo engineering in the skies. Can't they see that they too will be at the brink along with the rest of us, not withstanding their protected enclaves, or, subterranean hidey holes. They actually must do, so the Climate racket, like the Health racket is just leverage for digital control of populations.
Very interesting and well put together Article. A Merry Christmas to you and your readers.
Wind droughts are the fatal flaw in the system, on nights with little or no wind during the regular Dunkelflautes you get next to no RE regardless of the installed capacity.
Its a shame that the meteorologists didn't bother to issue wind drought warnings.
We could have been spared the biggest peacetime policy blunder ever, corrupting the grid with expensive and environmentally destructive intermittent energy.
The fantasy continues, I'm lost for words at the degree of delusion at the annual waste of time.
28 COP's and oil and gas is being used at an increased rate every year, the rate of energy consumption is linked to growth, and the rate of growth exceeds any renewables capacity, except in Europe where renewables is high and surprise surprise growth is low to non existent.
When I looked recently at a graph of fossil fuel emissions, broken down by UK, USA, Canada, EU and "rest of world" since 1950, it shows those 5 were about 70% of emissions, today those 5 are responsible for about 30% and the "rest of the world" element is screaming upwards
You do have to wonder when the penny is going to drop for these green halfwits, but soon the cost of this when it hits the average household as it soon will, will see such a political backlash that this is going to come to a point of awful realisation by the public and a political backlash like you won't believe.
And this is starting to happen, net zero and immigration is hitting the politics of Holland and Germany hard now, its coming to the rest much sooner than they think.
Can I ask more about the Substitution Method, please? It doesn’t make any sense to me.
In the charts of total energy usage, there are figures for fossil fuels. Are these charts charts of ‘usable’ energy - ie what we get out after all inefficiencies - or of ‘input’ energy - ie calculated by knowing the tonnage of coal used and multiplying by energy content/ tonne?
In either case, what does the Substitution method add? It feels like an excuse to multiply Renewables by 2.6x or so, basically to make them look more important than they are.
What am I missing?
Yes, they do multiply renewables by 2.6. The rationale is that they produce useful energy in the form of electricity. Whereas, when coal, oil or gas are burned, much of the input energy is lost as heat and only 30-40% of the input produces useful energy.
As I said in the article, this is reasonable up to a point. But even using their substitution method, there's no way renewables are going to replace fossil fuels by 2050.
I understood those points. But does that mean that your ‘total energy usage’ graphs are calculated off the theoretical energy content of the fossil fuels (before inefficiency losses) or represent the actual useful energy extracted from the fuel after losses?
I ask because I feel there’s a lot of smoke and mirrors in this whole Substitution method, and that even if some people use it correctly, others almost certainly don’t. I’m not meaning you, by the way! But it’s cropping up a lot more now and to me its use is potentially very misleading
Essentially, theoretical energy content, before losses.
A reminder that "renewable energy" is low density i.e high land use power and as such basically transfers the power subsidy from taxpayers to the land owner.
A now major part of the welfare state for The Establishment.
Greenism Green Feudalism is all about maximizing economic rents.
As Robin points out below, the 'deal' agreed at COP 28 emphasises the Paris Agreement and thus, according to the terms and provisions of that agreement, it lets so called 'developing countries' off the hook. But there is also this wording, which appears to be contradictory in that respect:
28. (d) Transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and equitable manner, accelerating action in this critical decade, so as to achieve net zero by 2050 in keeping with the science;
153. Reaffirms its commitment to multilateralism, especially in the light of the progress made under the Paris Agreement and resolves to remain united in the pursuit of efforts to achieve the purpose and long-term goals of the Agreement;
154. Recognizes that Parties should cooperate on promoting a supportive and open international economic system aimed at achieving sustainable economic growth and development in all countries and thus enabling them to better to address the problems of climate change, noting that measures taken to combat climate change, including unilateral ones, should not constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or a disguised restriction on international trade;
155. Notes that the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change states that international cooperation is a critical enabler for achieving ambitious climate action and encouraging development and implementation of climate policies;
'A just. orderly and equitable transition to achieve Net Zero GLOBALLY by 2050, excluding unilateral actions which might constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination'. The unilateral adoption of punishing, legally binding Net Zero policies by western developed nations is ANYTHING BUT just orderly and equitable, and it is blindingly obvious that those 'developing nations' which are not implementing strict net Zero policies now and are indeed significantly expanding their economies using fossil fuels, are NOT GOING TO BE ANYWHERE NEAR ACHIEVING NET ZERO BY 2050. So not only is the whole thing a farce, it is a farce which, contrary to its stated objectives, SERIOUSLY DISADVANTAGES AND DISCRIMINATES UNJUSTLY AGAINST WESTERN DEVELOPED NATIONS. Our politicians can see this clearly - not even they are THAT stupid - but they continue to plough ahead regardless. That makes them guilty of treason - and complicit in democide too probably.
It's notable that contrary to the hype, COP28 didn't actually agree to triple nuclear capacity by 2050, there was just an informal declaration by 26 countries.
The real force behind this push for Energy Poverty through the promotion of nutty scams like Wind, Solar, Agrofuels, Hydrogen, CCS, Carbon Trading & Net Zero, are the Club-of-Rome Malthusian Bankster Cartel, their propaganda is listed under the NGFS title which represents the cadre of privately controlled Central Banks, NGFS=Network for Greening the Financial System. Just look at their latest Climate Change Mitigation Strategy, for Sept 2022, for central banks & supervisors. Which, believe-it-or-not, predicts a 12degC temperature rise by 2100, under the Business-As-Usual scenario:
https://www.ngfs.net/sites/default/files/medias/documents/ngfs_climate_scenarios_for_central_banks_and_supervisors_.pdf.pdf
On page 29 they show their projected World primary energy mix. Undoubtedly under the assumption that they control or own the World. They have the World projected investment through 2050 at Fossil Electricity @ $1T, Fossil Extraction @ $17T, Renewable Electricity & Storage @ $50T, Nuclear @ $2.8T.
And Primary Energy mix 2050 @ Renewables 71%, Oil 18%, Gas 7%, Nuclear 1%, Coal ~0%.
And Capital Costs for 2050 for solar PV dropping to $400/kw in US$2010.
The "Great Reset" Is Real And Wreaking Havoc:
Why are global elites demanding poor nations make energy expensive? Michael Shellenberger
https://public.substack.com/p/the-great-reset-is-real-and-wrecking
Don't fall for BP's lies about their "substitution method" for determining Primary Energy. What a crock. Why not send BP crooks to school for a course on Introduction to Energy, so they can learn what Primary Energy means?
BP just loves to pump up wind & solar, multiplying their ACTUAL primary energy by 2.6X, their favorite Propaganda & Disinformation energy source, because they know it does zip to replace fossil, but it does increase natural gas consumption, at the expensive of coal & nuclear. So instead of using the scientific & factual method of determining Nuclear primary energy from it's actual heat rate same as is done for any thermal generating plant, they avoid that because their phony method allows them to multiply nuclear primary energy by 0.8X, since current PWRs are 80% the efficiency of avg fossil fuel power plants.
So best CCGT are double the efficiency of OCGT, so why not multiply CCGT primary energy by 2X?
Ultra-supercritical coal is 1.5X the efficiency of conventional coal, so why not multiply it's primary energy by 1.5X?
A lot of fossil & nuclear power plants use cogeneration so they are much more efficient, 80% efficient or more, so why doesn't BP multiply them by 2.5X?
BEVs are 6X the efficiency of gas ICE vehicles, so why not multiply the transportation primary energy used by EVs by 6X?
Norway uses is moving to all EVs & heat pumps, so we would expect its Primary Energy consumption to drop due to increased efficiency. But BP multiplies their Hydro Primary Energy by 2.6X so that expected drop doesn't occur. How does that make sense?
And, as you mentioned, any usage of wind/solar energy storage drastically drops their efficiency, by up to 5X. And curtailment drops their efficiency also. And induced cycling inefficiencies. And transmission inefficiencies. And using wind/solar in heating applications adds no efficiency improvement over fossil. All of which will be getting worse, much worse. Why isn't BP accounting for all of that in their supposed "energy substitution method"?
Conclusion: BP are liars, spin doctors and con artists, so don't use their primary energy data. Use the correct data from the IEA. Sadly OurWorldInData still uses the phony BP primary energy data.
And a chicken in every pot...
Enjoyable (in a way) read. Enviro-axtivism is indeed performance art begging for an audience. Unfortunately for rational people, it has found several in legacy and new media, corporations, and average westerners who apparently tread the planet in a perpetual state of cognitive dissonance. How else can one explain the inverse proportionality between what they spend on consumables, travel, restaurant meals and drinks, and the like and their wind-mills-or-die beliefs? COP28 is bad art performed for a blind audience.
A problem that’s plagued climate negotiations since the enactment of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992 is the exemption of developing countries from any obligation (legal, moral or political) to reduce their emissions. That was initially made effective by Article 4.7 of the Convention and has continued ever since: it was confirmed by the Kyoto Protocol (COP3) in 1998, at the Copenhagen conference (COP15) in 2009 and, significantly, by The Paris Agreement (COP21) in 2015.
And, although few (if any) commentators seem to have noticed, it was confirmed last week at COP28.
It’s widely recognised that paragraph 28 of the ‘Dubai Agreement’ is its key provision – especially item (d) with its reference to ‘Transitioning away from fossil fuels’ – but few seem to have considered the impact of its opening paragraph. Yet that says that the Parties’ contribution must take ‘into account the Paris Agreement’. And that’s crucially important.
Here’s why: scroll down to paragraph 38. It ‘Recalls Article 4, paragraph 4, of the Paris Agreement, which provides that developed country Parties should continue taking the lead by undertaking economy-wide absolute emission reduction targets, and that developing country Parties should continue enhancing their mitigation efforts and are encouraged to move over time towards economy-wide emission reduction or limitation targets in the light of different national circumstances.’
Get that? Paragraph 28 says that parties must take account of the Paris Agreement. And the Paris Agreement – as specifically stated here in paragraph 38 – states that developing countries are merely ‘encouraged’ to move to emission cuts ‘over time’. And, so there’s no misunderstanding, paragraph 39 ‘Reaffirms Article 4.4’. In other words, as has been the case since 1992, developing countries are under no obligation to cut their emissions. Yet developing countries are the source of about 65% of global emissions.
The effect of the above is that only developed countries are affected by the transitioning provision (whatever it may mean) and, as some major developed countries (especially Russia) have no interest in complying, in practice it can apply only to Western economies. And they’re the source of barely 20% of global emissions. In other words, the Dubai Agreement is an absurd nonsense.
Why are we still classifying China as a developing country?
And why does reducing emissions in developing countries matter when they are over 70% of emissions and rising, any cuts we make are more than trebled every year by the other 70%
Its logically flawed.
China and other large emerging and OPEC economies were classified as 'developing' by the 1992 climate Convention - as confirmed by the Paris Agreement and now by COP28. It's absurd, but there's nothing 'we' (i.e. you and me and like-minded people) can do about it. And yes, the whole shebang is logically flawed. And again there's nothing we can do about it.
We could just remove the legal requirement in law and stop attending. The fact that Sunak spent more time flying there and back than actually there was gratifying, the thought of Der Sturmer leaves me in a cold sweat of energy prices no one can afford
There's no legal requirement to attend these absurd COPs. Nonetheless I'm afraid our 'leaders' will continue to do so.
Until of course we vote them out and elect someone who will call it out for what it is, a huge scam.
The ruling “elites” are taking us all for fools with their ludicrously-unbelievable stated policy objectives. Dr Reiner Fuellmich is almost the only person in the world who has exposed the evil ulterior motives of our unelected, unaccountable globalist overlords in simple language. He did this mainly in the context of the Covid “plandemic” but also touched on the climate change scam. Just as Covid was never about public health, Net Zero has never been about climate. Both are trojan horses to digitally shackle, impoverish, deindustrialise and depopulate humanity.
As COP28 President Al Jaber correctly warned, “to take the world back into caves”. In the words of anti-totalitarianism Michael Shellenberger, we are in the hands of a nihilistic, anti-humanist cult: https://twitter.com/shellenberger/status/1731809817571065949?t=YVSm-voC7L64AnOx4MrwDQ&s=19.
Unfortunately, Dr Fuellmich is now languishing in jail on what are almost certainly trumped-up charges. He and his (now ex-) colleagues in the https://corona-investigative-committee.com/ became suspicious of the iatrogenic harms that were being perpetrated in 2020 in the name of “tackling Covid” (cf. the mantra “tackling climate change”). In 2022 they conducted a model Crimes Against Humanity trial, by that time encompassing the even more harmful Covid mass vaccination programme, with hundreds of hours of expert video evidence.
All the trial evidence is recorded online but the only (quite long) summary of the proceedings that I am aware of is mine, recorded online via the good offices of Joel Smalley. It’s a slightly confusing story as there was a hiatus of several months in the middle of the trial, so my summary is in two parts, see https://metatron.substack.com/p/reiner-fuellmichs-grand-jury-court. For an overview, scroll down to Reiner’s closing arguments.
There is comedy in the agreement of Western countries to pay poorer countries for our path into industiralizatiion through the use of a abundant carbon energy while we ignore their use of abundant carbon energy to advance towards...well you get it
And where do these COP’ers think (I know, that’s only rhetorical) the labour, management and intellectual capital resources are going to come from to execute all this? Sure, we can theoretically mine for the raw materials, but with the accelerating decline in demographics in most of the productive countries, there won’t be enough workers to actually get the job done. On top of that, there’s the whole effort to alter our industrial, commercial and private systems away from the current energy mix to use only electricity. Has anyone actually got a battery-powered lawn mower that works as well as a fossil fueled one?
That rather puts thing in stark reality although most politicians are innumerate so wont understand it. As i see it the only way we come off fossil fuels is if they ever run out nothing else will eliminate them. Yes we can displace some usage and that's maybe a good thing, albeit very expensive, but we cant eliminate them and this reality is setting in but politicians are so invested its going to take time.
In terms of increased build out only solar is potentially deliverable as the supply chain can be ramped relatively quickly but wind particularly offshore hasn't got a cat in hells chance. Despite recent negativity around costs the few vessels able to install the large output generators are booked up years in advance. Hornsea 3 is an AR4 project and wont be installing until 2026 for a 2027 commissioning. Remember offshore target at 40GW was unachievable before the buffoon reset it to 50GW. Then there is the transmission constraints which means all too often they are forced off the system at great cost to consumers.
Yes, solar can ramp. But at our latitudes it has a load factor or 10-11% and produces nothing on cold winter evenings when we need it most.
Sorry meant from the wider global goal set at COP. Agree pointless in the UK but what i don't get is how our politicians can't see the bleeding obvious that you need an alternative for solar when the sun aint out. Its more than group think at work its just plain common sense.
Don't forget the inherent gross inefficiency of solar due to its footprint and the mining needs to create the panels. Nobody cares because they have no need of logic or rationality. Fervor is sufficient for greens to explain the unexplainable.
I can’t think of a single UK politician who questions the push to get rid of fossil fuels, despite the impossibility of this transition staring them in the face. Fossil fuels (mostly gas) only just kept the UK lights on over the early days of December when temperatures were below freezing and there was practically zero wind and solar. The current Gridwatch graph from mid-November to mid-December shows what a narrow squeak we had, yet these nutters blithely press ahead leading the country into an abyss: https://gridwatch.templar.co.uk/.
The Crown estate picks up all the subsidy for offshore wind.
How can you not understand the dire situation as the greens do? We are near death! The people must eat worms and ride bicycles to the glorious unveiling of turbines and solar fields made in slave conditions at plants made possible by coal burning. This is necessary for the West to atone for its illegitimacy! Now go make me an artisanal latte and avocado toast; I am weary from the backbreaking work of gluing my hands to a tea kettle at my parents house to protest their buying non-organic chamomile.
Rolls Royce shares have more than trebled this year. Perhaps their SMR is going to happen.
https://www.rolls-royce.com/innovation/small-modular-reactors.aspx
How soon can one of these get on stream from a decision/order?
The fixation by these zealots at these COP jamboree on the 1.5c target is how they'll drive humanity to the brink, encompassing the 'phasing out' of fossil fuels, and, the geo engineering in the skies. Can't they see that they too will be at the brink along with the rest of us, not withstanding their protected enclaves, or, subterranean hidey holes. They actually must do, so the Climate racket, like the Health racket is just leverage for digital control of populations.
Very interesting and well put together Article. A Merry Christmas to you and your readers.
Wind droughts are the fatal flaw in the system, on nights with little or no wind during the regular Dunkelflautes you get next to no RE regardless of the installed capacity.
Its a shame that the meteorologists didn't bother to issue wind drought warnings.
We could have been spared the biggest peacetime policy blunder ever, corrupting the grid with expensive and environmentally destructive intermittent energy.
https://newcatallaxy.blog/2023/06/19/its-about-the-wind-droughts-stupid/
https://newcatallaxy.blog/2023/07/11/approaching-the-tipping-point/
https://newcatallaxy.blog/2023/04/30/dark-deeds-of-the-official-wind-watchers/