Reasons For Optimism About Climate Hysteria

From Manhattan Contrarian

September 22, 2017/ Francis Menton

Large numbers of my friends and acquaintances are climate skeptics, and many of them spend a good deal of their time feeling down in the dumps about the subject.  Their reasoning goes something like this:  Here we have something that should immediately be identified as baloney by any thinking person.  And yet thousands and millions of people seem to have fallen for it.  And not just random people, but people seemingly among the elites of society — academics and journalists and government bureaucrats.  Most of the media function as propaganda bullhorns to spread the idiocy.  The forces of hysteria have commandeered tens of billions of annual dollars of government funding to pay for their program and spread their message, drowning out and suppressing any opposition.  Their program calls for taking away everyone’s freedom and impoverishing the populace with higher costs for energy.  And yet the program seems to be getting adopted everywhere!

How could a sane person not get depressed about this?  Easy!  Over on the other side of this issue, we have a secret weapon.  The secret weapon is that the supposedly carbon-free energy sources — or, at least, those supposedly carbon-free energy sources that are acceptable to environmentalists (meaning wind and solar and definitely not nuclear and hydro) — don’t work.  Even worse, wind and solar are not even carbon-free, because it takes large amounts of carbon-based energy to make the turbines or panels or whatever.  Put these two problems together, and governments that try to reduce their carbon emissions by heavily subsidizing wind and solar quickly hit a wall where energy prices for the masses soar through the roof even as the carbon emissions don’t go down.  You won’t find the New York Times or Washington Post reporting on this, but it’s getting harder and harder not to notice.

Let’s take a closer look at Germany, which has been the source of quite a bit of news on this subject in the past few days.  On first take Germany would seem more than any place else to be the biggest cause of your depression.  “Transitioning” from fossil fuel energy to wind and solar has been the signature issue for Chancellor Angela Merkel for more than a decade, and as of this moment she seems to be cruising to victory in the election coming up on Sunday.  But don’t get the idea that it would make any difference if one of the other candidates or parties managed to defeat Merkel, because there is no political party in Germany of any size or consequence that offers dissent on the “climate change” issue.  The entire country has fallen into the mass hysteria!  (Has anything like that ever happened before in Germany?  Don’t ask!)  Germany has moved aggressively to cut its carbon emissions, and was a leader in the 2015 Paris negotiations in making aggressive promises of emissions reductions and in strong-arming other countries, including the United States, to commit to aggressive reduction targets.  Germany is part of the EU commitment to 40% emissions reductions (from 1990 levels) by 2030, and in addition has its own internal goals of reaching the 40% reduction by 2020 (coming right up!) and 95% reduction by 2050.  Impressive!

OK, that’s the fantasy.  How about in the real world?  From Jamie Horgan in The American Interest, September 20, “Germany Will Miss Another Green Goal”:

Berlin’s grand green energy transition is falling short of the lofty targets that inspired it. Earlier this month, the think tank Agora Energiewende released a report that projected Germany would fall well short of its goal to cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions—far shorter than was previously believed. Berlin had committed to cutting 40 percent of its GHG emissions by 2020 as compared to 1990 levels, but as that year looms large, the country has achieved a reduction of “just” 28 percent (a remarkable decrease, though nowhere close to the target), and it’s expected to only shave off another 2 or 3 percent over the next few years. Now, a new study from the BEE renewable energy group suggests that the country is going to fall short of its Brussels-set target of sourcing 18 percent of its energy production from renewables by 2020.

Good job to Horgan for publicizing this, but he’s still getting taken in when he says that Germany’s existing emissions reduction of 28% below 1990 levels is “a remarkable decrease.”  No, it isn’t.  That 1990 date was intentionally picked by Germany to scam the rest of the world.  1989 is the year the Berlin Wall fell.  Over the next decade and a half, the Germans shuttered essentially all of the inefficient Soviet-era heavy industry in East Germany.  Germany picked the 1990 start date so that it could take credit for those reductions that would have happened anyway and pretend that this had something to do with saving the planet.

Here is a chart of Germany’s year-by-year greenhouse gas emissions changes since 1990.  Source: CleanEnergyWire.

German GHG emission

You will quickly see that Germany hit the emissions reduction wall around 2010.  Since then, its emissions have actually increased in 4 of the 7 years.  Multiply out the changes since 2009, and you will find that Germany’s emissions at the end of 2016 were 99.79% of the level they had had at the end of 2009.  This, despite the fact that 2010 was the year they passed the so-called “Energiewende” law.  That’s some “energy transition” — 0.21% emissions reduction in seven years!

How could things be going so badly?  Among other things, Germany caved to environmentalists in deciding to eliminate nuclear power after the 2011 tsunami at Fukushima in Japan.  Nuclear power emits no CO2.  Wind and solar don’t work, at least much of the time.  So, what’s left?  Coal!  From Bloomberg News, September 21, “How Merkel’s Green Energy Policy Has Fueled Demand for Coal”:

By 2030, the eastern German town of Poedelwitz will likely be razed to get at the rich veins of coal beneath its half-timbered houses. The reason: Chancellor Angela Merkel’s effort to steer Germany toward greener energy, which has unexpectedly meant booming demand for dirty coal. . . .  “This is unparalleled destruction of the environment,” says Jens Hausner, a farmer who has seen 17 of his 20 hectares consumed by digging equipment that looks like something out of a Mad Max movie. In a bit more than a decade, the hulking machines are expected to claw through the town’s 13th-century church and 40 or so remaining homes.

Read the rest here.


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
September 24, 2017 8:13 pm

A trillion dollar industry and there is no going back. Too many have hitched their house to the green blob scam and there is no way in hell they are backing down given their fortunes are at stake.

richard verney
Reply to  Craig
September 25, 2017 3:37 am

The problem is that so many are so deeply ingrained, that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible to pull back without causing another financial crash, perhaps even more serious than the crash seen in 2009.
This is more than a trillion a year industry which would collapse if Governments cut off subsidies and investment. But further the Government itself employs numerous people in environmental agencies/sustainability etc both at national level, regional level and local district council level who would go onto welfare if the Government axed their jobs. Yet further still the Government rakes in billions with green taxes such as fuel taxes, air passenger taxes and the like. If Government were to lose that source of tax revenue it would either have to cut back on expenditure (in healthcare, welfare, defence, education, law and order and the like), and Governments only like increasing expenditure, not cutting back, or Government will have to raise taxes on other items such as income tax, sales tax, capital gains, inheritance taxes etc. Big Government and/or raising taxes dampens economic growth.
It truly is very difficult to unravel, and can only be done so hand in hand with economic growth, and yet to rub salt into the wound, renewables are growth parasites and destroyers.
It is difficult to see a pull back from this madness anytime soon. Just bay steps.

Bob boder
Reply to  richard verney
September 25, 2017 3:50 am

Inefficient use of capital is always a drain on growth, eliminating this garbage would have a very quick and beneficial effect on growth.

Reply to  richard verney
September 25, 2017 5:47 am

I don’t think government programs are designed to work in the first place…..

Reply to  richard verney
September 25, 2017 8:22 am

Remember every time the USA has cut income and corporate taxes over the past hundred years the economy has boomed and tax revenues have actually increased. Problem has been that those in government refuse to quit spending so even when they get additional revenue they borrow every more money. Government does not and cannot work because their is no profit incentive. There is NO incentive to do things more efficiently, to not spend money. Track actually spending, not appropriations, throughout the government fiscal year and there is often if not always a spike int spending activity. Because if you don’t spend it it goes to some other programs. The money is NOT returned to the treasury. Worse the program not spending all its appropriated money will most probably have its budget cut the following year.

Aaron Watters
Reply to  richard verney
September 25, 2017 9:48 am

Remember every time the USA has cut income and corporate taxes over the past hundred years the economy has boomed and tax revenues have actually increased.
This is false. Just like the CAGW myth, endless repetition doesn’t make it true. Show me the data.

In 1993, President Bill Clinton raised taxes on top earners from 31 percent to 39.6 percent. Conservatives predicted disaster;3 instead, the economy boomed. 23 million jobs were created and the economy grew for 32 straight quarters in what was then the longest expansion in history.4
By contrast, in 2001 and 2003, President George W. Bush cut income taxes substantially, lowering the top rate to 35 percent while also lowering top rates on capital gains and dividends. Conservatives maintained that the tax cuts would turbocharge economic growth; in fact, conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation predicted that growth would be so strong that the United States would entirely pay off its debt by 2010.5 Instead, the ensuing years saw weak growth, followed by the 2008 economic collapse.

Jeff in Calgary
Reply to  richard verney
September 25, 2017 3:47 pm

So we are blaming the sub-prime mortgage collapse on GWB’s income tax cuts?

Reply to  richard verney
September 25, 2017 7:44 pm

Like the climate, there are many factors that go into how the economy behaves. Clinton raised taxes during an economy that was already growing wildly, and the tax increases did not kill the growth, though it did slow down markedly.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Craig
September 25, 2017 8:19 pm

The big economic factor is, these devices need as much energy for their production as they will likely generate in their lifetime. The big ecology hitch is that their production generates more toxic waste per watt generated than nuclear or coal (aside from the interruption and displacement of the biospheric microcosms where they operate).
They have a niche in the market, and sans socialist-governmental market manipulation, they will
serve that niche adequately, especially after decades of free R&D money. Wind and solar cannot however, be considered by the sound-of-mind as the future of civilization’s electric power needs.

September 24, 2017 8:18 pm

You have to depressed about the number of skeptics in other areas like James Randi, Phil Mason (Thunderfoot) and others who totally buy the religion.

Reply to  cloa5132013
September 24, 2017 8:37 pm

Your so called sceptics are just con merchants who have zero regard for evidence and data. But the greatest con is the mitigation idiocy and even Dr Hansen called Paris COP 21 just BS and fra-d.
Anyone who doesn’t understand this is either stupid or fond of telling porkies to promote their extremist agenda. See Lomborg’s PR study covering the Paris COP 21 agreement. An average 5 year old should easily understand his study.

Reply to  ngard2016
September 24, 2017 10:57 pm

Oh! Also Sam Harris after his podcast with Joe Romm. Reason for despair rather than optimism.

Reply to  cloa5132013
September 24, 2017 10:54 pm

Add Michael Shermer to this list. Unless he’s flipped again.

Roger Knights
Reply to  cloa5132013
September 25, 2017 1:30 am

At least Randi expressed prima facie skepticism about warming alarmism, until he was beset by know-it-all warmies in his ranks and backed down to agnosticism or token warmism.

Reply to  cloa5132013
September 25, 2017 1:57 am

I am not sure they do, but like a number of people whose careers depend on the public, they are unwilling to go against the orthodoxy. The Alarmists have managed to create such an offensive capability, that few are willing to stand up, even if they are sceptical.

Tom Halla
September 24, 2017 8:22 pm

When this folly finally hits the wall of reality is unknowable. To the best of my knowledge, no one predicted how the Soviet Bloc would end, or when. The government of South Australia is still run by greens who are doubling down of a failed policy, and it looks like Merkel is getting reelected.

Reply to  Tom Halla
September 24, 2017 8:30 pm

comment image

Roger Knights
Reply to  Tom Halla
September 25, 2017 1:36 am

No one predicted that climate-skeptic AfD would get 13% of the vote in Germany yesterday, making it difficult or impossible for Merkel to assemble a coalition government, according to a WaPo story I just read. A failure to do so would force another election, which WaPo says would increase AfD’s vote percentage, because it would be seen as an established and acceptable part of the system by many mainstream-minded voters.
(Seems that pollsters are missing many predictions recently, including swings to the left in the UK.)

Leo Smith
Reply to  Roger Knights
September 25, 2017 3:16 am

(Seems that pollsters are missing many predictions recently, including swings to the left in the UK.)

That’s because all the elections are now rigged

Leo Smith
Reply to  Roger Knights
September 25, 2017 3:19 am

dam this software – it thinks anything in angle brackets is a tag and stripped out my indication that I wasn’t being altogether serious.

Reply to  Roger Knights
September 25, 2017 3:42 am

(Seems that pollsters are missing many predictions recently, including swings to the left in the UK.)

It’s tricky to make up an accurate poll. If you ask anything about climate change, you make people think about climate change and they answer accordingly.
If you just ask, “What do you think is the most important problem facing the country today?”, climate change doesn’t even make the list. link
In spite of a full court press by the media and government, people don’t really think climate change is an issue. That’s something about which we can be optimistic.

Reply to  Roger Knights
September 25, 2017 6:27 am

They didn’t get the votes because they are climate skeptics…
(and did you see their first press conference today? The party leader resigned saying she would sit as an independent…
Wow! that’d be a shock for any party.)

Reply to  Roger Knights
September 25, 2017 7:51 am

… and just think about it; the entire global warming structure is built on polling, and very biased polling at that.

Reply to  Roger Knights
September 25, 2017 7:55 am

In Griff’s world, political reality is definitive proof of scientific principles.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Roger Knights
September 25, 2017 9:23 am

Griff said, “They didn’t get the votes because they are climate skeptics…”
You’re right, alas. They were voted-for for other reasons. They are probably not even climate skeptics. I just assumed they were, or I had read somewhere that they were. I still suppose they are more open to non-mainstream interpretations on the climate topic than other parties.
The Free Democrats, who have libertarian inclimations, met the 5% threshold to get into parliament, and are more likely to be climate skeptics or lukewarmists, or at least more open to such interpretations.

Irritable Bill
Reply to  Tom Halla
September 27, 2017 12:34 am

In Australia the shit will hit the fan soon due to blackouts, high bills and both major parties blaming each other and consequently I believe we are looking at an independent conservative party controlling the balance of power for either major party to be in power….and that will be either Cory Bernadi or Pauline, or both and they will force change. Hopefully this will continue around the world.
Germany is a special case, they will always goose-step to the latest socialist fad and seek to control Ze Vorld and impress on it their latest new world order. Amusingly they always think they are right and everyone else is untermensch, the reality is we will smash them again, eventually. Fix bayonets.

September 24, 2017 8:33 pm

One of my “worries” is how to avoid committing educational malpractice when I teach about the international response to “Climate Change” later this semester. That, and how to not get fired from my job.

Mark T
Reply to  mairon62
September 24, 2017 10:39 pm

Find a new line of work. Or go to the private market.

Reply to  mairon62
September 25, 2017 12:34 am

Mairon: you can’t come to harm if you stick to the facts, right? In terms of international response, you have the promises each country made at Paris. You have the agreed contributions to the climate fund. You have facts such as per-capita emissions and the trend thereof.
The facts speak loud enough without putting any skeptical spin on things, I reckon.

Reply to  Jit
September 25, 2017 1:58 am

Tell that to the guy at Google. He made comments that are certainly not untrue and might well be true, but still lost his job and was vilified.

Reply to  Jit
September 25, 2017 2:48 am

1) Tell the students about the Paris agreement and let them calculate the target emissions per capita. Then let them find out when was the last time their ancestors used below that. And how they lived in those times.
2) Declare a carbon free classroom day. No petroleum based products allowed. No Iphone, no polyethylene clothing, no sneakers, NO lights, no bics, no paper. For one day, teach class wearing only wool and leather and only use slate and chalk. (I would say, let the students leave all petroleum based goods outside, but they would even lose their underwear with elastic. People might frown on nude minors in public)
3) For homework, have the students go to the grocery store and have them count the local grown seasonal foods versus the processed and/or imported goods. (might be just bread, milk, eggs and beer in glass bottles)

Reply to  Jit
September 25, 2017 3:50 am

. . . . and confiscate any carbonated drinks, warn the students about discharging any fire extinguisher (even if there is a fire), and definitely no bread, snack foods or cakes.
Good list btw RLu

Reply to  Jit
September 25, 2017 4:49 am

Tell them to also check the packaging materials on pet foods and pet treats, and how much and how many kinds of plastic materials are used in the pet industry.

Claude Harvey
September 24, 2017 8:51 pm

Cost versus benefit considerations go out the window when the issue is “good versus evil”. When political progressives captured the “environmentalists” brand, which had already become a quasi-religion (good), everyone else was branded by default as “dupes of the capitalist-running-spoilers-of-the-earth” (evil). Facts, figures and economic reality are generally irrelevant to a “religious warrior” doing battle on the side of “good”.

Reply to  Claude Harvey
September 25, 2017 2:00 am

The same has been true in economics for decades. Once Socialism as a science was debunked, it became a religion, where it didn’t matter that it didn’t work and actually harmed the people it was supposed to help, holding the belief was the virtue in and of itself.

Reply to  Phoenix44
September 25, 2017 6:39 pm

“Once Socialism as a science was debunked, it became a religion, where it didn’t matter that it didn’t work and actually harmed the people it was supposed to help”
Why do you speak of it as religion, rather than a con or fraud? It looks (to me, nobody special) like the result of heavy duty brainwashing . . wherein “religion” was strenuously portrayed as bad/harmful, by default . . rendering your reaction a form of virtue signaling, not unlike what you seem to be dissing others for . . (holding the belief was the virtue in and of itself.)
Sure looks like traces of a “divide and conquer” strategy to me . .

Tom Halla
Reply to  JohnKnight
September 25, 2017 7:06 pm

It gets called a religion, John, because people tend to act in stereotypical ways. Buddhism was not originally formally theistic, but its adherents act in a religious manner. Similarly, Freudians or Marxists act more like a religion than a psychological model or a school of economics.
You are apparently limiting “religion” to dealing with God, rather than a particular way of acting in concert on a subject. The green blob acts very much like a religion currently.

Reply to  Phoenix44
September 26, 2017 12:27 pm

“It gets called a religion, John, because people tend to act in stereotypical ways.”
The person I was addressing presented a different pseudo-definition/justification, it seems to me, which hinged on~ “…where it didn’t matter that it didn’t work and actually harmed the people it was supposed to help”.
“You are apparently limiting “religion” to dealing with God, rather than a particular way of acting in concert on a subject. ”
Not at all . . I could go get comments I made on this site, wherein I argued that science is a form of religion . . (which your “stereotypical” behavior pseudo-definition could seemingly accommodate rather well ; )
No, I’m speaking of an oppositional set-up/mindset, wherein “religion” is associated with primitiveness/foolishness, ignoring evidence and such. “Science” being offered/presented as essentially the opposite . . a sort of advancing into a higher state of being/consciousness. A savior of sorts . .

Tom Halla
Reply to  JohnKnight
September 26, 2017 1:59 pm

People do use language loosely, and using deliberately ambiguous definitions is a fallacy. We do seem to agree on the point of “science” being used as a belief system, but have disagreed in the past on science being a procedure for evaluating arguments about the natural phenomena. I conclude that there is such a thing as “philosophy” that is not judged as science, while you have tried , to me, a bit to hard to combine the irreconcilable.
There is no way to test solipsism, or Philip Gosse’s “Omphalos”.

Reply to  Phoenix44
September 26, 2017 3:27 pm

Be that a it may, Tom, people can generate and implement divide and conquer strategies, intentionally oversimplifying complex matters, in order to advance nefarious goals. And, we just so happen to be in the process of being “saved” by science . . (loosely speaking ; )
Blame science for what science does, I suggest, and quit scapegoating religion as though some sort of contagion, that got onto science somehow ; )

Bob boder
Reply to  Claude Harvey
September 25, 2017 4:09 am

You have captured the essence of the problem. It is amazing how ignorant people have become, all the technology in the world, all the information you could possibly ever want and people now are more likely than ever to listen to the village shaman tells if we don’t sacrifice a virgin the volcano gods will get angry and destroy us.

Reply to  Bob boder
September 25, 2017 12:00 pm

Claude – you raised an interesting point. With all our education and all our access to information, why are so many millions sunk in genteel superstitions like global warming? I don’t have an answer but I have two ideas that might explain part of it. The first is that our technology is so complex that much of it seems like magic. How many people understand how a computer or a cell phone work? How many people can explain a fax machine? People get in the habit of just accepting what they don’t understand. The second is that although many people are well educated by today’s standards, they’ve never been taught crtitical thinking and they are woefully ignorant of history, economics, and science. Despite all the fancy claims college does not teach you to think. It teaches you to obey instructions and be a good employee. If everyone is saying there is man made global warming you’ve already been conditioned to accept the voice of authority. Anyway, whatever the reason it is interesting to be living through a real life mass hysteria.

Reply to  Claude Harvey
September 25, 2017 7:08 pm

G20 Energy Efficiency Investment Toolkit, 2017
P.2, Acknowledgements includes the participating parties in the production of this document.
Climate change is now in the G20 agenda.
One reason why Mr.Trump declined to agree with 2017 G20 agenda?

September 24, 2017 9:11 pm

How could things be going so badly? Among other things , Germany caved to environmentalists in deciding to eliminate nuclear power after the 2011 tsunami at Fukushima in Japan.

Well maybe this article should have considered the “other things” a bit more. Firstly the policy to get out of nuclear is a longer term aim and has had little impact so far. Looking at the data preseented the lartgest swing: going from the strongest annual drop to the strongest annual rise was 2009-2010 and this predates the Fuckupshima disaster and any effect if could have had on policy.
Clearly the biggest factor is left unaddressed and hides “among other things “.

September 24, 2017 9:12 pm

How could things be going so badly? Among other things , Germany caved to environmentalists in deciding to eliminate nuclear power after the 2011 tsunami at Fukushima in Japan.

Well maybe this article should have considered the “other things” a bit more. Firstly the policy to get out of nuclear is a longer term aim and has had little impact so far. Looking at the data preseented the lartgest swing: going from the strongest annual drop to the strongest annual rise was 2009-2010 and this predates the Fukupshima disaster and any effect if could have had on policy.
Clearly the biggest factor is left unaddressed and hides “among other things “.

Reply to  Greg
September 24, 2017 9:16 pm

The 2009 dip was probably due to the crash hitting world wide trade and production. This should have continued into 2010 so what caused the massive up-tick?

Mark T
Reply to  Greg
September 24, 2017 10:49 pm

Massive drop in the price of fossil fuels in 2008 and the subsequent recovery drove consumption back up without concern for petty concerns like saving Gaia. People prefer to eat.

richard verney
Reply to  Greg
September 25, 2017 2:45 am

Germany has not significantly reduced its CO2 emissions for the best part of a decade:
There has been very little change since 2006, and the 2016 CO2 emissions are the same as the 2008 CO2 emissions.

September 24, 2017 9:19 pm

–How could a sane person not get depressed about this? Easy! Over on the other side of this issue, we have a secret weapon. The secret weapon is that the supposedly carbon-free energy sources — or, at least, those supposedly carbon-free energy sources that are acceptable to environmentalists (meaning wind and solar and definitely not nuclear and hydro) — don’t work–
How is this not depressing.
How much of idiot do have to be to imagine Germany is good place to harvest solar energy?
No place on Earth surface is good place, but if you wanted to find worst place, Germany is good enough.
I would say it’s not depressing because Germans have always been stupid.
And generally people for the most part have always been stupid- so, it’s not getting worst.
The problem is, you might have mistakenly thought that it was getting better.

Reply to  gbaikie
September 24, 2017 9:55 pm

gb, I totally agree! The fact that this ‘CO2 is bad’ idiocy has infected billions of (presumably previously sane) people around the (mostly Western) world since the early 1990s, and continues today nearly 30 years later is IMO the most incredible case of mass hysteria (nay, clever brainwashing) since the Dutch Tulip madness in 1637, but that episode apparently only lasted less than a year. Installing millions of solar panels in countries as far North as Germany, using 16th century windmill technology and burning wood chips instead of coal to make electricity, and decommissioning dozens of perfectly good nuclear power stations thousands of miles from a freak accident in Japan are all to me examples of delusion that has a single result – wasting unimaginable amounts of both private and public money and thereby crippling our economies.
Any fair reading of the political history of Europe over the past century would show that the insidious influence of the failed Marxist philosophy did not end with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the dissolution of the USSR. Instead its ‘true believers’ mutated their political ideology into an environmental ideology that appears to be far more successful in white-anting the Western socio-economic model than Communism ever was. And like the period from the 1920s to the late 1980s, very few politicians and academics fully understood the evils of that nihilistic philosophy almost until it was too late to act. Thank God for (the much ridiculed) President Ronald Reagan, who understood not only that the USSR must be thwarted, but how to do it! Alas, without statesmen of his calibre anywhere to be seen in the West, yes I am depressed that this madness will continue until the West is weakened beyond repair, when the ‘watermelons’ will shed their thin ‘green’ skins and take over. Hopefully I don’t live that long.

Peta of Newark
Reply to  gbaikie
September 25, 2017 1:15 am

Worse than Germany?
Easy – I give you Scotland.

Reply to  Peta of Newark
September 25, 2017 4:40 am

+10 Peta.
How nice it would be if news reports (such as your link) went something like this:
“When we asked the landowner, the Duke of Urquart, why Elgin Energy is being allowed to install 80,000 solar panels on his land, he replied that it will make him filthy rich and that it has nothing whatsoever to do with saving the planet. Both Elgin Energy CEO and Firth of Moray Council agreed that many gullible people have been hoodwinked into thinking there is far too much carbon dioxide in the sky – when infact there’s diddly squat. 1 x 2,500th* of the sky to be precise – and what’s more, almost all of it (about 95%) is entirely beyond our control.”
*1M divided by 400

Reply to  Peta of Newark
September 25, 2017 6:29 am

The stupidity starts with Robin Rigg offshore windfarm in the Solway Firth at the southernmost point of Scotland on the very border with England and burgeons ever northward through the central belt of incomparable woad wearing numpties then north again in an orgy of scenic destruction.

Reply to  Peta of Newark
September 25, 2017 12:20 pm

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere – to the nearest one tenth of one percent of the whole – is Zero.

Reply to  gbaikie
September 25, 2017 8:13 am

gbaikie You state “Germans have always been stupid”
Yet so often in this blog Einstein is quoted
Just think of the other great German scientists, Gauss, Heisenberg, Planck, Haber, Moessbauer, the list goes on.
Your comment is wrong and RACIST.
It is so wrong that everyone can see it, what baffles me is that it took as long as this for anyone to call you BS

Reply to  Dave
September 25, 2017 12:48 pm

Copernicus was an ethnic German Prussian subject of the Polish crown. Kepler was born in Baden. You could add Leibniz, Humbodlt, Liebig, Bunsen, Ohm, Koch, Hertz, Helmholtz, Kekule, Roentgen, (the good) Ehrlich, Born, Hahn, Bethe and a bunch of others to your list. Hahn’s colleague in fission, Lisa Meitner, was Austrian.

Reply to  Dave
September 25, 2017 6:19 pm

Germany isn’t a race- despite what Hitler said

Brett Keane
Reply to  Dave
September 26, 2017 2:22 am

Dave, German is not a race! BS yourself, and getta sense of humour.

September 24, 2017 9:26 pm

I agree with Claude Harvey. Hate to be depressing about this, but the inherent, readily apparent stupidity of Eastern European Communist policies and the fact that they were economic suicide did not stop them from being implemented for most of the twentieth century, and most people in those countries went along with it, many even agreeing to snitch on their neighbours and dob people in who were not toeing the government line on ideology or religion. The green redefinition of good vs. evil is very worrying, and these sorts of ideas can be very hard to dislodge and impossible to treat rationally. It is only when people can see those they have been labelling as ‘evil’ as their fellow human beings with hopes and dreams alike, I believe, that the ideological walls might start to show cracks.

Reply to  Andrew Partington
September 25, 2017 2:24 am

Makes sense to me Andrew with the exception of “most people in those countries went along with it”. What is the basis for your conclusion?
Anecdotal surely, but having undergone socialism driven schooling programme and lived in the system, I’ve ended up significantly closer to a minarchist than a socialist.

D P Laurable
Reply to  jaakkokateenkorva
September 25, 2017 6:03 am

I don’t people went along with it. Time will turn the issue around because people perceive the contradictions. And if the AMO swings to cold, that will push over the top.

Reply to  jaakkokateenkorva
September 25, 2017 6:24 am

It will only push them over the top, if they hear about it.
You can count on the MSM to sit on any contradictory information, and you can count on the climate scientists to cook any and all data until it conforms to their models.

Reply to  Andrew Partington
September 25, 2017 4:14 am

Andrew. I think you have an opportunity to improve your empathy with the Russian people. Have a read of: The Whisperers (
It is not a good idea to conflate communism as a political ideal with Stalin’s version of facism. Communism was just the fairy tale – to say it is ‘communism’ which is to blame for the sad eventuality of USSR, China and Korea etc., misses the whole point. (facism is defined as: a political system based on a very powerful leader, state control, and being extremely proud of country and race, and in which political opposition is not allowed.)

Reply to  Andrew Partington
September 25, 2017 7:30 am

If you want to see unthinking human stupidity on a mass scale, just look at North Korea. Here you have millions of people acting like soldier ants in a giant colony, unquestioning in their adoration of Rocket Man and buying into the belief that they are in imminent danger of annihilation when the real danger is posed by Rocket Man himself and his reckless pursuit of the bomb. He obviously isn’t a keen student of history or he would have learned from the fate of those who thought they could pluck the Eagle’s feathers without fear of consequence – Hitler, Mussolini, Hussein, Bin Laden, …

Reply to  Trebla
September 25, 2017 8:05 pm

There is no doubt N Korea wins the prize for most stupid.
Iran is trying, but N Korea is so far ahead.
Even in deepest depths of the Soviet Union stupidity- they were never close to that scale of stupid.
And the lack of honor N Korea has is another wonder. They have been a toy tool of China for decades..

September 24, 2017 9:28 pm

As I commented on another story, all sounds great until you look at actual German coal use 1990-2017, don’t use percentage look at actual figures. Pick any source you want and you should notice something. It also still uses more lignite (the highest CO2 emission process) than any other country on Earth. What renewables have done is created all the expansion and filled in the gap for Nuclear power.
All the real fun begins now, Germany is supposedly going to shut down 25% of its Coal fired power stations by 2020 …. popcorn for everyone … this is going to be funny.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  LdB
September 25, 2017 5:22 am

Lignite has the lowest CO2 emissions, by mass, of all coals. The reason is the high hydrogen content of lignite relative to the carbon fraction.
Lignite is chosen specifically for this low CO2 aspect of its combustion. Power stations designed to burn it deal with higher temperatures as it can be burned with less excess air, that due to the presence of a relatively high oxygen content. To quickly see this aspect, look for the CO2 max concentration value for a coal product. The higher the value, the less air needed to burn it, and therefore the less dilution by inert nitrogen in air, therefore the higher the temperature of combustion. Higher temp means higher heat transfer efficiency so the selection of lignite as a power station fuel has a sound theoretical foundation.

Rod Everson
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
September 25, 2017 7:18 am

You seem to be assuming that CO2 is a pollutant. What about the real pollutants released when coal is burned? I don’t know the answer. Just curious.

Steve Lohr
September 24, 2017 9:29 pm

Maybe we can call it a drill. Something to make a lot of people come to their senses and return to working on a nuclear solution. I can only say I am thankful that we really don’t have to change from fossil fuels, at least not right now. While Germany’s crisis of intentions is contrived, if it were true that the world would end if we didn’t stop using them, well, the world would end.

September 24, 2017 9:30 pm

No, I don’t think we should worry at all. All the alarm will fizzle out within the next 20 years or so. And let us remind ourselves that nations are only losing a bit of money subsidising the renewables – well, perhaps more than a bit, but only money, after all. 80% of the world’s energy comes from oil and coal – it is just a pipe dream to imagine that can change greatly over the next century. Some nations will soon face energy shortages (which will make them come to their senses) – tough for them. Relax – and laugh at it all.

Warren Blair
Reply to  AndyE
September 24, 2017 10:05 pm

Couldn’t agree more.
When you have the Pope, most politicians and all the film & entertainment industry fervently and self-righteously pushing the ‘science’ you know it’s a full-blown scam with a limited life-span!
One problem it will get much worse before it gets better . . .

Roger Knights
Reply to  Warren Blair
September 25, 2017 1:45 am

It looks like “a blow-off top”—and maybe a collapse will follow.

Reply to  Warren Blair
September 25, 2017 6:46 pm

RE-Energising the Future, COP21
Renewable Energy Track
Re: Gov.Brown & REN21
‘Re-Energising the Future: Renewable Energy Solutions for Climate Change’, 6 December 2015
REN21 HQ, Paris, France.
REN21 – Global Overview
Re: 100% renewables
‘Renewables 2016 Global Status Report’
Where Gov Brown’s 100% renewables comes from?

Reply to  AndyE
September 25, 2017 12:37 pm

Andy E
Money is – indeed – being lost.
But energy prices have risen.
Some – poorer – Brits will be faced with the ‘Heat or Eat dilemma’ because of that this winter.
Maybe also elsewhere. Germany? All hail Mutti Merkel! ??
The last couple of days have been a bit warmer [welcome] – but we have seen folk needing to put heating on in mid-September – in Southern England.
Grants for insulation are available – and folk should swallow their pride and take the money – and be warmer thereafter.
In the UK – see: –
That is a commercial site – there are Government sites, too.
like This may help.
In the UK – anyone you know not owning two cars per person [or more] may be eligible!
Pass it on.

Reply to  AndyE
September 25, 2017 7:21 pm
Reply to  Barbara
September 26, 2017 8:23 am

REN21, Paris, France
Re: 100% renewables
‘Ren 21 Renewables Global Futures Report
Much more information on 100% renewables at the REN21 website.

September 24, 2017 9:40 pm

The Volkswagen emissions disaster with their diesel engines is a good example of how this process has played out in the real world; you could say it’s a microcosm of the entire situation.
To recap, the EU mandated strict emissions goals, goals that were extremely difficult to meet for cars that tried to be both affordable and still fun to drive. Volkswagen (and others) said “no problem! We have great new diesel technology that will do exactly that!” It was curious that only the Euro manufacturers went this route, while the American and Japanese manufacturers mostly stuck with gasoline engines.
Everything seemed to be working fine – until somehow it finally slipped out that the only real “innovation” Volkswagon had done was to insert some clever software that would turn on harsh emissions controls while the car was being tested, but would turn them off when it was being driven normally. It turns out that this huge investment the Euro manufacturers have made in diesel motors was all based on fraud, and what’s worse they all knew about it, and it’s likely that their governments knew about it.
But when it all came public (which they had all been counting on never happening) they all had to be Shocked, Shocked, Shocked that there was gambling going on in the casino.
It isn’t just that Volkswagen committed a fraud on the system – it’s that ALL the Europeans calculations of auto emissions for the last 10 years, at least, have been based on this fraud.. All of their numbers are garbage – all of them!!!

Reply to  wws
September 25, 2017 12:44 am

It isn’t just that Volkswagen committed a fr@ud on the system . . .
It isn’t at all that VW – or any of the other European automakers – committed anything. It’s that the system itself is a fr@ud.
WRT OP: Read the rest here no linky, but September 22, 2017 at the head of the article appears to link to the full article.

richard verney
Reply to  Dav09
September 25, 2017 7:52 am

It is a good article.
There can be little doubt that Governments are seeking to ban personal cars. They may underestimate the opposition that there will be to such a policy.

Reply to  Dav09
September 25, 2017 7:58 am

Maybe not ban, but at a minimum make them so ineffective as to be unusable. As in all electric.

Roger Knights
Reply to  wws
September 25, 2017 1:50 am

Fortunately, more efficient auto engines will be in production within a year or so, one backed by Bill Gates and one by Mazda. (I posted info on the latter a week or two ago on this site.)

Reply to  wws
September 25, 2017 3:29 am

“It was curious that only the Euro manufacturers went this route, while the American and Japanese manufacturers mostly stuck with gasoline engines.”
In the UK Chancellor Gordon Brown & the Blair government ( along with the rest of EU), overlooked the problem diesels have with particulates and nitrogen oxides because, like many modern-day policymakers, they were obsessed with carbon emissions.
Nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide form when air is heated to high temperatures. At full “throttle”, both petrol and diesel engines will have their cylinders full of air, so maximum NOx is produced. However, at part “throttle”, the petrol engine is actually throttled back, meaning that there’s less air, so less NOx. The diesel engine doesn’t usually have a throttle, so there’s just as much air as at full “throttle”, so more or less the same NOx is produced. So, it’s more difficult to keep diesel NOx levels down. However, there are several techniques available to reduce NOx, and Euro 6 diesel engines are now nearly as good as petrol (which reduce their NOx output using carefully-controlled mixture and catalytic converters).
The really dangerous particulates come from oil aerosols, soot & off the tyres of all vehicles due to friction with the road surface. These tiny particles of tyre wash into the water systems and drains, fly up into the air from the wheels of vehicles to be breathed into our lungs. They don’t dissolve and cannot be removed from where they settle, causing permanent damage to anything biological.

Jaakko Kateenkorva
Reply to  1saveenergy
September 25, 2017 4:30 am

While the German auto industry fell on their own sword deservedly in my opinion, the atmosphere about 99% N2 and O2. The chances are NOx occurs naturally irrespective of the mankind. The lack of man-made acid rain evidence over the past 3-4 decades is enough to call once digested grass on the scare in my opinion.

The really dangerous particulates come from oil aerosols, soot & off the tyres of all vehicles due to friction with the road surface. These tiny particles of tyre wash into the water systems and drains, fly up into the air from the wheels of vehicles to be breathed into our lungs. They don’t dissolve and cannot be removed from where they settle, causing permanent damage to anything biological.

Well, inert dust is already subject of the newest popular scares called “nanomaterials”. Dihydrogen monoxide asphyxiates the inhalation exposure victim in a similar way. On the more positive side, after it’s been regulated, difficult to image anything else to be scared of.

richard verney
Reply to  1saveenergy
September 25, 2017 7:41 am

In the UK Chancellor Gordon Brown & the Blair government ( along with the rest of EU), overlooked the problem diesels have with particulates and nitrogen oxides because, like many modern-day policymakers, they were obsessed with carbon emissions.

They did not overlook it. They were well aware of the risk. High particulate emissions from diesels was well known and they received evidence on that. But they did not consider this known and certain risk was important.
They weighed up the unknown chance that CO2 would cause catastrophic climate change in around 50 to 100 years time, and applied the precautionary principle in that they thought that the avoiding of an unknown and speculative future risk that could speculatively have catastrophic consequence was worth avoiding, over the known and certain risk that diesel engines emitted high levels of particulates which would immediately cause respiratory consequence for those living now.
They adopted an approach of think of the children. I consider the approach that they adopted was reckless, but unfortunately there is no accountability for actions taken in public office.

September 24, 2017 9:44 pm

Meanwhile here in Australia someone obviously finally pointed out the constitution to our rather dimwitted PM that resource security is controlled by the States because the power was never ceded to the federal government. He finally actually stated the reality the East Coast State Governments made a mess of this, and he is playing around with something he can only control by taxes or export tariffs or trying to brow beat exporting companies with idle threats.
The problem is he had the media going along with the idea that he was going to fix this. Along side reading up on dual citizenship, perhaps Federal politicians need to read up on separation of power between State and Commonwealth before taking their seat.

Reply to  LdB
September 24, 2017 10:03 pm

Spot on, LdB. But to quote the Parliamentary Education Office on the Australian Constitution: ‘Section 122 in Chapter 6 gives the federal Parliament the power to override a territory law at any time.’. If that fails, maybe Trumbull can reconstitute the Interstate Commission that the ALP tried to use back in the day. Meanwhile we should enjoy Tunbull’s violin music whilst Australia burns…

Reply to  BoyfromTottenham
September 24, 2017 11:30 pm

Incorrect walk back to section 5:
“The Parliament may make laws for the government of any territory surrendered by any State to and accepted by the Commonwealth, or of any Territory placed by the Queen under the authority of and accepted by the Commonwealth, or otherwise acquired by the Commonwealth, and may allow the representation of such territory in either House of the Parliament to the extent and on the terms which it thinks fit.”
Section 6 strictly applies to things where the States have ceded such power under section 5. It is not a universal clause in isolation that can be used to take power from the States. All states run there own resources laws and always have
Given many State governments earn much of there revenue from those arrangements the Commonwealth would find itself in the High Court very fast.
Powers that have been ceded by the States is listed in Section 51 and it’s a really interesting list
So strangely post, telegraphics, internet and rail were all ceded but not Power Generation, Western Australia being the State that refused to cede such power and it requires ALL States to agree. So instead what was agreed and setup was the Australian Energy Regulator under consumer law provisions ceded to the Commonwealth.
It’s really basic any politician should know the situation.

September 24, 2017 10:36 pm

“and governments that try to reduce their carbon emissions by heavily subsidizing wind and solar quickly hit a wall where energy prices for the masses soar through the roof even as the carbon emissions don’t go down. You won’t find the New York Times or Washington Post reporting on this, but it’s getting harder and harder not to notice.”
Err No
your wrong about the footprints of PV and Wind
And wrong about energy prices SOARING through the ROOF
I thought alarmism was the flaw of the AGW side.
you can make a case against renewables without resorting to alarmism

Tom Halla
Reply to  Steven Mosher
September 24, 2017 10:52 pm

So, Mr Mosher, what combination of price, intermittency, supply chain pollution, bird and bat killing, and sheer bloody ugliness would you reject as “alarmism” on renewables?

Reply to  Steven Mosher
September 24, 2017 11:23 pm

Seriously? Surely you don’t believe the propaganda put out by Tony BLiar’s Government in 2006? That nonsense has been totally disproved many times since 2006.

richard verney
Reply to  Steven Mosher
September 25, 2017 7:20 am

Willis posted an interesting article where he found that the cost of energy was proportionate to the amount of renewable energy in the mix. Those with high mix of renewables had expensive energy, and those with low mix, had low energy prices.
You might like to have a look at the IEA statistics.
On page 53 of its latest report it lists the cost of energy in OCED countries. Strangely Denmark is not listed, but of those listed Germany has by far the highest household energy cost at US$329.71 MWh, Mexico has the cheapest at US$63.74 MWh, and the US is very competitive at US$235.48 MWh.

richard verney
Reply to  richard verney
September 25, 2017 7:29 am

Sorry, typo.

the US is very competitive at US$125.48 MWh.

US household energy costs are approximately 1/3rd of those that Germans have to pay. Pity the poor Germans, who are increasingly being forced into fuel poverty and having their energy supplies disconnected.

David Cage
September 24, 2017 10:41 pm

Germany is easily condition or Hitler would never have succeeded and the green movement worldwide uses exactly the same techniques as Hitler did to get to power. The British are less easily conditioned.

Reply to  David Cage
September 25, 2017 3:31 am

“The British are less easily conditioned.”
How I wish that was true !

Reply to  1saveenergy
September 25, 2017 1:29 pm

How I agree.
In the UK, look at the ‘energy policy’ (Capitalisation not needed, in droves) of this Government, its Tory predecessor, and the Tory-Liberal fudge that governed, if that is not to overstate the fact, between the 2010 implosion of Brown [who kept us out of the Euro – thank goodness], and Cameron’s luke-warm win in 2015, promptly squandered on a couple of minuscule ‘concessions’ from the EU [nom de guerre – ‘Germany and Brussels’] ahead of the referendum.
No sensible help from them – Brexit.
They were told.
It is not clear if they listened – or were too far up their own religion (EUism and branches) to hear or see the leaves blowing in the wind.
Quelle surprise!
Look at Jeremy – left of Khrushchev – Korbyn mopping up the adulation of – it seems – many younger folk.
And the Tories are standing round waving hands in the air, and saying, ‘Well, of course, our program of bribes is better-costed than his . . . .’
Hapless, hopeless and will seriously struggle for my single vote.
[Was there voter fraud? I don’t know, but Tony B-Liar opened the postal vote to pretty-much anyone who could scrawl an ‘X’ . . . . ., compos mentis or pissed or neither. Or both, it seems.]
I wonder if he could be prosecuted for that.
Just asking!
An optimistic cynic (are there other types?) , whose rose-tinted ‘glasses of the realist’ probably fell off in the 1970s and Healy’s Great Inflation.
If our people – under fifty, say – are concerned about a difference between wage rises and wage rises of, perhaps, two percent – look back.
Inflation over twenty percent [up to 26% I think], and wage rises of – if luck – 12-16%, except in the unionised parts of the economy, where they would get cost of living rises – to be paid for, mostly, by those who got 12-16%..
It took a woman to clean that up.

Reply to  David Cage
September 25, 2017 4:46 am

But conditioned just the same.
Only more deviously.

September 24, 2017 10:51 pm

Meanwhile global CO2 continues its steady rise.

Reply to  ColinD
September 25, 2017 9:26 am


September 25, 2017 12:15 am

Green = stupid.
Wind and solar productions are intermittent. However, it is necessary to balance supply and demand in real time. Therefore, to balance the grid and avoid supply disruptions or, at worst, a generalized blackout, you need thermal power plants that operate batchwise, emitting a lot of satanic gas into the atmosphere. Conclusion: the carbon balance of intermittent renewable energies is particularly bad. While the nuclear power and hydraulics are virtuous. In short, green ideology confuses means and objectives, and leads to choosing means that go against the objectives. Understand who can!

September 25, 2017 12:21 am

This is a ridiculous arguement devoid of any attempt of reasoning. Either global warming is real or it isn’t. Whether or not alternative energy sources are a viable alternative does not change the science one iota. After all if global warming is real and alternative energy sources are not viable then the future is going to get very nasty very quickly. Which would appear to be a reason to get more depressed not less.
The lack of viability of alternatvie energy sources would mean that in 200 years or so we are going back to a society fuelled by human labor and trees. Which is probably worse than global warming any day.

I Came I Saw I Left
Reply to  Germonio
September 25, 2017 2:59 am

The destabilization of modern civilization and economies by forcing implementations of less stable and less capable technologies out of desperation induced by apocalyptic prognostications of climastrology is what’s depressing. A lot can happen in 200 years. A lot of very good things can happen in that very long time. Climatephobes have no sense of perspective, and obsess over the bad and champion pipe dream salvation – now. Implemented, that manic-depressive mindset will produce the same results that persons receive when they decide to jump before thinking.

Reply to  Germonio
September 25, 2017 3:08 am

After all if global warming is real and alternative energy sources are not viable then the future is going to get very nasty very quickly.

I agree with this specific statement from you Germonio, except in my opinion the future will get much nastier far quicker in the event of global cooling. After all cause conjectures are invisible in the energy bills and taxation.
The only way left-green dimension can save themselves is to withdraw their heads from their nuclear nether regions. A bit the way ex-green head Patrick Moore and IPCC has suggested years ago.

Reply to  Germonio
September 25, 2017 6:30 am

Speaking of being void of reason, it’s nice that you decided to show up.
I love the way you present your false dichotomy’s.
Either something is true or false. A given, given the binary assumptions you are making.
If it’s true, then its a huge problem. Obviously false.
It can be true, and not be a problem at all, which is demonstrably the case.

Reply to  Germonio
September 25, 2017 6:31 am

PS, We have several thousand years of coal left in the ground.

Leo Smith
September 25, 2017 12:45 am

The whole plan became to make green ‘too big to fail’ so that governments had no choice but to support it…

September 25, 2017 12:45 am

Germany CO2 emissions in first 5 full years after launch of energiewende:
2011: 922
2012: 927
2013: 945
2014: 904
2015: 902
2016: 906 (est.)
2020: 751 (target)
Oh, and German wind production fell last year.
Well worth $800 billlion….

Reply to  Mark Tinsley
September 25, 2017 2:13 am

But you have to look at the source of the CO2 across the 3 areas electricity, heating and transport.
Germany has not significantly reduced CO2 from heating and the emissions from transport went up slightly.
It is not the renewable electricity sector where the reduction problem lies…
35% of German electricity in first half of 2017 was from solar, wind and biomass (not imported wood chips either!)
Germany will probably miss its target for percentage of all energy use from renewables in 2020… by only having 16.8% of ALL energy from renewables. That’s quite a chunk!
Yes wind is variable year on year -so its a good thing Germany has continued to build offshore wind and has got 2 bids this year for new offshore wind farms with no subsidy whatever.
Germany continues with renewables because they work. Ordinary Germans, not power companies own a large chunk of the wind/solar power too!

Bob boder
Reply to  Griff
September 25, 2017 3:56 am

Actually ordinary Germans own all of it by paying 3 times the going rate here in the US for electricity.

Reply to  Griff
September 25, 2017 6:29 am

But, Bob, they use less electricity than US households (plus if they have solar panels or a share in profits of community owned renewables). And quite a lot of the extra cost is non-renewable related tax

richard verney
Reply to  Griff
September 25, 2017 7:04 am

It is not the renewable electricity sector where the reduction problem lies…

Griff, you are quite wrong as my post (September 25, 2017 at 2:11 am) below confirms. Wikipedia has details of Germany’s CO2 emissions from the energy generating sector,
Despite the headlong rush into renewables, Germany has been unable to reduce its CO2 emissions from the energy production sector since 2009. This is because wind and solar do not significantly reduce CO2 emissions so it does not matter how much is installed, no significant reduction results.
Just looking at the energy generating sector (thus ignoring transport etc), in 2009 Germany’s CO2 emissions were some 750 MT and by 2014 these had risen to 760MT.

Wikipedia unfortunately does not list the 2015 and 2016 figures, no doubt because they would be embarrassing in that they would confirm that there was still no reduction in CO2 emissions from the energy generating sector. One can see this from the chart that I posted above (September 25, 2017 at 2:45 am) which shows CO2 emissions rising in 2015 and 2016.

Reply to  Griff
September 25, 2017 2:37 pm

Making stuff up again Skanky, you scaly little twerp?
Does it never bother you that your paymasters are some of the most dishonest individuals ever to sully the surface of the planet, and for a tiny fraction of the wealth wasted on ‘Unreliables’ real improvements could be made in the World and many, many lives saved?
There are hundreds of millions of children who could be supplied with clean water for a fraction of the cost of the hoax environmentally disastrous bird, bat and whale murdering rubbish you propagandise for, does that not ever bother you?
No, of course it doesn’t, so long as you make a few quid in beer money.
Now go and apologise to Dr. Crockford for lying in a failed attempt to discredit her.

September 25, 2017 2:07 am

LTB: “All the real fun begins now, Germany is supposedly going to shut down 25% of its Coal fired power stations by 2020 …. popcorn for everyone … this is going to be funny.
I believe that the climate programs in Germany have to be rewritten after yesterday’s election. Merkel is reduced to dwarf size, Seehofer has already announced a hard-hitting right swing and without the 6.2 percent CSU from Bavaria, there is no government in Germany, but new elections. This is still funny, even if I can not approve a country without leadership. You saw it in 2015 and the years before what that means for us.
When Syrians from Afghanistan and Morocco immigrated with us in large numbers / sarc.

Reply to  Hans-Georg
September 25, 2017 2:14 am

Yes the BDEW industry website lists 2.7GW to go on the reserve and close by end 2019.
They will go because they are unprofitable.

Reply to  Griff
September 25, 2017 4:48 am

That is like calling someone ugly, after you took the man’s money, paid some vile goons and directed them too beat the victims face out of shape. You, of course, call the police, to remove the bleeding victim from public sight and ticket him for pollution.

richard verney
September 25, 2017 2:11 am

This article under assesses the problems that Germany faces with reducing its CO2 emissions from its energy sector, by looking at the overall consumption of energy, as opposed to the amount of CO2 being emitted by the electricity generation sector.
Perhaps not entirely unsurprisingly, Wikipedia is not up to date on this issue since it is embarrassing and demonstrates that wind and solar do not effectively reduce CO2 emissions. The reason for this is obvious, wind and solar require 100% backup and unless that backup is from non CO2 producing sources (eg., French nuclear via the interconnect, or Norwegian hydro from the interconnect), the backup generation is very CO2 intensive since it has to be operated in ramp up/ramp down mode which produces roughly the same amount of CO2 as when running 24/7 at a steady state on full designed output. It is rather like a car where one sees that urban fuel consumption is far higher than steady motorway/freeway driving.
According to Wikipedia:

The main source of electricity is coal.[5] The 2007 plan to build 26 new coal plants[6] is controversial in light of Germany’s commitment to curbing emissions.[7] By 2015, the growing share of renewable energy in the national electricity market (26% in 2014, up from 4% in 1990) and the government’s mandated CO2 emission reduction targets (40% below 1990 levels by 2020; 80% below 1990 levels by 2050) have increasingly curtailed previous plans for new, expanded coal power capacity.

But despite that dramatic rise, Germany came up against the buffers in 2009. Since 2009,Germany has not been able to reduce its CO2 emissions from the energy generation sector, even though it has further increased the share of wind and solar in the energy production mix. Again from Wikipedia;
Energy in Germany [3]
Capita Primary energy Production Imports Electricity CO2 emissions
million TWh TWh TWh TWh Mt
2004 82.5 4,048 1,582 2,509 580 849
2007 82.3 3,853 1,594 2,344 591 798
2008 82.1 3,899 1,560 2,453 587 804
2009 81.9 3,705 1,478 2,360 555 750
2010 81.8 3,807 1,528 2,362 590 762
2012 81.8 3,626 1,444 2,315 579 748
2012R 81.9 3,635 1,435 2,321 585 755
2013 82.1 3,694 1,400 2,411 576 760
change 2004–2010 −0.9% −5.9% −3.4% −5.9% 1.7% −10.3%
1 Mtoe = 11.63 TWh
Whilst the table has not copied well, it will be noted that in 2009 some 750MT of CO2, and generally CO2 emissions have not decreased at all since then, to the contrary they have been rising slightly to 760MT It is clear that CO2 reduction has stalled, and, as far as wind and solar are concerned, Germany hit the buffer in 2009. It is clear from this that wind and solar do not actually reduce CO2 emissions, and this is ignoring the CO2 used in their production and that used in connecting them to the grid.
It is impossible for Germany to meet its Paris Accord commitments. It has taken on at least 1 million new migrants most of whom are young single males who left their families behind, but who will be reunited with their families and will have many children. Even if Migration were to stop tomorrow apart from uniting families, it is obvious that 2030 Germany will have at least 5 million more people by 2030 and all of these people will require electricity, as well as of course, housing, schools, hospitals, cars, roads, increased public transport etc. All of this will involve a lot of CO2 and wind and solar will not reduce CO2 emissions.

September 25, 2017 2:16 am

The Norway interconnect isn’t finished yet and Germany exports more power to Frnace than vice versa – Germany has been keeping French lights on last year when a large number of French nuclear plants were offline.
100% backup is irrelevant these days. It is not other nations hydro of nuclear making German power work.
Germany upped generation and exports in 2016.

Reply to  Griff
September 25, 2017 3:36 am

Having payed for electricity in both countries for a decade now, your faith isn’t appealing, albeit I’ll fight for your right to worship it.

I Came I Saw I Left
Reply to  jaakkokateenkorva
September 25, 2017 3:46 am

“It is not other nations hydro of nuclear making German power work.”
Well not totally. Those are part of the equation, but it also includes other countries’ coal power sold to Germany, Germany’s own coal power, and other countries willingness to be paid to take Germany’s excess renweables power that makes German power work.

Reply to  jaakkokateenkorva
September 25, 2017 6:31 am

no, Germany isn’t propping itself up with other nations coal either.
It exports more than it imports… and much of the imports are Danish wind or similar

richard verney
Reply to  Griff
September 25, 2017 6:45 am

100% backup is irrelevant these days.

I do not know what planet you live on, but it obviously is not planet Earth where the sun does not shine at night, and where the wind does not blow 24/7. Indeed, in the winter months, Germany only receives on average less than 1.5 hours of (weak) sunshine per day!

Average Sunshine in Germany for January
The tables below give January averages for the hours of sunshine at cities throughout Germany. The month’s totals are averages of weather data collected from 1961 to 1990.
Total January sunshine
Place Hours
Berlin 45
Bremen 41
Hamburg 42
Hannover 42
Kiel 39
Magdeburg 47
Potsdam 47
Rostock 37

In 2015 and 2016, for 30% of the time, German Wind produced less than 10% of its nameplate capacity, meaning that for 30% of the time it required 90% backup from other forms of generation.
Germany has all but no pumped storage, and most of that time the back up was from fossil fueled generation which means that there is no significant saving in CO2 emissions since the back up has to be employed in inefficient ramp up/ramp down mode.
Whilst it is correct that Germany sells energy to others, because of the intermittent and non dispatchable nature of renewable energy, Germany is forced to purchase in energy at expensive rates, and dumps its excess renewable energy at cheap/low rates. This of course is why Germany has the second highest energy price in Europe and why the cost of energy has risen so sharply these past 12 or so years.
There is growing evidence that this dumping by Germany of excess renewable energy is causing problems for other countries’ grids.
Given that there is no significant saving in CO2 emissions (see the data in my post above that shows that CO2 emissions have not decreased since 2009), one can only conclude that this is a total fiasco and a waste of effort and money.

Reply to  Griff
September 25, 2017 2:39 pm

More lies…

September 25, 2017 2:23 am

In 2016 Germany operated 8 nuclear reactors, which supplied 13.1 % of her electricity. If she had built 48 additional reactors, they could have supplied over 90% of her power emission-free.
Cost these days in Europe to build a bunch of reactors : built by China – $5 billion, by Russia – about $5 billion each, by Korea, probably about the same, built by France – around $6-7 billion. Worst case you’re talking around $300 billion. And these reactors last over 60 years, versus 25 or so solar, perhaps the same for wind turbines. See how much fear costs you?

richard verney
Reply to  arthur4563
September 25, 2017 2:30 am

Not if you get the French to built the plant: From an article in The Guardian regarding the French built nuclear plant at Hinkley in the UK.

The total lifetime cost of the planned Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant could be as high as £37bn, according to an assessment published by the UK government. The figure was described as shocking by critics of the scheme, who said it showed just how volatile and uncertain the project had become, given that the same energy department’s estimate 12 months earlier had been £14bn.

There are always overspends, and I bet that the 37billion figure will be over 50 billion. All of this fiasco is passed onto customers through levies on the electricity bill.
There is not a single European country that has a sane electricity policy, especially since the EU is so against fracking. One can only hope that if Brexit is achieved, the UK will smell the coffee and go hell for leather with fracking, and will sell UK fracked gas to Europe.

Reply to  richard verney
September 25, 2017 3:26 am

Well, it is a nice thought. But here in the UK, 1) All the main political parties remain infatuated with climate change hysteria, 2) Brexit has just been delayed (for no good reason, in my view), 3) Ecoloon Luddites continue to resist fracking. So not much to be optimistic about with regard to ever having a sane energy policy. No-one actually knows what the true extent of recoverable gas from fracking is, all the more reason not to stand in the way of exploration – the potential is great but whether it will be matched by reality remains to be seen.

I Came I Saw I Left
Reply to  arthur4563
September 25, 2017 3:15 am

I think they probably don’t find things like radioactive boar running their country 30 years after Chernobyl to be too appealing.

Reply to  I Came I Saw I Left
September 25, 2017 3:38 am

“radioactive boar running their country ”
Do you mean Boris Johnston ?

I Came I Saw I Left
Reply to  I Came I Saw I Left
September 25, 2017 3:39 am

heh… running their country. Meant “running around”

Reply to  I Came I Saw I Left
September 25, 2017 3:55 am

Your radioactive boar running around 30 years after Chernobyl is a compelling case for radiation hormesis. In essence the cause effect relationship is not linear, but a bell-curve.

Reply to  I Came I Saw I Left
September 25, 2017 6:34 am

Don’t look now bub, but we are all radioactive.
Always have been, back to the dawn of time.

I Came I Saw I Left
Reply to  I Came I Saw I Left
September 25, 2017 2:37 pm

Very well, gentlemen. I dare you to start consuming those boar.

Reply to  I Came I Saw I Left
September 26, 2017 2:37 am

Very well, gentlemen. I dare you to start consuming those boar.

Doesn’t sound like an endangered species then. So, why not? Might be as tasty as reindeer and bear roaming in Kola Peninsula’s outside air nuclear reactor park, Tsar Bomb impact zone, Chernobyl fallout area and/or Chernobyl reactor no 4 prototypes still churning in Sosnovyi Bor.
And yet, despite of enjoying the gentle rain outside on the dreadful Saturday evening on 26 April 1986 in addition, I’m still not glowing in the dark. Quite the contrary, my countrymen have average estimated life-expectancy going up about 3 months/year.

richard verney
September 25, 2017 2:24 am

Most will know that Germany has just undergone an unsatisfactory election, and a new Government has yet to be formed. The Greens increased their share of the vote, and they will undoubtedly form part of a coalition Government.
How this will impact upon energy policy is yet to be seen, but there is growing concern that a considerable proportion of ordinary Germans have been left behind with stagnant wages, a growing appreciation that energy costs are becoming excessive with growing number of people having their electricity disconnected, and that the renewable industry is not as green as people have been led to believe, and growing opposition to onshore wind farms.
Could be interesting times. Perhaps time to get the popcorn out as Germany faces up to some hard realities. It certainly has no right to preach the US, and even though the US has pulled out of the Paris Accord, the US will be more successful at reducing CO2 emissions than will Germany. Hey ho, what fun!

Reply to  richard verney
September 25, 2017 2:41 am

The Greens remained almost at the same level. The “left” a party of the left parties won more than the Greens. The Greens would only be an emergency nail for a cohesive coalition. But there are two factors that make such a coalition almost impossible and all lie in the industrial / environmental sector: In the CDU itself, there are strong forces that want to pull out of the “Irrsinn” called renewable energies. Also in the CSU, which fears about the loss of power in Bavaria during the next parliamentary election in 2018 after over 10 percent decline in the Bundestag elections. The FDP is a climate sceptic, where it is not just a question of profitability but of the scientifical principle of “man-made climate change”. In addition, a question of profitability, because this party is strongly oriented to the industry. And there is still the AFD with nearly 13 percent of the votes, which is also strongly skeptical, as far as a “humanized” climate change is concerned.
And as a second factor, the Greens as a small emergency nail (as the smallest coalition partner) can not afford to fulfill their demands. They will have to make the biggest compromises. And the climate change fundamentalists in the Greens will probably not accept this. There are certainly popcorn times in Germany. But Merkel deserved it.

Reply to  Hans-Georg
September 25, 2017 2:48 am

P.S. : The “greens” gaines 0,5 per cent of the votes against 2013, the “left” gains 0,6 per Cent / sarc. Thats a great gain again./sarc

Leo Smith
Reply to  richard verney
September 25, 2017 4:58 am

what is unsatisfactory about it?
Germany needs to face reality, and this is a step on the way.

Reply to  richard verney
September 25, 2017 6:33 am

And German concern about climate change, support for renewables continues at very high levels.
You are guilty of wishful thinking.

Reply to  richard verney
September 25, 2017 2:41 pm

“You are guilty of wishful thinking.”
Infinitely preferable to what YOU are guilty of.

Ziiex Zeburz
September 25, 2017 4:02 am

The real disaster in Germany, All is VERBOTEN !
It is not that Germans are more stupid than others, is because they just do not know ! ( If it is against Gov policy VERBOTEN )
( stopped by the Hamburg police this morning at 0730, I was told that driving my car with the parking lights on was VERBOTEN !5 Euros )

Reply to  Ziiex Zeburz
September 25, 2017 4:39 am

To my knowledge the most preoccupying German disaster is anonymous denunciation being admissible in the court of law. But, having been lucky enough avoiding personal experience, I’m not sure of the extent.

Reply to  jaakkokateenkorva
September 25, 2017 5:06 am

I would not see that closely. Facebook and co .. are commercial offerers, want to make profit and after it has now “ausgemaast”, ie the SPD is no longer part of the government, some law will be rethought. I do not see any discrepancy about morality or justice here either, because I also loathe the idea of reading unwelcome comments, or murders, on the Internet. That does not belong, no matter who it is. Sarcasm and mockery is good, but not a primitive language.
To the previous comment, I only say, in Singapore, it is forbidden to throw chewing gums on the street . And you can go in jail for it. What are there 5 euros for wrong parking? These are not the problems of Germany, but the current Merkel policy of left-wing drifting and the “Aussitzen” of problems.

Alexander Vissers
September 25, 2017 4:52 am

Energy realism has a strong history in Germany, In the 80-ies the slogan “Why nuclear power plants? We get our power from the wall socket!” was a popular bumper sticker. Selling wind and solar as a job creating technology has been a driving force in Germany and indeed they sold a lot of it to Spain only to find out that Spain cannot pay for it. Eventually we will need alternatives for carbon but the current wind and solar technology is certainly not going to be it so investing in large scale roll out of immature technologies is not rational, Instead it would be more rational to step up research in safe nuclear and low cost solar. History has it that Germany has come up with some of the best technology inventions and scientific discoveries. As to the reductions in emissions, DDR (East German) housholds heated their homes on lignite and lignite power plants generated a significant part of the power. DDR carbon chemical industry was based to a large extent on on acetylene generated by coal / coke fired pre-war build carbide ovens in Skopau, where the origin of carbon chemistry lies, which were closed overnight after the reunification. It would be of great advantage to the world if Germany would bear more on its scientific talent and less on its tendency to follow ideology.

Reply to  Alexander Vissers
September 25, 2017 6:35 am

But current wind and solar IS it.
Germany continues to successfully build offshore wind, for example, with latest bids coming in without need for susidy

Ziiex Zeburz
Reply to  Griff
September 25, 2017 7:58 am

Come back to earth! ! I live in Germany, You are somewhere in OUTERspace., ( My monthly electric bill, almost the same as the rent )

Reply to  Griff
September 25, 2017 8:14 am

Haha that is the constant problem Griff sits in his little British council flat reading some junk on the net and thinks he knows anything about the world.

Reply to  Griff
September 25, 2017 8:46 am

Griff, let’s just compare my dollars & cents charges for electricity to pounds and pence charges for yours. This is real time, real world stuff, not mind-noodling stuff.
My electric bills for summer have run $35.56 to $40.79. Electricity comes from a coal-fired generating station eight miles away. The plant uses scrubbers and there is zero, zip in the way of smoke. Steam, yes, but NOT smoke.
There is a nuclear power plant 50 miles south of me, which may supply part of my electricity, too, and another one 150 miles west, but that one supplies power to surrounding farms and towns.
Until the local reactor plant was shut down by “greenbean” protests, local electric power was generated by that nuclear plant and it transmitted power to several counties. My power bills then were about the same as they are now. The bill goes up slightly in the winter, because I run the furnace and have the lights on for longer hours because of the shorter day.
You look at YOUR electric bill and tell me what YOU pay in pounds from spring to fall. If YOUR bill is higher than mine, your ‘greenbean’ point is either invalid or moot.

Reply to  Griff
September 25, 2017 12:50 pm

Griff cites some headline or slogan, but he never ever points out the circumstances. The cheap bids he mentions are not real contracts but often a kind of declaration of intent. Usually they are submitted by “citizen”-groups which are fraudulently put up by corporate investors, so that they can circumvent environmental-policy hurdles – to save costs. Even green groups raise this issue now.
New subsidies will run out soon and many parasites want to get the foot in door before it closes. They hope that many competitors will drop out before (its a business with many defaulters). With political help they can still raise the price/subsidies when necessary.
Near where I live (not in Germany) a french Company openly admits that their relative cheap offer of a wind-project is an exercise of “getting-a-foot- in-the-door”.

September 25, 2017 4:57 am

That solar and wind energy don’t work as needed is a tragedy for humankind. Fossil fuels deplete and eventually society will not be able to afford them. Nuclear is our only last hope, but Western countries aren’t going that way. Orient will dominate the World in the future.

Reply to  Javier
September 25, 2017 5:13 am

Why should the orient dominate the world in the future? Without fossil fuel and western engeneers the orient is a dwarf. My brother is technician in a company that manufactures valves of all kinds, also ball valves in oil production. In the past decades, he had to travel to the Orient several times a year, because the technicians there were not able to correct errors. And so it is everywhere. If all Western technicians and engineers were withdrawn from the Third World States, we would have a complete collapse of the economy there. Only Western knowledge and human resources keep the global economy running.

Reply to  Hans-Georg
September 25, 2017 6:09 am

They’ll have energy (nuclear) and we won’t.

richard verney
Reply to  Hans-Georg
September 25, 2017 6:12 am

The orient will dominate because the standard of education is far higher in places like South Korea, Japan, Hong Kong and China, and by virtue of force of numbers.
If the exceptionally brilliant are say 1/50th of a percent, when you have a population of a couple of billion people, you have far more exceptionally brilliant people than a country that has only 80 million people.

Reply to  Hans-Georg
September 25, 2017 6:38 am

It also helps to have a culture that welcomes brilliant people rather than trying to suppress them.

Reply to  Javier
September 25, 2017 6:36 am

But it does work.
That’s what you are ignoring/missing.

Reply to  Griff
September 25, 2017 7:28 am

Griff, it sort of works. It does produce some energy some of the time. But not nearly as needed to replace fossil fuels, that produce as much as we can use all the time.

Reply to  Griff
September 25, 2017 8:02 am

Especially when you consider the fact that you need fossil fuel plants spinning in the background ready to takeover whenever the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow.

richard verney
Reply to  Griff
September 25, 2017 8:04 am

It does not reduce significant amounts of CO2 if that is what you mean, and that is why CO2 emissions from the energy generating sector have not reduced since 2009 (750 MT), and are in fact slightly increasing in recent years (>760MT).

Reply to  Griff
September 25, 2017 8:52 am

It works for individual homes, on an individual dwelling basis. There have been and still are people who generate their own power using wind and solar systems, and the excess goes into the power grid. They get paid for that by the utility. That’s not the same thing as trying to do this on a massive scale that fails to take unsuitable urban structures into account.
If a city skyscraper can generate its own electricity, and supply all the needs of its inhabitants, that’s one way it does work. But on a city population scale, never mind a county-wide or statewide scale, no it does NOT work.

September 25, 2017 5:01 am

It’s beyond money or science, the “falling for it” narrative isn’t correct as it implies ignorance and to degree innocence.
Socialism is willful and more often then not hate driven. It’s a crony elite climate movement with all the usual “we know best” rationalizations that nullifies science or reason. Skeptics lose because the science first lead in to battle cowers to the stark political reality of Greenshirt political culture.

Reply to  cwon14
September 25, 2017 5:31 am

Strong words cwon14, but hits the nail of the head. This is why in my opinion the final battle will be won on the solid grounds of UN declaration of human rights, not on the disputable records of average global outside air temperature, composition and motion.

September 25, 2017 5:26 am

Having watched Germany go from a Cold War East/West Germany state to a united Germany, I can’t say that I see any kind of thriving economy under Merkel. If anything, it has become the opposite. She is such a control freak that she is sending her own country right down the drain. If Brexit was any indication, the EU may drift apart before long. Catalonia wants independence from Spain, Ireland and Scotland want out of “it” (not sure exactly what they mean but Scotland wants independence), and the pre-election Frexit (France) was on the table. With Macron in France, that may be stalled, but not forever.
Merkel has been dependent on the cash flow from other countries, as have Greece and a couple of others, and it is not a good sign that her control freak personality won’t let her follow any alternatives. Nor are Germans mindless, despite what she may think.
My suggestion to Angela is to step aside and let someone who knoww how to make an economy work bring Germany back to a successful state. If she doesn’t, she might as well try to put out that eternal fire in a coal mine in Pennsylvania. It’s been burning for a very long time. Think of all the coal that’s gone to waste. 🙂

Reply to  Sara
September 25, 2017 5:41 am

Merkel will never resign himself. What she do best is sitting and sitting out. The CDU is already downgraded to a dwarven format and yet, apart from a serious face of Merkel is nothing substantial to be heard. Now, however, the fun ends, since the Bavarian “Spezln” have suffered frightful losses. And it is about the power, the fun ends to the Bayuwarian Christians. Interesting times, Seehofer has for the first time the power to push Merkel into the corner. Because he has more than 6.2 percent of the votes required for every realistic coalition in the Bundestag.

September 25, 2017 6:02 am

OK OK, but they do have 1 chart constantly rising, the retail price of electriciy. They will only pay attention when their manufactuers leave in larger nbrs due to the high electricity costs..
Germans, look at a map, solar power is not for you…….6 months of the year you get too little sun.

Reply to  scottmc37
September 25, 2017 6:37 am

but 6 months of the year they get huge amounts during the working day -35% of demand is quite common

richard verney
Reply to  Griff
September 25, 2017 3:04 pm

It is likely that you are being rather optimistic.
In June, July and August, the average monthly sunshine hours is around 220 hours, ie., around 7 hours a day. or 29% of the day.
In April, there are about 162 sunshine hours per month, ie., around 5.4 hours a day. or 22.5% of the day, and in October it is down to about 108 sunshine hours per month, ie., less than 3.5 hours, or about 14.5%
On those figures, even assuming optimum performance (and of course optimum performance is general only a few hours around midday at the June equinox unless one has steerable panels), it would seem that your figure of 35% is optimistic even taking into account battery storage
I would imagine that in Germany it is difficult to go off grid with solar, and in any event extremely expensive (you would need a lot of panel area and vast reservoirs of battery storage).

David in Texas
September 25, 2017 6:59 am

“Large numbers of my friends and acquaintances are climate skeptics.”
You have a large number of friends who don’t believe in the climate? Listen to what you are saying. Words have meaning, and when you adopt the “catastrophic man-made global warming (CAWG)” rhetoric you distort your message.
Even if you believe strongly in CAWG, address your critic’s criticism without name calling. If you don’t share the CAWG message, don’t adopt the rhetoric of those trying to persuade people using argumentum ad hominem.
Yes, you know what you mean, but the others will not.

Steve Richards
September 25, 2017 7:14 am

German electricity prices.
I had a look at the Eurostat website to get all of the EU countries electricity prices.
Two things surprised me:
1) that industrialised EU countries had similar untaxed retail prices.
2) After tax and renewable subsidies etc Germany shot up from 7th to 2nd most expensive…
Thats one hell of an increase – from 13.88c/kwh to 29.69 c/kwh due to tax and renewable penalties…..
Data from:
The file was: Electricity prices for household consumers – bi-annual data (from 2007 onwards) (nrg_pc_204)

Reply to  Steve Richards
September 25, 2017 8:20 am

Yes Ziiex from Germany said taht above, and the point I was making Germany haven’t reduced there use of coal one bit. The next 3 years gets tricky they have made decisions to actually now try and do the hard lifting. The election result provides a great backdrop to that. It’s like the perfect storm for Merkell.

Reply to  Steve Richards
September 25, 2017 8:26 am

Wow. That is a massive charge. I checked my electric bill. The per KWh charge is $.,05556. The transmission charge is $.013368/KWh. The taxes per month are calculated by KWh, and are $2.79. My electric bill is pretty reasonable, but would be higher if I ran an air conditioner. Haven’t needed mine for going on five years, until Irma pushed that load of hot air at us, but it’s going away tomorrow and my house is comfy now.
I think that not just Germans, but all Europeans, are getting completely ripped off for this idiotic notion that this “greenbean” power generation is a better plan. If there is a harsh winter in Europe and people die of exposure from lack of heat because they can’t afford the utility charges, it will be entirely the fault of the people who started this mess.
Personally, I think Merkel has windmills in her head. But that’s just my view.

james whelan
September 25, 2017 8:07 am

Posted this on Paul Homewood’s excellent site, hope you don’t mind its repeat here as I think its relevant to this debate.
Paul, I have read your superb blog for ages, but only recently decided to contribute. I am a Physicist by training , now retired after years in the UK electricity and gas industry.
I admire your and most other contributors dedication in pointing out the lack of scientific substance behind the CO2/ global warming/climate change scam. However I don’t believe it will make a scrap of difference to the direction the western world ( in particular) is moving. The ‘establishment’ made up primarily of financial institutions, very wealthy individuals and their political lackeys are well aware of the intellectual deficiencies of the warmists. However they are encouraged to continue with their dire predictions whipped on by the subservient MSM. It serves the useful purpose of reinforcing the fear factor and virtue signalling required to keep the populace ‘paying’.
And that is what it is all about, the populace paying through taxation and utility bills for the debts of governments and bankers, whilst at the same time creating the vehicles for the very rich to extract more rent from the rest of us.
The Central Banks’, Central Bank, the BIS based in Switzerland has produced investment criteria ( under the chairmanship of Carney) for every CB in the world, who in turn lay down the requirements for every commercial bank, insurance company and other financial entities. These criteria now have at their heart the requirement to include decarbonisation and climate effects on every investment decision made. This is in turn supported by every government ( including that of Trump) by default if not actively.
Are the financiers suddenly environmentalists? No of course not. But they have embraced climate change as a means to an end. All those $bns created after 2007/8 to keep the banks afloat have to be absorbed in the economy. Also the banks have still catastrophic debt levels that have yet to be solved, rather than kicked forward into the long grass. What better way to solve these problems whilst at the same time creating brand new investment opportunities for the 0.1% than the world saving change to energy production and use. There is little or no risk involved as all governments will cover the income stream required for returns by taxation and utility pricing.
It also has the positive ( as far as governments are concerned) effect of helping to create a future society which is more controllable, far better to ‘save the world’ than allow the continuation of all those pesky ‘freedoms’ enjoyed by far too many of the proles.
The question is; is it already too late? is the die cast? I hope I am wrong, but I have a horrible feeling that it may be.

Bruce Cobb
September 25, 2017 8:12 am

I would say that our most important “secret weapon” is that we have truth on our side. Slowly but surely, the lies collapse under their own weight, and truth begins to erode them, as more and more people realize that emporer truly wears no clothes. The reason this has been such a long slog is that once the lies become institutionalized, they become very difficult to dislodge. The election of Trump was of course a huge blow to Warmunism, and will definitely shorten its life, especially if he gets re-elected.

September 25, 2017 9:48 am

And not just random people, but people seemingly among the elites of society — academics and journalists and government bureaucrats. Most of the media function as propaganda bullhorns to spread the idiocy.
But they don’t have the voting public. This is why I am so optimistic–with all these forces lining their pockets with alarmism money shouting in every way they can that we are doomed, the average person on the street is still a skeptic.
They got nuthin’. They are a spent force and they are losing, even if the slush fund is big at the moment.

September 25, 2017 11:12 am

Here’s another bunch of people who have ‘fallen for it’ – 300 large international companies
also major insurance firms like this one…
backed by these guys
and there are the companies committed to 100% renewable energy… I could append a massive list
It stretches credulity that all the major corporations and industry sectors are all somehow taken in by a ‘fraud’. Businesses base their investments and approach on real world evidence.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Griff
September 25, 2017 11:41 am

First off, Griffie-poo, your use of the f- word is just a straw man on your part.
Secondly, your claim about what businesses base their investments and approach on is total nonsense, reflecting your own ignorance about business in general. Businesses who (seemingly) buy into the Warmist claims do so because they see it as good PR, and because they can curry favor with government bureaucrats and various and sundry NGOs. Ah, but most of what they do amounts to mere greenwashing, so costs them little, and they may even get some tidy tax breakness. So, they really don’t see a down side to it. And finally, you are simply using a variation of the illogical “Concensus” argument.
Strike three, you’re out.

james whelan
Reply to  Griff
September 25, 2017 2:15 pm

Griff, the sad thing is that is you who are ‘taken in’. All the bodies you refer to know there is no scientific basis for ‘warmism’. However they use pawns like you to spread the gospel to create the right environment to introduce their schemes to extract maximum ‘rent’ from the populace by taxation and utility charges. Its the financiers in cahoots with the political lackeys who are creating the ‘need’ to invest in ‘new’ energy production and uses. This ‘need’ is being used to absorb the $bns created by CBs after 2007/8 to save the banking system. It also usefully creates risk free investment vehicles for the 0.1% supported by government mandated income streams.
Griff, you along with the myriad of modellers, campaigners, environmentalists etc etc, are being used in the greatest con yet conceived by a few on the many.

richard verney
Reply to  Griff
September 25, 2017 3:17 pm

It is not at all surprising, it is all a part of the global elite. These companies (including the banking sector) make huge sums of money out of climate change, and claimed risks associated with climate change.
I have quite some experience with MunichRe (and SwissRe), and reinsurance companies always like promoting risk and the need for cover at high rates when the prospect of them being called to pay out are minimal. You never see a poor reinsurance company.
You see this all the time in the oil industry. Just because there are the exceptionally few cases where claims exceed 500 million, everyone is fleeced to pay insurance of billions of worth of cover and the prospect that the insurers taking the top slice of cover (say above 500 million, or 1 billion) will have to pay out is like you winning the lottery.
But none of this has anything to do with the validity of the science, but rather only whether someone can make a quick buck at minimal risk to themselves.

Bill Wilson
September 25, 2017 5:41 pm

Pity us here in Canada. We have a province called Ontario that has mirrored Germany in many ways and has spent huge borrowed dollars on wind power generation and shut down coal power plants. The wind power has been far less efficient than the “clean power” consultants predicted and the cost of electricity in Ontario has skyrocketed, to the point where some say their power bill is higher than their mortgage payment, and they can no longer afford electricity.
Now our illustrious Prime Minister Trudeau is reportedly receiving advice from that same Ontario clean power consultant so the rest of Canada can be forced to make the same disastrous moves that Ontario did. We are likely doomed.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights