2018 Saw A Global Revolt Against Climate Change Policies

From The Daily Caller

12:01 PM 12/31/2018 | Energy

Michael Bastasch | Energy Editor

  • 2018 saw a global revolt against policies aimed at fighting global warming
  • Australia, Canada, France and the U.S. have all seen push back against global warming policies
  • That included weeks of riots in France against planned carbon tax increases

Despite increasingly apocalyptic warnings from U.N. officials, 2018 has seen a number of high-profile defeats for policies aimed at fighting global warming. Politicians and voters pushed back at attempts to raise energy prices as part of the climate crusade.

It started in June with election of Ontario Premier Doug Ford. Ontario residents overwhelmingly voted Ford’s conservative coalition into power on a platform that included axing the Canadian province’s cap-and-trade program.

Ford said his first priority upon taking office would be to “cancel the Liberal cap-and-trade carbon tax.” Ford then joined a legal challenge led by Saskatchewan against Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s policy of a central government-imposed carbon tax on provinces that don’t have their own.

Carbon tax opponents called Trudeau’s plan an attempt to “use the new tax to further redistribute income, which will increase the costs of this tax to the economy.”

Roughly ten thousand miles away in Australia another revolt was brewing. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull saw his power base crumble within days of failing to pass a bill aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford speaks to the press following the First Ministers' Meeting in Montreal

Ontario Premier Doug Ford speaks to the press following the First Ministers’ Meeting in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, December 7, 2018. REUTERS/Christinne Muschi.

Turnbull’s so-called National Energy Guarantee to reduce energy sector emissions was opposed by a group of conservative members of Parliament led by former Prime Minister Tony Abbott.

Turnbull tried to delay the vote on his climate bill in response to the opposition but was too late. Turnbull stepped down in late August and has since been replaced by Scott Morrison.

Back in the U.S., $45 million was being pumped into the battle over a Washington state carbon tax ballot measure. Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee, who has 2020 presidential ambitions, supported the measure though refiners, but other opponents outspent carbon tax supporters.

The Inslee-backed measure called for taxing carbon dioxide emissions at $15 a ton in 2020, which would increase at $2 a year above the rate of inflation until the state meets its emissions goals. (RELATED: Greenpeace’s Iconic ‘Rainbow Warrior’ Ship Chopped Up On A Third-World Beach, Sold For Scrap)

However, Washington voters rejected the carbon tax measure in the November election despite Inslee’s support. It was the second time in two years that Washington voters rejected a carbon tax ballot initiative.

Washington Governor Jay Inslee speaks during a rally at the beginning of the March For Science in Seattle, Washington

Washington Governor Jay Inslee speaks during a rally at the beginning of the March For Science in Seattle, Washington, U.S. April 22, 2017. REUTERS/David Ryder.

The November elections also saw the defeat of a group of Republican lawmakers in the House Climate Solutions Caucus. Among those defeated was caucus co-chair Florida GOP Rep. Carlos Curbelo, who introduced carbon tax legislation in July.

Curbelo’s legislation called for a $23 per ton carbon tax that would primarily fund the Highway Trust Fund. Despite this, environmentalists funneled money to his Democratic challenger Debbie Mucarsel-Powell.

Shortly after the U.S. elections, it became clear trouble was brewing across the Atlantic in France. French President Emmanuel Macron’s economic reforms, which included planned fuel tax increases, were not winning over much of the population.

Macron spent years styling himself as a staunch supporter of efforts to tackle global warming, including the Paris agreement. Indeed, raising taxes on diesel and gasoline was part of Macron’s plan to meet France’s Paris accord pledge.

It backfired. Angered over the new carbon taxes on fuel, tens of thousands of protesters, called “yellow vests” for the vests drivers are required to have in their cars, took to the streets calling for an end to the taxes and for Macron to resign.

French President Emmanuel Macron attends a joint news conference with President of Burkina Faso Roch Marc Christian Kabore at the Elysee Palace in Paris

French President Emmanuel Macron attends a joint news conference with President of Burkina Faso Roch Marc Christian Kabore (not seen) at the Elysee Palace in Paris, France, December 17, 2018. REUTERS/Benoit Tessier/Pool.

Macron initially resisted, arguing France needed to do more to address global warming, but the French government capitulated in December and scrapped the planned tax increases. Macron also said he’d increase the minimum wage and begged companies to raise salaries, if possible.

Macron’s backpedaling on climate policy couldn’t have come at a worse time for the climate-conscious president. The U.N. annual climate summit was being held in Poland as Macron conceded to the “yellow vests.”

France’s carbon tax revolts sent a clear message to Democratic lawmakers across the Atlantic Ocean. Democrats will take control of the House in 2019 and want to make global warming a central part of their agenda.

Democrats and even environmentalists distanced themselves from carbon taxes in the wake of French riots. However, far-left Democrats are pushing “Green New Deal” legislation, which could become the largest expansion of government in decades.

Follow Michael on Facebook and Twitter




96 thoughts on “2018 Saw A Global Revolt Against Climate Change Policies

  1. Anthropogenic Climate Change… perchance Warming, even Catastrophic. The scientific theory is marginal, and the political choice is clearly not viable, yet it persists.

    • Canada has very serious problems at this time:

      1. An incompetent and corrupt socialist Federal government, led by an imbecilic puppet.

      2. Similar incompetent and corrupt socialist governments in many of the provinces.

      3. A socialist civil service that, like the elected officials, is technically uneducated and divorced from economic reality.

      4. A judiciary that, especially at the federal level, appears to be incompetent and corrupt, appointed for favours to the federal government rather than any expertise in law, and a similarly corrupted legal profession and police forces.

      5. A family law system that is designed to destroy families and children.

      6. Costly and ineffective green energy policies, guaranteed to reduce grid reliability, increase electricity costs, and increase winter deaths among the elderly and the poor.

      7. A planned carbon tax that will raise the cost of EVERYTHING, that will harm citizens and have NO benefit to the environment.

      8. Phony green policies that inefficient, ineffective, and are simply a false-front for leftist social objectives.

      9. Collaboration between the extreme-left, socialist governments and corrupt judges to prevent vital pipelines from being built, and the loss to Canada of $120 billion in revenues from this conspiracy.

      10. Foolish Immigration policies that are almost certain to cause a crime, welfare and homegrown terrorist problem.

      Europe has already demonstrated the utter destructiveness of these policies, and yet Canada is following their lead – nobody is this stupid, imo – this is a deliberate plan to destroy the country and its economy, to enable a full socialist takeover, much like Venezuela, Zimbabwe and about one hundred other leftist hell-holes that used to be prosperous countries.

      • I think you are right, Allan. I have been VP and President in two Canadian companies and interacted at length with many professional Canadians, and their level of competence was the same as in the USA, almost like no border existed. Then the looney lurch to the left got underway, and the view of the culture of Canada went with it. What did they think would be the benefit of accepting thousands of refugees fleeing the election of President Trump, for instance? Then they fight the Pipeline, apparently for the only reason that loonies in the USA fought it, and gave up on a tremendous boost to the economy. Now Trudeau allows China to transit steel through Canada and into the USA attempting to change the China-USA apparent trade imbalance. Why Canadians would be against Anthropogenic global warming when 80% of the population lives within 100 miles of the border is a mystery to me.

          • IMHO I must disagree.
            “Never ascribe to malice that which is easily explained by incompetence.” N. Bonaparte

            I think they truly believe they are doing good, which makes this even more pernicious. It takes a certain kind of stupid to head down the paths they are advocating. Jerry Brown has the right kind of stupid.

          • Hi RocketS.

            You say the warmists are incredibly stupid, and I say they are deliberately destructive.

            Either way, humanity loses.

            Maybe we should put them in jail on grounds of extreme stupidity.

          • I have read your posts and agree with the trend toward dictators running amok under the general heading of socialism. I have worked extensively throughout LatinAmerica, and know an additional element that lends itself to this trend. The law in LatinAmerica, possibly outside of only Chile, is Roman Law. The Romans not only tolerated corruption and favoritism and hiring your family and friends, they codified it. For instance a maid could not accuse a Senator of rape, it was too minor of a crime to warrant the distraction from his duties. Along comes China and finds conditions to their liking, corruption not only works, it works quickly. In the USA the book “Rules for Radicals”, written by ex-President Obamas’ friend Alinsky, is the template for elections in Canada and the USA, to wit, say anything to get elected, then once you are in office you can run with your agenda. Along comes Trump and he doesn’t follow the playbook and all hell breaks loose. I need a drink.

          • Hi Ron,

            I co-funded with INCO the discovery of the Loma Blanca sodium borate mine in Jujuy province of Argentina in the early 1990’s – elevation about 14,000 feet amsl.

            Great country, great people, generally a lousy government. Our governor was pretty good though, and he was a military man. Carlos Menem was President – about the only good thing he did was lock his wife out of the Pink House. 🙂

            Chile is by far the richest and safest country in Latin America, with the most human rights.

            About that drink – if you are in Calgary, let me know and I’ll buy you one.

            Best, Allan

          • “Rocketscientist January 3, 2019 at 8:04 am
            IMHO I must disagree.
            “Never ascribe to malice that which is easily explained by incompetence.” N. Bonaparte

            I think they truly believe they are doing good, which makes this even more pernicious. It takes a certain kind of stupid to head down the paths they are advocating. Jerry Brown has the right kind of stupid.”

            Occasionally watching “Johnny Carson” reruns, I watched an early 1980s rerun that featured guest, a young ‘Jerry Brown’.

            Jerry was circulating the talk shows just prior to his running for President in 1980.
            Of course Jerry bad mouthed the opposition and promised to stop wasting money, work with with business for the public good and similar good for the economy and good for the people phrases.

            Jerry Brown should sue himself for failure to keep his promises, utterly failing the people of kalifornia and causing death and destruction through abuse of nature and expensive electricity..

      • Quite right Alan. There is no one that stupid… Period !
        The destruction of country has to be the ultimate goal.

        as a side note, I love that photo of Macron above. He looks like a petulant little spoiled brat who just got slapped across the chops & there ain’t a damn thing he can do about it.

      • ALLEN, All this was suppressed and neglected in times of Helmut Kohl, Obama and Angela “Angie” Merkel.

        All of this will become virulent in one go. Now.

    • Anthony,

      The issue that galvanised conservative MPs to vote against Malcolm Turnbull’s global warming policy was not the reduction in CO2 emissions. Turnbull and his cohorts were about to push through legislation compelling Australia to contribute million of dollars to the UN – for that corrupt bureaucracy to distribute to third world countries who claim to be threatened by an increase in global temperatures. It was wealth redistribution, as supported by the UN, under the cover of ‘global warming and rising sea levels’. The mendicant Pacific nations with their hands out for funding extracted from the morally inferior first world countries.

      Do I blame the Pacific nations concerned? Of course not. I would do exactly the same if the UN offered me free supplies of whatever I asked for. It’s the manipulative billionaires behind the IPCC at fault – Al Gore the best known, with his jet-setting global lecturing existence, untouched by reality.

      Australia already has a generous program of foreign aid, known as AusAID, controlled by the Federal Government on behalf of Australian taxpayers. AusAIS programs are monitored by relevant individuals like retired police officers, selected for their professional integrity and not easily corrupted.

      Australian taxpayers owe Tony Abbott a great deal, despite the group-think denigration he has copped. When the detailed draft legislation had been shown to the Labor Opposition, but not to Turnbull’s own party room, I understand he discovered the detail in the nick of time…and his former Chief of Staff Peta Credlin, now a TV broadcaster on Sky News, went public.

      After that, the focus of the Coalition MPs was their own parliamentary future. If Turnbull continued, they feared they would lose their seats. So when Turnbull himself called the spill (an unwise move), they grabbed the chance and sacked him.

      • When Electricity Bill Shorten gains power in 2019 Australia will have a RET of 50%. That will supercharge investments in intermittent power generators.

        Morrison’s government is as spineless as his predecessor’s was influenced by family interest in subsidy farms.

        Investment in grid scale intermittents accelerated in 2018 and the take up of rooftop solar totalled 1600MW for the year. Queensland now has a third of homes with rooftop solar.

        My view is that Australia is locked into intermittents for at least another decade. It will be a long time before the gloss loses its shine:

  2. Sadly the fight against Green taxes is far from over. The “Social Justice Warriers “will just look for yet another cause designed to remove your hard earned cash, to be re- directed to what they think is a better place or person. ”

    Facts mean very little to such people, they much prefer emotion.

    So use your vote to replace them with someone who is awake to their rubbish science.


    • Here is how modern politics works:

      The far-left is winning, especially in the developing world, where over 100 countries are pseudo-Marxist dictatorships, based on their leftist phony rhetoric, but are actually just military dictatorships, run for the ruling elite and their armed thugs – see Zimbabwe and Venezuela… and North Korea, Cuba, the Soviet Union countries and many more..

      The left gains political power by promising imbeciles lots of free stuff. Then they destroy the economy, create widespread poverty and live like kings atop a ruined state – because you can’t be kings without lots of peasants.

      It is really no different in the developed world. Get elected by lazy greedy imbeciles, destroy the economy with fake green energy and other crazy policies, and live like kings on top of a ruined economy, looking down on all the peasants.

  3. “You can’t fool all of the people all of the time. ”

    I was out in France a few days ago, talking in the bars about these protests, and the general opinion is that climate change is cyclical.

    People will pay tax for something they feel benefits society. Clearly they have rejected CAGW alarmism, and this despite the vast amount of time and energy that has gone into marketing it.

    • Unfortunately, in my French entourage CAGW is the predominant ideology.

      But whatever the prevailing sentiment today is, the states and deep states can bide their time: they know they’ve thoroughly brainwashed the coming generations of taxpayers.

      As an English teacher in various French institutions, public and private, I can tell you this phenomenon of “climate grief” and climate-obsessed youths like Greta Thunberg, both seen recently on this site, is a growing one as so-called educational institutions have officially or officiously integrated this faith-based, man-made climate change ideology into national curricula (in the image of Bill Gates’ Common Core).

      Today many may have rejected climate alarmism but I’d wager such hustles are planned to take place over quickly changing administrations and generations with our short memories, short-term perspectives, emotional tendencies and harried work and school days being our weak points…

      • In the US, liberal ideology pervades education from K-12, and into university. If that doesn’t change, today’s victories will evaporate like the morning mist over a pond on a hot summer day.

        And seeing that nobody seems to be working to address the ideological imbalance, means that it won’t change. So let’s enjoy our temporary victory and hope the world holds together long enough for us.

        • Steve O wrote:
          “In the US, liberal ideology pervades education from K-12, and into university.”

          Yes but they are not liberals, they are Marxists – they are just too stupid to realize it. And they exist all over the developed world, especially in our educational systems.

          They are divorced from economic reality.

          They are Lenin’s “useful idiots”, imbeciles who follow any dog that barks.

          They think they are “progressives”, that they are cooler and smarter than others, when in fact they suffer from Dunning-Kruger Effect (“Stupid people are too stupid to know they are stupid”).

          One thing is certain – I don’t want anyone this stupid teaching my kids.

          Regards, Allan

          Post Script:

          THE DUNNING-KRUGER EFFECT – Definition

          “The psychological phenomenon of illusory superiority was identified as a form of cognitive bias in Kruger and Dunning’s 1999 study “Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One’s Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments”. The identification derived from the cognitive bias evident in the criminal case of McArthur Wheeler, who robbed banks with his face covered with lemon juice, which he believed would make it invisible to the surveillance cameras. This belief was based on his misunderstanding of the chemical properties of lemon juice as an invisible ink.”

      • Idiot education through the Taylorian system is the cause of the left-wing stupidity and irresponsibility. Returning to the Lancastrian system that developed character is the solution.

        See http://www.constitution.org/col/one_room_schoolhouse.htm for a short article describing these systems clearly and how they caused all this imbecility and other trouble.

        We start with private schools such as church schools. When they attract enough pupils out of the public schools, then the public schools will compete in order to get more dollars.

  4. Regarding Malcoln Turnbulls removal. . Whilst a highly intelligent man, especially in Court, see “Spycatcher court case, Turnbull has difficulties as to which party to belong too.

    He rolled Tony Abbott when he Tony was opposition leader, then sided with Labours Kevin Rudd over bringing in a Carbon tax. Result was that he was rolled by Tony Abbott.

    The following Tony Abbotts overwhelming victory over Kevin Rudd’s labour in 2014, a hostile Senate prevented Abbott from getting Australia out of debt. Result was negative opinion polls. So the Liberal Party (Conservative) party, pot Turnbull back in again, as he was seen as a soft L Liberal.

    Bad mistake, he had not changed and was again all for a version of Carbon Tax, just with a new name.

    So out with him and in with Morrison as PM, a compromise PM.

    Such is life in fossell fuel rich Australia .


    • Michael,
      To complete the Australian story, the present time sees no significant party willing to do the necessary steps of a. Scrapping the Renewable Energy Target that forces preference for renewables and raises electricity costs and b. Notice of withdrawal from the Paris agreement, because it is clear from the USA position that it has significant defects.
      Australians often vote 50:50 for the the two major parties after distribution of preferences. It takes a strong topic to shift this usual outcome to create an upsetting swing. The climate change topic now has more than enough disbelievers to make that swing.
      Too many of the Australian public have failed to see that government subsidies are a cost to them, more often than a benefit. That is, the tooth fairy lives. Geoff.

    • Clarification – Turnbull originally backstabbed Brendan Nelson. Nelson became Liberal Party (and opposition) leader following the Kevin O’Seven election win of Labor.

      At the time Nelson was effectively in the place holder role. The accepted convention is someone steps up to take one for the team for the first couple of years of opposition before a new and exciting leader takes over in the lead up to the election. Turnbull however rolled him well before the election based (IMHO) purely on his massive ego.

      This was okay for a while because outside of election cycles no one really takes the opposition leader that seriously and he was more or less harmless in the role until it came to the attempt by the government to pass some ‘warming’ laws.

      Turnbull, despite being the OPPOSITION, was warm to the idea. The rank and file party members were not. They came up from grassroots and told their local members in blunt terms that if they had wanted to support Labor policy they would have voted Labor and at the next election the local member could put up their own sodding posters.

      The party, fearful of having their grassroot support revolting, grew a spine. Turnbull never had one and he was removed as party leader.

      Ironically the Warming law in question was blocked by the Greens. They opposed it because it was too weak in their eyes and wanted it even more pro-warming. They attempted to protest vote on the belief that Turnbull would support it and it would have been passed anyway.

      Had the Greens not protested in order to get the moral high environmental ground, the Labor and Green votes would have carried the law in the Senate and Turnbull would not have been humiliated by his own party enough to force the change of leaders.

      Anyway, short summary – Turnbull got Warmie Woke, went Broke. Several times.

      Being Warm destroyed him, twice. Being Warm destroyed Gillard and Rudd. Being a science realist took Abbott to a massive election victory. There should be a lesson here, but the Australian MSM is in complete denial about it.

  5. Next to fall will be the US Department of Energy! Look carefully at all the (stupidly useless) projects that they are funding. VERY carefully!!!

    Pull the plug on that CO2 oriented rathole and President Trump has his Billions to build the wall, and quoting President Kennedy “..and do the other things!”

  6. Can the Democrats get their Green New Deal? They have to get by the President. This could be the immovable object vs. the irresistible force. The Democrats could turn the White House into a 24/7 legal defense operation. They have to be careful though because it could cause the voters to turn on them.

    We should get some idea of how things are going to turn out by watching what happens with financing for the wall.

    • “Can the Democrats get their Green New Deal?”

      The short answer is no. Not while Trump is in Office.

      The Repubican-controlled House of Representatives sent upwards of 400 pieces of legislation over to the U.S. Senate over the last few years, and nearly all of that legislation sits there and never gets voted on because it takes 60 votes in the Senate to pass most legislation, and the Republicans only had 52 votes and could not get any Democrat votes.

      The same thing will happen to any Democrat-controlled House legislation. It will die in the U.S. Senate.

      The only way the Democrats will get any legislation through to a signed law is with the cooperation of the President and the Republicans in the U.S. Senate. The Democrats will want to run on more than just resisting Trump in the upcoming 2020 elections and the only way they get to do that is to cooperate with Trump.

      Trump holds the winning hand. All he has to do is hang tough and insist on Democrats funding the southern border wall, and Trump is good at hanging tough, and this is his signature issue.

      The President’s State of the Union Address will be coming up in a few weeks. Do the Democrats want to sit there and listen to President Trump tell the whole world just how bad the Democrats are about defending the national security of the United States?

      That’s what they are going to be hearing if they don’t fund the southern border wall before then.

      • Indeed, Tom. Not only will the same happen, it’s even easier for the Senate to kill the House Dem’s legislation, The Senate leader (Mitch McConnel) just has to not bring it to the floor for a vote. They would need unanimous consent to force it through (a single opposing vote would block it). Jeff Flake, Cory Booker, and Chris Coons tried that with their “protect Mueller” legislation. It didn’t work out for them. (Mitch was the opposing voice when they tried on Nov 14th and Sen. Mike Lee took that roll on the second attempt two weeks later)

    • First they have to get past the Senate. They only control the house right now, so any “Green New Deal” legislation they pass would
      1) have to make it to the floor of the Senate (Republicans control what legislation makes it to the floor, It’s unlikely Mitch would allow that but if he did, then it would need to…)
      2) get 60 votes (Dems only have 47, counting 2 independents, to Republicans 53) to get past the filibuster
      Even if they manage to round up enough RINOs to get it through the Senate, then, as you say…
      3) they need the President to sign it. That won’t happen (Unless they attach some generous border wall funding to it, something they are adamantly opposed to).

    • lol, Toto, I doubt many others will get your reference.

      CCCP in Russian letters is ess ess ess R = Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. In other words these climate nonsensers are commies, watermelon greens.

  7. This very web site, WUWT, can take credit for a significant portion of the discontent brewing over politicized, bastardized, incentivized “science”. Kudos, jefe!

  8. They don’t call environmentalists “watermelons” for nothing.
    It’s all about bringing in worldwide socialism.
    And the mass executions, “re-education” camps and subsistence level incomes for the vast majority.

    • Its basically fake news, this. What happens is that the wind farms get paid at over the going rate whether their product is needed or used or not, and they also have legal priority to supply.

      So, to take a specific example to make it clear, if there is a peak of wind generation at 3am, this counts as supply and is part of the 33%. The fact that there is minimal demand at that point, and that what demand there is can be more than supplied by the conventional generation, that isn’t counted.

      Its the same fallacy as occurs with the use of ‘levelized costs’ as a comparator. The fallacy is to pretend that intermittency either doesn’t exist or has no supply or cost implications.

      All the UK is doing is to tax a necessity of the poor to erect huge steel and concrete monuments to a religious mania. Wind and solar make no real contribution to UK energy supply, and certainly have no effect on CO2 emissions.

      If you want another analogy, its like a lettuce supplier on a sweetheart contract who can deliver whatever he wants whenever he wants. We look at the year’s deliveries and announce he has supplied 33% of lettuces. What we don’t say is that most of them were delivered in July and August, when there was a glut, and had to be paid for and then thrown out. Meanwhile, the regular greenhouse suppliers delivered month in month out, but were refused in July and August, which raised their costs, which they made up by raising prices the rest of the year.

      Deregulate the UK electricity supply market and then see how much is supplied by renewables. None will be, except on a few remote Scottish islands.

      • At the moment the UK is getting 2.64% of its electricity from wind, and the weather is set cold with a forecast ‘Beast from the East’.
        Heaven help us if we close all the coal fired power stations, as the gas power stations are running almost flat out.
        A few days ago the UK was reported to have been within 24 hrs of a blackout.

        • The BBC has just reported that the savings of CO2 from more efficient household appliances
          has exceeded the savings in CO2 from wind and solar generation.
          Tonight the temperature is forecast to be -4 degrees C, and no sign of any increase in wind speeds.
          Electricity prices are up 13%.

      • Renewables lower the wholesale cost of electricity through the merit order effect. You can see it happening in Germany here: https://www.energy-charts.de/price.htm

        The grid doesn’t work as described above by michel. There is a market divided into generally 30 minute periods and the suppliers offer their electricity at the price that they wish for the time that they wish. The offers are accepted starting with the cheapest until the demand is met. Here’s the interesting thing: everybody who contributes to meeting that demand gets paid the same as the most expensive supplier. Wind and solar can guarantee that their output is taken by offering their electricity at a very low price or even free and they will still get paid the same as everyone else.

        Intermittency is not a problem because the Grid has always had to balance supply and demand. The operators have well over one hundred years of experience.

        Sometimes the Grid is not able to accept the electricity that a supplier has contracted to supply: a line may be down or demand is less than expected. In this case, the supplier is compensated, as michel alludes to above. This applies to conventional suppliers as well as renewables.

        • It is difficult to know where to start with the above comment since it is so fundamentally flawed, but I would point out the fact that wind and solar do not reduce CO2 because of their intermitency and non despatchable nature.

          According to the website that you link to, it provides a chart for Germany’s CO2 emissions covering the period 2007 to 2016, and it shows that the emissions in 2016 were more than they were in 2007. https://www.energy-charts.de/emissions.htm?source=lignite&view=absolute&emission=co2&year=all

          According to Wikipedia as from the end of 2006 to 2017, the amount of primary energy consumption from renewables in Germany has doubled during this period, and yet this has not resulted in the reduction of any CO2.

          Germany has come up against a brick wall. No matter how much more solar and wind is rolled out, it will not reduce CO2, and of course Germany is presently embarking on building coal fired back up generation. There is no way that Germany will meet its Paris commitments and this will become clear early in 2021 when Germany is bound to release its up to 2020 achievements.

          Wind and solar simply destroy the grid, add to energy cost, all for no gain whatsoever.

        • Nigel Franks wrote:
          “Renewables lower the wholesale cost of electricity through the merit order effect. You can see it happening in Germany here…”

          Nigel, your statement is utterly false. Germany has among the highest electricity costs anywhere – see this figure:

          Furthermore, the “Substitution Factor”, the percent of wind generation that actually provides dispatchable power to the grid, as a percentage of total installed wind capacity, was 8% in 2004 in Germany and was projected to drop to 4% by 2020. At 4%, they have to install 25 units of wind power to obtain one dispatchable unit for the grid – this is incredibly uneconomic.
          See Figure 7 in E.On Netz excellent Wind Report 2005 at

          A 2018 report by the German National Audit group reported that Germany’s wind power program was a huge disaster.

        • I love your concept of working and facts Nigel.

          Lets give you some data for each kWh of use:
          The renewable energy surcharge rose to 6.79 ct/kWh in 2018
          The power grid also has a charge set by the Federal Network Agency 7.27 ct/kWh in 2018
          You have an ecological electricty tax of 2.05 ct/kWh in 2018
          Then you have regulated minimum Supplier’s cost at 6.18 ct/kWh in 2018
          So you have a minimum of 22.26 ct/kWh in 2018.

          Oh then you have 19% sales tax on whatever the final cost ends up at.

          That is why German power per kWh is among the most expensive in Europe and the world .. do a fact check .. dare you.

          You think that is the envy of the rest of the world and we all want to copy it, we pity the poor losers 🙂

          • Oh for Pete’s sake: I dealt with that in an earlier reply to macrame: renewables lower the wholesale price. You’ve just described the retail price.

        • @Nigel Franks

          No, the key distorting fact is the obligation to buy renewables. What you are describing is an entirely rational unregulated market. In your account, there are multiple providers using the same and different technologies, they place bids, and they companies are free to take whatever they wish to take. This is not the way the UK market works, because there is an obligation to buy renewables.

          If this were how the UK market was regulated, wind and solar would never be built in the first place, or if built would go broke immediately.

          Then you say ;intermittency is not a problem’.

          This is a common assertion. But its simply false. Its the same underlying assumption that was used to justify ‘levelised costs’.

          The fact is that electricity supply has two parameters, quantity and quality. Quantity is the amount supplied. Quality is the consistency of the supply over time. For supply to be usable it has to be predictable in its supply and consistent.

          If you are offering supply which is unpredictably variable you will simply get no buyers in a free market. The product is worthless. It is not the same product as one where supply is consistent and can be scheduled.

          It is like of you are trying to bid on a lettuce contract. You offer to supply at a given price, but your qualification is that you must be able to deliver whenever you want and as much as you want as long as the total tonnage meets the annual amount.

          You will never get the contract. Consistency and predictability of supply are a key feature.

          But when you admit this, you have to include the costs of storage and backup, which is why the renewable fanatics keep pretending that intermittency doesn’t matter. Its simply false.

        • Sorry – Nothing you said makes any sense.

          “Renewables lower the wholesale cost of electricity through the merit order effect.” Actually, no power plant is ever constructed without a long term contract with a distributor to buy the power. They can’t get funding otherwise. The only time what you say might be true is the spot market, where occasional spikes in power are covered. Also, frequently, utilities are required by law to give preference to renewables, and take their power need it or not, regardless of cost.

          “There is a market divided into generally 30 minute periods and the suppliers offer their electricity at the price that they wish for the time that they wish. The offers are accepted starting with the cheapest until the demand is met. ” That is the spot market, with is something like 10% of the total demand.

          “Here’s the interesting thing: everybody who contributes to meeting that demand gets paid the same as the most expensive supplier.” Depends on the market.

          “Wind and solar can guarantee that their output is taken by offering their electricity at a very low price or even free and they will still get paid the same as everyone else.” er, no.

          “Intermittency is not a problem because the Grid has always had to balance supply and demand. The operators have well over one hundred years of experience.” absolutely not true – the grid is designed to deal with around a 20% flux in demand. Some of that built in resiliency can be used to accommodate variance in supply as well, but only up to a point. varying both demand and supply is a new problem, and very difficult to manage. And it is managed, but only up to a point.

          “Sometimes the Grid is not able to accept the electricity that a supplier has contracted to supply: a line may be down or demand is less than expected. In this case, the supplier is compensated, as michel alludes to above. This applies to conventional suppliers as well as renewables.” Not really how it works.

          Not sure where you are getting you information from, but in my experience utilities are required to buy wind power when they don’t need it. In fact there is a common phrase “spill the wind” – it basically means the utility is required to take more wind power than it wants or needs, and just discharges that excess power to the ground. As the installed capacity of “run whenever you like” plant increases, there will be a need to do something with the surplus energy. You can spill the “surplus” generation (“curtail” or “constrain down”, “dispatch down”, or whatever other terminology you like to choose); try to time-shift the production (i.e. through storage); or time-shift demand (e.g. by brownouts), or sell it to someone else via an intertie. Wind is often very cheap on interties, in fact I have seen numerous cases of negative pricing, where a utility is required to take the wind, and now will pay some other utility to take the excess, and deal with the loss.

          Think about that – wind power has so little value one utility will gladly pay another to take it off their hands.

      • “… to erect huge steel and concrete monuments to a religious mania. Wind and solar make no real contribution to UK energy supply, and certainly have no effect on CO2 emissions.”

        I’m becoming more and more convinced that the primary purpose of windmills is that they are monuments. They are public reminders. Window dressing. The idea behind all the scaremongering isn’t to reduce emissions– it’s to justify new taxes and wealth transfers.

        Yes, there are some people who actually do believe that windmills and solar panels will save the world. They are either too lazy to investigate for themselves, or are simply very bad at math.

    • griff

      Citing the guardian once again griff?

      That well known rabid left rag walking arm in arm with the BBC, neither of which pay any heed to science at all.

    • As I write this, wind is supplying 2.7% of UK demand and solar 2.0%. 14% is coming from coal and 55% from CCGT.

      Your 33% from renewables is a myth even if you include hydro and biomass. Michel’s analysis is correct. The UK market has been distorted by giving absolute preference to wind and solar and paying over the odds while “compensating” suppliers when they cannot supply because their “fuel” (wind or sunshine) is not available or is too abundant.

      It is possible to have virtually all electricity supplied by wind at any given moment (3 am on a warm windy night) but since CCGT will be supplying spinning reserve at the same time there is no saving of CO2 and no financial benefit to anyone at all other than the owners of the wind farms.

      • Yes and I seem to recall a steel plant being closed down. Electricity consumption probably gives quite a good measure of how well a country’s economy is doing. (Or not!) But of course the Guardian would present that as ‘good’ news because their buddies in far off Marxist-ruled dictatorships are, relatively speaking, doing better!

    • Poor Griff on the same report it explains the UK are low down climate action cheats.

      Your electricity is down because of electricity imported from other countries so you are farming your emissions out.

      So the world thanks you for your action in moving you emissions to another country.

    • Well here is the reality

      You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means — Inigo Montoya

    • Happy New Year Griff!

      Here’s wishing your I.Q. will always be as high as the capacity factor of your beloved solar panels and wind turbines in the U.K. And may the batteries in your E.V always go dead before you are halfway home.

      May the largely fossil-fuel powered world around you in 2019 see greater prosperity (in spite of wind and solar) from the energy sources that has made it possible for a long time now….and will likely continue to do so for many years to come.

      But keep hanging on to your renewables dreamworld Griff…never give up! /sarc

  9. In other news, no-one outside the named countries has ever tried to implement emission reductions. So we can say that everywhere it was planned has now encountered opposition strong enough to derail it. Meanwhile the rest of the world has paid lip service but resisted any proposals actually to reduce.

    This thing is coming to the end, and the scientific consensus is breaking up with increasing publication of contrary studies and backtracking.

    This usually happens and is the prelude to the death of the mania. But before it dies the faithful will become ever more certain and fanatical. So watch out in the next couple of years for ever more dire predictions of disaster and ever more draconian and far fetched proposals for what the West should do….from writers with qualifications in media studies or environmental humanities…..who are sure that we can save the world by installing wind turbines.

  10. And in Australia, during the new year celebrations, organisers could not get the year right. It’s 2018, again in Aus! LOL

  11. The Yellow Vest movement was not against a carbon tax which doesn’t exist in France. It was an increase in fuel duty which has existed since 1928 that was the trigger for the protests.

    Since becoming President eighteen months ago Macron has managed to unite the young, the workers, the civil servants, the small business owners and the retired against him. They have seen their purchasing power stagnate or even fall. On the other hand Macron’s tax cuts have seen the purchasing power of the rich increase by 6% in 18 months.

    The increase in fuel duty was seen as a betrayal, because the duty on diesel increased more than the duty on gasoline. Until recently the government had been encouraging people to buy diesel cars. The governments initially response was to offer a subsidy to people on low incomes to buy a new car. That just highlighted the gulf between Macron and the people: how many poor people can raise the money to buy a new car?

    And before anyone thousands of miles away trys to “educate” me: I live in France just a few hundred metres away from where there was one of the gilets jaunes camps and visited them for coffee and conversation.

    • You’ve missed one point, Frank. The gilets jaunes might just have swallowed the tax increase but not when Macron linked it to anti-pollution+climate change.

      There are French cities where pollution is a problem. It is exactly the same problem that it was before the eco-warriors “discovered” diesel particulates as another stick to beat us all with. And “saving the planet” comes pretty low down the priority list (and not just among French workers; see the UN survey where it comes dead last!) compared with a decent standard of living and being able to drive to work.

      Macron is on another planet as far as the average French wage-earner is concerned and this piece of pointless international virtue-signalling was simply the last straw.

      • Macron didn’t link the fuel tax increase to climate change.
        Meanwhile a petition in support of some organisations sueing the French government for their inaction on combatting climate change has been signed nearly 2 million times in just over two weeks. https://laffairedusiecle.net

        • “Macron didn’t link the fuel tax increase to climate change.”
          You are showing how desperate you are by claiming the fuel tax is not linked to climate change. You appear to be in a very small minority to say that. I just googled “Did Macron link the fuel tax increase to climate change.”

          I could not find a single source that did not make the link. Even the CAGW crusading “Guardian” makes the link. The source you posted (in French) does not support you claim. It was only an online petition. Did you think no one here would translate it to English?

          How many times did you click the link “ I support the remedy”? I bet your finger is growing tired by now.

    • Thanks for the Greensplanation. How convenient that there was already a tax in place that Macron could simply bump up. Who cares if the increase wasn’t called a carbon tax? That is precisely what its purpose was, and you know it. Disingenuous much?

      • Nice one Bruce. According to your logic, if you live anywhere with fuel duty and it goes up, then you’ve just experienced an increase in a carbon tax… If sale tax on electricity goes up then it’s a carbon tax as well is it?

          • I do love a bit of logic. So please explain the following: a carbon tax is based on the amount of carbon (dioxide) a fuel produces. Gasoline produces less carbon than diesel per litre. The fuel tax on petrol is greater than the tax on diesel. In addition diesel for cars is taxed at a different rate than road transport vehicles, sea transport vehicles, agricultural vehicles and for heating.

            I await with anticipation your logic based response.

  12. The reality is that the climate change we are experiencing today is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. All the efforts to reduce CO2 emissions will have no effect on climate. So all these “climate policies” are just a total waste.

  13. “Democrats and even environmentalists distanced themselves from carbon taxes in the wake of French riots.”

    That will only last until the election is over.

  14. Michael Bastasch | Energy Editor

    2018 saw a global revolt against policies aimed at fighting global warming

    Australia, Canada, France and the U.S. have all seen push back against global warming policies –>

    Australia, Canada, France, the U.S. , Germany
    UK, Poland, Italy, Hungry, Romania, Ukraine have all seen push back against global warming policies.

  15. Schoolkids, have they had the opportunity to debate in class?

    Naturally with the “proven” case for man made Global Warming the smarter kids in the class should be assigned to the “denier” camp.

    Teachers could cover both English and Science in one hit.

  16. Macron exceeded his shallow mandate from the voters. Politicians generally enjoy posturing against the natural process of climate change much like Mrs. Universe contestants wish for world peace.

    If the science demands that we take action on climate change you must also be for wide adoption of GMO’s to increase crop yields and lower food prices. All of the science shows that GMO’s are safe. Or maybe you prefer to campaign for nuclear power generation as the surest way to reduce CO2 emissions while ensuring grid reliability. Perhaps signing over all of your income above the yearly per-capita average to the government each year would demonstrate your commitment to social justice and equity. Funding government is after all what you want your fellow citizens to do. Personal example as in Gandhi spinning cotton is always the most effective form of persuasion.

    Once you’ve met these criteria we can start having a civilized debate.

  17. They said that Climate Change would cause riots and upheavals.

    Maybe now, we can get about learning to live till the end.

  18. “Turnbull stepped down in late August and has since been replaced…”

    Not really. Turnbull was REMOVED, kicking and screaming, in a Leadership Spill (which is how things work in Australian Politics). Morrison was voted in as the new party leader and, by extension, Prime Minister during the same Spill process.

    Turnbull then resigned from parliament in a massive hissy fit designed to be as disruptive as possible to Morrison by forcing an awkward By Election in his seat.

    By wording the events as ‘stepped down’ implies that Turnbull saw the error of his ways and humbly asked for forgiveness. That never happened. Turnbull has always been about the greatness of Turnbull and how badly he was wronged.

  19. Macron has started a new round of violence.
    This is what’s going to happen all over the world for people who don’t agree with the AGW/CO2 deadly poison cult.
    The majority of violence is from the state, with random arrests, all kinds of repression.

    Watching the arrest of Eric Drouet last night I thought I was watching a scene direct from Putin’s Russia (an old KGB-Stasi hack after all).

    Honestly I thought I was watching another arrest of Alexei Navalny, not a so called modern democracy in a country which is supposed to be the symbol of freedom and human rights!

  20. This link explains how the merit order effect lowers wholesale prices: https://www.goodenergy.co.uk/media/1194/wind-and-solar-reducing-consumer-bills-an-investigation-in-to-the-merit.pdf

    You can of course ignore it but I really don’t understand the benefit of opposing renewables and making us all pay more than necessary for our electricity.

    Nigel, the piece and the argument are simply nonsense. As you can see by considering the following very simple point.

    You cannot lower the cost of generating electricity by increasing the proportion of generation from higher cost and unreliable sources.

    This is what wind and solar both are, wind perhaps more than solar. They are both more expensive than conventional, and both are intermittent which is to say unreliable. Wind is particularly intermittent, its not only intermittent, its unpredictably so. Solar has a profile which exactly does not match demand – at 5pm in a cold December it generates absolutely nothing.

    That they are more expensive is obvious. Were they really cheaper, they would not require any subsidies. They would proliferate with private sector capital and would be supplying reliable power cheaper than conventional plants all over the world. But they are not. In all cases they are being subsidized on a considerable scale, and in every case where the renewables industry is followed up on its claims of being lower cost than conventional by a reduction in subsidy, the howls or protest become deafening. And installation slows or stops.

    The claim is always that we are cheaper than conventional and if we do not get higher prices for our generation we will go bust.

    So how do you show that installing these renewables will lower prices? One way is by leaving out most of the costs, as in the use of ‘levelized costs’ as the comparator. Or in the present case, by claiming that the regulatory regime will in some cases lower the wholesale price, while leaving out the question of the effects of this lowering. If indeed it happens at all.

    There is a certain income entering the generation industry. By regulation you can arrange for more or less of this to flow to conventional or renewable operators. The argument of the paper cited is that the present regime takes from the conventional and flows to the renewables. What it does not show is that result is a grid which is cheaper to install and operate as compared to one without this regime, and thus without material amounts of either wind or solar.

    If you really want to show that increasing use of renewables will lower costs to consumers, you have to address something other than the effect of a particular regulatory regime on spot wholesale prices. You have to show that wind and solar are low cost producers after all the costs of providing a comparable product are included, and that including them actually lowers the total costs of operating the grid.

    In the case of solar, this means storage or backup coverage of the hours of darkness. In the case of wind, it means storage or backup covering an outage or very low output of several weeks duration, as occurs several times a year in the UK.

    If you can show that with all the costs included, wind and solar operation provide the same quality of product at a lower price, you are home free. But then be prepared to abolish the subsidies.

    You can’t show this, and we know from the UK case what the result of lowering or eliminating subsidies is. Construction and installation come to a dead stop. This is because wind and solar are not fit for the purpose of generating a reliable electricity supply at costs competitive with conventional or nuclear.

    • You’ve just encapsulated practically all the misconceptions in one sentence. “You cannot lower the cost of generating electricity by increasing the proportion of generation from higher cost and unreliable sources.”

      Suppose you want to buy 100 units. You ask around for prices. The cheapest can only supply 50, so you buy all theirs at price P. The next only 40 so you buy all theirs at a higher price P1. You complete your order with 9 from another supplier at an even higher price P2 and the last one costs you P3. So each supplier got paid a different price.

      In the electricity spot market, it’s different: every supplier gets paid the same price which is the price paid to the most expensive supplier, P3 in the example above.

      Now renewables want to sell their electricity as soon as it’s made, because it’s not storable in great amounts. So what they do is they offer it at a very low price or even for free. That means that it will always be accepted by the buyer. So using the example above: just 1 unit supplied by renewables will mean that you don’t have to buy from the most expensive supplier above and pay P3 to everyone. You now pay everyone P2. That means you’ve saved the difference between P3 and P2 on 100% of the electricity, but you’ve only paid a subsidy to 1% renewables.

      Let’s put some figures in to make an example suppose P3 was $100 and P2 $95. Without renewables you buy 100 units at $100= $10,000. With renewables you’re paying price P2 which is $99 so you pay 100 units at $95 = $9,500. So you’ve saved $500 minus the cost of the subsidy for your 1% renewables.
      I’ve used the above figures to make the example easy. They are not a real world example as the other price changes every few minutes. However you can see the effect here on the German market: the spot price generally falls as renewables displace conventional plant : https://www.energy-charts.de/price.htm

      In addition, by noting how the spot price matches the day ahead price rather well, you can see that the intermittency is not an issue. The forecasts are accurate enough. And the grid has always had to cope with intermittent demand and supply.

      • Nigel,

        That is absolutely irrelevant because 99.999% of those who buy electricity i.e. the consumer don’t buy wholesale. You are putting lipstick on a pig.

      • Nigel you are talking nonsense. No one buys 100% of their energy off of the spot market (which is where you are claiming the $500 saved in your numbers above).

        If reliable generation sources (coal for example) cost $10 per unit and is supplying 90 of your 100 unit need of the moment (numbers chosen to keep the maths simple, also we’ll stick with your spot price of $100), you’d only be buying 10 units from the spot market so your price is:
        90×10 + 10×100=$1900

        Now replace 1 unit of your reliable generation source with unreliable generation of wind (for example) IE you decommissioned 1 units worth of coal and added in 1 units worth of wind to replace it. Since the wind isn’t blowing at that moment that’s 1 additional unit you’ll be buying on the spot market. so your cost is:
        89×10 (your remaining amount of reliable generation) + 10×100 + an additional 1×100 due to lack of wind = $1990

        $1990 is more expensive than $1900. Replace more of your reliable energy with unreliable energy and when that unreliable energy isn’t available (which is the majority of the time for wind and solar), that’s even more energy you need to buy off the spot market, making the numbers even worse.

        • And it’s actually worse than that, if the other utilities on the spot market also have renewables in their mix and the wind isn’t blowing (or the sun isn’t shining) for them either, that’s less energy available to the spot market which only drive the spot market price higher at the times that you most need it, so when your renewables are being unreliable and not providing you energy, not only are you buying more from the spot market you are doing so at a higher spot price.

    • You can’t show this, and we know from the UK case what the result of lowering or eliminating subsidies is. Construction and installation come to a dead stop. This is because wind and solar are not fit for the purpose of generating a reliable electricity supply at costs competitive with conventional or nuclear.

      That’s really the bottom line. renewables are a scam for public moneys. When the public moneys dry up, the construction and instillation of renewables stop in their tracks. If they were truly cost competitive, that wouldn’t happen.

  21. Whilst both the article and the numourace comments are interesting, its still far too nuch yack yacking on both sides.

    So lets get t back to the basics.

    CO2 does not store heat, so the whole thing is complete rubbish. Lets push this one simple fact and hopefully the “House of Cards will finally fall over.


Comments are closed.