California And New York: Do Not Back Off Your World-Beating Green Energy Schemes!


 Francis Menton

Today the Manhattan Contrarian formally calls upon the states of California and New York: Whatever you do, do not back down from your crash program of green energy schemes!

The full text of the Manhattan Contrarian official announcement follows:

California and New York: It is critical to mankind that you pursue the full extent of your green energy schemes to conclusion as soon as possible and at all costs. If you really believe, as you proclaim, that all-renewable energy is a moral necessity to save the planet from the existential crisis of climate change; if you really believe that energy derived from fossil fuels is dangerous and polluting and is causing dangerous climate change; if you really believe that renewable energy is now less expensive than fossil fuel energy; if you really believe that an all-renewable energy system can actually work to power a modern economy; and if you really believe that all that is needed to get to an all-renewable future is to build enough solar and wind generators to do the job — then you absolutely must see this project through to conclusion and without delay.

Now is not the time to go wobbly. You owe it to the world to show everyone how this can be done. This is your moral duty.

The context of this plea is that, of the four jurisdictions in the world that are the leaders in the push to 100% green energy — California, New York, the UK, and Germany — two of them — the UK and Germany — are giving strong signals that they are ready to cry “Uncle!” and back off on the plans.

Worse, the UK and Germany are backing off at the earliest indications of encountering even modestly serious challenges to the achievement of their utopian goals. Doubters of the green energy schemes have long warned that the consequences of increasing the penetration of renewables on the grid will likely include grid instability, frequent and lengthening blackouts, energy rationing, and soaring consumer costs that could go to five or ten or even more times the cost of electricity from a predominantly fossil fuel system. The UK and Germany have only had the first little taste of those things so far. They have as yet seen almost no serious blackouts, and costs have just inched into the range of maybe three to four times those from mostly fossil fuel systems. Is that kind of little blip enough to get you to walk away after decades of shouting “existential crisis”? This is embarrassing.

Here’s why this is important. If all the jurisdictions that are leaders of the green energy campaign back off their schemes as soon as the going starts to get even a little tough, then the zealots will forever maintain their narrative that the schemes would have worked, and would have led us to utopia, if only we had given them a decent chance. It will be no different from the evergreen narrative of the true-believing socialist: “Real socialism has never actually been tried yet.” The Soviet Union? Venezuela? Cuba? North Korea? Cambodia? None of those are the “real socialism” or the “democratic socialism” that we are now proposing.

Consider, for example, the latest from the UK. In a post earlier this week (“Update On Europe’s Self-Inflicted Energy Crisis”), I reported that the UK’s regulatorily-capped price of energy to households was scheduled as of October 1 to go to a level more than triple where it was a year ago (year ago average of 1138 pounds/year; as of October 1 average of 3549 pounds/year). In the short few days since that post, the UK has a new Prime Minister, Liz Truss, who has already announced big changes in energy policy to roll back significant aspects of the “Net Zero” agenda. Those changes include, for starters, lifting the ban on “fracking” for natural gas within the UK; and also removal of so-called “green levies” on energy suppliers that have been used to subsidize solar and wind operators and have up to now been passed on to consumers. Also notable is that the erstwhile Minister for Business and Energy, Kwasi Kwarteng — a Net Zero enthusiast — has been kicked upstairs to become Chancellor of the Exchequer, and replaced as Minister of Business and Energy by Jacob Rees-Mogg, a noted climate skeptic.

I certainly cannot represent that the ascendancy of Ms. Truss means that the UK has instantly converted to fully sane policies of climate realism. For one thing, she immediately signed on to a massive subsidy scheme to hand money to utilities in order to lower consumer energy costs for the coming winter. Thus, presumably, the average consumer bill this winter will end up well less than the previously-forecast amount (at great taxpayer expense). Also, Mr. Rees-Mogg’s actual policies in office remain to be seen (remembering that Boris Johnson made noises of being a climate skeptic before going native as Prime Minister). And the Net Zero goal remains enshrined by statute, which will have to be changed before serious rollback of destructive energy policies can get very far.

But meanwhile, the fact that the backoff from green policies is taking place before the serious crunch has fully hit has given an opening to the zealots to push the narrative that the green revolution would have succeeded if only it had been given a chance. Somewhere over there in the bowels of the UK government is something called the “Committee on Climate Change” (“an executive non-departmental public body, sponsored by the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy”), headed by a climate cultist by the name of Lord Deben. Supposedly the CCC “advises the government on emissions targets and reports to Parliament on progress made in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.” Lord Deben is sometimes referred to in the British press as the government’s “climate czar.” On September 8, Lord Deben took the opportunity to provide his views to the new Prime Minister (from the Daily Mail via Not a Lot of People Know That):

Lord Deben, who is chairman of the Committee on Climate Change, warned the PM yesterday the best way to solve the energy crisis was to double down on renewable sources rather than expanding domestic production. He told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: ‘There is no sliver of a cigarette paper between the fact that if you want to deal with climate change and you want to deal with the cost of living crisis and oil and gas prices you have to do the same things – renewable energy and energy efficiency –they are the answers. ‘If you want energy bills down, you produce your energy in the cheapest possible way. That happens to be by renewables.’

The Daily Mail also quoted Deben as advising the new PM that “approving fracking would have no impact on energy prices” — thus echoing Barack Obama’s ridiculing of Sarah Palin, when he said in May 2011 that “We can’t just drill our way out of the problem” of high energy prices, words that were uttered on the very eve of the fracking revolution that then cut oil and gas prices in about half over the course of the next several years.

Germany also appears to be getting stampeded by the mere threat of soaring energy costs into re-opening closed coal power plants and even keeping its remaining nuclear plants open. Example, from Bloomberg, August 11:

RWE AG will delay dismantling one of its shuttered coal stations in Germany in case it’s needed to step in to keep the lights on this winter.

When the going gets even a little tough, these wimpy Europeans just pack up their tents and go home to mommy.

So it’s all down to you, California and New York. Do you have the courage of your convictions, or don’t you?

California is in the midst of showing some impressive fortitude just this weekend, with rolling blackouts again threatened for tomorrow. California’s answer: require that more and more new car sales be electric models — thus increasing demand for electricity by as much as 100% over the next 10 to 15 years — while also aggressively closing natural gas power plants. You go, California! Show us all how this can be done!

And New York is also in the midst of doubling down. According to the AP here on September 8, New York is expected shortly to adopt California’s scheduled increases in electric vehicle mandates. Here in New York City we have already banned the use of natural gas for heating and cooking in most new buildings, and also in major renovations, starting in 2024. And of course we are on track to ban the use of fossil fuels to generate electricity.

How is this all going to work? Roger Caiazza, the Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York, is the one guy in New York who actually reads through all the stuff put out by our new class of climate overlords, and exposes the absurdity. He has an amusing post on September 8 titled “The Latest from the Experts on New York’s Climate Act Implementation.” Caiazza points out that the New York Independent System Operator has come out with a Report dated August 31, with the title of System & Resource Outlook. The ISO essentially tells New York’s climate planners that they are full of shit, but of course the ISO people are political creatures, so they can’t say it in those terms. But they recognize that wind and solar can’t actually do the job without something dispatchable as backup, for which they have come up with the catchy acronym “DEFR” (Dispatchable Emissions Free Resource). What the heck is that? It’s something that hasn’t been invented yet, but supposedly is going to take over to generate our electricity starting a couple of years from now — in other words, in less time than it would take to finish constructing a power plant that was already under construction today. Here is one choice quote from the ISO Report:

To achieve an emission-free grid, dispatchable emission-free resources (DEFRs) must be developed and deployed throughout New York. DEFRs that provide sustained on-demand power and system stability will be essential to meeting policy objectives while maintaining a reliable electric grid. While essential to the grid of the future, such DEFR technologies are not commercially viable today.

“Not commercially viable today.” We’ll be lucky to have any of them by 2030, if ever. But we are required to buy cars and build buildings starting immediately as if we had unlimited amounts of them.

For the full article click here.

4.7 39 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
September 13, 2022 6:10 am

Perhaps the Manhattan Contrarian should ask itself the question: “Why has Germany and the UK ‘backed off’?”. If it did, it would be glaringly obvious, “because the net zero policy is causing the crash!”.

Reply to  Ilma
September 13, 2022 6:30 am

Energy. We don’t need no stinkin energy. Food. We don’t need no stinkin food.

Reply to  Scissor
September 13, 2022 9:02 am

I believe that’s “you don’t need no stinking energy. You don’t need no stinking food.”

Bryan A
Reply to  MarkW
September 13, 2022 9:27 am

Well, there’s always …
Cold Fusion…
Thorium MSR…
Solar Thermal…
Oh … Wait …

Reply to  MarkW
September 13, 2022 9:46 am

Sal Minella
Reply to  MarkW
September 13, 2022 11:31 am

I don’t either. I have a Rossi E-Cat coming from Amazon.

Robert MacLellan
Reply to  Ilma
September 13, 2022 6:54 am

The Contrarian already knows the answer and is trying to rub their noses in the mess.

Tom Halla
September 13, 2022 6:11 am

DEFR reminds me of the classic cartoon of the two guys in lab coats standing in front of a blackboard with an involved formula on it, ending with “and then a miracle occurs”.

Nicholas Harding
Reply to  Tom Halla
September 13, 2022 6:38 am

DEFR, sounds like a new ETF. That’s the ticket!

Bryan A
Reply to  Nicholas Harding
September 13, 2022 9:33 am

Dispatchable Emission-Free Resources (DEFRs) do exist already, It’s called Nuclear Energy.
Nuclear power generation is …
Dispatchable &
And a natural Resource

Reply to  Bryan A
September 13, 2022 10:34 am

As long as you ignore building the facility and how the uranium is mined and purified (not to mention nuclear waste storage), I suppose it’s close to emission free.

Reply to  Spetzer86
September 13, 2022 12:08 pm

No need to store it. Reprocess it and make use of everything that didn’t get burned up the first time.

Reply to  MarkW
September 13, 2022 3:20 pm

Yes. As France has been doing for years.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Spetzer86
September 13, 2022 12:15 pm

By your standards, nothing is emissions free, not even wind and solar.

Reply to  Spetzer86
September 13, 2022 12:32 pm

Nuclear waste is just recyclable fuel — The French have been doing it for decades…

jeffery p
Reply to  rigelsys
September 13, 2022 3:20 pm

Didn’t the US outlaw that during the Carter administration? I’m trying to recall…

Reply to  jeffery p
September 14, 2022 11:46 pm

So repeal that decision – it never made sense. They stopped the reprocessing of spent fuel that would drastically reduce the amount of waste that needs to be buried with the silly reason that it would stop nuclear proliferation – as if there are no guards or police in the US.
By the same token, they should have banned enrichment as that is an even bigger aid to proliferation.

Thorium molten salt reactors – new one just started up in China, no longer in the “sometime in the future/fusion category” – will have online reprocessing and even breeding.

jeffery p
Reply to  Spetzer86
September 13, 2022 3:19 pm

And the raw materials for “green” energy don’t?

Marty Cornell
Reply to  Bryan A
September 13, 2022 3:24 pm

Sorry. Current water-cooled nuclear generation of electricity supplies base-load power, Nukes are not able to supply power on demand (i.e., dispatchable power)

Reply to  Marty Cornell
September 13, 2022 7:10 pm

Wrong. Nuclear power stations have been varying their output for years by controlling the steam turbine in the short term and the rate of fission over longer time periods.

Reply to  Marty Cornell
September 14, 2022 11:53 pm

Who cares??? Nukes provide safe reliable baseload power 24/7/365.

Might as well go 100% nuke and sell the 100% green power to all the idiot states/provinces/countries around you that went full-stupid into wind and solar.

Realistically, I think it makes sense “to not put all your eggs in one basket “. Ontario old policy of having about 1/3 shares each of hydro, nuclear and coal/gas made a lot of sense. And hey, maybe in 20 years wind/solar/batteries might earn a proper share.

Old Man Winter
Reply to  Tom Halla
September 13, 2022 7:55 am

mark from the midwest
Reply to  Tom Halla
September 13, 2022 8:00 am

My favorite is the underpants gnomes on South Park, with their 3 step business plan

1: Steal Underpants
2: ???
3: Big Profits!

Reply to  mark from the midwest
September 13, 2022 1:53 pm

the real world analogy, given legalization:

1) Completely embrace the cannabis lifestyle
2) ?!!!?
3) Big prophets

Reply to  DonM
September 13, 2022 7:21 pm

The real world analogy, given prohibition
1) Criminalise recreational drugs
2) ?!!!?
3) Wonder why you have drugs gangs, prisons full of non-violent “offenders”, &c &c.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Tom Halla
September 13, 2022 8:13 am

Since nuclear and large-scale hydro power actually exist, but are ruled out by sizable factions within the alarmist community, I suggest that NYISO append the letter A (for Allowable) to its DEFR acronym, e.g., ADEFR, in order to more accurately describe the unicorn that NY’s regulators mandate we hunt for.

Steve Reddish
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
September 13, 2022 8:31 am

Maybe nuclear IS the DEFR they are thinking of , but were too timid to actually say so.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Steve Reddish
September 13, 2022 9:38 am

Too timid means they’re not exactly ‘Profiles In Courage’ material.

Rick C
Reply to  Steve Reddish
September 13, 2022 10:20 am

Heck, it would take 10 years just to get through all the lawsuits before you could even break ground. Then at least another 10 years to build. With a multibillion up front investment and no return for > 20 years, who exactly is going to build nukes even if they are DEFR?

Reply to  Rick C
September 13, 2022 12:10 pm

Every step along the way, there is a risk of having the government cancel the project, or require an expensive and unnecessary redesign.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Rick C
September 13, 2022 1:22 pm

The railroad tycoons of the late 1800’s were miserable human beings, but by hook or (mostly) by crook they got the rail infrastructure of the US built out. They ran roughshod over ranchers, farmers, and anyone else standing in the way, usually with the connivance of state, territorial, and federal governments. We need some of that in the nuclear industry today.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
September 14, 2022 3:42 am

Unfortunately that connivance will most likely be used to shove worse-than-useless ‘wind farms’ and ‘solar farms’ down people’s throats, which will solve no “problems” and will create lots of new ones.

That’s why I hope the “permitting side deal” Schumer promised to Manchin to get him to agree to the “Inflation Excacerbation Act” doesn’t go through – because it will just be used by the Eco-Nazis to shove wind and solar down people’s throats instead of it being used to advance real and useful energy projects like coal, oil, gas and nuclear.

As a bonus, it will teach Manchin a lesson about caving to the demo scum in the Senate.

Stan Sexton
Reply to  Rick C
September 13, 2022 2:53 pm

The French are way ahead of the world on nuclear power. Too bad the Muslims won’t know how to run it.

Reply to  Stan Sexton
September 13, 2022 5:35 pm

Total BS about Muslims. Four of the newest nuclear plants have been built in Muslim countries. Two in Pakistan and two in Dubai. There are two more under construction in Dubai. Egypt has also contracted to buy some from Russia. Please don’t regurgitate anti-Muslim nonsense.

James Stagg
Reply to  Mohatdebos
September 13, 2022 7:27 pm

“Too bad the Muslims won’t know how to run it.”

Change to:

“Too bad the Muslims in France won’t know how to run it.”

There. Fixed it. You are welcome.

Reply to  Mohatdebos
September 14, 2022 12:20 am

and you know who is actually operating them?

Reply to  Stan Sexton
September 14, 2022 11:58 pm

They are learning in the UAE – 4 very nice 1.6GW reactors from Korea started/starting up.

Egypt is next.

I’m sure Saudi Arabia will soon be joining the party.

September 13, 2022 6:39 am

… the green revolution would have succeeded if only it had been given a chance.

It’s like when you point out that Marxism has failed (and also resulted in millions of deaths along the way) every time it’s been tried. The answer is always: “Well those guys did it wrong.”

In defense of the Marxists, I would point out that the Taoists took more than a thousand years to give up taking elixirs containing poisonous amounts of mercury and arsenic. The alchemists relied on the same excuse. “That guy who died obviously used the elixir wrong.”

Let me rethink that. I was trying to be nice and say that the Marxists aren’t the stupidest people ever. Sadly, I think what I actually did was prove that there will still be Marxists a thousand years from now.

… it is not surprising to learn that a great astronomer said: “Two things are infinite, as far as we know – the universe and human stupidity.” To-day we know that this statement is not quite correct. Einstein has proved that the universe is limited.


Reply to  commieBob
September 13, 2022 7:48 am

The universe is limited. To what? Is that why we have to use ‘renewables’? But seriously, it’s our universe that is limited. The Webb telescope will be reporting on ‘extremely dim galaxies with a blue shift’. That will be our neighboring ‘universe’.

In the meantime, let’s not get bogged down in science. …green speed ahead!

mark from the midwest
Reply to  commieBob
September 13, 2022 8:06 am

I’d argue that Marxists may be the stupidist people ever. After all, would you believe an economic treatise that rails against wealth by two guys who were, basically, living in the home of Engel’s relatively wealthy parents?

Old Man Winter
Reply to  mark from the midwest
September 13, 2022 9:27 am

I tried to read “Das Kapital” & got to the second page before I gave
up. It made no sense at all & I decided to read a summary &
analysis of it instead. They’re only following their leader! 😮

Reply to  Old Man Winter
September 13, 2022 5:38 pm

Try it again, Old Man Winter, but this time, hit yourself in the head 3 or 4 times with an 8 oz ballpeen hammer before you start reading. Oh, and eat a couple of marijuana brownies washed down with 5 fingers of scotch**.

Once you are moderately concussed, stoned, and have a scotch buzz, then it oughta make sense. As far as I know, it’s the only way Das Kapital makes any sense.

**You can substitute gin martinis with olives if the brownies give you the munchies

Reply to  H.R.
September 14, 2022 12:55 am

Marxists never change. Read any Marxist (or Environmental) screed today and you’ll see exactly the same blustering, self-righteous assertions completely unsupported by empirical evidence, as found in Das Kapital.

Reply to  Old Man Winter
September 14, 2022 12:51 am

Ah, Karl Marx, the worthless idler who never earned a living but mooched off his friends and relatives all his life. Engels actually stole from his employers in Manchester to keep the Marx family afloat financially.

Richard Page
Reply to  commieBob
September 13, 2022 12:16 pm

Marxists aren’t the stupidest people however they ARE ideologically committed to fail. Marxism is foreign to the human psyche; it goes against human nature so will always fail – it’s psychological Lysenkoism.

September 13, 2022 6:43 am

Good news! Greens can confirm their faith in renewables by opting to use power only when renewables are providing sufficient. If the wind isn’t blowing, the sun not shining or the hydro not flowing, then they must go without.

Sound fair?

Reply to  tonyb
September 13, 2022 7:09 am

Just don’t forget all the V2G battery conveyances in the basement carparks of the green towers for the grid firming-
Eight dead after fire at electric motorbike showroom in India amid mounting EV safety concerns (
I know they keep promising to get EV prices down to ICEs but that’s not exactly the way I’d tackle it.

Reply to  observa
September 13, 2022 12:37 pm

When EV’s were a niche market, prices went down as there are enough materials (lithium, cobalt, etc…) to supply a niche market. But once it tries to expand to be the FULL market, material availability can’t supply the FULL market and prices explode.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  tonyb
September 13, 2022 7:50 am

I think it should be required. I not by law then written into the Green’s contracts with their electricity providers :<)

Reply to  Joe Crawford
September 13, 2022 9:02 am

Maybe by Executive Order?

Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
September 13, 2022 10:35 am

Yes, of course !!!

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  tonyb
September 13, 2022 10:12 am

That’s been my challenge to Grief for a couple of years. He’s not Pi ked up the gauntlet yet

Reply to  Ben Vorlich
September 13, 2022 5:54 pm

griff has no say in the matter, Ben. griff’s mom pays the utility bills. griff won’t be inconvenienced until the basement gets d@mn-cold and the lights go out when mom can’t pay.

But griff’s mom is a peach. She’ll go out and get a third job so her little griffy-snookums doesn’t get cold down in her basement. And griff will never run out of hot cocoa. Not on her watch, by golly!

Reply to  H.R.
September 13, 2022 5:59 pm

“Lord, make me a better, kinder person… but not just yet.”

Reply to  H.R.
September 13, 2022 9:30 pm

St Augustine. The worry is that 2000 years later, religious faith is still going strong. By that example, we will never be free of all the turbulent Green priests – unless we can find a modern Edward II

Reply to  davidf
September 14, 2022 1:16 am

Henry II , Edward II died with a hot poker inserted in somewhere unmentionable for a family website .

Reply to  mikewaite
September 14, 2022 1:32 am

Doh!! Yes, you are right – you would think I would accept the recall aint what it was!

Reply to  davidf
September 15, 2022 12:07 am

The quote is not correct – and The Faith was the cornerstone of western civilization and you’d be science-free and speaking Arabic while tending your flocks right now if Christ had not come.

Top Science Nobels, 1st place Jews, 2nd place Jesuits.

Reply to  PCman999
September 15, 2022 12:39 am

Hey, I dont have any problem with a persons faith – unless they force it on anybody else. Whatever floats your boat. My point is, evidence has little to do with what people believe, and that can last a loong time. Not sure of your point regarding Jews versus Jesuits versus Muslims (I guess thats what you mean). Last I heard, they are all Abrahamic creeds, worship the same God – just argue a little about the intermediate steps. Not unlike the Catholics and the Protestants. And dont get me started on on the Baptists.
And you know, the Greeks, and the Egyptians and the Chinese and the Indians all contributed a fair old whack to the sum total of human knowledge, at one point or another. Not to mention the fella – or maybe his sister – that first learned to tame fire.
Lighten up, huh?

Reply to  davidf
September 15, 2022 1:11 am

Oh, and let us not forget – St Augustine was a Berber – not an Arab, but pretty dam close.

Reply to  tonyb
September 13, 2022 10:34 am

… and of course, all these new sources will have to have Emergency Gravity Generators (EGGs) in the event that gavity falls.

Reply to  Neo
September 13, 2022 9:33 pm

No, no – they are shooting for Nett Zero – obviously, DEFR technology will be solved by Zero Point generators. They just need to subsidise the research to a greater extent

Joseph Zorzin
September 13, 2022 6:49 am

“The context of this plea is that, of the four jurisdictions in the world that are the leaders in the push to 100% green energy — California, New York, the UK, and Germany — two of them — the UK and Germany — are giving strong signals that they are ready to cry “Uncle!” and back off on the plans.”

Don’t forget Massachusetts- which has a green energy policy as bad or worse than those states/nations- but there is no backing down here and not a single mention in any mainstream media that anyone is even considering such a backing down. I doubt there is a single politician in this state at the state or local level that dares to even challenge it. Not aware of any. I suggest that this state is the most fanatic political entity on the planet.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
September 13, 2022 7:01 am

I’ve heard that even if NY were to allow the pipeline transport of shale gas into New England, Massachusetts NIMBYS would oppose building pipelines in their state.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
September 13, 2022 7:10 am

yes, that is what happened- they hate all fossil fuels, they hate nuclear, they hate pumped storage projects (there is 1 in western MA which they are trying to terminate), they hate wood for energy- they say they want only clean and green energy, that is wind and solar- several years ago I told them that that would mean converting hundreds of thousands of acres of forest land into solar farms because it’s best to not cut trees, so they can capture CO2, to “save the planet”- they didn’t listen until it started to happen- now they’re saying there against converting forests to solar farms- they hate wind turbines unless in the sea- when asked how can the state be net free by 2050, they say just put solar on every building in the state- but the state energy czar, a few years ago, said even if that were done, it wouldn’t even meet the needs of the power grid, never mind transporation, heating, agriculture, construction and industry- but of course, they’re not listening- that state energy czar got fired after admitting how difficult this will be and how people will be forced to make changes- it was reported on this site

Reply to  Frank from NoVA
September 13, 2022 11:02 am

When I was a student in Massachusetts over 50 years ago, the Commonwealth banned any new natural gas hookups. Was that not sufficiently effective?

Patrick B
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
September 13, 2022 12:45 pm

Maryland adopted the same rule during the 70’s energy crisis. I bought a house a long time ago built then. So it had a 1,000 gallon fuel oil tank buried in the front yard. The whole neighborhood was built like that. I have often wondered how many of those tanks are leaking now. Government can always make things worse.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
September 13, 2022 7:40 am

I suggest that it will take one really bad winter using the green energy solutions for the whole thing to implode. I lived in Maine for several years, courtesy of the Navy, and the winters are brutal. Massachusetts is just a bit south from where I was stationed and it was just as bad.

Matt Kiro
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
September 13, 2022 1:37 pm

Massachusetts still had net positive favorability rating for Biden when every other state had him about -12. I wouldn’t call them the most fanatical however, I’d call them the most brainwashed.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
September 13, 2022 9:34 pm

And South Australia.

September 13, 2022 6:53 am

“…the ascendancy of Ms. Truss…”

Could well be a tease. Legislation stands in the way of a common sense energy policy

“”UK becomes first major economy to pass net zero emissions law

The UK’s 2050 net zero target — one of the most ambitious in the world — was recommended by the Committee on Climate Change,””

The committee and this bad legislation have to go

Reply to  fretslider
September 13, 2022 7:49 am

When was the last time you ever heard of a government official being dragged off in handcuffs when a political law failed?

The woman who passed NetZero into legislation has now been superseded by two PM’s.

We will only understand by 2050 if NetZero has failed, so who do we sling in the Gulag at the stroke of midnight on the 31st December 2050? Theresa? Boris? Liz? Or the next 20 PM’s between now and then?

Or perhaps the incumbent PM of the moment, who say’s “my predecessors didn’t try hard enough”.

Liz Truss has no option but to overtly sabotage NetZero whilst making promises that it’s ‘only suspended’. By necessity this means mandatory EV’s will be postponed, probably excused by “two years of covid followed by the energy crisis”. As attention turns to funding nuclear over the coming decades there of course won’t be the money available right now to upgrade our existing grid to accommodate EV’s.

Expect to see agreements and contracts with renewable businesses reassessed and subsidies scrutinised, which we may find make it unattractive to developers. “We are desperately seeking renewable businesses to work with the British government but sadly none are coming forward”. Oh dear, how sad, never mind.

I suspect the way out this mess will be long and arduous, but hopefully the journey has begun.

Reply to  HotScot
September 13, 2022 7:55 am

When was the last time you ever heard of a government official being dragged off in handcuffs when a political law failed?”

During Blair’s time in office.

Reply to  fretslider
September 13, 2022 8:58 am


Reply to  HotScot
September 13, 2022 9:27 am

The 23-year-old woman is suspected of supplying confidential documents ranging from cabinet rows about the introduction of identity cards to detailed discussions on the award of honours to sports personalities.

She wasn’t the only one

Richard Page
Reply to  fretslider
September 13, 2022 12:31 pm

True, but there are cases like this every couple of years where a civil servant has leaked documents and gets fired or arrested. I believe that the intent of the original question was a bit more specific though – rather than casting a wide net over the entireity of UK politics, lets narrow it down a bit. When was the last time a UK government ‘lawmaker’ (ie MP, Minister, Secretary of State, Chancellor or Prime Minister, former or serving) was arrested after a political law had failed?
I can’t think of any although I can think of laws that were repealed quietly when they were no longer useful or became inconvenient.

Reply to  fretslider
September 14, 2022 5:38 am

That is not violating ‘political laws’ like NetZero.

September 13, 2022 7:11 am

nothing like reality to dash utopian dreams

Coeur de Lion
September 13, 2022 7:18 am

And carbon dioxide doesn’t rule the weather nor global temperature. ‘Correlation is not Causation’ says the CO2/temperature matching mantra. But a lack of correlation sure wrecks causation. Which is what we have.

Reply to  Coeur de Lion
September 13, 2022 7:51 am

Correlation may not be causation, but it’s damn persuasive. Or not…..

Dave Fair
Reply to  HotScot
September 13, 2022 11:58 am

To be honest, you should change the scale for temperature on the left-hand side. CO2 uses up the entire graph, so should temperature.

Reply to  HotScot
September 13, 2022 6:13 pm

You can say that again, HotScot.

Reply to  HotScot
September 13, 2022 8:45 pm

If you graph the rise in CO2 to my age you will get a much better correlation. The rise in CO2 might stop when I die, or vice versa.

Reply to  Coeur de Lion
September 13, 2022 7:52 am

Correlation may not be causation, but it’s persuasive, or not…….

September 13, 2022 7:23 am

And in the same spirit, I implore all those who believe the Covid jabs are safe and effective to keep taking the boosters. Lots of them, as often as possible. They’re safe and effective, right?

Reply to  Fenlander
September 13, 2022 8:01 am

As long as they pay for them out of their own pockets.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Fenlander
September 13, 2022 8:04 am

On the bright side, it’s quite possible their offspring could be limited to the current batch.

Reply to  Fenlander
September 13, 2022 8:09 am

Well we have some current UK data on that-
What’s behind the mystery of thousands of excess deaths this summer? (

The good news is that the fatality rate for Covid-19 – the chance of death when infected – is now below seasonal flu for the vast majority of people

Interpretation is where it gets messy and there’s no mention of the cost of it all that could well be being paid via inflation now but 20/20 hindsight is a marvellous thing. Is Truss just engaged in more of the same money printing for the energy crisis now?

Reply to  observa
September 13, 2022 8:30 am

A predictable article brimming with conceit from the WEF-bot, zero-Covid fanatic and always wrong Devi Sridhar, the non-scientist who advised the Scottish government on its Covid response.

John Oliver
September 13, 2022 7:24 am

sometimes you have to give people “what they “wish for” . This is what I would do : the government will offer all home owners “free” solar panels, controllers batt back up power wall. But wait! There’s more ! We’ll throw in a free wind turbine, EPA certified wood stove and chim, and a electric chain sawctoo! Only stipulation is that you must completely decouple from the grid. If you change your mind at some future point you can come back. But you must reimburse the the government for the entire green energy package you received.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  John Oliver
September 14, 2022 3:57 am

You forgot a prohibition on any fossil fuel powered generators – can’t allow them to escape the consequences of their energy choices!

September 13, 2022 7:25 am

When Boris was sacked and the competition began to select the next PM I said at the time, it won’t be the PM that’s important, it will be the Cabinet choices which will be critical.

And so it’s proven, I believe in word and in deed.

Whilst borrowing to help the UK through a genuine crisis (unlike covid) Liz Truss is refusing to impose taxes, windfall or otherwise, on energy companies because she want’s to stimulate a business environment to help the country trade out of this crisis over the coming years.

As for her Cabinet, if there was a declaration of war on NetZero, this is it. Suella Braverman, the new Home Secretary and a barrister with a working life before politics has been recruited to deal with the hated EU Human Rights Act thereby halting the unrestricted numbers of immigrants paddling across the English Channel. She also happens to be an outspoken critic of NetZero.

Kemi Badenoch is another outspoken critic of NetZero and surprise late runner in the competition to become PM. Now Secretary of State for International Trade and
President of the Board of Trade she’s another on with life experience before politics. She has both engineering and legal qualifications and went from working in McDonalds to working as an associate director of private bank and wealth manager Coutts.

Jacob Rees-Mogg is a feared combatant at the ballot box, routinely humiliating opposition members with his plummy delivery of rapier wit and informed comment. I was surprised he was chosen as he was a Boris stalwart. Perhaps it has something to do with his declaration that we should drain every last drop of oil from the North Sea (paraphrasing).

But there is a sniper! One not in the Cabinet but deliberately chosen; firstly in order that he doesn’t continue on the back benches to once again demonstrate his formidable organisational abilities to revolt against government policy and secondly so he can be wheeled in at a moments notice to add weight to anti NetZero activities.

That man is Steve Baker, Minister of State for Northern Ireland, another with life experience and feared by any cabinet after jointly forming the European Research Group (ERG), which hounded Boris to deliver Brexit, and now trustee of the GWPF. You can imagine what his position is on NetZero.

More importantly though, of all the Cabinet members I have researched none of them have voted meaningfully for environmental policies over the years, including Kwasi Kwarting.

Liz Truss herself is an accountant by profession also having worked in the private sector. I can’t recall a single PM going back beyond Harold Wilson in the 1960’s who actually demonstrated they could count without taking their socks and shoes off. Boris is a journalist, Tony Blair is a Barrister – two of the most despised professions on the face of the earth.

There’s not an accountant I know who doesn’t demand the numbers behind a decision and if they don’t add up, she’ll be the first to know. This alone is a very positive development.

I suspect a few things will be noticeable over the coming 12 months. NetZero won’t be overtly condemned, it will just be gently shuffled to the side with fewer mentions of it by cabinet members. The BBC and media will get their arms twisted to wind down the hysteria and the aggression towards Russia will gradually ratchet down so the blame for the energy crisis isn’t directed at them.

There appears little appetite in this government to sacrifice our country at the alter of NetZero.

Reply to  HotScot
September 13, 2022 7:42 am

They’ve got two years to turn it round Parliament is good at time wasting when it suits

Reply to  fretslider
September 13, 2022 9:12 am

Time is short there’s no doubt about that however, the opposition is hardly inspiring and their infighting continues between Starmer’s moderate approach and the Corbyn extreme left who are all still in there.

The objective will be to inspire confidence in the government rather than turning things around. That will take much longer.

If we are doing better than Germany and much of the EU in a couple of years time there is hope. On that subject, the EU is tearing itself apart, Germany is determined to butt heads with Russia and the rest of the bloc is suffering. Support for Ukraine will not run for long when people are suffering shortages and blackouts.

I think standing on the BBC’s neck will be decisive.

Dr. Bob
September 13, 2022 7:40 am

Remember, the DOE has identified 1 Billion Tons of biomass that are available for energy production. Energy crops can be grown to replace fossil fuels with yields of 10 tons/acre/yr. That should be a sufficient yield for keeping the lights on. Lets do the math.

There are 8,000 Btu/lb of dry biomass. That is 160,000,000 Btu per acre @ 10 tons/acre yield.
There are about 5.2 million Btu in a barrel of crude oil, so one acre of energy crops can produce 30.77 bbl of oil per year.
The US consumes 16 million bbl/day of fuel and 20 million bbl/day of crude for all purposes, fuel, chemicals, lubricants, paving asphalt, and you name it.
Therefore we only need 11.23 billion acres of energy crops to replace fossil fuels completely with DFER (Dispatchable Emissions Free Resources). Trivial.
We won’t talk about the energy needed to grow those crops or the 20% rot factor for storing them for a year between harvest and use, and the fact that there is no land left for agriculture in the more traditional sense (think food!). Or that the regulated emissions from “Emissions Free” feedstocks would swamp the region with NOx, SOx, PM, and CO, but those emissions are meaningless when it comes to saving the planet from the most damaging pollutant, CO2.

September 13, 2022 7:44 am

Meanwhile, in another part of the dense forest that social life in the UK has turned into, a charity called Mermaids is suing both the Charity Commission and the LGB Alliance. How to explain this?

Mermaids is an activist trans organization.

The LGB Alliance has stated that a clinic, the Tavistock clinic, is practising a kind of conversion therapy by persuading gay people that they are not really gay but transexual, and then putting them onto a path of hormones and surgery to change their gender. Not their sex, that seems to have quietly faded away, but their gender, whatever that is. So they object to this.

The Tavistock clinic’s gender services unit is being closed by the NHS, on the grounds that its unsafe for children. But the LGB Alliance is still criticizing it.

Because of this criticism, Mermaids has accused the LGB Alliance of being trans-phobic, and thus not a legit charity, and is suing them, and is also suing the Charity Commission for having registered them as a charity.

To give an idea of the flavor of the ensuing debate, consider the following statements by a Mermaid spokesperson:

<i>But Mr Roberts disagreed, alleging that the charity has been set up purely to attack trans people and claiming that their examples of attacks on gay rights were “invented”.
He said that a “view that says that a necessary condition of being a gay man is that you are a man” is a “a transphobic view of the world that denies trans people the opportunity to live as themselves.”
He also agreed that it was “transphobic” to say that “a person with a female body cannot be a gay man” or that a person born a woman “who is attracted only to men cannot be a straight man”.
Whilst insisting that sex was an individual choice and no one should be coerced into sexual activity, Mr Roberts said: “A trans woman who is attracted to other women would still be a lesbian.”</i>

Meanwhile, in yet another part of this dense forest, its been ruled that to hold so called gender critical beliefs, ie not believing any of the things Mr Roberts asserted above, is a protected state under the Equalities Act… So you cannot be discriminated against for holding them.

it will be interesting to see how this plays out in the legal action.

Before people get enormously surprised by the UK’s antics on climate and energy, they should consider that these antics, though indeed very strange, are actually one of the more moderate eccentricities to be found all over contemporary UK society. The best that the British can hope for is not that the various flourishing madnesses will be remedied by an onset of rationality. That is not going to happen, the country has large segments, particularly among the young, that are mad as a hatter at the moment.

It is that the wave of hysteria will move on to some other equally irrational cause and claims so the attention given to the current ones will fade away. But who knows what these next causes will be?

Reply to  michel
September 13, 2022 7:20 pm

michel, you owe me big time. My head hurts from smacking myself with so many face palms.

Why can’t we just go back to the good ol’ days when people went out and sat on a hillside in white robes and waited for the Second Coming or a spaceship or something?

*sigh* Those were simpler times.

September 13, 2022 8:02 am

Another way to interpret the green movement:
·        Governments believe that the products and fuels manufactured from fossil fuels is dangerous and polluting and is causing dangerous climate change.

·        Governments believe that an all-renewable electricity system, WITHOUT the products and fuels from fossil fuels, can actually work to power a modern economy.

·        Governments believe that all that is needed to get to an all-renewable electricity only future is to build enough solar and wind generators to do the job of providing intermittent electricity from breezes and sunshine.

Rud Istvan
September 13, 2022 8:11 am

With Newsom and Hochul in charge of CA and NY, there is a good chance they will stay on course as test dummies to crash into the energy wall. Even if UK and Germany wimp out because of RUSSIA.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
September 13, 2022 11:21 am

One of my bosses once pulled out one of those “executive magazines” and pointed to an article about an employee at a consultanting software company going to his boss saying that their deliver would not be up to what the customer wanted. The boss pulled out a list of the Fortune 500 companies and pointed to it saying .. “by the time we get thru this list of companies, any manager we screwed will be either dead or moved on, so we have nothing to worry about.”

September 13, 2022 8:35 am

Wind turbines even need diesel generators to start up and run.

“Temporary power suppliers play a pivotal role in wind farm commissioning in remote areas. Off-grid generators and load banks allow commissioning turbines before connection to the power grid, avoiding commissioning delays. Recently, a 33 kV high-voltage power generation and load bank package was installed at one wind farm’s main substation so comprehensive testing could begin – not just on the turbines but also on all high-voltage gear. Because the wind farm developer could test multiple turbines at once, the commissioning process sped up. The time saved allowed wind farm owner to meet its commercial operation date and to realize the tax incentives and credits available once the wind energy system was fully operational. 

Following commissioning, low-voltage power can be supplied at the base of each turbine to power ancillary equipment, such as lighting and the hydraulic pumps to turn the rotor and prevent bearing lock-up if the turbine needs to be taken offline. Alternatively, a central high voltage package can power the integrated system from one point of connection, keeping transformers and switchgear running, in addition to the turbines if the site needs to come offline. 

Maintenance typically uses temporary power from standard generators, while transformers are also made available for the higher voltages, such as 690V (the industry standard for many years). In fact, transformers have been supplied for multiple uses. To connect the circuits in the field, 480 V/34.5 transformers in the 2,500 to 5,000 kVa range are provided. To keep the system operational, power has been supplied to the field when the main transformer has failed or the utility has to take the distribution system out of service.

In conclusion, temporary power keeps wind farms generating power. These generators power the larger wind turbines coming to market, provide off-grid power to remote areas, scale up or down as the project progresses, as well as support operations and maintenance to make sure production is steady. The benefits of temporary power also apply to other renewable energy sources such as solar, as the pre-commissioning and commissioning procedures are similar to wind energy.”

dodgy geezer
September 13, 2022 8:41 am

Open letter to all my competitors:

Keep ruining aligning your economy with Green policies! They are really working, and those of us who are not doing them feel Sooo left out.

Old Man Winter
September 13, 2022 8:43 am

Here’s why Granholm promoted EVs in her aristocratic “Let them eat cake”
style. With all the infrastructure package $$$, she can make Francis’s
dream come true by selling EVs, including buses & trucks, to CA & NY
cities & cos.

Reply to  Old Man Winter
September 13, 2022 2:05 pm

I think you’ve got something there.

With logic like that Granholm, should have an easy hop, skip & jump over to Housing and Urban Development should biden go to dust and harris take over.

September 13, 2022 8:44 am

I am a great fan of using individual states or countries as governance laboratories. If something can be shown to work on state-scale, then perhaps it can be built upon and serve as an example for doing the same elsewhere. Or, if it can be shown to conclusively lead to failure, then it saves others a lot of trouble.

Reply to  Tom.1
September 13, 2022 11:14 am

That would be why some (d) want everything mandated at the federal level. That way you don’t get to see the examples of failure.

Reply to  TonyG
September 13, 2022 2:29 pm

over, over, over again, every day they have to look in the mirror.

They get tired of seeing failure and want to see a ‘valid’ rationalization.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Tom.1
September 14, 2022 4:12 am

The problem being that those states pursuing idiotic “green” policies get to hide their failure with “grid” connections to states not stupid enough to do the same.

September 13, 2022 9:01 am

In addition to staying the course, CA and NY need to be completely pure and stop importing electricity made from fossil fuels.

Reply to  MarkW
September 13, 2022 10:43 am

I’d recommend the cut all external lines by blowing up a few hundred miles of incoming power lines to show commitment. Nothing like blowing up something to prove you’re really serious.

Ian Johnson
Reply to  Spetzer86
September 13, 2022 1:12 pm

Name yourself “extinction rebellion” and you’d get away with that.

Richard Fagin
September 13, 2022 9:04 am

“DEFR” (Dispatchable Emissions Free Resource). What the heck is that? It’s an atomic electric generating plant or a hydroelectric generating plant. That’s what!

September 13, 2022 9:08 am

DEFR. Dispatchable Electricity-free resources. There, fixed it for them.

Mike Maguire
September 13, 2022 9:09 am

If the market needs an amount of energy = 10……..
When does 2 + 2 = 10?

2 + 2 +(bogus promises on paper) +(huge lobby money) +(crony capitalism) +(corrupt politicians) +(record subsidies) +(misled environmentalists/media)= GREEN ENERGY!

The problem when you persist with the green dream equation above is that the amount of the REAL amount of green energy will always be =4.

The additions in the equation add lots of incentive/enrichment for HAVING green energy but they don’t contribute to REAL energy and there will ALWAYS be a deficit in the real world.

Then there’s the cost in the US……..a realistic estimate of 433 trillion to electrify the entire grid/power everything with solar, wind and batteries. This is 20 times the GDP in the US.

Green energy = Boondoggle

Gordon A. Dressler
September 13, 2022 9:18 am

It’s way past time for the Manhattan Contrarian to take a reality pill over their sophomoric claim “that all-renewable energy is a moral necessity to save the planet from the existential crisis of climate change” . . . with their unstated implication that it is the dastardly green house gas CO2 coming from burning fossil fuels that is the root cause of climate change™.

I’ll just set aside the fact that there is no scientific proof consensus that CO2 drives global temperatures, and in fact quite a bit of evidence to the contrary (the global temperature “pauses” or “hiatuses” of 1940-1975 and 2015-present, being unavoidable facts).

That they focus on the states of California and New York is further evidence of their ignorance, misplaced or not.

Here is the hard cold reality offered by mathematics and science:

— Energy-related annual carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the State of California were 358 million metric tons in 2019 according to the most recent various-states data I could find (source: ). If one conservatively assumes those emissions grew in line with the worldwide rate of growth of worldwide CO2 emissions at 6% per year, at the end of 2021 California would have been emitting the equivalent of 402 million metric tons of CO2 annually.

— Similarly, according to the same source, energy-related annual CO2 emissions from the State of New York were 169 million metric tons in 2019, and with the same 6%/year applied increase at the end of 2021 New York would have been emitting the equivalent of 190 million metric tons of CO2 annually.

— Meanwhile, annual global energy-related CO2 emissions rose by 6% in 2021 to 36.3 billion metric tons (source: )

Therefore, if both California and New York stopped ALL energy-related CO2 emissions (i.e., were somehow able to magically transition to all-renewable energy), it would account for a step reduction of only (0.402+0.190)/36.6 = .016 = 1.6% of global CO2 emissions into the atmospheric. There you have it, less than a 2% reduction in GLOBAL energy-related CO2 emissions!

One wonders if the Manhattan Contrarian knows that the Earth’s atmosphere is scientifically considered to be “well-mixed”?

In any event, put that <2% theoretical maximum, one-time step reduction in CO2—accomplished at the expense of devastating the economies of the California and New York—against the above-stated fact that worldwide CO2 emissions rose 6% in 2021 alone.

You call that “saving the planet from the existential crisis of climate change”???

Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
September 13, 2022 10:57 am

How embarrassing

Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
September 13, 2022 11:32 am

Why did you leave out “If you really believe, as you proclaim” from before “that all-renewable energy is a moral necessity”?

You might want to read what Manhattan Contrarian wrote again, a bit more slowly.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  TonyG
September 13, 2022 12:08 pm


Did you not read the very first sentence in the Manhattan Contrarian announcement quoted above, which states verbatim: “California and New York: It is critical to mankind that you pursue the full extent of your green energy schemes to conclusion as soon as possible and at all costs.”

Apparently not.

As for the following sentences that have the lead-in phrase “If you really believe . . .”, do you not understand how this conditional phrase is used in context to serve as a point of emphasis (some would say, along the lines of a rhetorical question), not as a straight question of one’s intent?

You might want to apply a bit of logic to what you read. As for me, I’m fine on my first read-through.

Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
September 13, 2022 4:42 pm

How embarrassing for you.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Charles Rotter
September 13, 2022 8:33 pm

Charles Rotter,

How embarrassing for WUWT! Since you are cited as being an administrator for this website, please carry this message back to Francis Menton and WUWT management:

1) The title of the above article shouts “California And New York: Do Not Back Off Your World-Beating Green Energy Schemes!”

2) The very first sentence of the above article states “Today the Manhattan Contrarian formally calls upon the states of California and New York: Whatever you do, do not back down from your crash program of green energy schemes!” Emphasis on the word “formally”.

3) The seventh paragraph down starts with “Here’s why this is important.” So, is the above article meant to be humor/sarcasm, or something meaningful???

Do the above points hint to sarcasm or tongue-in-cheek commentary? . . . no they do not. I treated the word “formally” as just that . . . why is there an intent to deceive people when the word “sarcastically” should have been used to convey an honest reporting of the Manhattan Contrarian quotes.

Does anything in the above article or quoted text from the Manhattan Contrarian indicate that the reader should consider remarks therein as sarcastic or tongue-in-cheek? . . . no they do not.

Upon reviewing the various comments posted from others, I see that I am not alone in being, in your words, “embarrassed” by my post. Maybe you should point that out to all such posters, not just me . . . unless, that is you have a chip on your shoulder, as they say.

If it has come to the point that I now have to consider that each and every WUWT article title and WUWT article content may be nothing more than unidentified sarcasm or tongue-in-cheek postings, as opposed to honest factual articles, I will be, as the saying goes:
OUTTA HERE in a second!

Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
September 13, 2022 9:59 pm

Your words call out for a reply, but I don’t want to be picking on a member of our audience. My advice: Lighten up.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Charles Rotter
September 14, 2022 6:54 am

Your words call out for a reply, but I don’t want to be picking on a member of our audience.”

I will just observe that of the time of this reply to you, there are 149 comments posted under the above article.

But there are only two cases where you deigned to reply “How embarrassing” to a comment that missed the sarcasm/satire that is not so obvious in the Francis Menton’s writing. . . in both cases they were directed to me.

That is all that needs to be said.

Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
September 14, 2022 7:41 am

You were the first I saw. Probably the first. Then you doubled down. Doubling down on stupid invites ridicule. When I make an embarrassing mistake such as yours, I admit it and move on. I don’t feel defending the error has any value to myself or others. Here’s a very recent tweet of mine.

My mistake and I apologize to PrudyRay.

I had incorrectly assumed the question was posed by a religion hating teacher who was incapable of a neutral objective viewpoint. Viewed bio now. Oops.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Charles Rotter
September 15, 2022 7:05 am

“Then you doubled down. Doubling down on stupid invites ridicule.”

That would be, as they say, an ad hominem attack . . . and one coming from a WUWT “Administrator”.

Previously, I thought WUWT moderators and administrators had higher standards.

I am, as they say, OUTTA HERE.

Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
September 15, 2022 9:14 pm

I’ll bet you’re fun at parties.

Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
September 14, 2022 7:14 am


I’m guessing you also thought Swift was serious about calling for the eating of children in A Modest Proposal?

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  TonyG
September 15, 2022 7:06 am

You are right . . . you are guessing.

Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
September 13, 2022 12:01 pm


Reply to  paul
September 13, 2022 12:08 pm

Jonathon Swift was a known cannibal!

Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
September 13, 2022 12:30 pm

Perhaps I’ve missed something, but isn’t the post just satire?

Reply to  Tom.1
September 13, 2022 7:56 pm

It’s satire plus, Tom 1.

The Manhattan Contrarian is looking up at NY and CA out on the ledge of the 68th floor of a skyscraper and yelling, “Jump! Jump! Jump! You said you would. You said you could fly. Go ahead, I triple-dog dare ya! Fly little birdies!”

Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
September 13, 2022 9:21 pm

Just by the name Manhattan Contrarian you should’ve realized this was a sardonic article and was meant to ridicule those people believing in this idiocy. He was clearly imploring those two moronic states to continue doing what they were in the process of doing so the rest of the states could see how disastrous these policies will be for everyone. I picked up on his theme as soon as I started reading. Better clean your glasses or something.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  spren
September 14, 2022 7:00 am

Congratulations on your keen perception.

Now, there are many other commenters to this article that you have to inform of such.

Brazos Valley Chuck
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
September 16, 2022 8:58 am

Not I. As soon as I saw the source, I knew this was satire. Even had I not known the source, it became quickly clear on reading that this was a Swiftian poke at the two states.

I am truly surprised by your responses here. As suggested above, lighten up. And enjoy.

Philip CM
September 13, 2022 9:24 am

It is critical to mankind that you pursue the full extent of your green energy schemes to conclusion as soon as possible and at all costs. -the Manhattan Contrarian

The real pending economic/energy crisis can be found with in the above statement, all costs of the full extent of your green energy schemes.

September 13, 2022 9:53 am

I am with Francis, my solution is for all non renewable energy to stop at the California and New York borders. By that I mean no hydro, nuclear, coal, gas or oil produced energy can enter those states. These people are nothing but a bunch of punks, they need to walk the walk or shut the hell up.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Bob
September 13, 2022 10:28 am

Ummm . . . I believe hydro is considered green renewable—not “non-renewable”—even if it is NIMBY and roundly criticized by environmentalists.

Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
September 13, 2022 4:03 pm

That’s okay, tell me when was the last major dam built, how many dams are in the planning stage, how many dams are listed to be removed to protect this or that species or return the river back to it’s natural state? The only reason hydro is listed as renewable is to hike up the numbers for renewable energy generated, without hydro the numbers would be far less plus hydro is reliable and dispatchable. No, you can count it as renewable if you choose but I won’t.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Bob
September 13, 2022 8:55 pm

Well, the last MAJOR hydroelectric dam built in the world was the Three Gorges Dam in China, construction completed in 2004 and fully functional since 2012. See .

According to a Spring 2021 WWF article (source: ), “A 2020 study by WWF and partners looked more deeply at dams, and the findings were alarming: Worldwide, 509 new dams are planned or under construction.”

Google can be your friend. 

Count as you wish . . . no skin off my back.

Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
September 14, 2022 6:09 pm

How about in the US and how many dams have the green energy folks recommended for the US? You are being silly.

September 13, 2022 10:16 am

Turns out people don’t want to die nor crash the world economy for the specious claim of AGW. Now we’re getting down to the brass tacks. When it’s just virtue signaling everyone is aboard to save the future but when their life depends on it now the tune changes. All the propaganda the MSM and pseudo scientists can muster fails in the face of reality. Food and energy win the argument.

Julian Flood
September 13, 2022 11:27 am

“in the bowels of the UK government is something called the “Committee on Climate Change”

Bowels? Deep colon.


Dave Fair
Reply to  Julian Flood
September 13, 2022 12:16 pm

Well, that’s where all the crap comes from: Government.

September 13, 2022 12:05 pm

What’s wrong these green people.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Yossarian
September 13, 2022 12:17 pm

No scientific, technical nor economic knowledge.

Reply to  Yossarian
September 13, 2022 12:25 pm

I’m guessing that they use renewable energy to power their brains.

Reply to  MarkW
September 13, 2022 8:06 pm

Yup. Intermittent and unreliable.

September 13, 2022 12:30 pm

Sounds like the old apologetic by true believers

“True communism hasn’t been tried yet.” How often do leftist dupes repeat that mantra! They try in vain to explain communism’s failure in the Soviet Union, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, East Germany, Cuba, Venezuela, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, North Korea, and everywhere else it has been tried. Oh no, there’s nothing wrong with communism. It’s just that Stalin, Mao, Castro, Maduro and the rest haven’t got it quite right. “

September 13, 2022 1:44 pm

In addition to implementing their brilliant schemes, there should be a national poll of all citizens older than “the age of majority” requiring each to vote “yea” or “nay” on the scheme with each name and vote to be revealed publicly on January 1, 2028 or some other suitable date in the not too distant future.

Stand up for what you believe!

son of mulder
September 13, 2022 1:49 pm

The sad thing is that Net Zero is not a problem. The problem is the implementation of Net Zero. Back in the day when we had more totalitarian regimes, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, their philosophy was more important that human life,. Today the rush for Net Zero suffers the same ideological weakness as the 3 regimes I mentioned. That is they don’t care about the suffering of their people, it’s the ideological objective that is important. Well, my view is stuff that. Any transition, whether for ecological reasons or the passing of peak oil, the transition needs to benefit the populus not force suffering and death.

Stan Sexton
September 13, 2022 2:51 pm

Just following the Plans of the Great Reset (WEF/ DAVOS/Klaus Schwab)for an economic collapse. Europe is just ahead of us.

jeffery p
September 13, 2022 3:18 pm

#1, slightly O/T — Going green does not keep fossil fuels in the ground. That’s one of many green myths.

#2, California and New York don’t have isolated grids. What is going to happen to neighboring states when the CA and NY grids fail?

September 13, 2022 4:28 pm

Easy for Newsom and the Democrats in CA and NY to make these green mandates, but far off into the future enough, that they don’t have to implement them.
It’s a win-win for them. For they can show off their green credentials, without having to face the wrath of the populace when those green policies are implemented. The UK and Germany are finding out this right now. CA and NY won’t have to find that out for some years still. Meanwhile more Democrat politicians can show off their green credentials until then.

Reply to  Mike
September 13, 2022 4:48 pm

Virtue signaling at its best!

September 13, 2022 4:53 pm

If I can channel Churchill, “If you are going through Hell, keep on going!”
If you are going to Hell, get there quickly and then get out.

September 13, 2022 5:16 pm

California and New York: It is critical to mankind that you pursue the full extent of your green energy schemes to conclusion as soon as possible and at all costs.”


Then, when New York’s power goes out, as it undoubtedly will, Manhattan Contrarian will freeze along with the fools they condemned to insufficient heat and insufficient transport.

Edward Katz
September 13, 2022 6:00 pm

The irony of the whole exercise and intent in all four jurisdictions is the fact that they, especially California and New York City, were already among the most expensive places to live probably globally. The adoption of all these green schemes will make them even more so, a situation which might be partially tolerable if they actually worked full time, but since wind and solar are strictly intermittent and therefore unreliable, residents of these nations and states will be paying more for commodities that they can depend upon under only ideal conditions. This is like paying $100,000 for a car that can be started only part of the time.

CD in Wisconsin
September 13, 2022 8:11 pm

Western civilization was very interesting while it lasted. Thousands of years of time, money and effort down the drain.

September 13, 2022 9:35 pm

You can believe they’re fair dinkum the day any net zero fearless leader proudly announces that forthwith no taxeater will remain airconditioned on their watch. Leading from the front setting the shining example for all those who toil in the great outdoors and under the iron rooves of the workshops and factories. Back to the future with opening windows in public buildings and EVs just like the grandparent’s days all for the benefit of the grandkiddies.

Thermostats be damned! Rug up or peel off for Gaia!

Beta Blocker
September 13, 2022 11:44 pm

New York ISO: “To achieve an emission-free grid, dispatchable emission-free resources (DEFRs) must be developed and deployed throughout New York. DEFRs that provide sustained on-demand power and system stability will be essential to meeting policy objectives while maintaining a reliable electric grid. While essential to the grid of the future, such DEFR technologies are not commercially viable today.”

As the story goes, a new battery technology is just around the corner using a cheap and plentiful chemical — hopeium chloride, more commonly known as fable salt.

Roger Tilbury
September 14, 2022 2:37 am

Younger/Non-UK readers may not know that before he was ennobled as Lord Deben, John Gummer was the Gov’t Minister who famously fed his daughter a beefburger at the height of the BSE “crisis” to show British beef was safe.
You may recall that “In 2002, Ferguson (Covid catastrophe proponent) predicted that up to 50,000 people would likely die from exposure to BSE (mad cow disease) in beef. In the U.K., there were only 177 deaths from BSE.”
so Gummer was right to avoid the catastrophism back then. I wonder why he has changed his mind now ?
Anything to do with this report in the Times ?

He and his family own Sancroft International, a sustainability consultancy that has received more than £600,000 from businesses that have benefited from these subsidies.
A newspaper investigation alleged that Sancroft’s clients have included several companies and campaign groups that have benefited from policies pushed by the CCC, which Lord Deben has chaired since 2012.
Clients have included Johnson Matthey, which makes batteries for electric cars and paid Sancroft almost £300,000 from 2012 to 17. The CCC has backed electric cars and Lord Deben has called for the government to speed up plans to make all new cars battery-powered.
Temporis Capital, an investment management firm that specialises in renewable and clean energy, paid Sancroft £50,000 over the same period. A 2015 report by an external consultant, seen by The Times, alleged that Temporis was paying a small retainer “so that they can contact [Lord Deben] and ask for his advice on certain matters”.
It claimed that the retainer was counted “as an inflated bill for a daily report that Temporis are sent on mainstream sustainability issues” so that they are not “officially billed” for the advisory service. It warned that this was an “unethical arrangement”.
Lord Deben has denied that Sancroft provided consultancy services for Temporis and his lawyers said that it merely sent a “daily digest of relevant press and other material”.

Mike Harker
September 14, 2022 3:21 am

DEFR – I haven’t seen unicorn spelt like that before!

Keith Harrison
September 14, 2022 6:31 am

Would hydro or nuclear be DeeFrs?

Reply to  Keith Harrison
September 15, 2022 2:24 pm

Yes but are not scalable to the extent needed

Andy Pattullo
September 14, 2022 12:07 pm

My condolences to the good folk of NY and California who will likely be the sacrificial lambs to the god of climatism. But I do offer my sincere thanks for leading the way in finding the truth about “green” energy non-systems.

Gerry, England
September 15, 2022 5:18 am

What are new PM Mis Trussed has not understood – something even the EU idiots have – is that by paying generators the cost of the most expensive producer – currently gas – all the others are reaping big profits, especially wind farms. It is estimated that they will receive £45bn in extra profits for doing nothing this year. That money should be given to the consumers which is what the EU are proposing. Instead, Truss is giving a blank cheque to the energy suppliers based on the little information given out so far.

Verified by MonsterInsights