At any given moment in the course of human events, not everyone can be the leader. And thus can the world only have a small number of “climate leaders” to light us the way to the Great Green Energy Nirvana of the future.
Among that select group of “climate leaders,” New York is definitely one. We know that because New York enacted its Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act in 2018, announcing its “climate leadership” to the world for all to envy.
But there are a handful of jurisdictions out there that are not to be outdone in the competition for the title of “climate leader.” One of those is the UK. Ten years before New York even entered the competition, the UK had enacted its Climate Change Act of 2008, setting an initial round of legally-binding emissions reduction targets (80% below 1990 levels by 2050). Then, in 2019 the UK upped the ante, committing by statute to “net zero” greenhouse gas emissions for its entire economy by 2050.
We know from my last post how things are going with this “climate leadership” thing in New York: five years into the competition, New York’s greenhouse gas emissions have actually increased substantially, as two large new natural gas power plants have replaced electricity generation from two prematurely-closed emissions-free nuclear facilities, while generation of electricity from wind and solar has barely budged.
Has the UK been any more successful? Rupert Darwall, writing under the auspices of the Real Clear Foundation, has produced a comprehensive update, with a date of December 2023. The title tells you all you need to know: “The Folly of Climate Leadership: Net zero and Britain’s Disastrous Energy Policies.”
The short summary of Darwall’s Report is that there is nothing but bad news for Britain. By contrast to New York, the UK has actually moved forward with massive construction of “renewable” facilities to generate electricity, mostly in the form of wind turbines. What it has gotten for its efforts is far more nameplate capacity of facilities for generation, but far less electricity actually generated. Costs that were predicted by advocates to decrease substantially have instead increased steadily. The percent of electricity generated from the “renewables” has gotten to around 35%, but has stalled out at that level, and the latest round of offers of acreage for offshore wind development attracted no bidders even at prices a multiple of what additional natural gas facilities would cost. In short, the UK appears stuck, with its consumers paying higher costs for power indefinitely, but with no path forward from here to the promised net zero utopia.
Darwall compares trends in electricity prices charged to commercial and industrial business in the UK and U.S. over the period from 2004 to 2022. The UK prices have steadily pulled away as the percent of electricity generation from “renewables” has increased. Here is Darwall’s chart from page 51 of his Report:
Darwall attributes the growing divergence in prices mostly to divergence in fossil fuel production. In the UK, fracking for natural gas has been completely blocked by environmental regulations. Meanwhile, in the U.S., Darwall writes:
By 2009, natural gas output had increased by 14.3 percent from its trough, reaching its highest level since 1974. In the next 10 years, US natural gas output surged a staggering 64.4 percent, to 33,899 billion cubic feet (bcf), 56.0 percent higher than its previous peak of 21,731 bcf in 1973.
In return for greatly increased electricity generation from wind and solar, the UK has dug itself into the perverse situation of ever-increasing nameplate generation capacity, but simultaneously falling output of electricity. Darwall:
Between 2009 and 2020, . . . a 15.5 percent increase in nameplate generating capacity produced 21.6 percent less electricity. In 2009, 1 MW of capacity produced 4,312 MWh of electricity. In 2020, 1 MW of capacity generated 3,094 MWh, a decline of 28.3 percent.
Has the UK at least made some progress in “saving the planet”? Here is my favorite chart from the Report, found on page 28:
The UK has gone a long way toward destroying its industrial base, but its emissions reductions are so small as to be barely noticeable in the overall world picture, and totally swamped by increases elsewhere, mostly from China. The rest of the world is getting a good laugh at Britain’s expense. As Darwall states, “The metric of leadership success is followship.” By that metric, as well as every other, Britain’s “climate leadership” is a total disaster.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
How the mighty have fallen…
“Another Would Be ‘Climate Leader,’ The UK”
Competing to be the lead lemming headed for the cliff.
“In the UK, fracking for natural gas has been completely blocked by environmental regulations.”
And events in the form of the Post Office Horizon scandal have come back to bite the man responsible for ‘killing’ fracking – Ed Davey – on the fundament.
Davey set a limit so impossible to meet deliberately, a limit of quakes above 0.5 magnitude. Drop a 2.5kg bag of potatoes to the floor and you’re busted, pal.
Davey was upbeat about banning fracking:
“Ed Davey has said he remains proud that he was the person who “basically stopped” fracking in the UK, despite the current energy crisis…”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/08/27/ed-davey-proud-have-stopped-fracking-despite-energy-crisis/
Schadenfreude doesn’t begin to describe the glee of his role in the ‘postal affairs’ coming to light. But it is a start. And it is so well deserved…
Fracking is already declining in the US, so he was right about renewables and insulation, instead of going for a short term
solutiondelay of the problem that would enrich a few and do nothing for most of the population.Can you offer a chart showing the decline of US fracking. I don’t doubt you- just like to see it.
No, he can not, LOL.
I’m still waiting- and of course I did doubt him but didn’t know. He’s probably still looking.
Or he was at the dentist. There is some life outside of wuwt
Shale Wells Are Losing Oil Output Faster Than Expected, Study Says
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/shale-wells-are-losing-oil-output-faster-than-expected-study-says-1.1959289
U.S. Shale Production Is Set For A Rapid Decline
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/US-Shale-Production-Is-Set-For-A-Rapid-Decline.html
Well, I know zip about oil and gas, but I think I can interpret graphs – so from your second link:
Scary huh? Until you realise that this is the derivative of the output. In other words the rate of growth is slowing but it’s still going up. Until that graph goes below zero it is not declining.
Claim: Fracking is already declining in the US. (Note the present tense)
Second source: “Is set for a rapid decline” (Note the future tense”) – just a prediction, which may prove to be true or false.
I don’t know about oilprice.com, but Bloomberg is quite untrustworthy.
You’re kidding, right? You don’t doubt Lusername?
You are funny; username or not
Unreliable generation is just a parasitic drain manpower and resources that could otherwise be used to improve society as a whole, and the poor the most.
Why do you h@te the poor so much that you prefer construction of unreliable generation capacity, while RELIABLE generation capacity must still provide 100% of REQUIRED electrical output.
Sorry, that last sentence is incorrect. In the UK and elsewhere, it is common NOW for grid operators to ask customers to curtail their electricity use to save the grid. That almost NEVER happened before the advent of unreliable generation connection to the grid.
Your turn to answer and explain.
I will not hold my breath waiting.
All I can find for the UK is that they curtail on producer site, because the grid can’t handle the amount of energy generated. So they need to update their grid.
The real energy crisis was becaus of russian gas – shows how unreliable fossil fuels are.
The grid can’t handle the randomly intermittent nature of renewable energy is the answer you were blindly groping for.
The real energy crisis started before the Ukraine war as a result of the recovery from Covid lockdowns was the other answer you were blindly groping for.
Honestly you do need to do much better in future or we’ll be forever correcting your many, many mistakes.
That would have to be one of the most idiotically stupid comments even you have made.
England has plenty of gas available to them, but there choose not to use it, in favour of totally unreliable, erratic, parasitic pseudo-supply.
The whole problems they currently have is because of the utter stupidity of their “Net-Zero” ambitions.
Potato Ed Davey. I always believed that what goes around comes around. But years and years later I’m still waiting, and that ignoramus is still gurning all over my TV. Asked by a TV journalist TEN TIMES if he wanted to say “Sorry” to the post office people he had so badly let down, Davey replied “Mwah Mwah Mwah” !!
G’Day Jerry, if I may…
“…and that ignoramus is still gurning…”
If you’re not familiar with the expression, search “gurning face” and look at “Images”. (Not recommended if you have just eaten.)
After new Argentina President Milei, a Libertarian, gave his anti-socialism, anti-climate crazies, and pro capitalism speech at Davos, he had an exchange with David Cameron, what did they talk about? Falklands/Malvinas? Tea versus Malbec? Dependable energy for an industrial future? I wonder.
There is a huge oil field just off the Falkland islands which Argentina would dearly love to exploit but can’t while they dispute the status of the islands. One way forward might be for Argentina to give up its claim on the islands and jointly develop the field with Britain, if there is the political will in both London and Buenos Aires to do so.
Perhaps Milei was trying to determine what the British political mood was like?
According to Barry Obozo you Brits need to surrender the Maldives
Latest YouGov UK poll:
Conservatives 20%
Labour 47%
Reform 12% (up from 10% a few weeks back)
Reform is looking like the only way a UK voter can say no to the current energy and climate madness which the political class seems to be dominated by, and it seems to have momentum. If Farage returns with a bang at the right moment we could see an explosion in November of a sort that has not occurred in the UK since the Liberal Party crashed in flames in the early 20C.
It will lead to splitting the conservative vote and in many constituencies this will result in Labour being elected. But if you are a conservative voter its the only choice you have, the other two are at best red and pink. Reform is now the only way to vote conservative in the UK.
Another great piece by Francis. Spot on.
I’ve become an active member of Reform because of the continued lies and policies being spouted out by Libels, Libour and the Tories. I’ve never been that interested in politics but it’s getting so bad I needed to help make the change. Time for Reform in Politics.
The Lib Dems may have moved into 4th place behind Reform at the moment. It’ll be interesting to see how that develops. Nigel Farage is still seen as a very polarising figure in the UK and, although he might firm up support for Reform, he could also stir up a lot of opposition. Reform look to be doing well without Farage so I’d rather he kept to the sidelines for now – at least until a point where his intervention would do little to no harm and might actually be of some benefit.
Just for accuracy,
The LibDems are already the fourth largest party in the UK Parliament, behind the Tories, Labour and the Scottish Nationalists.
Then come the NI Parties and Welsh Nats (Plaid Cymru).
Somewhere in that grouping are the hordes of independents, many of whom are just crooked Tories who have been thrown out of the party but haven’t yet been kicked out of Westminster.
And finally there is one Green MP, Caroline Lucas of Brighton Pavilion.
There are no Reform MPs, No UKIP. No BNP. No Brexit Party.
The initial post was about poll results, not members of parliament so my post reflected that. I acknowledge your post as to the current pecking order of Parliament but question the ‘accuracy’ comment as you were not commenting on the poll results that everyone else was. But thank you so much for feeling like you were getting involved, even if you actually weren’t.
The only poll that matters is the real one.
Opinion Polls are like Climate Models, unvalidated and alarmist.
Comprehension problems? The comment was about a poll. But since you went off on a tangent, you conveniently forgot to give a break-down of the independents. The July 2023 count was 15: 7 ex-Labour, 6 ex-Conservatives, 1 ex-SNP, 1 ex-PC. That’s since risen to 18, which likely pushes up the ex-Conservative count (can’t immediately find a current break-down). But it doesn’t say much for Labour, does it, given they started with only c. 200 seats vs c. 350. I gather this number of independents is something of a record, which doesn’t say much about the standard of MPs across the board (no surprise there).
There is only one poll that counts and that is the one held on election day, with the ballot papers being counted overnight and the results declared from 2AM onwards and complete by the end of the day – take note USA. You can say what you like in a poll and there is no consequence. The recent by-elections have shown no growth in the Labour vote but Tories staying at home. This could be a big factor on election day. Another overlooked factor is foreign influence on our election due to immigrants. Labour is the home to muslims and they are not happy with Keir Kneeler Starmer’s rejection of unconditional surrender by Israel in Gaza. This could not only cost Labour seats they hold but many seats they hope to gain if the muslims abstain. The election result will be nothing like the poll.
I have never understood the logic of Climate Administrators (such as John Kerry) who readily acknowledge that our REDUCTIONS (which have a negative impact on our economy and lifestyle) will be substantially dwarfed by the INCREASES of China and India; but we should proceed anyway – just because…
(Could it be that it was SoS Kerry and VP Biden who bypassed the US Congress and gave China and India license to increase ’til 2030 when they could CONSIDER whether or not to level off?)
You have misunderstood the ultimate goal. It is not to “decarbonize” anything: it is to trash all freedoms and reduce world population,
The rich are planning on making trillions more off the estimated $US200 trillion in spending it will take, according to Bloomberg, to stop warming by 2050.
World population growth has been slowing for decades and is expected to turn negative in a few decades. Families are realizing that they don’t need large families to have living offspring since almost all of their children are surviving, due to advances in medicine and healthcare.
Lower capacity factor needs higher nameplate capacity?
Who would have thought?
Who would have thought?
Yes, who would have thought to spend 5 to 10 times the money for capacity that cannot deliver output when needed?
Only those who really h@te the poor, and want people to NOT have the electricity they need when they need it.
Care to explain your position on wanting lower capacity factor generating means?
Again, I will not hold my breath awaiting your response.
https://www.iea.org/reports/renewable-energy-market-update-june-2023/how-much-money-are-european-consumers-saving-thanks-to-renewables
Save100B, after having to spend 300B+.. oh great !!
Of course.. those savings never happened…
…. just another fantasy use to con the chronically gullible… ie you.
Those are wife style savings. (I saved us $1000 today! Yes, I was going to buy X for $16,000, but I ended up buying Y for $15,000).
‘Expected’ ‘estimated’. Except they didn’t save €100 billion at all, did they? In fact, looking back on the period 2021-23, EU citizens saved nothing and spent more on the same energy – all those renewables actually forced energy prices up, not down.
I too expected Santa Claus to bring me untold wonders when I was a child, Lusername.
Look at it this way.
In 2009 in the UK 87.3 GW of generating capacity produced 376 TWh of electricity. In 2020 100.9GW of generating capacity produced 312.3 TWh of electricity. Wind and solar had risen to 37.6% of capacity over this time. So 13..6 GW (15.6%) more generating capacity resulted in 64.5TWH (17%) less electricity.
That is the effect that unreliables have on reliable electricity generation
The best sites for wind turbines were taken. The increase in turbines with less output was predicted a while ago – given the area of the UK and the few good sites for turbines, overbuild is counterproductive and a waste of resources.
Any build is a waste
…two large new natural gas power plants have replaced electricity generation from two prematurely-closed emissions-free nuclear facilities,…
_____________________________________________________________
How much different is this from sacrificing virgins?
I hadn’t read the post from Strativarius or read far enough in the article:
“In the UK, fracking for natural gas has been completely blocked…”
Virgins are next to unobtainium on the Periodic Table of Elements.
Avatar was one of the dumber movies I’ve ever seen. Hollywood came up with something only marginally more clever than “youcantgetitium”. The cigar smoking villain, a cross between Jimmy Cagney and Archie bunker, was really lame. The rest of it was highly forgettable.
The two Indian Point reactors still had another thirty years of relaible service left in them before they were shut down for largely political reasons.
When the New York State PSC was reviewing the shut down decision in 2016, written public comments favoring closure of the two reactors outnumbered those in favor of keeping them open by roughly one-hundred to one.
In live public hearings, those in favor of closing the reactors outnumbered those opposed to closure by roughly ten to one.
The anti-nuclear green energy advocates were able to mobilize their constituency, a relatively small number of people, to actively support the closure of the reactors, regardless of the long-term consequences.
However, it must be recognized that a majority of New York state’s citizens are determined to rush like lemmings over the green energy cliff. It’s one reason why New Yorkers support green energy politicians year after year after year.
How many of these people will wake up to reality before they reach the edge of the cliff? (IMHO, not very many.)
The Internet has allowed groups of like-minded people to get together much more easily than before, even if they are wrong.
It’s easier to find a nuclear plant than a virgin?
The climate models the UN/IPCC is pushing have only been tested on past data.
As everybody knows, it is much easier to forecast the past than the future.
This is the first time they have been tested on real-time data.
Since 30 years is the new definition of “climate” according to the WMO, in 30 years we will see if the climate models actually work.
This post gives evidence that it won’t take 30 years for the pain of scarce and unaffordable energy to become far more urgent than 100 year weather forecasts.
I doubt if you will believe me or change your mind but every statement was wrong
The climate models the UN/IPCC is pushing have only been tested on past data
Climate models from the 1970s have almost 50 years of actual global average temperature changes in the history books for comparison with 1970s predictions.
.
As everybody knows, it is much easier to forecast the past than the future.
With climate it is tough to predict the past. In 1975, the period from 1940 to 1975 had significant global cooling. It has since almost completely “disappeared”. The year1934 in the US was warmer than 1998 until that was “reversed”. Climate history keeps changing. Predicting the future climate is easy. You predict 100 years in the future and by then you will be gone along with everyone who heard your prediction. You can’t be proven wrong in your lifetime.
This is the first time they have been tested on real-time data.
The climate models of the 1970s when used with RCP 4.5 and used for a 70 year prediction, were surprisingly accurate (as a group average) for the first 50 years of that 70 year prediction.
That either means the models, when used with reasonable assumptions, correctly showed CO2 emissions were the cause of the post 1975 warming …or they just had a lucky guess that happens to match the actual warming rate since 1975. My vote is a lucky guess.
The models (I call them confuser games) are criticized mainly because when used with RCP 8.5 and a high amount of water vapor positive feedback, for a 400 year prediction, the warming rate is approximately double the 70 year RCP 4.5 warming rate prediction.
Since 30 years is the new definition of “climate” according to the WMO, in 30 years we will see if the climate models actually work.
I can’t predict the next 30 years of model accuracy but with less extreme assumptions the 1970s models have worked for 50 years of the early 1970s seventy year predictions … or that was a lucky guess … because models predict whatever the owners want predicted.
Absolute crap. Stop parroting the IPCC pronouncements, Richard, and do your own research. If you do that you will find that the models are running hot, sometimes by a considerable margin. They diverged from reality some time ago and the gap is continuing to widen.
“ correctly showed CO2 emissions were the cause of the post 1975 warming”
Models don’t show anything of the kind…
What a pathetically desperate attempt to protect your lukewarmer idiocy of CO2 warming.
Certainly NOT SCIENCE.
There has been no atmospheric warming since 1975 except at El Nino events… which are totally unrelated to atmospheric CO2.
If you think otherwise, then present actual SCIENTIFIC evidence of atmospheric warming by CO2…
You know you can’t, so you will produce a whole lot of bogus anti-science.
It has been warming since the middle of the Little Ice Age over 150 years ago. It doesn’t take a model to predict that it will keep doing what it has been doing, which is warming. The Earth is still in a 2.56 million-year ice age, in a warmer but still cold interglacial period.
The models that the public gets the results from haven’t been tested for anything like 30 years. The ones from the 1970s didn’t reach the public. Just recently their models have reached the public and these models are completely untested over a 30-year climate period. The models don’t even take into account the variability of the Sun which supplies 99+ percent of the heat on Earth or the clouds that reflect vast amounts of sunlight into space.
Each year there are about 500,000 heat-related deaths compared to 4.5 million cold-related deaths due to the increased number of strokes and heart attacks in the cooler months. When it is cold our bodies constrict blood vessels to conserve heat, this causes our blood pressure to rise causing increased heart attacks and strokes in the cooler months.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00081-4/fulltext
So here’s the deal: 30 years is fraudulent. The PDO cycle is on the order of 60 years. So 30 years captures only about 1/2 of the pseudo-Sine wave. On top of that you should have on the order of 3 complete cycles so that’s 180 years. Of course we do not have that data. On top of that, 180 years would only address the PDO. No idea what other cyclic drivers exist although some others have been postulated.
Bottom line: Nobody has a clue as to how the climate works.
One thing for sure is that it is chaotic and oscillates between the strange attractors of icebox earth and hothouse earth. Or maybe not. Mankind has not existed long enough to gather conclusively meaningful data
Here again Net Zero is equated to electricity generation. I have plagued my Comservative MP Flick Drummond with questions about how they will deal with decarbonisation of aviation, shipping, construction, agriculture and motor transport. (Lorries lorries not ev’s). Answer comes there none.
There will be no answers forthcoming as they have no answers to give. This is a kneejerk reaction to a small but vocal minority of activists and they are still being led by that – no coherent plan or strategy, no answers, no hope.
According to the IEA’s ‘World Energy Outlook 2023’ less than 1% of heavy trucks sold today are electric.
Manufacturers, like DAF, are producing lorries in 16 and 19 tonne versions They are able to travel up to 350km with light payloads or 200km for heavier loads if they have 2 batteries! Replacing the millions of 10 and 12 wheeler HGVs currently in use worldwide is far off if ever achievable.
The price curves are starting to look like—- hockey sticks!
And they can’t supply the energy needed AT ANY PRICE.
D’oh!
The green agenda likes manufacturing hockey sticks. !!
It is their favourite shape.
Green jobs update
Tatar is closing the blast furnaces at Port Talbot South Wales
3000 jobs to go, er, that’s it
Labour MP and Labour Senedd member, that’s going to be a bit of a problem for the non-green activist Labour voters.
Leaders and followers. Don’t forget that history is littered with failed leaders that implemented policies that ruined the lives of their followers. Unfortunately, non-followers lives were ruined as well. Receiving the most votes in an election isn’t an indication of future success in any particular endeavor. It’s no index of leadership.
Very nice Francis, clear, short and informative.
This is important:
“Ten years before New York even entered the competition, the UK had enacted its Climate Change Act of 2008, setting an initial round of legally-binding emissions reduction targets (80% below 1990 levels by 2050). Then, in 2019 the UK upped the ante, committing by statute to “net zero” greenhouse gas emissions for its entire economy by 2050.”
Everyone can understand a reduction of 80% below 1990 emissions. No one knows what net zero is. It is past time to abolish the term net zero, it is meaningless.
For those claiming/aspiring to be climate leaders, it’s not important whether they actually are doing anything to reach their goals as long as they sound good about it. In other words, they’re following the example of the COP conferences; i.e., they don’t have to accomplish anything as long as they make it seem that they are just by showing up at the meetings.