Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach (@WEschenbach on eX-Twitter)
I see that Mad Keir Starmer, the frontman for the grunge rock band performing at the current UN Climate Conference Of The Parties under the name of “The UK”, has unilaterally declared that the UK will cut its CO2 emissions by 81% from 1990 levels by 2035. I do love that it’s 81% and not 80% … but I digress.
I also note that the UK Office of Budget Responsibility estimates that the UK getting to net zero by 2050 will cost £321 billion UK pounds (~ $410 billion US dollars) … and again, I gotta laugh that it’s not £320 billion, it’s £321 billion …
Now, I’ve said at various times that folks who propose big-dollar plans to attempt to reduce future temperatures should be legally required to calculate how much cooler the world will be in 2050 IF (and it’s a big if) the IPCC estimates of the effects of CO2 on temperature are accurate.
So lets take Mad Keir’s UK plan as a test case. Here’s a look at the UK CO2 emissions record.
Figure 1. UK emissions since 1850
Looks pretty impressive, all right. They’ve cut their emissions by half since 1975. Of course, in reality the reduction is much smaller. A lot of the emissions reductions resulted from the offshoring of UK manufacturing that’s hollowed out the UK economy, so the CO2 is produced in another country and UK folks get to feel all noble.
But Mad Keir’s not talking about that, so I won’t either.
However, here’s a bit of a different look at the exact same data. This shows the UK emissions as a yellow line as in Figure 1, and the rest of the world’s emissions (less the UK) as a red line.
Figure 2. CO2 emissions, UK and rest of the world.
Now, the IPCC says that the change shown by the red line of CO2 emissions has warmed the earth by about 1.4°C … so this gives us the first intimation that the temperature change from the UK emissions will be minuscule, trivially small.
In fact, that graph makes it clear that nothing the UK does will make a measurable difference in global temperatures.
But how small exactly? To estimate how much difference the UK sacrifices will make, here is a graph of a couple of simplified possible future UK scenarios.
Figure 3. Future possible scenarios for UK emissions.
The scenario shown in blue freezes the UK emissions at the current (2022) level. The red line drops emissions to 19% of the 1990 levels by 2035 and then to net zero by 2050.
Since some folks are allergic to math, I’ve put the actual calculations as an appendix. But the results are as follows:
The difference in CO2 emissions between the blue scenario and the red scenario is about 5.5 fewer gigatonnes (Gt) of CO2 emitted by 2050.
At 17.3 Gt of CO2 emissions per ppmv of atmospheric CO2 change, that’s a change of 0.32 ppmv of CO2.
So IF (and it’s a big if) the IPCC estimates of the effects of CO2 on temperature are accurate, then all of the time and effort and stacks of money expended by UK taxpayers will result in the earth being cooler in 2050 by …
…
… wait for it …
…
… a whopping 0.003°C.
Seriously. All that wealth and human effort, all the government regulations and interference, all the suffering of the poor from skyrocketing energy costs, to MAYBE cool the world by seven ten-thousandths of a degree in 2050.
Call me crazy, but I think if everyone in the UK knew that all that Net-Zero 2050 would achieve is a POSSIBLE cooling of 0.0007°C by 2050, that idea would die instantly.
Now, Keir has said he hopes other countries will follow the UK’s lead and we can cool the world by a degree or so. To see if they’ll do that, let’s see how much it would cost to MAYBE cool the world by 1°C by 2050.
At a UK cost of $408 billion to make our lovely planet cooler in 2050 by 0.0007°C, making it 1°C cooler would cost $580 TRILLION dollars.
By comparison, the total of all the revenue collected (and often wasted or trousered) by all of the governments on this marvelous earth is about $15 trillion dollars per year … so even if every government everywhere spent every dime of their taxpayer’s money on the insane war against CO2 from today until 2050, we still wouldn’t cool it by 1° C.
And if Mad Keir thinks China, India, Russia, Brazil, or their like will sign on to that insanity, well, that’s why he’s Mad Keir. He likely thinks of it as insurance against disaster, but that’s like paying $2000 per year for years on an insurance policy that in case of catastrophe pays you $750 … just to pick a random payout number …
My warmest regards to all,
w.
THE USUAL: Please quote the exact words that you are discussing. I’m happy to defend my words. I can’t defend your re-statement of my words in a different form.
APPENDIX: First, here’s my usual trigger warning, Calvin regarding the mathiness.
With that settled, the total mass of the atmosphere is approximately 5.1 x 10^18 kg. 1 ppmv of CO2 in the atmosphere is equivalent to:
- 2.13 gigatonnes (Gt) of carbon
- 7.8 Gt of CO2 (as CO2 has a molecular weight 44/12 times that of carbon)
Approximately 45% of emitted CO2 remains in the atmosphere, while the rest is absorbed by oceans and land
So a 1 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 ≈ 17.3 Gt of CO2 emissions. And the UK change of 5.5 Gt of CO2 converts to a 0.32 ppmv decrease in atmospheric CO2
Next, under a “business as usual” scenario, by the time we get halfway to 2050 the CO2 level will be ~ 450 ppmv. The 2022 level was 425.6. Per IPCC assumptions, the average change in forcing over the period is ~ log2(450/425.6)*3.7 W/m2. The change including the UK reduction is log2( (450-.32) /425.6)*3.7 W/m2. The difference between these is the change due to the UK reduction, which is 0.0038 W/m2
Finally, the IPCC assumes a climate sensitivity of 3°C per doubling of CO2, which is 0.8°C per additional W/m2. This gives us our final figure of a POSSIBLE change of 0.003°C from the UK foolishness.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The actual climate sensitivity is less than 1C for doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels.
There is no factual evidence that CO2 other that its weight changes surface temperature. Venus has a large pressure at the surface due to a) the height of the atmosphere and b) the composition of the atmosphere which is mainly CO2 (MW of CO2 44 and air on Earth about 29). Russian authors have concluded (Russians landed a probe on Venus surface) if Venus had the same pressure as present with an atmosphere of Earth air (through higher atmospheric depth) then the surface temperature would be higher as CO2 radiates to space and not the surface while Earth air is more transparent to radiation. Nobody knows exactly what constitutes the clouds on Venus. It is possible that there is some solid CO2 particles. On Mars it is clear there is solid CO2 at the poles.
The estimated climate sensitivity is less than 1C for doubling of CO2; estimated by saner scientists than the climastrologists who came up with the 3C number. But it’s still just an estimate.
Considering it was warmer in the pre-industrial periods during the Minoan, early Roman Empire, and the High Middle Ages, when the CO2 levels are assumed to be 280ppm, then the climate sensitivity is negative per doubling of CO2. The exact magnitude may never be known but I would assume it was at least a full degree C warmer since it was noticeably warmer considering how agriculture was conducted further north and at higher elevations than we can today.
And as the probable effect from doubling CO2 is on the order of 1.2 to 1.4 C maximum, the effect of Starmer’s crusade/jihad is even less.
Just for fun, I Ran Modtran, clear sky, tropical, constant RH so allows for WV increase with T….
Hmmm, around 1.2 C warming….of course you can pick other scenarios that get you a bit more…couldn’t get a 3C case for trying….
Thanks, D. Bizarrely, the forcing is defined as what’s happening at the tropopause (upwelling minus downwelling), not at the TOA. I have no clue why, since one is measurable and one isn’t.
In any case, when calculated that way I get 2.3°C per 2xCO2, so it’s always been a mystery to me.
Regards,
w.
All they really did was shutter all their coal fired power plants and substitute expensive wind and solar and “biofuels” (burning other countries’ forests — the CO2 from which “doesn’t count” because it is ‘carbon neutral’).
Wood biofuel is not “carbon neutral”, because much heavy machinery with big Diesel engines is used to harvest and transport the timber from the forest to the processing plant such a lumber mill. Wood waste generated at the lumber mill can be turned into wood pellets, which are transported by big boat with big FF-fueled engines to the UK. After off loading the pellets from the boat, they are transported to power plant by trucks with big Diesel engines.
Before the timber can be harvested from a section of forest, an access road is constructed using heavy machinery with big Diesel engines.
It is worse. The hardwood bottomlands being clearcut to supply wood pellets to DRAX are NOT first processed at lumber mills. The whole trees are chipped and pelletized. It was a myth sold to UK that only scrap wood would be used. Plenty of online photo investigations available.
Thanks, Harold and Rud.
I drove past the DRAX plant when I was in England. The ultimate irony is the location of the plant.
As Harold pointed out, at present there’s a very, very long distance to transport the fuel from forest to DRAX. This requires a lot of fossil fuel to move the wood.
As built, however, DRAX had the shortest distance from fuel to plant imaginable.
It was a coal plant, and it was built directly on top of a coal mine. Fuel didn’t even hit the road, much less cross an ocean.
DRAX is eco-destructive green insanity at its most obvious, visible, and damaging.
Regards,
w.
It’s NOT ECO DESTRUCTIVE. It’s quality forest mgt. I don’t get why so many here just can’t grasp the truth- it’s forestry. Nobody is destroying the eco whatever. It may be stupid economics but it’s not destructive forestry. If you like wood products, then you should try liking forestry.
True Joseph, that well managed forestry has been a marvellous thing to behold for many many years, and has been so wrongly demonized by ignorant green ecofools.
However, this particular case is undoubtedly a wasteful abomination.
Greens, environmentalists, renewable energy supporters and conservationists should be having interesting discussions in Scotland.
The Scottish Government estimates 17 million trees, mainly in commercial forests, have been felled to make way for wind turbines. But in commercial forests these were mainly non-native species like Sitka, Douglas Fir and Norway Spruce. Rewilding and environmental groups don’t want the non-native trees but the ones that were there a few thousand years ago. Other groups want the land to remain open moorland or blanket bog but not grouse moor. The renewable lobby want to cover everything in windturbines, Solar PV, water for Hydro and pumped storage and batteries.
I like the idea of a repeat of the The Battle of The North Inch to see whose plan has most merit.
You’re biased because you want to maintain your forestry revenue stream – you’ve mentioned before you derive your income from forestry. Cutting down forests to toss them into the mouth of an oven is stupid. The wood should be reserved for furniture and such, or left to the critters.
Any true environmentalist would push for keeping coal plants – with better pollution controls – or CCGTs, and never would support virgin biomass power. Waste biomass is a different story, as it’s waste anyway.
… with one proviso, that any tree thinning and firebreaks that generates unmarketable lumber is fine for the pelletizer as far as I’m concerned.
“Now, the IPCC says that the change shown by the red line of CO2 emissions has warmed the earth by about 1.4°C … “
The IPCC says… but that is horse manure, because the temp increase is due to many factors, of which CO2, at 0.042% in the atmosphere, contributed less than 1%.
The 0.042% is human + natural
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/hunga-tonga-volcanic-eruption
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/natural-forces-cause-periodic-global-warming
Plants require at least 1000 to 1200 ppm of CO2, as proven in greenhouses
Many plants have become extinct, along with the fauna they supported, due to a lack of CO2. As a result, many areas of the world became arid and deserts. Current CO2 needs to at least double or triple. Earth temperature increased about 1.2 C since 1900, due to many causes, such as long-term cycles, fossil CO2, and permafrost methane which converts to CO2.
.
CO2 ppm increased from 1979 to 2023 was 421 – 336 = 85, greening increase about 15%, per NASA.
CO2 ppm increased from 1900 to 2023 was 421 – 296 = 125, greening increase about 22%
.
Increased greening: 1) Produces oxygen by photosynthesis; 2) Increases world flora and fauna; 3) Increases crop yields per acre; 4) Reduces world desert areas
The ozone layer absorbs 200 to 315 nm UV wavelengths, which would genetically damage exposed lifeforms.
.
Energy-related CO2 was 37.55 Gt, or 4.8 ppm in 2023, about 75% of total human CO2.
One CO2 ppm in atmosphere = 7.821 Gt. Total human CO2 was 4.8/0.75 = 6.4 ppm in 2023. See URLs
CO2, human plus natural, to atmosphere was 421.08 ppm, end 2023 – 418.53, end 2022 = 2.55 ppm; to oceans 2.50 ppm (assumed); to flora and other sinks 1.35 ppm; natural CO2 increase is assumed at zero.
Mauna Loa curve shows a variation of about 9 ppm during a year, due to seasons
Inside buildings, CO2 is about 1000 ppm, greenhouses about 1200 ppm, submarines up to 5000 ppm
.
Respiration: glucose + O2 → CO2 + H20 (+ energy)
Photosynthesis: 6 CO2 + 12 H2O (+ sunlight+ chlorophyll) → 1 glucose + 6 O2 + 6 H20
Plants respire 24/7. Plants photosynthesize with brighter light
In low light, respiration and photosynthesis are in balance
In bright light, photosynthesis is much greater than respiration
.
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2/co2_annmean_mlo.txt
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/new-study-2001-2020-global-greening-is-an-indisputable-fact-andhttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/05/anthropogenic-global-warming-and-its-causes/
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/summary-of-world-co2eq-emissions-all-sources-and-energy-related
https://issuu.com/johna.shanahan/docs/co2_pitch_4-3-24_baeuerle_english
.
Oceans Absorb CO2
Sea water has 3.5% salt, NaCl, by weight.
CO2 molecules continuously move from the air into sea water, per Henry’s Law
CO2 and NaCl form many compounds that contain C, O, H, Cl, Ca
They sustain flora (plankton, kelp, coral) and fauna in the oceans.
.
At the surface, seawater pH 8.1, and CO2 421 ppm, the % presence of [CO2], [HCO3−], and [CO3 2−] ions is 0.5, 89, and 10.5; “Free” CO2 is only 0.5%; CO2 out-migration is minimal, given the conditions.
The oceans are a major sink of CO2 (human + natural)
https://tos.org/oceanography/assets/docs/14-4_feely.pdf
Willis,
Human emissions are significantly higher than bandied about.
Energy-related CO2 was 37.55 Gt, or 4.8 ppm in 2023, about 75% of total human CO2.
One CO2 ppm in atmosphere = 7.821 Gt.
Total human CO2 was 4.8/0.75 = 6.4 ppm in 2023. See URLs
CO2, human plus natural, to atmosphere was 421.08 ppm, end 2023 – 418.53, end 2022 = 2.55 ppm; to oceans 2.50 ppm (assumed); to flora and other sinks 1.35 ppm; natural CO2 increase is assumed at zero.
Mauna Loa curve shows a variation of about 9 ppm during a year, due to seasons.
From where does IPCC get 3.7 W/m2 forcing factor?
Dr. Happer claims doubling CO2 has less and less warming effect.
Doubling CO2 is not possible, because there is not enough fossil fuel left over
If CO2 is growing by net 2-3ppm/year, wouldn’t CO2 levels reach double current levels in at most 200 years?
Or reach double the magic, holy level of 280ppm in at most 60 years?
Not that the level really matters to the weather. 1-2000 ppm would be great for the plants and plankton.
Not quite correct, Willis.
There were two significant existing coal mines near Drax when it started to be built after the 1974 National Coal Board “Plan for Coal”,. Those were Kellingley Mine and Prince of Wales Mine, near Pontefract.
The 1974 Plan responded to the quadrupling of oil prices by OPEC after our Arabian chums fortunately lost the Yom Kippur war in 1973. The Plan also gave the green light to the development of the Selby Coalfield Mine at Gascoigne Wood, It was planned to use mainly Coal from Gascoigne Wood, as the two older mines supplied Pontefract and Eggborough Power stations.
Note that all three mines were a significant distance away from Drax. Over 20 miles at a guess, I’d have to spend some time with maps to give accurate distances.
There are Coal seams for sure under Drax, but the most attractive Coal was to the North, heading up to York and beyond. There were five shaft sites developed, (North Selby, Riccall, Wistow, Whitemoor and Stillingfleet) in all delivering Barnsley seam Coal via two enormous drift tunnels carrying huge belt conveyors, which eventually raised up to 12.5 million tonnes of coal a year to the surface, from where, after some processing, it was transported to Drax by rail.
Of course, Drax and the coal drift mines could have been developed at the same place, but the Power Station needed access to river water for the cooling towers. Cynics said that the Mine and the Power Station were kept apart so that the Nationalised British Rail had a share of the taxpayers “investment”.
In the last days of British Coal, when both British Coal and the Central Electricity Generating Board had been privatised and British Coal was getting ready to be privatised in 1994, I worked on a feasibility study to transport coal to Drax by another massive conveyor on or near the surface. Possible, but by then John Major’s government had lost interest in indigenous, affordable and reliable energy (other than North Sea Oil) and it came to nothing.
Selby mine eventually closed in 2003.
None of this detracts from your excellent post, but it is useful to correct even trivial errors.
Thanks, Martin, appreciated.
w.
It’s most NOT bottomlands- some yes, but mostly know. There are tens of million of acres of land in Dixie that is naturally pine woods- previously cotton fields. The people here on WUWT just don’t believe when I say they are not destroying forests to be burned. Most of the chips come from well managed forests- if some is bottomlands, so what? Sure- whole trees- but not whole trees that have sawlogs or veneer logs in them. Don’t believe everything you see on the net- try talking to foresters who know the truth. Whether or not burning that wood is carbon neutral or not, who cares?
Eastern North Carolina has miles and miles of pine forest…as a US Marine Helo pilot I flew over these forest and lived nearby during the 1976 to 1993 years….we were told the land was owned by the large wood products producers…Georgia Pacific and Weyerhaeuser. The forest went on for well over 20 miles in multiple directions. They would clear cut a square mile of the forest, then in a few weeks replant it. From the air, it was very obvious of the level of growth…section by section, as they moved from one square to the next…replanted and harvested…in those years, it was also talked about, these companies worked to maximize the growth rates….lowering the time from planting to cutting from 25 years to less than 20 years. it was a very efficient operation. A true forestry operation no different from the cotton, soy beans, and sweet potatoes farms…just a bit longer between planting and harvest.
That A-to-Z operation, as you describe is true.
A friend of mine worked at Weyerhaeuser.as a VP
Except, each step throws off CO2, then comes the saw dust part, then the pellet part, then the shipping to Savannah, then the shipping to the UK, then the shipping to the DRAX plant, then, finally the burning.part.
plus the underground biomass of the clearcutting forest is emitting CO2 for many decades, as it rots away
For Brussels to claim all this is CO2 free is very far beyond hilarious
I care because burning American wood chip costs a fortune, to generate half as much energy.
And because I’m paying all the taxes for this and all the other greenie boondoggles.
Zorzin is just trying to protect the extra, compelled wood demand caused by the biomass mandate – just like farmers would try to desperately protect ethanol mandates for gasoline to keep corn prices high, regardless of the starvation and revolution across the whole world it caused soon after it started.
If the trees are harvested for purposes that are perfect for wood, awesome 👍 more power to you.
But please Joe Zorzin, don’t jump into the Drax discussion to defend it, it’s an ugly boar with a sex change and Tammy Fay Baker levels of lipstick and cosmetics.
Absolutely right.
I am very happy for forestry to provide energy if it passes even a rudimentary cost – benefit analysis.
Hey! I hate wind turbines. But if you are away out on the prairie and would benefit from a source of energy that doesn’t require a hundred miles of cable to be laid and will, when the wind blows, pump some ground water into a tank or Irrigation pond, then a windmill is just the job.
Besides, I’d miss them in dozens of ole Western movies!
IIRC: Wasn’t Drax given a huge subsidy to operate this wood pellet operation?
Yes.
Yes, but do not use the past tense. It continues to be given a huge subsidy for its wood pellet operation.
Anger? Outrage?
What for?
What product anywhere isn’t dug, mined, smelted, refined, cast/machined/sawn/chipped/assembled using fossil fuels?
Or read any outdoorsman story from 1860s right up to the modern era that unfailingly mention timber access roads into forests.
Renewable energy sources have not supplanted fossil fuels, anywhere.
Sustainable businesses cannot afford to leave most of their trucks charging substantial parts of the day.
They certainly will not like replacing EV batteries.
Nor does any of the metal/wood/servers/computers/whatever run well on renewable energy. Just ask Apple, Amazon, Google and other tech companies all learned that changing frequency, amperage and amplitude are bad for storing/retrieving data and running sensitive electronics or running CNC milling machines.
The world’s, farming, mining, industry, server farms, communications, military all depend upon fossil fuels.
Those wind farms? They are maintained and repaired by people driving fossil fuel trucks.
The same goes for solar arrays.
Those big lumber/wood/pulp/Xmas tree farms, etc. not only depend upon diesel trucks. they own or lease the land they harvest. It is their call whether they need a new road to the other side of the mountain.
You missed the point – the biomass energy industry is milking the green CO2 insanity, that’s the issue here. All kinds of subsidies and all kinds of extra costs to energy bills to enable the green insanity for a no-good, inefficient and frankly stupid purpose!
Diesel trucks are fine to haul out wood for furniture, construction, popsicle sticks but don’t pretend it’s a great and clean solution for power generation for the grid.
Not burning forests- burning wood chips coming from well managed forests. What you’re saying is fully in tune with the worst climate alarmists who hate burning anything and they hate all forestry. I don’t have an argument with the idea that it’s better to burn coal in UK power plants- but no reason to diss forestry and the burning of wood.
THE TRAVESTY OF US SOUTHEAST WOOD PELLET EXPORTS TO EUROPE
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-travesty-of-us-southeast-wood-pellet-exports-to-europe
The EU and US have declared, “Burning wood is CO2-neutral”. East Europe and the US Southeast still have significant areas with forests. Starting about 2005, major parts of these forests have been harvested by means of clear-cutting. In 2016, about 6.5 million metric ton of wood pellets will be shipped from the US Southeast to Europe for co-firing in coal-fired power plants. The EU authorities in Brussels have declared these coal plants in compliance with EU CO2/kWh standards, because biomass is renewable and the CO2 of wood burning is not counted.
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=20912
https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/wood-pellet-biomass-pollution-FS.pdf
http://euanmearns.com/wood-pellets-drax-and-deforestation/
A wood chip power plant or heating plant adds CO2 to the atmosphere through:
– Logging, which adds CO2 due to soil disturbance; vehicle transport, equipment use, refurbishments and replacements; and diesel burning
– Building the plant, which adds CO2
– Plant O & M and refurbishments and replacements, which adds CO2
– Burning wood, which adds CO2 at much higher rates/energy unit than other fuels. See table.
– Decommissioning the plant, which adds CO2
The total CO2 of above 5 items would add about 15% to the combustion CO2, and thus would require about 15% more forest area than the harvested area to reabsorb that CO2 over at least 50 years. If wood pellets were used, about 30% more forest area would be needed, as about 115 units of energy are required to produce pellets with 100 units of energy. If those wood pellets were exported to Europe, about 40% more forest area would be needed. Burning wood to produce electricity, or heat, yields more CO2/energy unit and more pollution/energy unit than any other fuel. The below table indicates only the combustion CO2.
Who gives a f*uck about CO2? If somebody thinks cutting trees for energy is a travesty, then they’re nuts. Guess what, it’s the green blob that hates forestry and cutting trees for energy.
Well, I guess it is giving a lot of foresters and transporters make a good income: thats a good part.
And trees do grow far more quickly than most realize. That’s the other good part.
The bad part:
Nature wants forests flora and fauna
Clearcutting them for pellets, as in Georgia, is a commercial enterprise that would not exist, if idiot, unelected bureaucrats in Brussels, Europe, had not declared, without evidence, CO2 of wood burning is carbon neutral, whereas, in fact, only about 30% of it is carbon neutral, on an A-to-Z basis.
Of course, if the government lapdog, truth Media tell a lie often enough, it becomes the truth in the minds of the non-thinking, feel-good, entertainment-dulled people, who apparently do not mind getting lied to, until it finally starts to hurt.
Nature does not have desires or take sides.
Burning wood puts smoke in the air. Depending on the winds and air pressure I can smell it my neighborhood, and on a couple of instances had it in the house. These days relatively few people burn wood regularly for heating, but in the past, when everyone did not only on villages and towns but also in cities, air quality was a problem.
I light my fireplace for fun less than a dozen times a year.
Burning wood in a big, commercial biomass facility will result in very little air pollution. They have to have stuff on the smokestack just like any power plant. I agree though that if you have neighbors burning wood it can be unpleasant. The newest wood stoves have to be EPA approved or most town fire departments won’t give you a permit.
Burning wood for grid power is stupid.
Is that clear enough, Joe?
We’re not complaining about forestry or throwing garbage into the flames, just insane tax dollars (pounds Sterling) waste that Drax is.
You love that huge money pit because it drives up the price of wood.
I burn wood myself, because I can keep my better half and myself warm when there are power cuts. Perhaps six or seven times a year where I live?
The cat enjoys it, too.
Indeed so. What really gets me is that the science is quite clear yet these odd people think that science is correct if there is a consensus. In reality the opposite is true. Einstein when told how many believed his theories of relativity said that was irrelevant it would only take one person to correctly find a mistake in his theory for it to be rubbished.
Not to mention importing other countries excess nuclear energy.
Don’t forget all the factories closed and people laid off. And all the nuclear power imported from France.
Yes, even if it can be done, its futile. But not only that, it cannot be done, as the last couple of weeks have shown. They have no plan to deal with intermittency, to provide power when there is a cold dark calm, as has been the case the last week or so. UK nuclear is mostly going offline in 2027/2028. The gas plan is reaching end of life and there are no replacement plans. Battery backup is unaffordable and probably not doable anyway. Hydro? Again, no plans of the scale needed.
The only possible outcome of persisting with their plans is national blackouts with no spinning reserve to get started again. And even when they get power back, its just a question of months before the next national blackout hits.
Just look at gridwatch:
http://www.gridwatch.co.uk/wind.
Or here:
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2024/11/14/wind-power-disappears-in-germany-and-uk/
Who is to blame for this coming disaster? Start with Miliband (Labour), who is the architect of the Climate Change Act 2008. But then look at Theresa May (Conservative) who strengthened it in 2019. Look at Parliament, who voted almost unanimously for the 2008 Act, and waved through the strengthening without even a vote. Look at the Liberals, and particularly at Ed Davey. Cameron and Sunak and Johnson are as much to blame as Blair, Miliband and Starmer, they could have stopped it, but would not.
It is in fact the entire political class of the UK who are to blame, taking their country off a cliff, applauded by the liberal media, led by the Guardian and the BBC, and who are all in total denial about what the inevitable and obvious result of this will be. Starmer’s posturing at COP are only the latest in a series of such posturings. None so blind as those who will not see.
They think the UK is going to set an example. It will, but not the one they expect. A terrible lesson in how not to make energy policy.
Otherwise known as the Uniparty, does not matter who you vote for and what was in the manifestos the result is the same. Starmer has picked a friend for Attorney General who believes lawyers and judges are the arbiter’s of what is lawful not Parliament, so the Climate Change Committee will rule the roost..
Bitdefender doesn’t like your links to gridwatch.
Don’t know why, as far as I know both gridwatch and Paul Homewood are perfectly legit safe sites. Been around for years.
Our politicians, civil service, media and judiciary are nearly all liberal arts bullshitters from Oxford and Cambridge (the traitor universities), and only the best English private schools, who apparently do not have any education or lived experiences of value for them to grasp even the simplest of scientific or engineering principles…. in fact most seem to have a problem with simple arithmetic… pompous, entitled, imbeciles who are wilfully ignorant.
81%
Precision implies competence among BS’rs.
https://youtu.be/II4-HnWRQK0?si=toLPUrtIOq–b82X
So, the UN / WEF / EU cabal, using their useful idiots like Starmer, Trudeau, Merkel, etc has managed to get us all debunking their announced propositions for saving the planet from climate catastrophe, while their real agenda – selective deportation of the planet – still gets to hide in plain view.
What’s Up With That?
deportationdepopulation
(the sooner I get this cataract fixed, the better 🙁 )
There is a slight nuanced difference, but that’s ok. Depopulation is deportation to morgues.
Math is hard—especially for liberals. Starmer, Biden, AOC all prove it.
Temperature? What temperature? This is all about a redistribution of wealth from wealth creators to worthy wealth consumers.
You got that right! The UNFCCC and UN COP have been doling out billions for decades. Last year the budget for COP28 was 57 billion dollars. Unfortunately, most funds are siphoned off by corrupt government officials and their cronies.
That is one of three.
Power and control is the second.
Depopulation is the third.
Keith Starmer’s Climate Madness
You’ll have Keith Moon after you…
Starlin blew it in 100 days
Glad someone got it. It was confusing some people so I changed it to “Keir”.
Best to you,
w.
The son of the factory owner .
The factory he is trying to put out of business
“Keith” is not entirely wrong…
https://www.indy100.com/politics/keir-starmer-keith-labour-party-b1848650
Some of us experiening his policies find them to be extreme left wing, verging on Stalinesque dictatorship.
I do love that it’s 81% and not 80% …
__________________________
First chuckle of my day (-:
People have problems with scale. Naturally, a person’s world view is shaped by the ‘reach’ they can wrap their head around.
If mathematics is not in your repertoire, it is unlikely that your reach is beyond a few thousand miles or a few hundred pounds. A politician’s reach is a few thousand votes and their science does not reach beyond their feelings.
A politician’s reach is into your pocket, no more, no less.
Their science comes from a teleprompter.
Western leaders, usually majoring in non-STEM subjects, are totally pissed, countries that are well run and growing fast, are run by mostly STEM people, and those STEM people see the global warming fantasy as a shakedown towards stupidity by the non-STEM folks
Hi Willis,
Just one correction. The man’s name is Keir Starmer (not Keith). Starmer was named after (Welshman) Keir Hardy who was the first leader of the left-wing UK Labour Party.
Sorry, it was a not really obvious play on Keith Moon, the drummer of the Who. Yeah, it’s a stretch. I’ve taken it out for clarity.
Thanks,
w.
Thanks Willis. Your musical jest went right over my head I’m afraid!
I’m glad you changed the name back to Keir. It avoids possible confusion for dullards like myself and (for those who know British history) emphasizes his left-wing indoctrination.
Thanks. I was unaware of the historical significance of the name “Keir”.
w.
Hardie and a Scot
I always read it as “cur” Starmer.
He is sometimes called Keith by those who disparage him. I can’t recall how he got the moniker.
Keir Hardie was a Scotif that’s who you mean.
Scot if
Hardy was a Scot.
There is an enduring myth that the Scot’s are god with money. Nothing could be further from the truth. Probably best illustrated by the Darian expedition where 20% of Scottish wealth was spunked on an overseas adventure which went badly wrong.
It led to England bailing Scotland out and essentially buying the country. Scotland now burns through roughly £10Bn every year under the Barnett formula and has the worst education, health and productivity figures in the UK.
Some notable recent Scot’s are Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron, all of them disasters for the nation.
Hi Willis,
Just one correction. The Prime Minister’s name is Keir Starmer (not Keith). Keir Starmer was named after (Welshman) Keir Hardy who was the first leader of the left-wing UK Labour Party.
While Starmer is clearly deluded to go to Baku and promote this insane policy of economic hara-kiri, the leading madman in the UK Labour Party is Ed Miliband who Starmer has appointed as “Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero of the United Kingdom”. Even Ed Miliband’s title is an oxymoron.
Thanks, Richard. See my answer just above.
w.
The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero was, of course, the creation of Starmer’s unlamented predecessor, the pretend Tory Rishi Sunak. This madness runs deep across all the established parties in the UK Parliament.
A Scot and Hardie
In reality he is Secretary of State for Net Zero Energy Security.
When will these morons stop ruining our country?
Chris
I like that the background for figure 2 is the White Cliffs of Dover. The White Cliffs being pretty much CO2 in solid form.
“Stuff” has to be made somewhere.
If people in the UK still want “stuff”, then all they are doing is destroying their own industry and moving the CO2 emissions to somewhere else.
This will likely INCREASE the amount of CO2 used in supplying “stuff”..
… so even under the imaginary warming principle, would lead to an increase in the imaginary global temperature.
The other option is that people in the UK have less “stuff” and still be happy… except they won’t be.
Thank you Willis for this excellent analysis.
As if building thousands of those ‘bat-chomping, bird-slicing eco-crucifixes’ (James Delingpole) will have some apotropaic effect on UK weather, it is regression to a medieval mindset.
Oooh, a new word, love it.
ap·o·tro·pa·ic
/ˌapətrəˈpāik/
adjective
That describes climate alarmism to a T.
Thanks, Chris, well done.
w.
You’re very welcome Willis, I made a note of it when I came across it in a crossword and knew I could use it apropos of CC at some time.
More madness….
The chancellor wants to seize control of local government pension pots, to invest, mainly, it can reasonably be guessed, in the green madness.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gve4d8jljo
What could possibly go wrong?
Instead of trying to reduce the temperature by reducing CO2 emissions, why don’t they simply adjust the temperature. They can do it for the past, why not for today and tomorrow. All targets met at no cost.
I recommend only measuring temperature inside climate-controlled residences. If they want to report the temperature of sun-baked asphalt at the equator in summer (a recent alarmist favorite), I don’t see how air-conditioned interior spaces are any less relevant.
There would be an initial ~5C jump (sorry Paris), but I suspect you’ll find the temperature remarkably stable over many centuries afterwards.
I read a science fiction story some years ago.
To affect local weather, create low pressure to draw in moist air to help with a drought, the got a bunch of heat pumps and modified the heat exchanges. The added transmissions dishes coated in aluminum. The idea was that aluminum would emit IR in the atmospheric window frequencies and thus remove the heat.
I do not know if aluminum can radiate at that frequency. I did not bother to look it up. Given the apparent temperature of heat exchanger and the black body calculations it is likely the peak emissions will be in the window.
The first point is, it should not be difficult to take waste heat (think steam turbine electrical generators) and convert it to EM energy at the right frequency as opposed to dumping the heat into the environment.
A couple years ago I calculated, based only on coal, that the electricity produced dumped thermal energy into the environment to raise the temperature of the first 105 feet above ground level by 1C, world wide.
The second point is, generating electricity be it nuclear or hydrocarbon dumps heat into the environment that adds to the solar energy. I have yet to see anyone considering the energy generation heat effect in the context of climate discussions.
Nicely done W.E.
Getting here late, I did not see the “Keith” thing. However, the real Keith Moon (according to Wikipedia) “ was noted for his unique style of playing and his eccentric, often self-destructive behaviour.” – – – Just like current British politicians.
Substitute CO2 for witches and the situation echoes:
Witch trials in the early modern period – Wikipedia
Starmer is actually disparagingly known as “Keith”.
Barmy Starmy?
The argument that a nation’s CO2 emissions are too small to matter could be used by up to180 nations, out of 195.
According to most recent data, the top 10 CO2 emitting nations account for roughly two-thirds of global CO2 emissions, with China being the largest emitter, responsible for around 32% of total emissions.
Currently about 20 nations out of 195 claim to be taking net zero seriously. They exclude China and India. The 20 nations only include about 1 billion of the world’s 8 billion population. They are the fastest growing populations too.
Botton Line”
There is no evidence that CO2 emissions will stop rising. Annual CO2 emissions may not decline before, or after, 2050
UK benefits from the warmer winters and better plant growth from more CO@ur momisugly AND GLOBAL WARMING>
Its a mistake to hold China responsible for the emissions when the products they produce are exported and form highest global imports for most countries. Its biting the hand that feeds you.
The current Oz government (Labor = US Democrat) wants us to follow the ‘lead’ of the UK in order to be at the forefront of carbon (dioxide) reductions.
The pro-CAGW crowd appear to wish to be the lead lemming without seeing, or ignoring, the cliff ahead
Very nice Willis. CAGW is pure madness.
I get the impression that for a person to be elected prime minister or its equivalent in any western European country, he/she has to be a climate alarmist; otherwise, his/her chances are non-existent. It seems that European voters are just as culpable because they seem to be consistently willing to install governments that will cost them more more in environmental levies and general lifestyle restrictions while producing just as few emissions reductions.