A place for discussion.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Open Thread
111 Comments
January 4, 2026 2:09 am
Khan’t be done.
Bill Cahill, managing director of First Bus London, said his firm was committed to hitting the mayor’s challenging target but said it involved far more than simply buying new buses.
More than 2,600 of 9,000 buses in the capital are now “zero emission” – almost 30 per cent – but Transport for London says it will take until 2034 to convert the entire fleet without Government funding.
…
In an interview with The Standard, Mr Cahill said: “It’s not just about buying buses, it’s about electrifying the depots – and electrifying the depots will become progressively more difficult.
“You don’t plug an electric bus into a 13amp socket. It’s a very high voltage system that takes a lot of planning.
https://apple.news/AM-BplqYURuWJSmjZE6jgww
I hear more oil will be coming to the market. London once had a deal for Venezuelan oil through former far left Mayor Ken Livingstone and Transport for London, Courtesy of Hugo Chavez
Funny old world.
Southeast Asian countries also move to electric busses
Chinese Electric Buses Dominate Southeast Asia’s Decarbonization Push
I hear more oil will be coming to the market.
Yes, there is a predicted oil glut.
From your own link:
Chinese-made electric buses are rapidly gaining ground across Southeast Asia as governments push to decarbonize public transport and Chinese manufacturers seek growth beyond a slowing home market, according to Nikkei Asia.
https://d1o9e4un86hhpc.cloudfront.net/
China exported IRO 81,000,000 buses in 2024 of which IRO 10,000,000 were electric. In 2025 these figures are 43,000,000 and 9,000,000 respectively.
That’s a reduction, not an increase!
So China is dumping even cheaper EVs on other countries because their own people don’t want them.
Not only, but also…
Hundreds of British buses have Chinese ‘kill switch’ – The Standard
Username is keen on this stuff.
“Coal fired power remains the largest dispatchable source worldwide to 2035 with capacity set to peak at c. 2500GW.”
“Coal fired generation in S E Asia is projected to continue to rise through to 2040”
“Natural gas fired capacity also sees robust growth and overtakes coal”
“Oil demand in India is the largest of any country to 2035 and continues to rise to 2050”
Oil, coal and natural gas still dominate each providing over 150EJ of global energy demand with oil almost at 200EJ and coal c. 180EJ. Unreliables around 80EJ
IEA ‘World Energy Outlook 2025’ (Nov 2025)
If any transport can use EVs. it’s the busses. They have known routes, aren’t used on impulse and can have scheduled recharging times apart of a fleet.
Having said that, I think trolley busses with an emergency battery to get round unexpected obstacles make more sense. Batteries are generally inefficient and have a short life.
And trolley busses are cheaper to build than trams as they don’t use rails.
January 4, 2026 2:36 am
April 1st sure came around fast. What a load of …….
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15431949/pollution-trendy-wood-burning-stove-fat.html
January 4, 2026 2:49 am
I am not a meteorologist. I am an engineer by training.
So when the “climate” movement began gaining traction, spreading the expectation of “warming” due to emissions of CO2, something told me, “That can’t be right.”
One of the contradictions of the narrative was about water vapor feedback, proposed as an amplifier to the direct radiative effect of rising concentrations of CO2. But we had learned about the latent heat of water vapor, and more generally, the operation of vapor-cycle heat engines. Notably, the Rankine cycle implemented in condensing steam engines and steam turbines.
The central point for today is that the latent energy in the atmosphere at 1 inch of precipitable water is about 17,600 Watt-hours per square meter. One inch of PW is the same as 25.4 kg per square meter. Another way to express the significance of the latent energy of water vapor is that therefore the intensity of conversion to internal energy in a one-inch-per-hour rainfall event is 17,600 Watts per square meter.
So for the effectiveness of energy transport from the tropics to the poles, and from low altitude to high, the boost from additional water vapor is massive. If a 1 °C increase in air temperature involves a 7% increase in saturation vapor pressure, then do the math. A 7% increase at about 25 kg per square meter is about 1,200 Watt-hours per square meter of improved energy transport.
Was there ever a good scientific reason, from fundamental energy considerations, to expect the climate system to be perceptibly influenced from emissions of CO2, due to the single-digit-Watts per square meter static radiative effect? No. That can’t be right.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx/todays-weather/?var_id=pwtr&ortho=1&wt=1
Thank you for your interest in this matter.
This reminds me about Pat Frank’s successful emulation of CMIP5 air temperature projections in his 2019 paper, “Propagation of Error…”. His demonstration that a simplified computation from incremental “forcings” matched the model outputs was a real eye-opener for me. The “climate” “modeling” has been an inherently circular exercise all along.
Data matching algorithms trained on past data are *TERRIBLE* predictors of the future – for everything and anything. And I’ve yet to see climate science come up with a true functional relationship for future climate – they can’t even get the models to agree – but say that the average of multiple wrong models is somehow “right”.
Assuming that even one model in an ensemble is close to being accurate, there can still only be one best result. Each and every one of the inferior models that are averaged dilutes the accuracy of the average rather than improves it. The only way that averaging all the runs together can improve the accuracy is if the distribution is symmetrical about the true value. Any skewness decreases the accuracy. Yet, I have never seen anyone make the case that ensembles have a normal distribution or regression about the mean. It is an unstated, and unexamined, assumption. All the results from an ensemble could have poor skill in predicting the future and the fact that the ensemble mean tends to run warm strongly suggests that the distribution is skewed and many, if not most, are inaccurate.
An amplifier requires “new” energy to experience a growth in gain due to feedback. With no new energy, the “gain” in the system, output+feedback, remains fixed. In other words, it will be redistributed within the system but no new energy. The sun supplies all the energy in the system. Positive feedback does not generate new energy, it can only reroute portions of the existing energy.
David, I think the vid you previously published here clearly shows that anywhere that is a little bit warmer results in convection, evaporation, and advection that moves the heat to a “cooler” location rather quickly, either that afternoon or within a few days I’df the weather front is bigger than convective cells. Thus IF one assumes that there are 4 watts of CO2 forcing….all it really does is move 4 out of the incoming 240 watts to a cooler area where it will be emitted to outer space. So the “cooler area” of the planet will decrease by about 2% and about 2% of the weather readings on the planet, assuming homogenous distribution which isn’t true, will go up a degree or so by the SB equation so that the heat can get into the sky above….
Harold The Organic Chemist Says:
“CO2 Does Not Cause Warming Of Air”!
Shown in the chart (See below) are plots of the average seasonal temperatures and a plot of average annual temperature at the Furnace Creek weather station in Death Valley from 1922 to 2001. In 1922 the concentration of CO2 in air was ca. 305 ppmv (0.60 g CO2/cu. m. of air), and by 2001 it had increased to ca. 371 ppmv (0.73 g CO2/cu. m. of air), but there was no corresponding increase in air temperature at this remote desert. The simple explanation is that there is just too little CO2 in the air to absorb enough out-going long wavelength IR light to warm up the desert air. The Tavg for 2001 was 25.1° C.
Another reason there was no increase in air temperature with increasing CO2 concentration at this arid desert is the absorption of IR light is saturated. This means that increasing the CO2 concentration of above above a certain level will not result in an increase in air temperature. For CO2 the threshold level is 300 ppmv, which was the concentration of CO2 in 1920. For info on the saturation effect, see:
“The Saturation of the Infrared Absorption by Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere” by Dieter Schildknecht available at:
https://arixiv.org/pdf/2004/00708v1.
For a recent Death Valley temperature check, I went to:
https://www.extremeweatherwatch.com/cities/death-valley/average-temperature-by-year. The Tmax and Tmin data from 1960 to 2025 are displayed in table. The computed Tavg for 2025 is 26.1° C. This slight increase in air temperature is within the range of natural variation.
At the MLO in Hawaii, the concentration of CO2 is currently 426 ppmv. One cubic meter of this air has a mass pf 1,290 g and contains a mere
0.83 g of CO2. This small amount of CO2 in the air has no effect on air temperature in Death Valley. You are right to be suspicious of the claims about CO2.
PS: The chart was obtained from the late John L. Daly’s website:
“Still Waiting For Greenhouse” available at: http://www.john-daly.com. From the home page go to end and click on “Station Temperature Data. On the
“World Map”, click on “NA” and then page down to “U.S.A.-Pacific. Finally scroll down and click on “Death Valley”. Use the back arrow to return to the list of stations. Clicking on the back arrow again will redisplay the
“World Map”.
NB: If you click on the chart, it will expand and become clear. Click on the “X” in the circle to contract the chart and return to Comments.
“If a 1 °C increase in air temperature involves a 7% increase in saturation vapor pressure, then do the math.”
Sorry, no can do.
Over an air temperature range of 10-15 °C, each 1 °C increase in air temperature is equivalent to about a 6.5% increase in water saturation vapor pressure at equilibrium. However, over an air temperature range of 85-95 °C, each 1 °C increase in air temperature is equivalent to only about 3.8% increase in water saturation vapor pressure at equilibrium.
“So for the effectiveness of energy transport from the tropics to the poles, and from low altitude to high, the boost from additional water vapor is massive. . . . A 7% increase at about 25 kg per square meter is about 1,200 Watt-hours per square meter of improved energy transport . . .”
In your scenario of comparing the latent heat of condensation involved with rainfall with emphasis on “effectiveness of energy transport from the tropics to the poles, and from low altitude to high”, you have totally missed accounting for the offsetting latent heat of evaporation that is needed to add moisture content to the air at any given temperature. This is explained as being integral to Earth’s hydrologic cycle, with the total latent heat of water evaporation being in close balance with the total latent heat of water condensation over long time periods and with Earth’s total water mass being conserved.
For numerical large Q1 and numerical large Q2, when (Q1-Q2) is small the difference can still be significant compare to other independent parameters stated in the same physical units. That can be right.
People know close to nothing over water vapor feedback. Me however, well I have revealed the whole thing already..
https://greenhousedefect.com/the-holy-grail-of-ecs/how-to-flip-the-sign-on-feedbacks
“When your only tool is a thermometer…” nothing happens unless it can be measured as a thermometer reading change. If you spend all your time reading and averaging thermometers from different locations and times, then you can ignore the isothermal evaporation and condensation processes even though they involve orders of magnitude more energy than simple “specific heat”.
As an engineer with a chemistry degree it was the conflict between Beer-Lambert’s Law and the water vapour feedback that seemed off to me.
By Beer-Lambert’s law the impact of GHGs ought to be declining exponentially. And that includes the impact of water vapour.
But they never seemed to include the possibility of WV getting nearer to saturation in their models as it wasn’t affected by Beer-Lambert’s Law. That could only mean that the WV effect was being modelled as saturated and unsaturated at the same time.
Which is nonsense.
What is not commonly appreciated is that the Clausius-Clapeyron Relationship is an upper-bound on a potential that is supply-limited. That is, in particular, the continental interiors cannot supply enough water vapor by evapotranspiration to achieve the concentration predicted by the C-C Relationship. That is why North America has high deserts in the Basin and Range province and arid grasslands in the high plains.
January 4, 2026 2:57 am
Question: How many years during the period from 1999 to 2014, did NASA and NOAA describe as being the hottest year?
AI says:
“During the 1999-2014 period, NASA and NOAA identified 2014 as the hottest year on record, marking the third time in a decade (after 2005 and 2010) that a new record was set, with the trend showing most of the 10 warmest years occurring since 2000, highlighting a rapid warming streak.
Key Years Identified as Record-Breakers (within your timeframe):
2005: Became the hottest year recorded at the time.2010: Tied or slightly surpassed 2005 to become the new warmest year.2014: Became the new warmest year, breaking records set by 2010 and 2005. Context for 1999-2014:
A Significant Warm Streak: This period showcased a clear, rapid warming trend, with 1998 and all years from 2000 onward (up to 2014) making up the top 10 warmest years in the instrumental record.Data Consistency: Both NASA and NOAA independently confirmed these findings, reinforcing the long-term trend of rising global temperatures.
Now, compare these NASA and NOAA temperature Lies to the UAH Satellite chart, which shows that NONE of the years between 1998 and 2015 were hotter than 1998. So none of those years could be declared to be the “hottest year ever!’. They weren’t even close.
After the 1998, temperature high point, Hansen and NASA and NOAA expected the temperatures to continue to climb “because CO2”, but the temperatures did not continue to warm, they started to cool, and the Climate Alarmists at NASA and NOAA could not have that, which would undermine the CO2 crisis theory, so NASA and NOAA mannipulated the temperature numbers to show just the opposite of what the UAH satellite chart shows.
NASA and NOAA are lying about the temperatures.
I think a formal government investigation is warranted to expose the blatant climate change propaganda that NASA and NOAA have foisted upon the American people, causing psychological damage and economic losses because they believe the lies NASA and NOAA tell about CO2.
The Temperature Data Mannipulators started off bastardizing the regional temperature records to make things appear hotter today than they really are, and then in 1998, NASA and NOAA did another blatant bastardization of the temperature record in their efforts to promote the CO2 climate “crisis”.
Just about every year after 1998, NASA and NOAA would come out with the claim that the year was the “hottest year ever!”. They even went so far as to make successive years hotter than the previous year. By one one-hundreth of a degree! Year after year, hotter and hotter. That was NASA and NOAA’s mesage. And it is all a Big Lie, demonstrated by the UAH satellite chart.
The Trump administration needs to look into this fraud on the American people, and hold some people accountable. You have young people who are afraid to have kids because of NASA and NOAA lies about the climate and their futures. It’s criminal what NASA and NOAA have done.
NASA’s GISTEMP makes several hundred changes every
month to their Land Ocean Temperature Index LOTI
The average is almost 400 and the median is about 350.
The record available from the Internet Wayback Machine
is incomplete before 2017.
The question isn’t if the world is warming or not.
The question is about if the world is warming in a newsworthy manner or not.
And, frankly, if the weather folk weren’t working so very hard to detect the new records, we wouldn’t care.
We can adapt to the weather changes. And so does nature.
Don’t challenge the academics on their figures (except the stated confidence intervals, for rigour).
Challenge the academics on the importance of their figures.
They claim to be REAL LIFE BATMEN saving the whole world when they are actually just bean counting.
January 4, 2026 3:26 am
Cheap Solar Is Transforming Lives and Economies Across Africa
Chinese panels are now so affordable that businesses and families are snapping them up, slashing their bills and challenging utilities.
Eskom is now planning to erect large solar arrays on the grounds of shuttered coal plants. And by 2040 it intends to shift its predominantly coal-based system to cleaner sources. “That’s where the world is moving,” said Nontokozo Hadebe, Eskom’s sustainability chief.
Looks like a growth market for coal…not.
280 million e-bikes are slashing oil demand far more than electric vehicles
Speaking of bikes, let’s add something about sustainable mobility this week. And more liveable cities.
Investing in cycling pays off many times over
Numerous international cities demonstrate that a large share of cycling is possible, for example Copenhagen with a share of 28 percent, Münster with about 40 percent or Oldenburg with 43 percent.In Amsterdam, 36 percent of the inhabitants cycle on working days. However, not only large cities have great potential for cycling. In the Netherlands, there are 202 small cities where the share of cycling exceeds the car mode share.
New this year, our annual City Ratings program scored 30 European cities across nine countries, including Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain and the United Kingdom. Whether they have a long history of bicycling, like Copenhagen and Utrecht, or have just turned their focus to bicycling, like Paris and Barcelona, most cities on this list outscore their U.S. peers by double digits. What’s their secret?
How about you inform yourself on 15 minute cities before coming to conclusions
Let’s inform the one who needs informing…
ROAD blocks stopping most motorists from driving through Oxford city centre will divide the city into six “15 minute” neighbourhoods, a county council travel chief has said.
And he insisted the controversial plan would go ahead whether people liked it or not. – Oxford Mail
Bristol et al installs them in the dead of night under police protection…
‘Sneaky’ Green-led council installs LTNs at 3am under police protection
Cover of darkness used after Bristol residents opposed to the roadblocks had previously protested by lying in front of machinery – The Telegraph
As I said, Your authoritarian approach – ie 15 minute gulags etc – is naked neo-feudalism. The serfs will do as they are told – or else.
Borne out by the facts.
Beside it being a traffic calming messure that has nothing to do with the idea of 15 minute city. I also couldn’t find an official statement from the council linking those two.
From what I found:
- Beside busses, residents and cyclists could still enter
- The traffic calming messure was succesful, with people describing the streets as quieter and safer
- Those who didn’t work out like Marsh Road have been removed
What you gave me is more in line with “low traffic neighbourhoods”, “traffic calming” or concepts like superblocks (I think Barcelona is quite famous for that) and not 15-minute cities
What makes you conclude that those of us who disagree with your view of a future dystopia are unfamiliar with the proposal of 15-minute cities? Those who wear ideological blinders are poor judges of the pros and cons of significant social changes. I would be very surprised to discover that anyone has ever accused you of being deep thinker.
I cycle about as much as I drive, about 3,000 miles per year, each. But I am not young. I can ride 100 miles a day though not very fast. The way most city riders behave I fear I’d be on the ground with broken bones in the first 10 miles if I tried mixing with them at my speed.
Other cyclists are by far the most obnoxious road users I encounter (though to be fair, the pedestrians are in second place, for different reasons). In the last 20 years I’ve had exactly one adverse encounter with a motor vehicle, and it turned out it had been stolen.
Admittedly you only need one adverse encounter with a car to end up dead, but I do not look forward to bicycle-dominated commuting nor doing my grocery shopping by bike in a howling wind.
If you are unfamiliar with the comic strip Pearls Before Swine, look it up at https://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine and search for some panels featuring the ever-unrespected, Lycra-clad, helmet-wearing elitist.
I often see cyclists riding side by side- sometimes 4-5 of them, without enough common sense to stay close to the edge of the road if they hear a car approaching. I’ve had to slow down almost to nothing to get passed them – I usually will blast my horn at them too, once I get passed them. I stay close to the edge of the road when cycling and giver everyone else the right of way.
and give everyone else the right of way
And a wave. Almost all drivers wave back.
I can count on the fingers of my clenched fist the number of cyclists who acknowledge me in an average week.
I don’t know where you ride, but in the UK the Highway Code (the informal interpretation guide for the Highways Act that every road-user, including pedestrians, cyclists, and horse-riders is suppose to read) was recently revised. It happened under the supervision of Michael Gove, then minister of…something. The revised code was informed by input from the “cycling community”–the ones I described as the most obnoxious road users. They basically weaponised it.
So the conduct you describe is actually recommended now. And don’t they know it!
@MyUsernameReloaded: I think your lead paragraph is fine. A small amount of electricity probably can be very useful in a rural economy. It gives you light (via LEDs) in the evenings and probably news and music via radio. And maybe even TV if you live in range and can scrape up the cash for a set. That should be a pleasant change for areas beyond the reach of power grids. And where cash is scarce. And even if someone strung wires to your village, someone else would probably cut them down and sell the copper.
Your problem is the assumption that those benefits scale to the needs of an advanced industrial society. Solar and/or wind should work fine if you don’t need much power and not having it for a few days from time to time due to weather issues is merely an inconvenience. They are almost certainly going to work increasingly poorly the more dependent the society is on electricity. Do I think solar will work on Pitcairn Island — area about 6 square km, population about 60, no fossil fuel resource, 700km from the nearest neighbors? Probably. Do I think think they will work for Europe, California, or New York? Almost certainly not. For Canada or Siberia? You’re kidding, right?
“Chinese panels are now so affordable that businesses and families are snapping them up, slashing their bills and challenging utilities.”
Did they also buy batteries for nighttime or in the rainy season?
Sure, if I was many miles from the grid- living in a hut, I’d probably get some solar panels too- because out there I don’t need get around or do anything at night. Better than nothing I presume- but I’d be calling for the grid to deliver energy at as low a cost as possible.
But I doubt they’ll be building any factories out there with those toy solar panels.
Cycling? Sounds great- I’ve been cycling for 70 years- BUT- not in nasty weather all too common in much of the world. I have the option of using either my car or pickup. We just don’t want to be forced to depend on cycling. Improving bike lanes in American cities may result in more cycling- that’s OK- but American cities are spread out more than European cities- and nobody is going to cycle to visit their friends 100 miles away. Improved mass transit might help but that’ll take a few generations to develop. Unfortunately, in America, mass transportation is poorly developed thanks to bad governments, greedy unions, and many other reasons. It’s gotta get dependable and cheap for more Americans to want it.
Be proud of your destroyed infrastructure and never do anything to change that.
Cycling in winter is not uncommon in a lot of countries.
I can remember once driving east towards Chicago in February, in my then new Subaru; my left arm was getting cold every time a gust of wind hit the car. I had to wad up my coat and put it between me and the door to prevent the wind from getting in. After I got home I took my car to the dealer and complained about the situation and they couldn’t find anything that wasn’t up to spec.
We haven’t even talked about the wind-chill factor and what it does to exposed flesh for those states north of the Mason-Dixon line in Winter. I suspect that MUR doesn’t live in, or even have experience with extreme weather conditions — or chooses to ignore reality.
I remember my parents made the decision to move from Northern Illinois to Phoenix after they had been stranded on the highway for several hours on the way home from a company New Years Eve party in Chicago. My father only had on a sport coat and my mother was in an evening gown. My father hit a patch of glare ice, spun out into a snow bank, and the fuel line froze before he could get the engine re-started.
Certainly not the kind of weather one would want to be pedaling a bike in. I suspect that people like MUR have little experience with the real world. Only with theoretical ’15-minute cities.’
Cycling in winter is not uncommon in a lot of countries.
I’m pretty sure Michel is talking about proper, continental winter. Winter where you should think twice about leaving your house.
You don’t get a lot of love on this site but I’ve kept quiet. Your words generally tell us everything we need to know; I don’t need to point out anything to anyone. But this comment, this is special.
He has no idea what a continental winter is like. Chicago, Pittsburgh, Not to mention further west. He should go spend a winter there. To really appreciate it you need a dog. Walk it three times a day, whatever the weather, however you feel. Then you understand, and the idea that anyone would cycle through those winters is stupidity squared.
The Finnish city? Who knows. As Hume said, miracles always happen a long way away and often a long time ago too.
Numerous international cities demonstrate that a large share of cycling is possible, …
Have you ever tried to ride a bicycle on ice? Or carry the weekly groceries home in a rainstorm on a bicycle? There is often a big difference between what is “possible” and what is practical. Most of our technological innovations have resulted from an attempt to make life more comfortable, less arduous, and provide us with more leisure time. You, and those like you, would have us regress to a time more than a century ago before those labor-saving innovations came to be.
January 4, 2026 7:43 am
Remove the Earth’s atmosphere or even just the GHGs and the Earth becomes much like the Moon, no water vapor or clouds, no ice or snow, no oceans, no vegetation, no 30% albedo becoming a barren rock ball, hot^3 (400 K) on the lit side, cold^3 (100 K) on the dark. At Earth’s distance from the Sun space is hot (394 K) not cold (5 K).
That’s NOT what the RGHE theory says.
RGHE theory says “288 K (15 C) w – 255 K (-18 C) w/o = a 33 C colder ice ball Earth.”
255 K assumes w/o case keeps 30% albedo, an assumption akin to criminal fraud. Nobody agrees 288 K is GMST plus it was 15 C in 1896. 288 K is a physical surface measurement. 255 K is a S-B equilibrium calculation at ToA. Apples and potatoes.
Nikolov “Airless Celestial Bodies”
Kramm “Moon as test bed for Earth”
UCLA Diviner lunar mission data
JWST solar shield (391.7 K)
Sky Lab golden awning
ISS HVAC design for lit side of 250 F. (ISS web site)
Astronaut backpack life support w/ AC and cool water tubing underwear. (Space Discovery Center)
RGHE theory joins caloric, luminiferous ether, spontaneous generation, phlogiston, et al in the scientific trash bin of failed theories.
January 4, 2026 7:49 am
Was this battery fire posted on WUWT? Second fire at this location in New York. Story Tip
January 4, 2026 8:28 am
Found another nice one for you:
January 4, 2026 8:45 am
As we write it is close to O°C in the UK – colder in Scotland, a bit higher in the south and west.. Colder at night, a bit warmer during the day. This is the usual blocking high to the south west, which blocks warm air from the Atlantic and allows other systems to bring cold air from the Arctic.
And as we write there are people dying in the UK because they are not turning their heating on, and they are not doing that because they cannot afford to, and they cannot afford to because of the mad net zero policies that have raised UK electricity prices.
85% if UK homes have gas heat. But there are a lot of poorer people who are still using electricity for heating either wholly or as a supplement. Some estimates up to 30%.
There are people in the UK who, as we write, are literally deciding not to turn on their electric kettles to make a cup of hot tea because expense.
Net Zero in the UK: how to close down your gas industry, kill your old and poor, and save the planet, and get that lovely virtuous feeling.
January 4, 2026 8:55 am
GOODBY GLASGOW-NET ZERO
Glasgow City Council declared a climate emergency in 2019 and pursues ambitious net-zero goals by 2030, ahead of Scotland’s 2045 target, through a revised Climate Plan emphasizing rapid decarbonization. Glasgow aims for net-zero by 2030 via a “Net Zero Route Map” requiring scaled interventions in carbon removal, green jobs, and biodiversity restoration, while addressing fuel poverty and air quality.
Glasgow’s 2030 net-zero target demands an unprecedented acceleration in emissions cuts, building on past progress like a 45.7% reduction from 2006 levels by 2022, but requiring a “sharp increase in the scope, scale, and intensity” of interventions across all sectors.
Achieving this in five years necessitates profound lifestyle shifts: households face mandatory home upgrades disrupting daily routines and budgets, car-dependent residents encounter reduced parking, congestion charges, and Low Emission Zone expansions that penalize non-compliant vehicles, while meat-heavy diets and frequent air travel yield to waste reduction and active travel mandates. Gas boiler phase-outs and building decarbonization will spike energy costs initially, exacerbating fuel poverty without subsidies, forcing urban densification that curtails suburban living and long-distance mobility.
With quick wins exhausted, the plan admits reliance on sequestration alongside cuts, implying rationed consumption in heating, food, and transport to balance the math—transformative changes akin to wartime austerity, where individual freedoms yield to collective planetary imperatives.
This blueprint risks social division, with compliant urban elites thriving in walkable zones while others face rationed heat, meat, and mobility—echoing dystopian controls under the guise of salvation, where personal choices erode for unproven climate gains. Protests in Oxford and elsewhere signal rising backlash against such top-down impositions.
GLASGOW IN FLAMES?
Mass demonstrations erupt as residents, hit by soaring energy bills and vehicle bans, blockade city centers like George Square, mirroring Oxford’s 2023 uprising against 15-minute zoning; clashes with police intensify over Low Emission Zone fines, escalating to riots with arson at EV charging stations and council offices amid fuel poverty riots in winter.
Affluent suburbanites and businesses flee to car-friendly outskirts or England, depopulating Tradeston-like zones; property values crash in densified areas, triggering a brain drain of skilled workers unwilling to endure heat pump retrofits or meat rationing, leaving ghost neighborhoods policed by drones.
Online fury explodes on X and Substack, with #GlasgowNetZeroNightmare trending globally, fueling doxxing of councilors and viral hacks of city apps; non-compliance surges via black-market gas boilers and underground car meets, paralyzing enforcement and forcing policy U-turns or authoritarian crackdowns.
In the worst-case vision of Glasgow’s net-zero trajectory, enforced low-mobility zones, surveillance for compliance, and rationed resources could indeed morph compliant neighborhoods into de facto open-air prisons, trapping the non-elite while exits remain theoretically open but practically gated by fees, fines, and social credit-like penalties.
Congestion charges and LEZ expansions act as invisible bars, pricing out non-EV drivers; drone-monitored active travel paths and smart-city apps track movements, flagging “excess” carbon footprints for audits or restrictions, normalizing a panopticon where leaving your 15-minute pod incurs escalating costs.
Residents face phased lockdowns on heating, flying, and meat via digital allowances, with non-compliance risking blacklisting from jobs or services—freedom preserved on paper, but daily life confined to walkable cages under climate edicts, as mass exodus empties the compliant core.
NET ZERO ANTI-FREE ENTERPRISE
Glasgow’s 2030 net-zero blueprint, with its mandates for zero-emission operations and circular economy enforcement, could effectively strangle free enterprise by layering prohibitive regulations on small businesses and startups.
Regulatory OverloadOwners face compulsory retrofits for heat pumps and insulation, plus bans on gas appliances, ballooning upfront costs that crush margins for independent shops and cafes in zones like Tradeston; non-compliance triggers fines or shutdowns, favoring only subsidized corporate giants with ESG compliance teams.
Market DistortionsCongestion pricing and LEZ expansions deter customers driving in for deliveries or trade, while meat and waste quotas hobble butchers, restaurants, and markets—replacing vibrant local commerce with state-vetted “green” outlets, where innovation yields to bureaucratic carbon audits and digital tracking.
Economic LockdownFreelancers and entrepreneurs abandon risk-taking as Scope 3 emissions rules entangle supply chains in endless reporting, driving survivors into gig servitude under city apps; the end result: a neutered economy where private initiative bows to collective quotas, echoing Soviet-style planning under eco-guise.
January 4, 2026 3:24 pm
Another logic fail:
Colorado color-shifting animals face risks | The Jerusalem Post cries alarm about warming climate harming survival of animals like ptarmigan, snowshoe hares, and weasels.
Well gosh I say, they’ll either die out, move north, or adapt in the long term. That’s nature.
I know the rabbits and weasels in NE BC change colour seasonally, I’ve seen them there many times.
(Humans of course move to adapt to changing climate.)
Other days the flapping is about the Canadian Lynx going extinct in Coloraro, due to development.
Um, why is it called ‘Canadian Lynx’? Because it lives across a huge area to the north, much of that in Canada.
A new ski lodge in CO was burned by eco-terrorists to save the Canadian Lynx. Never mind there will still be much wilderness in Colorado.
January 4, 2026 5:39 pm
Alleged climate goons leave Germans freezing in darkness:
Climate terrorists have invaded private property in AB and BC to put solar panels on homes of elected officials.
An odd case of terrorism was bombing of an electrical transmission facility on Vancouver Island, as if the leftist group thought the ‘reactance’ power factor balancing system was a nuclear reactor. The ‘Squamish Five’ went on to bomb a defense equipment manufacturing facility in ON. Would be dangerous to bomb a nuclear reactor, though the group were not smart – they slept with old dynamite beside them thus inhaled some dust from it.
January 4, 2026 5:57 pm
Well, gosh, if climate really is warming quickly people will have to go to Finland and Norway to ski?
What did people do in the Medieval Warm Period?
