Renewable energy rent-seekers are clearly rattled by the Supreme Court decision, that forced a wind farm operator to shut down all of its turbines at night-time and ordered substantial damages in favour of the plaintiffs for the pain and suffering, already caused to its victims.

Being forced to limit the operation of wind turbines to the daytime only, has wrecked the wind industry’s business model in Australia by preventing them from collecting Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) around-the-clock, a permanent loss in the order of tens of $millions, annually. It’s also opened them up to criminal prosecutions for defrauding the Australian Commonwealth; including obtaining $millions in RECs by deceptively claiming to be compliant with the noise conditions of their planning permits.

Predictably, the big end of town law firms that act for these villains, have been forced to recalibrate their advice. Until the Bald Hills decision, firms like Herbert Smith Freehills (HSF) gave their wind power outfit clients bullish advice about their ability to destroy lives and livelihoods, with impunity. Now, the suits clocking up $750 an hour for their prognostications about their client’s potential liability to neighbours have been forced to have a good, hard rethink about the common law tort of nuisance. [Note to Ed: isn’t that their day job?]

Properly advised, the operator of the Bald Hills wind farm would have settled with all of the original 13 plaintiffs and not allowed the case to run to judgment; a judgment that will allow the wind industry’s victims around the world to punish it for the noise torture they dish out on a nightly basis. The 11 who settled, pocketed figures of more than $2m for each affected household. But the last two, John Zakula and Noel Uren, rejected the cash and decided to take it all the way and teach their tormentors a lesson about human dignity and decency, and the long recognised legal right to sleep comfortably in your very own home. In that respect, every wind farm neighbour owes them an eternal debt of gratitude.

What’s set out below by a team from HSF, is a “don’t panic” précis of the decision delivered on 25 March 2022 by Justice Melinda Richards of the Victorian Supreme Court – that slapped an injunction on the Bald Hills wind farm preventing operation of the turbines at night, because the noise they generate has been driving neighbours nuts for seven years, and the operator did absolutely nothing to relieve their suffering, despite hundreds of complaints.

The gang from HSF are clearly still keen to convince their clients that all is well (provided they keep throwing money into the HSF trust account) so there are quite a few significant omissions. STT will help fill in the gaps with our commentary on the HSF commentary, which appears in square brackets.

Wind farm noise may be a nuisance – but compliance remains a critical issue
HSF Notes
Heidi Asten, Melanie Debenham, Madeline Simpson, Rebecca Davie,  Henry Materne-Smith
12 April 2022

The Victorian Supreme Court has found that intermittent noise from Bald Hills Wind Farm at night was a nuisance, and awarded damages, aggravated damages in light of the past management of the complaints, and an injunction (stayed for 3 months) to prevent further noise nuisance.

The case is significant in confirming that intermittent noise may be a nuisance even if compliant with the regulatory regime, although the specific permit conditions for Bald Hills and different regulations that now apply to wind farms in Victoria mean that this decision cannot be directly translated to other circumstances.

Uren v Bald Hills Wind Farm Pty Ltd [2022] VSC 145 (25 March 2022)

Snapshot

• The decision underlines that operational wind farm noise may constitute a common law nuisance where it impacts on a neighbour’s ability to sleep, including where the nuisance is intermittent. Intermittent nuisance may arise even where the wind farm is complying with the regulatory regime and permit conditions.
• However critically in this case, the Court found that the wind farm had not demonstrated compliance with the regulatory regime, including because the Court did not agree with the interpretation of the applicable acoustic standard relied on by the wind farm’s experts. Although compliance will not necessarily mean that there is no nuisance, the Court noted that it would have carefully considered this if compliance over time could be demonstrated.
• Each jurisdiction around Australia has its own regulatory regime, with its own challenges. There is no nationally consistent noise standard. However similar complaints are arising in other jurisdictions. Nationally, the Bald Hills decision highlights that non-compliance with the applicable regulation and noise standards creates a dual risk of statutory liability as well as private nuisance actions.
• Similar cases are being brought in other jurisdictions. In Queensland, for example, proceedings currently before the Supreme Court involve a neighbour alleging common law noise nuisance and breach of a condition of a development approval as well as misleading and deceptive conduct on the part of the acoustic engineering firm engaged by the wind farm owner to undertake noise predictions and modelling as part of its application for approval. The matter is still before the court and yet to be decided.
• Neighbour agreements remain an important project tool to address statutory and common law liability in relation to wind farm impacts. This case is a good reminder to check neighbour agreements and also to carefully investigate noise complaints.

Some key aspects of the decision and implications are explored further below.

What happened?

Noise complaints regarding Bald Hills Wind Farm had arisen since 2015 when the wind farm commenced operation. A complaint under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 led to a resolution of Council in 2019 that there existed a nuisance of the kind alleged by the complainants, but that the nuisance existed only intermittently. Of the further steps available under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act, the Council resolution found that the matter was better settled privately. The wind farm was unsuccessful in seeking judicial review of Council’s resolution.

The current proceeding related to a claim for common law nuisance, with 10 of the 12 plaintiffs resolving their claims before the trial.

[There were 13 plaintiffs in all – when the action started there were 6 plaintiffs, who were later joined by another 7. Over time, their Solicitor, Dominica Tannock was able to settle the claims of 11 of her clients on very favourable (confidential) terms – those who settled pocketed figures of more than $2m for each affected household.]

Having found that there was a substantial and unreasonable interference with the acoustic amenity of the two plaintiffs’ properties, in particular their ability to sleep, and that this was a nuisance, the Court awarded:

• To the first claimant who no longer resides near the wind farm, $46,000 (general damages for loss of amenity) plus $46,000 (aggravated damages);
• To the second claimant, $84,000 (general damages for loss of amenity) plus $84,000 (aggravated damages);
• An injunction restraining Bald Hills Wind Farm from continuing to permit noise from wind turbines on the wind farm to cause a nuisance at the second claimant’s house at night, and requiring it to take necessary measures to abate the nuisance. The wind farm has 3 months to remedy the issue before the injunction takes effect. The Court noted it would have awarded additional damages if it had not granted the injunction.

Role of acousticians and the Court

A key element was interpretation and application of the New Zealand Standard 6808:1998 Acoustics – The Assessment and Measurement of Sound from Wind Turbine Generators (1998 Standard), which applies to operational noise from Bald Hills Wind Farm. Some of these issues are different under the updated 2010 version, which applies to many Victorian wind farms.

Relevantly, the Court scrutinised the methodology and findings of early compliance reporting and the current compliance assessments. The Court held that the proper interpretation of the 1998 Standard is for a court or tribunal adjudicating a question of permit compliance; it is not a matter for acoustic experts. The assessment by the wind farm’s expert did not accord with the Court’s interpretation of the 1998 Standard, and the Court found that the assessment did not demonstrate that the wind farm was in compliance.

[No, the court’s findings were not so limited and depended on the fact that in its reports, Marshall Day Acoustics (MDA) demonstrated the peculiar ability of wind industry acoustic consultants to obtain lower recorded noise levels at neighbour’s homes AFTER a wind farm is built and wind turbines start operating.

Her Honour held: “MDA reached the remarkable conclusion that the noise levels at both residences were lower overall than the background levels used for comparison. No-one from MDA was called to explain these findings. They were plainly not tenable. It is simply not possible that it became quieter at either Mr Zakula’s house or Mr Uren’s house after the wind turbines started operating in March 2015.”

The other clever trick played by the operator, in this case, was withholding the raw data from the plaintiffs’ acoustic experts, Dr Bob Thorne and Les Huson. Whereas, they were happy to provide the raw data to their own expert witness, Chris Turnbull, the plaintiffs’ acoustic experts were deliberately deprived of the opportunity to assess and review that data.

Her Honour was scathing about that conduct: “The questions explored during the experts’ evidence included what filtering [meaning the deletion of large tracts of relevant noise data by MDA] was applied by MDA to its background and operational sound level measurements used to assess compliance with condition 19(a). Dr Thorne and Mr Huson both said that they did not know how MDA had filtered its background data, because they had never seen MDA’s datasets. Mr Turnbull volunteered that he had asked for and analysed the raw background data for locations 19, 61 and 66, and had satisfied himself that they had applied the same filtering to both pre-construction and operational data. Dr Thorne was ‘stunned’ to learn that this raw data had been given to Mr Turnbull, when he had asked for the same information 18 months previously and it had never been provided. The raw background data was apparently not discovered by Bald Hills, or produced by MDA in answer to a subpoena served on it in May 2020. The raw data files were belatedly produced by Mr Turnbull during the trial, in response to a subpoena for production served on him in June 2021. It is unsatisfactory that Dr Thorne and Mr Huson did not have timely access to relevant data, and had no opportunity to analyse it while preparing their reports or before giving evidence. In those circumstances, it would be unfair to the plaintiffs to accept Mr Turnbull’s opinion based on that data.”

MDA was not a defendant in the action and, did not present a single one of its consultants, employees or staff as a witness. Funny about that!]

Role of the Minister for Planning and the Court

Bald Hills argued that, because the permit condition required compliance with the 1998 Standard ‘to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning’, the Minister is the ‘final arbiter’ of compliance with condition 19 of the permit and ‘the Court could not go behind the Minister’s expression of satisfaction that the wind farm had demonstrated compliance’. In this case, Bald Hills had received a letter from the Minister stating that the wind farm was compliant at a particular point in time.

The Court found that the permit condition reference to the Minister’s satisfaction ‘indicates that the Minister is to be the responsible authority for monitoring and enforcing compliance’ with the condition, but that the Tribunal or Court is still the arbiter of compliance, rather than the Minister.

[Any assertion by the Minister would have been based on a series of fictions and tantamount to fraud, given that the defendant wind farm operator could not establish compliance with the noise condition of its planning permit, even with the clever tricks played by MDA – deleting and manipulating its noise data – and with the help of its ‘star’ acoustic expert witness, Chris Turnbull.]

Application of the 1998 Standard and permit conditions in achieving the purpose of protecting sleep

A key complexity arises from the approach of the 1998 Standard in assessing compliance with noise limits over time, compared with a specific condition in the Bald Hills planning permit that addresses compliance at night. The Court was concerned about intermittent loud noise interrupting sleep, even if overall compliance with the 1998 Standard was achieved.

Partly this complexity arises from the specific permit conditions applicable to Bald Hills.

[Any complexity about compliance arises from the fact that MDA destroyed and/or manipulated data and, in the end, the defendant could not present a shred of credible evidence to show that the noise generated by the wind farm satisfied the noise conditions of its planning consent. Quite simple, really.]

Compliance is not necessarily a defence to nuisance

The Court held that demonstrated compliance with the 1998 Standard and the planning permit ‘would not necessarily have established that the noise that from time to time disturbed [the claimants’] sleep was reasonable’ and therefore incapable of being a nuisance. Crucially, conclusions about average sound levels over time do not ‘negate’ variable and intermittently loud noise from the wind farm.

The Court’s approach indicates that particular instances of loud noise can still be substantial and unreasonable interference, therefore creating a nuisance.

However, the Court did state that if the wind farm had been able to demonstrate permit compliance at either dwelling the Court would have found that relevant (but ‘not determinative’) in assessing whether there is a nuisance. The Court was also influenced by there now being updated methodology in the 2010 NZ Standard and lower night noise limits in other States. The Court stated that it would nevertheless ‘also have taken into account that it is a matter of judgment whether 40 dB or 35 dB is an acceptable noise limit for rural dwellings at night, and that Victoria is the only Australian state that has adopted the higher limit.’

[Not precisely, no. All wind farm noise standards or guidelines are irrelevant when it comes to determining the actual noise effects on neighbouring residents. They were written by the wind industry’s pet acoustic consultants, including Chris Turnbull of Sonus and designed to allow wind turbines to be built less than a kilometre from homes. They exclude the effects of the low-frequency component of noise by exclusively using the dBA weighting; averaging noise levels so as to remove the pulsing, low-frequency content generated by turbines; and the so-called filtering of noise data by the acoustic consultants engaged by wind farm operators. Note again the remarkable ability of MDA to obtain lower recorded noise levels at neighbour’s homes AFTER a wind farm is built and wind turbines start operating. As to the utter irrelevance of wind farm noise guidelines and standards, including the NZ standard being discussed in this case, see the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, Waubra Foundation v Commissioner of Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission [2017] AAT discussed in detail here.]

Relationship and response to claimants is important

The Court was critical of the way in which the successive wind farm operators had responded to the complaints over time. Ultimately, the Court found that the manner in which Bald Hills has dealt with the plaintiffs’ complaints warranted an award of aggravated damages.

The approach to tonality was a key issue and the Court was critical of the length of time the wind farm had known about the tonality issue but not actioned a long term remedy.

Further, a number of ex-plaintiffs gave damaging evidence for the plaintiffs, despite having settled their own claims. Among other things, it led the Court to find that the plaintiffs were not hypersensitive or over-reacting.

[The defendant, as is typical of wind power outfits everywhere, began gaslighting its victims from the very beginning. For a rundown on their appalling treatment by the operator, see our post here: Supreme Court Exposes Wind Industry’s Appalling Treatment of Wind Farm Neighbours]

What does this mean for other wind farms in Victoria?

Many Victorian wind farms are required to comply with the updated 2010 NZ Standard, rather than the 1998 Standard, and many wind farm permits have specific conditions that will bring nuance to assessment of compliance and nuisance in each case. The nuisance complaint and investigation process used in Bald Hills ceased to apply to operational wind farm noise from July 2021. All Victorian wind farms are also now required to comply with the Environment Protection Act 2017 and Environment Protection Regulations 2021 (the EP regime).

Under the EP regime, compliance with the ‘general environmental duty’ is required, in summary to minimise the risk of harm to human health including psychological health from noise, so far as reasonably practicable. An operator of a wind farm also has a duty to ensure that operational noise complies with the noise limits in the relevant standard, and to manage and review wind farm noise. Compliance with these requirements is a way that operators can comply with the general environmental duty.

The EP regime also provides that where wind farm noise is not compliant with the applicable noise standard, this is ‘unreasonable noise’ as defined in that regime. Of relevance then, where the 2010 NZ Standard is expressed as having been designed to ensure ‘reasonable’ amenity at neighbour receptors, and a wind farm can demonstrate compliance such that the noise is not ‘unreasonable’ under the EP regime, it remains to be determined whether, and in what circumstances, a Court would nevertheless conclude that wind farm noise is ‘unreasonable’ in a way that would constitute a common law nuisance.

Wind farm operators should therefore continue to comply with the applicable noise standard, and review and manage wind farm noise in accordance with the EP regime. Aspects of the Court’s decision regarding methodology may have implications for how the 2010 Standard is applied for other wind farms and should be carefully considered.

Noise management plans to be required under the EP regime include a requirement for addressing noise complaints, and this investigation and response will continue to be important where applicable.

[The key point of Justice Richard’s decision is that proving compliance with the so-called noise standards (whatever they might be) does not exonerate a wind farm operator if they wreck people’s ability to sleep comfortably in their own homes at night. That’s been the common law position for nearly 2 centuries and the gang from HSF might dust off their old torts textbooks and brush up on the law of nuisance and sleep: “a man is entitled to sleep during the night in his own house”: Halsey v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd [1961] 1 WLR 683 at 701.]

What does this mean for other States?

The Bald Hills decision is not binding on other States but it sets an interesting precedent.

In NSW, the regime for assessing and regulating wind farm impacts is different. In respect of noise impacts, there is less weight on the NZ Standard, with noise assessment being undertaken in accordance with the South Australian EPA Wind Farms Environmental Noise Guidelines 2009. There is a strong reliance on individual negotiations and neighbour agreements. That said, the legal principle is the same – that compliance with regulatory requirements and conditions of consent does not preclude common law nuisance claims.

Similarly, in Queensland, the outcome in Bald Hills means that wind farm operators should carefully investigate any noise nuisance complaints. Even if fully compliant with relevant conditions of a development approval issued under the Planning Act 2016 (Qld) for the wind farm, the specific noise restrictions contained in the State Code 23 – Wind Farm Development and the provisions of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Policy 2019 (Qld), this may not necessarily be a defence to a claim for common law nuisance. Operators should take steps to address the complaint and ensure that the wind farm is not causing a substantial and unreasonable interference with the acoustic amenity of a complainant’s property to mitigate this risk of a successful claim for common law nuisance.

Wind farm operators should also follow the Mt Emerald Wind Farm proceedings currently before the Queensland Supreme Court and consider what any decision ultimately means for their operations. In these proceedings, a neighbour alleges common law noise nuisance and breach of a condition of a development approval as well as misleading and deceptive conduct on the part of the acoustic engineering firm engaged by the wind farm owner to undertake noise predictions and modelling as part of its application for approval.

[What the team from HSF fails to mention about the Mt Emerald wind farm case is that the “acoustic engineering firm” being sued is none other than Marshall Day Acoustics (MDA), the same characters who deleted and manipulated the noise data at Bald Hills, and who decided not to present a single one of its acoustic consultants as a witness to defend its work there.

MDA’s hesitance to pop one of its consultants in the witness box was probably because it might have been a tad difficult to convince a Supreme Court Judge that “it became quieter at either Mr Zakula’s house or Mr Uren’s house after the wind turbines started operating in March 2015.”

And the Bald Hills is not the only place where MDA has destroyed data and/or written false reports claiming that the wind farm in question was in compliance with the conditions of its planning permit. MDA has been pulling stunts like that at Waubra and Cape Bridgewater since 2006. So, on its present form, STT wouldn’t be betting on MDA slipping the noose in the Mt Emerald case.]

In Western Australia, wind farm developments typically have few nearby neighbours and therefore face less acute risks in relation to operational noise. Nevertheless, non-compliance with the regulatory regime and noise standards presents dual risks pursuant to the offence framework under those regimes as well as private nuisance. Noise modelling and the defensibility of methodologies adopted is important not only in approval processes but subsequently during operation.

Recommendations for wind farm developers and operators

Our key messages for wind farm developers and operators from the decision in Bald Hills are:

• take state-specific advice about opportunities to minimise the risk of a common law nuisance claims;

[or better still, retain lawyers who understand the common law tort of nuisance, including the well-settled principle that “a man is entitled to sleep during the night in his own house”.]

• consider any acoustic expert advice or review required in relation to compliance or reasonableness of operational noise;

[retain any other firm than MDA, and ensure that the firms you do engage don’t destroy or manipulate data or share MDA’s remarkable ability to obtain lower recorded noise levels at neighbour’s homes AFTER a wind farm is built and wind turbines start operating.]

• carefully investigate any noise nuisance complaints;

[stop gaslighting, bullying, berating and lying to your victims. Start treating them like human beings, rather than wind industry roadkill, as you’ve been doing for the best part of 20 years.]

• implement necessary steps to ensure compliance with the regulatory regime in the relevant jurisdiction and any project-specific conditions of approval; and

[if you are trying to claim compliance, then don’t rely upon the likes of MDA. But, here’s a thought, instead of claiming compliance with the so-called ‘standards’, why not listen to your victims and treat them with respect, according to law?]

• check neighbour agreements (operational and pro forma for future projects) to ensure they appropriately address common law nuisance liability.

[note that under these agreements, neighbours are required to literally sell their souls for somewhere between $5,000 to $10,000 a year, giving up their right to complain about the wind turbine noise that will inevitably torment them, being gagged about the agreement itself, and relinquishing their right to sue in nuisance.

Anyone who has entered such a monstrously one-sided arrangement might well seek to have a Court set the agreement aside on the basis that they were lied to by the operator about the actual noise impacts they would experience, thereby entering an agreement based on misleading and deceptive conduct. The Bald Hills case provides them with a great starting point. It also provides neighbours with a very good reason to not enter these so-called ‘good neighbour agreements’, in the first place.

If you think that wind farms make good neighbours, we suggest you read the summary of the evidence given by the victims at Bald Hills in our post: Landmark Decision Vindicates Victims: Supreme Court Orders Total Wind Farm Shutdown.]

HSF Notes

The Week That Was: 2022-04-23 (April 23, 2022)
Brought to You by SEPP (www.SEPP.org)
The Science and Environmental Policy Project

Quote of the Week: “Science is a process for learning about nature in which competing ideas about how the world works are measured against observations.”
“I would rather have questions that can’t be answered than answers that can’t be questioned.”
“If there is something very slightly wrong in our definition of the theories, then the full mathematical rigor may convert these errors into ridiculous conclusions.” – Richard Feynman.

Number of the Week: Up to $10 Trillion

THIS WEEK:

By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)

Scope: On the blog by Donna Laframboise, emeritus Professor of Mathematics and Physics Christopher Essex has posted an essay discussing the severe problem the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has experienced in its efforts to attribute global warming / climate change to greenhouse gases. This problem, a critical deficiency, underlies the work of the followers of the IPCC including the US National Climate Assessments and the 2009 EPA Endangerment Finding that increasing greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, endanger public health and welfare.

Very unfortunately, and very critically important, is that the IPCC cannot present any clear scientific facts that such gases actually produce their claimed warming causing climate change. Even worse, the IPCC cannot rationalize their draconian predicted impacts of climate change based on anything except highly suspect climate models, which are so limited and flawed that they cannot produce any predictions that match existing factual results, let alone credible future warming predictions. These deficiencies stem from fundamentally faulty mathematics and are illustrated by the recent efforts of the UN IPCC to change their global climate modeling, thus undermining their own earlier work and predictions. This creates a situation where nothing the IPCC has projected is credible anymore if it ever was. The nature of this fundamental problem is discussed below.

The three quotes from Richard Feynman making up the Quote of the Week apply particularly well to the work by Essex.

The problem leads to the need for an upper bound analysis such as that presented by The Right Climate Stuff Team (TRCS) and, recently, by Atomic, Molecular, and Optical (AMO) physicist Howard Hayden. The advantages of the Hayden approach over the TRCS team approach are discussed.

Last week, TWTW discussed an essay by Roy Spencer on atmospheric carbon dioxide measurements at Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii. The essay led to comments some of which are discussed below.

The UN IPCC and the US National Climate Assessments ignore the tremendous benefits of atmospheric carbon dioxide enrichment, making their reports particularly one-sided, politically biased government reports. Craig Idso presents a new review on studies showing that carbon dioxide increases plant productivity, particularly in C3 plants which include most crops and all trees.

**************

The Closure Problem: Very unfortunately, and very critically important, is that the IPCC cannot present any clear scientific facts that such gases actually produce their claimed warming due to climate change. Even worse, the IPCC cannot rationalize their draconian predicted impacts of climate change based on anything except highly suspect climate models, which are so limited and flawed that they cannot produce any predictions that match existing factual results, let alone credible future warming predictions. These deficiencies stem from fundamentally faulty mathematics and are illustrated by the recent efforts of the UN IPCC to change their global climate modeling, thus undermining their own earlier work and predictions.  This creates a situation where nothing the IPCC has projected is credible anymore, if it ever was. The nature of this fundamental problem is discussed below.

Correspondingly, in modeling if a system has more unknowns than independent, defining equations there is no unique solution. Games can be played, but these can include imaginary numbers and similar constructions that do not give a realistic solution. Furthermore, if a modeling system does not have a unique solution, one cannot disprove it using the same system. But one can show that it is inconsistent with reality.

During the winter months, meteorologist Joe Bastardi of WeatherBELL Analytics has repeatedly noted that numerical weather models do not pick up cold waves. In this sense, they are not suitable for forecasting the weather.

Fittingly, Essex begins his essay “Can Computer Models Predict Climate?” with a discussion that the temperature of the surface of the Earth can hit low temperatures comparable to the low temperatures of the surface of Mars due to cold waves in the Earth’s atmosphere. Decades of climate modeling have been focused on the warming effect of greenhouse gases and yet have missed the reality of the atmosphere. The modelers deal with an imaginary atmosphere and ignore testing their models against the real one.

Starting with his section “Feynman, Experiment and Climate Models” Essex writes:

“‘Model’ is used in a peculiar manner in the climate field. In other fields, models are usually formulated so that they can be found false in the face of evidence. From fundamental physics (the Standard Model) to star formation, a model is meant to be put to the test, no matter how meritorious.

“Climate models do not have this character. No observation from Nature can cause them to be replaced by some new form of model. Instead, climate models are seen by some as the implementation of perfect established classical physics expressed on oracular [prophesizing] computers, and as such must be regarded as fully understood and beyond falsification. In terms of normal science, this is fantasy.

“Modern critics of climate models cite a famous remark of the physicist Richard Feynman: ‘It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.’ Those critics imagine models as theory, and observations as experiment. No knowledgeable model builder believes that climate models capture all features of the system well. As such they disagree with observations. However, they do not violate Feynman’s edict because climate models are no theory for climate, and observations of an uncontrolled system are no experiment. Feynman was speaking in the context of controlled physical experiments, which cannot be done for climate.

Actually, Feynman later broaden his approach to include observations from nature, not just experiments. See quote of the week.

“If a climate model disagrees with data, in principle the sub-grid-scale (more below) of ad hoc climate models can be adjusted to make it agree. Fortunately, good model builders resist the temptation to overdo such tuning. However, they may do things inadvertently like tune models to be more like each other than like the atmosphere and oceans.”

“Extreme Computing in Search of Climate

“Extreme conditions can compromise any computer calculation, despite popular faith otherwise. Sharp transitions on boundaries, extreme gradients, and extremes in density are examples. There are also extremes that are often overlooked, e.g., an extreme of time. Direct computation of the meteorological physics for long timescales is an extreme in time. Integrations of classical physics on computers for climatological timescales are unique and unprecedented. Like other forms of extreme computation, there are consequences.” [Boldface added]

Essex discusses errors that occur in rounding off, truncation and symmetry. He writes:

“The third type of error [symmetry] tells us that the actual computer model equations that take us into the future will usually conserve different things than the original equations. The conservation laws from the original mathematics are broken and replaced with something artifactual. For example, consider a simple numerical treatment of a pendulum. Typically, such numerical treatments do not conserve energy, even though the original equations do. For long times, the amplitude of the pendulum can grow (unphysically) with time because the energy grows instead of being constant in the numerical system. Note that there are conservation laws, due to symmetries, in dissipative systems too.”

“The significance for long term forecasting is clear. The only tie the present has to the future, through fundamental equations, is in terms of change relative to those properties that are preserved over time. Change those properties; change the prescribed future. Such change can accrue over long timescales.” [Boldface added]

Here we see part of the problem with the Climate Crisis and the Endangerment Finding. They are built on what might happen, not on what is actually occurring. To further complicate the issues, in the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4, 2007) on which the EPA Endangerment Finding is based, the climate modelers recognized the models were unstable and have shifted the models by stabilizing them, and thus undermining the rationale for the Endangerment Finding. Essex writes:

“In contrast, modern versions are so stable that nothing happens unless pushed from the outside. Models exhibit no natural variability over long times (white spectra). But instability is also a real-world property. Are computational stabilization schemes too aggressive, throwing the baby out with the bath water? Have they encountered computational over-stabilization? [reference 4 (not shown)] Is their long-term stability a bug or a feature? Some modelers believe the latter. They believe that models have discovered what climate is. Thus, they contend that climate is a “boundary value problem,” as startup conditions no longer matter in the long term. If true, an observer living on climate timescales would experience no variability – nothing analogous to weather. Every moment would be like the last. Change would strictly be a matter of external causes. However, there is no known way to deduce it from first principles, and long-term internal variability is evident.”

The modelers have achieved a completely imaginary atmosphere which they falsely claim is based on first principles. Essex goes through other efforts to define Climate in a way useful for numerical models and shows that the efforts have failed. He concludes:

“A physical definition for climate remains scientifically elusive because it represents a deep problem that neither elegant theories nor brute force computations have succeeded in getting a foothold on. Without that definition, the question posed by the title cannot be answered.

“There are many paths yet to explore, but they are buried by the greenhouse mindset inherited from the models of the 1960s. It makes this deep problem seem trivial and it invites the vision of one temperature controlled solely by infrared active gases. That is the basis of climate sensitivity, which amounts to a dubious claim of closure for the climate problem. However, this function need not exist in Nature.

“This questionable closure invites the vision of climate as a control problem. But it would be control over something that is not actually climate through a function that exists only in the radiative-convective models. This vision is itself unfalsifiable. Following it ensures that we only fool ourselves, because as Feynman also said, ‘Nature can’t be fooled.’”

In summary, in claiming a Climate Crisis, Washington has declared an imaginary crisis, based on an imaginary atmosphere for which it has an imaginary solution – that wind and solar power are reliable and affordable. With such imagination, what can go wrong? See links under Challenging the Orthodoxy and https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar4/

**************

A Better Way: The Right Climate Stuff Team included scientists and engineers who designed the Apollo lander, for which there were no textbooks or experience. They had to examine and evaluate a wide range of possibilities. Realizing that the IPCC “goal” of “equilibrium climate sensitivity” was an ideal, not a reality, they used their skills in establishing an upper bound analysis for global warming from carbon dioxide emissions. However, their notable effort has a weakness: it is dependent on knowledge of the extent of fossil fuel resources and the ability to extract them.

The advantage of the upper bound analysis found in his essays on Basic Climate Physics by Howard Hayden is that it is independent of technology, such as oil extraction technology on which the TRCS approach depends. Hayden’s approach is based on well-established physics and estimates in IPCC reports. Climate model results exceeding the upper bound have no basis in physics. See https://therightclimatestuff.com/ and http://www.sepp.org/science_papers.cfm

**************

Additions and Corrections: In commenting on the analysis by Roy Spencer regarding a recent drop in CO2 concentrations measured at Mauna Loa, Richard Courtney writes:

“…similar falls in ‘Mauna Loa dCO2/dt’ [decline in CO2 over time] occurred when there were no reductions to ‘Global Anthro CO2 Emissions’ similar to the ‘Covid drop’ (e.g., around 1970, 1990, 2008)”

and

“…rises in ‘Mauna Loa dCO2/dt’ of magnitude much larger than the ‘Covid drop’ happened when there were no significant increases to ‘Global Anthro CO2 Emissions’ (e.g., around 1974, 1988, 1998 and 2018).”

These observations suggest to me that the fall in ‘Mauna Loa dCO2/dt’ [decline in CO2 over time] coincident with the ‘Covid drop’ is natural fluctuation of similar kind to the previous similar natural fluctuations.

This is a good example of the problems with “messy” data. What appears to some may be interpreted differently by others. There is no clear answer. In addition, Geoffrey Sherrington asserts that the measurement errors are too large for asserting that the drop was from COVID. Too often in climate research false precision is used to imply certainty. They are not the same. See link under Challenging the Orthodoxy.

**************

Multiple Benefits: In Master Resource, Craig Idso writes of an experiment by his father, Dr. Sherwood Idso who worked at the U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory in Phoenix, Arizona. Craig states:

“In one of his more famous experiments, my father grew sour orange trees in ambient and CO2-enriched air in the Phoenix desert for nearly two decades. In that study, which was the longest such experiment ever to be conducted anywhere in the world, trees exposed to a CO2 concentration 75% greater than normal annually produced 70% more biomass and 85% more fruit. And as icing on the cake, so to speak, the vitamin C concentration of the juice of the CO2-enriched oranges was between 5 and 15% greater than that of the juice of the oranges produced on the trees growing in ambient air.”

Note that CO2 enhancement not only resulted in more fruits and fruit biomass, but also resulted in greater vitamin C concentrations. Unfortunately, such research is no longer politically popular. Based on his extensive research Craig writes:

“Although much less studied than terrestrial plants, many aquatic plants are also known to be responsive to atmospheric CO2 enrichment, including unicellular phytoplankton and bottom-rooted macrophytes of both freshwater and saltwater species. Hence, there is probably no category of photosynthesizing plant that does not respond in a positive manner to atmospheric CO2 enrichment and that is not likely to be benefited by the ongoing rise in the air’s CO2 content.”

Today, politicized entities such as NOAA and many academic organizations will claim such an increase in CO2 is “Ocean Acidification” and totally ignore that primary production areas in the oceans are precisely where major upwellings bring carbon dioxide rich waters to the surface increasing photosynthesis and marine life. See links under Social Benefits of Carbon Dioxide.

**************

Paralysis By Analysis: The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was used to kill much needed improvements to protect New Orleans from flooding, a fact touted by environmental organizations until Katrina killed about a thousand people in Louisiana. Now, under the guise of the infrastructure bill, Washington is planning to expand bureaucratic efforts to stop needed pipelines, highways, and other infrastructure. See Article # 1.

***************

SEPP’S APRIL FOOLS AWARD – THE JACKSON

SEPP is conducting its annual vote for the recipient of the coveted trophy, The Jackson, a lump of coal. Readers are asked to nominate and vote for who they think is most deserving. The entire Biden Administration won in 2021, so individuals in it are still eligible.

The voting will close on July 30. Please send your nominee and a brief reason the person is qualified for the honor to Ken@SEPP.org. The awardee will be announced at the annual meeting of the Doctors for Disaster Preparedness on August 14 to 16 at the South Point Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas.

***************

Number of the Week: Up to $10 Trillion. Craig Idso writes:

“I have also calculated the direct monetary benefits of atmospheric CO2 enrichment on both historic and future global crop production. Over the past 50 years, which benefit amounts to well over $3 trillion. And projecting the monetary value of this positive externality forward in time reveals that it will bestow an additional $10 trillion on crop production over the next 50 years. Yet, as amazing as this estimate sounds, it may very well be vastly undervalued.” [Boldface added] See link under Social Benefits of Carbon Dioxide.

NEWS YOU CAN USE:

Censorship

USA and Canada’s Plan to Silence Independent Media

By Eric Worrall, WUWT, Apr 18, 2022

Trudeau invents license for “journalists” so readers know which ones are Government Approved Liars

By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Apr 20, 2022

Challenging the Orthodoxy — NIPCC

Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science

Idso, Carter, and Singer, Lead Authors/Editors, Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), 2013

Summary: https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/CCR/CCR-II/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf

Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts

Idso, Idso, Carter, and Singer, Lead Authors/Editors, Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), 2014

http://climatechangereconsidered.org/climate-change-reconsidered-ii-biological-impacts/

Summary: https://www.heartland.org/media-library/pdfs/CCR-IIb/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf

Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels

By Multiple Authors, Bezdek, Idso, Legates, and Singer eds., Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, April 2019

http://store.heartland.org/shop/ccr-ii-fossil-fuels/

Download with no charge:

http://climatechangereconsidered.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Climate-Change-Reconsidered-II-Fossil-Fuels-FULL-Volume-with-covers.pdf

Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming

The NIPCC Report on the Scientific Consensus

By Craig D. Idso, Robert M. Carter, and S. Fred Singer, Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), Nov 23, 2015

http://climatechangereconsidered.org/

Download with no charge:

https://ift.tt/H2SUwqZ

Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate

S. Fred Singer, Editor, NIPCC, 2008

http://www.sepp.org/publications/nipcc_final.pdf

Global Sea-Level Rise: An Evaluation of the Data

By Craig D. Idso, David Legates, and S. Fred Singer, Heartland Policy Brief, May 20, 2019

Challenging the Orthodoxy

Can Computer Models Predict Climate?

Guest post by Christopher Essex, Emeritus Professor of Mathematics and Physics, University of Western Ontario., Big Picture News, Apr 13, 2022

Sorry, But Hard Science is Not Done This Way.

By Geoffrey H Sherrington, WUWT, Apr 20, 2022

Big Trouble in the Little Ice Age

By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, Apr 5, 2022

Video

Earth Day At 52: None of the eco-doomsday predictions have come true

By Staff, Net Zero Watch, Apr 22, 2022

Climate at a Glance

Press Release, Supplement Science and Climate Curricula and Will Be Mailed to Thousands of Teachers in 2022, Heartland Institute, Apr 21, 2022

https://ift.tt/h5oMIOJ

Earth Day truth: Fossil fuels make Earth BETTER

Fossil fuels are making Earth a better and better place by providing uniquely low-cost, reliable energy to billions of people–and are needed by billions more. We need a Fossil Future.

By Alex Epstein, His Blog, Apr 22, 2022

https://ift.tt/n4eNxo5

Earth Day 2022: Investing in Poverty, Suffering, and Human Degradation

By Benjamin Zycher, Real Clear Energy, April 22, 2022

https://ift.tt/xbBlshI

Follow the Science: But Which Results? Using Same Tree Ring Dataset, 15 Groups Come Up With 15 Different Reconstructions

By P Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, Apr 19, 2022

Link to paper: The influence of decision-making in tree ring-based climate reconstructions

By Ulf Büntgen, et al. Nature Communications, June 7, 2021

https://ift.tt/iAYEOs2

From the abstract: “Differing in their mean, variance, amplitude, sensitivity, and persistence, the ensemble members demonstrate the influence of subjectivity in the reconstruction process. We therefore recommend the routine use of ensemble reconstruction approaches to provide a more consensual picture of past climate variability.”

Defending the Orthodoxy

Comments on Speech by the Secretary General of the IMC [International Military Council] on Climate and Security

By Staff, ICECAP, Apr 20, 2022

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/comments_on_speech_by_the_secretary_general_of_the_imc_on_climate_and_secur/

On Earth Day, Let’s Double Down on Proven Solutions to Fight Climate Change

By Sarah E. Hunt, Real Clear Energy, April 21, 2022

https://ift.tt/gpz9XSk

We Analyzed 300 Companies’ Financial Documents to Find Out How Concerned They Are About Climate Change

By Emily Barone and Chris Wilson, Time, Apr 19, 2022

https://ift.tt/2EXhvkG

Defending the Orthodoxy – Bandwagon Science & Non-science

“Diplomats for Climate Action” Demand Australia Kowtow to the EU

By Eric Worrall, WUWT, Apr 17, 2022

Link to letter by the former diplomates:

Diplomats for Climate Action Now Sep 26, 2021

“As former diplomats we are deeply concerned that Australia’s key strategic and economic interests are at risk because of our failure to date, to commit to a target of net zero emissions by 2050. This lack of commitment is particularly concerning to those regional partners for whom climate change already poses a clear existential threat.

[SEPP Comment: We cannot provide any physical evidence that the “clear existential threat” exists, but it must exist because we think it so?]

Global warming: even cacti can’t take the heat

By AFP Staff Writers, Paris (AFP), April 15, 2022

https://ift.tt/KqemC6o

“To test the notion that cacti will benefit from a warmer and more drought-prone world, researchers led by Michiel Pillet from the University of Arizona examined data on more than 400 species and ran models projecting how they would fare at mid-century and beyond under different greenhouse gas emissions scenarios.”

Questioning the Orthodoxy

Energy Myths Are Triggering a New Dark Age in Europe

By Brian Gitt, Real Clear Energy, April 18, 2022

https://ift.tt/p6i5Qqs

The Dark Side Of Earth Day

By Sam Kazman, CEI, Apl 22, 2022

https://ift.tt/j0pkwBm

Will it eat you last?

By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, Apr 20, 2022

“Many companies in Canada and elsewhere, including energy companies, seem to think that they can meet climate alarmists half-way. Or more; some actually seem determined to lobby for their own extinction within their trade associations, in the pages of newspapers, and in the halls of government, like some especially batty modern-day Marie Antoinette urging the Committee on Public Safety to step up its measures against those selfish aristos.”

[SEPP Comment: You can’t make deals with green zealots.]

New Study: 90 Papers Were Published On The ‘Hiatus’ From 2009-2019. Now They Say It Never Happened.

By Kenneth Richard, No Tricks Zone, Apr 18, 2022

Is “Climate Change” science or pseudoscience?

By Andy May, WUWT, Apr 21, 2022

Change in US Administrations

US Military: A Recipe for Disaster

By Donn Dears, Power For USA, Apr 19, 2022

Biden Chooses To Crucify Armed Forces For Green Agenda

By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Apr 23, 2022

“Putin and Xi must be quaking in their boots!”

Biden restores some environmental permitting requirements loosened by Trump

By Rachel Frazin, The Hill, apr 19, 2022

“NEPA is a more than 50-year-old law that requires the government to consider environmental and community concerns before it approves various types of infrastructure projects, which can also include airports and buildings.”

Biden to tout climate policies for Earth Day

By Rachel Frazin, The Hill, Apr 18, 2022

Biden casts crisis as ‘opportunity’ during optimistic Earth Day speech

By Rachel Frazin and Morgan Chalfant, The Hill, Apr 22, 2022

Social Benefits of Carbon Dioxide

Increased Plant Productivity: The First Key Benefit of Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment

By Craig D. Idso, Master Resource, April 21, 2022

Henderson the carbon king

By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, Apr 20, 2022

“Remember, in the boringly named Last Glacial Maximum atmospheric CO2 was down to just 180 ppm, only 30 ppm above the mass extinction of all C3 photosynthesis plants including most crops and, shucks, all trees.”

Seeking a Common Ground

Happy Earth Day – Real Air Pollution issues solved, CO2 a benefit not a danger

By Staff, ICECAP, Apr 22, 2022

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/new-and-cool/happy_earth_day_pollution_issues_solved_co2_a_benefit_not_a_danger/

Resourceful Earth Day (celebrate freedom, innovation)

By Pierre Desrochers and Jasmin Guénette, Master Resource, Apr 22, 2022

Why is the CO₂ Concentration Rising?

By Frans Schrijver. WUWT, Apr 22, 2022

Model Issues

Changes In Vegetation Shaped Global Temperatures Over Last 10,000 Years

Press Release, Washington University in St. Louis, Apr 15, 2022

https://ift.tt/B9HYwJ4

Link to paper: Northern Hemisphere vegetation change drives a Holocene thermal maximum

By Alexander Thompson, et al. Science Advances, Apr 15, 2022

https://ift.tt/iHSArWj

Measurement Issues — Surface

Lies, d**n lies and rainfall data

By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, Apr 20, 2022

March Mean Temperature Data For UK, Ireland Show No Early Spring Trend Taking Place, Stable Since Decades

By P Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, Apr 20, 2022

Changing Weather

Another, Third Planet-Cooling La Niña? Dr. Ryan Maue Sees Strong Chance Of This Occurrence

Is the third La Niña on the way?

By Die kalte Sonne (Translated, edited by No Tricks Zone), Apr 16, 2022

April 22, 1883, Tornado Outbreak

By Tony Heller, His Blog, Apr 22, 2022

https://ift.tt/1VJi0xM

Why so little lightning in the Pacific Northwest? And a very nice weekend ahead.

By Cliff Mass, Weather Blog, Apr 22, 2022

https://ift.tt/hXOYPim

Podcast

Changing Climate – Cultures & Civilizations

Yes, that Little Ice Age

By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, Apr 20, 2022

Link to: Western researchers first to map effects of England’s ‘little ice age’

Interactive GIS database chronicles 500-year-old extreme climate events

By Debora Van Benk, Western News, Apr 12, 2022

https://ift.tt/AV92iFN

Presentation: WEMS Presents: Madeline Bassnett and Daryl Wakunick

Western University, University College, London

http://www.events.westernu.ca/events/english-and-writing-studies/2022-04/wems-presents.html

Changing Seas

Washed Away – A Short Film About Sea Level Fall

By Jennifer Marohasy, Her Blog, Apr 22, 2022

Death, where is thy sting?

By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, Apr 20, 2022

We’re All Going To Drown–Part 98

By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Apr 21, 2022

Sinking Cities and Sea Level Rise

By Kip Hansen, WUWT, Apr 21, 2022

CDN by the sea: Juneau Alaska

By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, Apr 20, 2022

“From 1980 to the present the sea surface at Juneau has risen by nearly 15.5 mm per year. And to make it even scarier, it’s rising down, because “nearly” in this case is a euphemism for “minus”. Where will it all end?”

Changing Cryosphere – Land / Sea Ice

1939 – Glaciers Retreated Back To Pre-16th Century Position

By Tony Heller, His Blog, Apr 19, 2022

https://ift.tt/rjPUELR

Agriculture Issues & Fear of Famine

Responses to Rising Hunger Could Threaten Climate Goals

European policy makers are considering easing environmental protection measures to allow for increased crop production

By Sara Schonhardt, E&E News, Via Scientific American, Apr18, 2022

https://ift.tt/RS2vYTh

[SEPP Comment: Climate goals are more important than famine from the once Scientific American?]

Lowering Standards

Seeing the forest for the trees

By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, Apr 20, 2022

“Meanwhile at National Geographic ‘No computer model can yet project how climate will change forests globally – or how their carbon stores will feed back on climate’. But it isn’t necessary to know what’s happening or what’s going to because all effects of climate change are bad, even ones we can’t see, and vice versa.’”

Rowlatt [BBC] Accused Of Supporting Unlawful Radical Activism

By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Apr 22, 2022

Communicating Better to the Public – Exaggerate, or be Vague?

Carbon Dioxide and Climate – Friend or Foe?

By Brian C. Joondeph, American Thinker, Apr 18, 2022 [H/t John Dale Dunn]

https://ift.tt/nbvzCm0

“The Asia Pacific Forum on Women, Law and Development, a consultant organization to the UN, claims, ‘If we are to address the climate crisis we need to challenge the structural causes of the crisis which lies on unequal distribution of wealth, of carbon, and of power.’”

Climate groups say social media companies leave ‘public in the dark’ on misinformation policies

By Rebecca Klar, The Hill, Apr 21, 2022

Communicating Better to the Public – Make things up.

137 million in US live with unhealthy levels of air pollution: American Lung Association

By Sharon Udasin, The Hill, Apr 21, 2022

“Fine particulate matter — particles with a diameter of less than 2.5 microns, also known as PM 2.5 — can be especially deadly, the report warned.”

[SEPP Comment: Mathematical ridiculousness. Unable to link to report.]

Gas is falling as an electricity source and may have peaked

By Zack Budryk, The Hill, Apr 20, 2022

Link to report: U.S. 2022 Power Sector Outlook

The Renewable Energy Transition Takes Off

By Dennis Wamsted, et al. Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, April 2022

http://ieefa.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/2022-US-Power-Sector-Outlook_April-2022.pdf

“The compelling economics and proven reliability of renewable energy and storage have changed perceptions in utility and corporate boardrooms across the U.S., driving a buildout of wind and solar generation portfolios and prompting businesses and consumers to push for greater access to green energy.”

[SEPP Comment: Fantasyland economics is not compelling economics.]

The New York Times Does Energy Storage

By Francis Menton, Manhattan Contrarian, Apr 20, 2022

https://ift.tt/cS0UfPh

“Don’t worry, in New York Times world the government has infinite money.  The Times’s job is to demand that it be spent, and then sit back and wait for utopia to arrive.”

Fake News: Wind Tops Coal & Nuclear for First Time in US History

By David Middleton, WUWT, Apr 17, 2022

Communicating Better to the Public – Use Propaganda

Dispelling the doomsday propaganda in DisneyNature’s new polar bear ‘documentary’

By Susan Crockford, Polar Bear Science, Apr 20, 2022

“In the case of ‘Our Planet’, WWF bankrolled the film series for Netflix to ensure the content they desired; in ‘Polar Bear’, the tables are turned: DisneyNature is paying PBI [Polar Bears International] for their assistance getting the polar bear film shots and providing their biased content, via money they are calling a research grant.”

Media Recycles Debunked “Epic” Climate Litigation Stories for Earth Day

By William Allison, Energy In Depth, Apr 19, 2022

https://ift.tt/nemdG5r

ClimateCraze

By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Apr 16, 2022

A collection of videos

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpNje5Hgfp0VGL0u2uQmRQg/videos

Communicating Better to the Public – Use Propaganda on Children

Climate alarmism posing as science education for children

By David Worjick, CFACT, Apr 21, 2022

https://ift.tt/r9naiGA

Expanding the Orthodoxy

The Enhancement and Standardization of Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors

A Proposed Rule by the Securities and Exchange Commission on 04/11/2022

This document has a comment period that ends in 29 days. (05/20/2022)

https://ift.tt/XSTGfh1

Final NEPA Rule Will Encourage Anti-Development Lawsuits Against Fossil Fuel Projects

By Mario Loyola & Marlo Lewis, CEI, Apr 19, 2022

https://ift.tt/u5kERTq

Colorado River deemed ‘most endangered river’ in the US: report

By Sharon Udasin, The Hill, Apr 18, 2022

Link to report: America’s Most Endangered Rivers® of 2022

By Staff, American Rivers, 2022

[SEPP Comment: Need to return to the good old days such as the Great Mississippi Flood of 1927 or remove the Hoover Dam?]

Questioning European Green

New Study: Wind, Solar Energy Now Killing 48% Of Priority Bird Species With ‘Population-Level Effects’

By Kenneth Richard, No Tricks Zone, Apr 21, 2022

Link to paper: Vulnerability of avian populations to renewable energy production

By Tara J. Conkling, Royal Society Open Science, Mar 30, 2022

https://ift.tt/BG7PZ5r

Govt’s Wind Strategy Ignores Intermittency

By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Apr 22, 2022

Link to report: Major acceleration of homegrown power in Britain’s plan for greater energy independence

Cleaner and more affordable energy to be made in Great Britain under bold plans to boost long-term energy independence, security and prosperity.

By Staff, Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, UK, Gov, Apr 6, 2022

https://ift.tt/6P7mqC9

Anti-Gas Activists are Running on Empty

By Connor Tomlinson, Net Zero Watch, Apr 20, 2022

Link to policy paper: British energy security strategy

By Staff, Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, UK Govt. Apr 7, 2022

https://ift.tt/dwkFyOD

Questioning Green Elsewhere

Green Energy’s Hidden Eagle Slaughter

By Jim Wiegand, Master Resource, Apr 19, 2022

Nothing Here? AWEA/ACPA on Altamont Pass’s Golden Eagle Carnage in 2011

By Robert Bradley Jr., Master Resource, April 20, 2022

Funding Issues

Transportation department announces over $6 billion to reduce transportation emissions

By Zack Budryk, The Hill, Apr 21, 2022

“The Carbon Reduction Program (CRP), funded by the bipartisan infrastructure law, will go toward local and state projects aimed at reducing on-road highway-based carbon dioxide emissions. These could range from installing infrastructure to electrify freight vehicles to improving the terrain for bicycles.”

Woke Investors Threaten the West’s Security

In an era of rising geopolitical tensions, it is folly to let Wall Street determine the nation’s energy policy.

By Rupert Darwall, Real Clear Energy, April 18, 2022

https://ift.tt/JuBFYsy

Naughty! World’s 30 biggest Funds go “Net Zero”, but invest $550 billion in oil, gas, coal anyhow

By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Apr 21, 2022

Oil Sands Financing From Canadian Banks Doubles

By Charles Kennedy, Oil Price.com, Apr 11, 2022

https://ift.tt/r7qpfjH

Litigation Issues

Charleston SC’s Junk Climate Change Lawsuit

By David Middleton, WUWT, Apr 18, 2022

Cap-and-Trade and Carbon Taxes

The Price Is Right: Solving Climate Crisis With a Carbon Tax

By Mary Anna Mancuso, Real Clear Energy, April 21, 2022

https://ift.tt/XwoVZRN

[SEPP Comment: Taxes for an imaginary crisis?]

Subsidies and Mandates Forever

ROC Windfall Profits Hit £923 Million In December 2021

By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Apr 22, 2022

“I have written before of how renewable generators are profiteering from the Renewable Obligation scheme. I now have the generation data from December 2021 to quantify just how much.”

Net Zero Watch has accused the Prime Minister of being economical with the truth about the cost of renewable energy levies.

Press Release, Net Zero Watch, Apr 22, 2022

Link to factsheet: The cost of green levies

By John Constable, Net Zero Watch, No date

Government plans to scrap green energy levies welcomed

Press Release, Net Zero Watch, Apr 19, 2022

Link to Factsheet: The cost of green levies (pdf)

By John Constable, Net Zero Watch, No date

A great wind, or not?

By John Robson, Climate Discussion Nexus, Apr 20, 2022

“Frankly just about anybody can outsell their competitors if their competitors are ordered by the government to sell less so they can sell more. But what is to become of the consumer, the power grid and even government finances if it turns out that people cannot build wind turbines unless their operators are allowed to charge much higher prices than other types of energy need to?”

Energy Issues – Non-US

How Much Energy Will the World Need?

By Mark Mills, Video, Prager U, Mar 28, 2022

https://ift.tt/tF2Qvbd

“And the global information infrastructure—the Cloud— already uses twice as much electricity as the entire country of Japan, the world’s third-largest economy. The massive data centers at the heart of the Cloud alone consume almost 10 times more electricity than the world’s 10 million electric cars.”

The Problem With America’s LNG Boom

By Tsvetana Paraskova, Oil Price.com, Apr 19, 2022

https://ift.tt/QyqsgUL

[SEPP Comment: Given EU energy policy, will Europeans sign long-term contracts for imports?]

Clean energy’s dirty secret: How push for modern technology has made Chinese pond toxic

By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Apr 18, 2022

Energy Crisis in the UK: 40% face fuel poverty by winter and Govt may finally stop “Green Levies” (too late)

By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Apr 22, 2022

Ban new boiler sales to switch people over to heat pumps, says infrastructure tsar

By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Apr 18, 2022

“Armitt, who is also Chairman of the National Express Group and City & Guilds, Deputy Chairman of the Berkeley Group and a member of the Board of Transport for London, is obviously not short of a bob or two. To him and his ilk, £15000 is loose change. The fact that policy decisions, which will hugely impact ordinary people, are being formulated by him tells us everything that is wrong with our system of government.”

Energy Issues – Australia

Australian electricity price doubles: CEO explains prices up due to lack of coal power

By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Apr 19, 2022

[SEPP Comment: A short-term price increase that may become persistent.]

Energy Issues — US

Russia-Ukraine Crisis Amplifies Need for Washington to Protect Americans from High Utility Costs

By Dave Schryver & John Olshefski, Real Clear Energy, April 17, 2022

https://ift.tt/m6BjeZt

Washington’s Control of Energy

GOP states urge Biden to reauthorize Keystone XL pipeline: ‘We told you so’

The AG’s said few viable options remain to import oil from Canada

By Bradford Betz, Fox Business, Apr 18, 2022

https://ift.tt/GHrxzmU

Biden Restarts Oil Leasing on Federal Lands

By Irina Slav, Oil Price.com, Apr 18, 2022

https://ift.tt/u8l1BMr

“According to a release by the Department of the Interior, this week will see some 144,000 acres put up for leasing, with the department noting this is a much smaller acreage than previously nominated—some 80 percent smaller.

“In addition to that, the Department of the Interior will increase royalty rates for new leases to 18.75 percent and said that bidders would be held to stringent environmental standards.”

Joe Biden’s energy policies will prolong the current crisis, oil and gas executive says

By Sam Tabahriti, Business Insider, Apr 17, 2022

https://ift.tt/e8Bk4KQ

Oil and Natural Gas – the Future or the Past?

Emerging Oil Producers Could Get A Boost As The West Pivots Away From Russia

By Felicity Bradstock, Oil Price.com, Apr 14, 2022

https://ift.tt/L6DEyW5

Nuclear Energy and Fears

Biden announces $6B to bail out nuclear plants at risk of closure

By Zack Budryk, The Hill, Apr 19, 2022

[SEPP Comment: A subsidy to undo the harm created by subsidizing wind and solar?]

For Uranium and Nuclear, the U.S. Should Turn Inward

By Dan Ervin, Real Clear Energy, April 21, 2022

https://ift.tt/TJ3nBmM

Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Solar and Wind

White House announces Earth Day climate push

By Kelsey Brugger, E & E News, Apr 18, 2022

Biden administration announces clean energy growth on public lands

By Rachel Frazin, The Hill, Apr 20, 2022

“Clean energy on public lands is growing, with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) increasing its renewable energy permitting by 35 percent last fiscal year.”

[SEPP Comment: Expanding unreliable electricity.]

Golden Eagles and Industrial Wind: Justice Served (cats, windows not applicable)

By Robert Bradley Jr., Master Resource, Apr 18, 2022

“The Michigan chapter of the Sierra Club states, ‘Wind turbines can be removed when something better comes along.’ To which true environmentalists can add: we can’t wait that long.”

Wealthy Progressives: We Love Wind Power, Except When It’s Near Us

By Jim Geraghty, National Review, Apr 18, 2022

Do Offshore Wind Turbines Impact Fishing?

Wind farms seem to be popping up everywhere. But what’s the ultimate cost to fishermen?

By Paul Richards, Field & Stream, Apr 18, 2022 [H/t Bernie Kesphire]

Link to government report: Wind Market Reports: 2021 Edition

By Staff, Wind Energy Technologies Office, Accessed Apr 20, 2022

https://ift.tt/Dh3Ux5N

Link to Offshore Wind Market Report: 2021 Edition Released

By Staff, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, Wind Technologies Office, Aug 30, 2021

https://ift.tt/3fyvaDn

When is green not all that green? Earth Day clean energy revelations

By Jason Hayes, The Hill, Apr 23, 2022

Youngkin administration sets stricter runoff rules for solar farms

Solar industry caught off guard by changes, but some local governments concerned about project impacts

By Sarah Vogelsong, Virginia Mercury, Apr 18, 2022

Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Energy — Other

E-15 May Do More Food Price Harm than Gas Price Good

By Ben Lieberman, CEI, Apr 12, 2022

https://ift.tt/MKtzyZx

The Green Hydrogen Swindle

By Paul Homewood, Not a Lot of People Know That, Apr 16, 2022

Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Energy — Storage

Dominion hopes big batteries will fill in renewable energy gaps

By Sean Sublette, Richard Times-Dispatch, Apr 20, 2022

https://ift.tt/iJCUmtF

“If all continues to go as planned, Dominion will add about 2,700 megawatts of storage over the next 15 years, enough to power approximately 650,000 homes at peak.  The full cost of these three projects is about $33 million, which the State Corporation has deemed “reasonable and prudent.” The SCC will determine if the costs will be passed on to Dominion’s customers in the future.”

[SEPP Comment: How long is the peak, one minute? Dominion owns the largest “battery” in the US, a pumped-storage facility in Bath County, VA. It is replenished by nuclear, and coal-fired power plants.]

Environmental Industry

America’s Biggest ‘Green’ Groups Love Wind Turbines, Not Eagles

By Robert Bryce, Real Clear Energy, April 20, 2022

https://ift.tt/lNYZKQI

[SEPP Comment: Interesting question not discussed: Do wind turbines kill more eagles than DDT?]

Other News that May Be of Interest

China’s Governance Model Only Looks Worse As Time Goes On

By Francis Menton, Manhattan Contrarian, Apr 16, 2022

https://ift.tt/MsHlpGI

[SEPP Comment: A problem of government meritocracy is that government bureaucracy promotes those who conform to government policies, over those who think independently to advance public goals.]

BELOW THE BOTTOM LINE

‘It’s critical the message makes it to the mainstream’: NASA climate scientist speaks on his tearful protest

Peter Kalmus was among a group of scientists who chained themselves to a JPMorgan Chase building in Los Angeles in protest of the bank’s financing of fossil fuels

By Ethan Freedman, Independent, UK, Apr 18, 2022

https://ift.tt/0DvZstf

ARTICLES

1. How to Kill American Infrastructure on the Sly

The White House revises NEPA rules that will scuttle new roads, bridges and oil and gas pipelines.

By The Editorial Board, WSJ, April 20, 2022

https://ift.tt/fvoUqtE

TWTW Summary: The editorial states:

Americans are going to need a split-screen for the Biden Administration’s policy contradictions. Even as the President on Tuesday promoted the bipartisan infrastructure bill he signed last November, the White House moved to make it harder to build roads, bridges and, of course, oil and natural-gas pipelines.

After discussing the Russian offensive in Ukraine, the editorial continues:

The White House Council on Environmental Quality is revising rules under the National Environmental Policy Act for permitting major construction projects. CEQ Chair Brenda Mallory says the changes will ‘provide regulatory certainty’ and ‘reduce conflict.’ Instead, they will cause more litigation and delays that raise construction costs, if they don’t kill projects outright.

NEPA requires federal agencies to review the environmental impact of major projects that are funded by the feds or require a federal permit. Reviews can take years and run thousands of pages, covering the smallest potential impact on species, air or water quality. Project developers can be forced to mitigate these effects by, say, relocating species.

While the 1970 law was intended to prevent environmental disasters, it has become a weapon to block development. The Trump Administration sought to fast-track projects by limiting NEPA reviews to environmental effects that are directly foreseeable—e.g., how a pipeline’s construction would affect a stream it crosses.

Some liberal judges, however, have interpreted NEPA broadly to require the study of effects that indirectly result from a project such as CO2 emissions. Now the Biden Administration is mandating this. CEQ’s new rule will require agencies to calculate the ‘indirect’ and ‘cumulative impacts’ that ‘can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.’ This means death by a thousand regulatory cuts for many projects.

The Transportation Department will likely have to examine how a highway expansion could increase greenhouse-gas emissions in concert with new warehouses. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission might have to calculate how a new pipeline would affect emissions from upstream production and downstream consumption.

Wait—didn’t FERC recently walk back its policy to do exactly this? The White House is thumbing its nose at West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, who blasted FERC’s now-suspended policy for shutting ‘down the infrastructure we desperately need as a country.’

The rule’s obvious intent is to make it harder to build pipelines, roads and other infrastructure that would enable more U.S. oil and gas production, even as the Administration makes phony gestures to reduce energy prices. Last Friday the Administration announced it would comply with a court order to hold oil and gas lease sales on public land. Those leases won’t matter if energy companies can’t get federal permits for rights-of-way.

****************

2. All Hail, Anthony Fauci

The doctor says courts should defer to public-health experts like him.

By The Editorial Board, WSJ, April 22, 2022

https://ift.tt/S5Zl0EM

TWTW Summary: The editorial begins:

“Public-health officials have often wielded power during the pandemic as if the law and Constitution don’t matter, even if they haven’t said so explicitly. Anthony Fauci is finally telling it in the raw.

“‘The principle of a court overruling a public health judgment by a qualified organization like the CDC is disturbing in the precedent that it might send,’ the National Institutes of Health official told CBS on Thursday.

“Democrats are lambasting Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle’s well-reasoned ruling this week striking down the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s mask mandate on public transportation. But few, if any, have argued like Dr. Fauci that federal courts shouldn’t be allowed to review CDC diktats. Mull over the implications of this one.

“The mask mandate ‘is a CDC issue. It should not have been a court issue,’ Dr. Fauci told CNN, adding that ‘we are concerned’ about ‘courts getting involved in things that are unequivocally public-health decisions.’ Ah, yes, the royal ‘we.’ Does the Covid czar think the Supreme Court should have been precluded from reviewing the CDC’s rental eviction moratorium too?”

TWTW comment: Childhood vaccination is a powerful, cost-effective tool for public health. Fauci’s arrogance has given anti-vaxxers powerful arguments against childhood vaccination.

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

According to Boris Johnson:

“Overall, if you look at what we have done with renewables it has helped to reduce bills over the last few years and will continue to do so. That’s why one of the things I want to do is use this moment to really drive towards more offshore wind turbines.”

Perhaps he should read what the Office for Budget Responsibility have to say. According to their annual Medium Term Forecasts, subsidies for renewable energy have cost the public £78 billion in the last ten years. This equates to about £3000 per household.

Nearly all of this has been added to energy bills, although a small part, the RHI scheme, is funded out of general taxation. As domestic users only consume about a third of total electricity generation, their bills reflect about a third of this cost. However, the public end up paying for the other two thirds one way or another, whether through higher prices and fares, higher taxation and lower public spending.

The split of this subsidy is :

Type	£bn
RO	46.0
CfD	5.6
CRC	4.2
CM	4.1
FIT	12.7
RHI	5.4

Note that the OBR no longer include the cost of FITs, even they still exist. I have therefore included estimated costs of £1.6bn a year for the last four years.

I am firing off a FOI to the government, asking for details of their claimed “reduced bills”!

The annual tables are below: