Month: April 2022

New electricity pylons will ‘carve up’ the countryside, opponents claim

By Paul Homewood

h/t Dave Ward

image

 

Plans for a new overhead electricity line to run across south Norfolk, and beyond into Suffolk and Essex, have come up against opposition from campaigners. 

National Grid is currently consulting with residents about their ‘East Anglia GREEN’ project, which they say is needed to help the UK achieve its ambition of net zero emissions by 2050 – and because the current infrastructure is not fit for purpose.

But the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) said the proposed pylons would have a "negative impact" on unspoilt countryside.

In a message on their website, National Grid states: “East Anglia’s 400 kV electricity transmission network was built in the 1960s.

“It was built to supply regional demand, centred around Norwich and Ipswich.

“With the growth in new energy generation from offshore wind, nuclear power and interconnection with other countries, there will be more electricity connected in East Anglia than the network can currently accommodate.”

The new proposed line would run south from a substation at Dunston, near Norwich.

The pylons would typically be 45-50m high, with the cable running parallel to an existing power line to the west, which is itself west of and parallel to the A140 road.

The railway line to London would meanwhile lie between the new and existing power lines.

At the county’s southern edge, it would exit into Suffolk by passing between Bressingham and Roydon, near Diss, before heading to its destination at Tilbury, on the Thames estuary.

The CPRE are among those with reservations about the proposal, saying it would damage the landscape.

David Hook, chair of the CPRE’s ‘Vision for Norfolk’ committee, said: “It’s a pity that when they’re doing all this new work to upgrade transmission, that they don’t use this as an opportunity to bury the cables – and also to bury existing cable lines. 

https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/planning/east-anglia-green-norfolk-cpre-national-grid-cable-8915454

 

Quite apart from the environmental impact, let us also not forget about the cost of building all of this, none of which will be paid by the offshore wind farms or interconnectors.

It’s a reminder of many hidden costs of renewable power.

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

https://ift.tt/t5eBDjT

April 24, 2022 at 06:00AM

Maldives Still There

【LIVE】 Webcam Kuredu Island Resort | SkylineWebcams In 1989, experts said the Maldives would drown by the year 2018, unless global governance was implemented. “MALE, Maldives: A gradual rise in average sea level is threatening to completely cover this Indian … Continue reading

via Real Climate Science

https://ift.tt/p19BUWc

April 24, 2022 at 05:42AM

Does The UK Subsidise Fossil Fuels?

By Paul Homewood

 

 image

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2022/04/23/renewable-subsidies-have-cost-78-billion-in-last-10-years/

 

 

.

There has long been a concerted effort by the green lobby to persuade the public that they are paying billions in subsidies to the nasty fossil fuel industry, particularly in the UK. The above comment exemplifies this.

He quotes the OECD, who are of course at heart a political organisation, just like their subsidiary, the IEA. The OECD simply follow their masters wishes, that is the governments who make it up. The OECD’s position on climate change is exactly the same as its member governments:

image

https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/inventory-of-estimated-budgetary-support-and-tax-expenditures-for-fossil-fuels-2013_9789264187610-en#page17

 

As Rafal comments, the OECD regard “tax reliefs” as “subsidies”. They are no such thing, and the OECD is deliberately misleading people in claiming so.

If we follow Rafal’s second link, we find several items listed as “Fossil Fuel Support” for the UK in 2020:

  • Red Diesel – £2.1bn
  • Tied Oils – £1.2bn
  • Tax Reliefs for Decommissioning – £0.6bn
  • Tax Reliefs for Capital Investment – £1.5bn

Tax Reliefs, however, are not subsidies in any shape or form. All companies pay Corporation Tax on profits, and profits are of course INCOME minus EXPENDITURE. Both Capital Investment and Decommissioning Costs are legitimate expenses to book against profit. The Tax Reliefs referred to merely determine when when these expenses can be offset.

The OECD themselves give these definitions on the table listed:

image

image

 

In short then, oil companies cannot offset decommissioning costs until they are actually incurred, by which time of course production has stopped and there is no income to offset them against. Therefore they are allowed to offset them against tax already paid. Over the life of the asset, the correct amount of tax is paid. This arrangement is actually detrimental to the oil companies, because they have overpaid tax in previous years. (The government is naturally delighted, as it has extra tax revenue – which is probably why they set the system up this way!) A normal accounting policy would be to provide for these decommissioning costs each year during the life of the asset.

It is a similar situation with capital allowances. Companies can offset the full capital costs upfront, rather than on a depreciation write-down basis. Again, the correct amount of tax is paid over the life of the asset.

The other two item listed have nothing to do with subsidising fossil fuels either:

 

 image

image

 

If charging a lower level of fuel duty on red diesel is a subsidy (which it is not), it is a subsidy for farmers, not fossil fuels. Similarly the Tied Oils scheme merely exempts industry from fuel duties, if the oil is not used as a fuel.

Rafal (and the OECD) conveniently ignore the fact that UK oil and gas producers pay tax at a much higher rate than the rest of UK industry. In particular:

  • They pay Corporation Tax at a rate of 30%, instead of the standard rate of 19%.
  • They also have to pay a Supplementary Charge of 10% on profits

Effectively then they are paying twice the tax rate. Hardly surprising then that the OBR is forecasting a bumper £8.8bn tax revenue from North Sea Oil this year:

image

https://obr.uk/efo/economic-and-fiscal-outlook-march-2022/

 

Finally, let’s check Rafal’s first link from the OECD:

 

image

https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/inventory-of-estimated-budgetary-support-and-tax-expenditures-for-fossil-fuels-2013_9789264187610-en#page370

Virtually all of their so-called fossil-fuel support comes from the reduced rate of VAT on electricity and gas.

There is no god-given rule that says all goods and services must be charged at 20% VAT, and even the reduced rate of 5% is still a tax. It is absurd to claim that this is a subsidy.

After all, food is zero-rated for VAT, but does anybody claim that food is subsidised? Of course not.

But if we go down the route of the OECD argument, we can only conclude that fuel duties should not be imposed, as other goods are not taxed in this way. Given that the Exchequer pulls in nearly £30bn a year from this tax, it far outweighs anything else claimed as subsidies by the OECD.

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

https://ift.tt/ua5LMvO

April 24, 2022 at 05:24AM

Marine mollusk shells reveal how prehistoric humans adapted to intense climate change 


Peer-Reviewed Publication

UNIVERSITAT AUTONOMA DE BARCELONA

Cantabrian coast (N Iberian Peninsula)
IMAGE: CANTABRIAN COAST (N IBERIAN PENINSULA) view more CREDIT: ASIER GARCÍA ESCÁRZAGA

Current global climatic warming is having, and will continue to have, widespread consequences for human history, in the same way that environmental fluctuations had significant consequences for human populations in the past. The so-called ‘8.2 ka event’ has been identified as the largest and most abrupt climatic event of the past 11,700 years, caused by cool meltwater from North American lakes flooding into the North Atlantic and stopping ocean circulation systems. The cooling and drying effects of this event have been documented around the world, including along the Atlantic coast of Europe. Nevertheless, the sweeping impacts of the 8.2 ka (kilo annum i.e., thousand years ago) event on different environments and human societies are often assumed rather than proven. 

The journal Scientific Reports has published a paper led by Asier García Escárzaga, current researcher from the Institute of Environmental Science and Technology (ICTA-UAB) and the Department of Prehistory of the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, together with Igor Gutiérrez Zugasti, from the Universidad de Cantabria (UC). The study was coordinated from the Universidad de La Rioja (UR) and the Max Planck Institute (Germany) alongside members of other academic centres (Max Planck Institute, University of Burgos, Universidad Complutense de Madrid and University of Faro).    

The study applies a multidisciplinary toolkit of archaeomalacological studies and stable oxygen isotope analyses to shell remains recovered from the shell midden site of the El Mazo cave (Asturias, N Spain). With a long stratigraphic sequence of 1,500 years, El Mazo is a unique context along the European Atlantic coast, with especially high chronological resolution of each archaeological layer.  

The results obtained by these scientists allowed them to determine that colder seawater temperatures, deduced from stable oxygen isotope values measured on marine shells, led to changes in the availability of different shellfish species. For instance, one of the most commonly consumed species, the warm-adapted species P. lineatus, decreased during the 8.2 ka event, while populations of cold-adapted P. vulgata, another commonly exploited species, increased. Intriguingly, the warm-adapted limpet P. depressa also increased during this cool period, owing to a higher resistance to cold temperatures than other warm-water species. 

Their results also revealed an increase in the intensification of mollusc exploitation by humans, as indicated by a decrease in average mollusc size and evidence for increased harvesting in more dangerous coastal areas. The authors argued that this occurred because of human demographic growth in these Atlantic coastal settings which acted as refugia during this cold event, encouraging populations to move there from further inland. Nevertheless, populations around El Mazo managed to avoid over exploiting their coastal resources, as average mollusc size very rarely decreased below 20mm, the minimum size specified by modern regulations to guarantee long-term species survival. 

“Our results suggest an ongoing application of local marine ecological knowledge by some of the last foragers in western Europe, despite major changes to climate and demography” says Asier García-Escárzaga lead author of the current study.  

The resolution provided by the combination of taxonomic, geochemical and chronological analysis of molluscs from archaeological sites has major implications for other studies seeking to determine the significance of climate change on marine environments, and can provide detailed clues to the magnitude and nature of future climate changes and their impacts on human societies. 


JOURNAL

Scientific Reports

DOI

10.1038/s41598-022-10135-w 

METHOD OF RESEARCH

Experimental study

SUBJECT OF RESEARCH

Animals

ARTICLE TITLE

Human forager response to abrupt climate change at 8.2 ka on the Atlantic coast of Europe

From EurekAlert!

Here is the Abstract and Introduction

Abstract
The cooling and drying associated with the so-called ‘8.2 ka event’ have long been hypothesized as having sweeping implications for human societies in the Early Holocene, including some of the last Mesolithic hunter-gatherers in Atlantic Europe. Nevertheless, detailed ‘on-site’ records with which the impacts of broader climate changes on human-relevant environments can be explored have been lacking. Here, we reconstruct sea surface temperatures (SST) from δ18O values measured on subfossil topshells Phorcus lineatus exploited by the Mesolithic human groups that lived at El Mazo cave (N Spain) between 9 and 7.4 ka. Bayesian modelling of 65 radiocarbon dates, in combination with this δ18O data, provide a high-resolution seasonal record of SST, revealing that colder SST during the 8.2 ka event led to changes in the availability of different shellfish species. Intensification in the exploitation of molluscs by humans indicates demographic growth in these Atlantic coastal settings which acted as refugia during this cold event.

Introduction

Current global climate warming is having, and will continue to have, widespread consequences for humans. Looking to the past, multiple climatic and environmental changes have long been thought to have shaped human evolution and behaviour1,2,3. The Holocene (11.7–0 ka cal BP) is a geological epoch characterized by comparative stable climatic conditions. However, that stability was punctuated by a series of sudden climate changes, particularly during the Early Holocene4. Among these, the ‘8.2 ka event’ has been identified as the largest and most abrupt climatic event of the Holocene5,6. Climate scientists suggest that this ‘event’ was the result of an outburst of glacial meltwater from the Laurentide lakes in North America7. The influx of cold water into the Atlantic Ocean led to a reduction of sea surface salinity and a decline of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC), provoking a reduction in sea surface temperatures (SST) across the North Atlantic8. The cooling effects of this event have been documented in proxies from the Greenland ice cores6 and across Europe5,9,10. Short and sharp periods of colder or drier conditions have also been recorded ~ 8.2 ka throughout the northern11,12,13 and southern hemispheres11,12,14. Nevertheless, while now a well-established climatic phenomenon, the sweeping impacts of the ‘8.2 ka event’ on different environments often remain assumed rather than proven, and local records of marine or terrestrial conditions available at an appropriate resolution often remain lacking. Furthermore, while temperature or rainfall changes associated with the ‘8.2 ka event’ are often well-established, there are few palaeoclimatic proxies available that have enabled insights into the influence of the ‘8.2 ka event’ on the seasonality of climatic conditions in different parts of the world.

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/ERHz0ub

April 24, 2022 at 04:09AM