By Paul Homewood

 

h/t Robin Guenier

 

 

The full horror of the ‘nitrogen’ war on agriculture is becoming more apparent every day. Food supplies around the world face collapse if the use of nitrogen fertiliser is severely restricted under Net Zero requirements. It is claimed that the fertiliser is warming the Earth and causing the climate to break down, as the by-product nitrous oxide is released into the atmosphere. In fact the entire global food supply is in danger of being trashed for the sake of what recent scientific work notes is almost unmeasurable 0.064°C warming per century.

Policies to address this non-existent crisis have already done enormous harm in Sri Lanka, where a ban on nitrogen fertiliser caused a rapid collapse in food yields, and led to the President fleeing the country in a hurry. The Canadian Government is committed to a 30% reduction in N₂O levels by 2030. In the Netherlands, the Government is following European Union instructions and trying to remove farmers from the land. Any compensation paid will be tied to a restriction not to start farming again anywhere in the EU. Political discontent is growing, and there are already fears for the supply of agricultural products since the Netherlands is the second largest food exporter in the world.

Nitrogen is a vital component of plant metabolism which is obtained from the soil. Alas, there is not enough nitrogen in the soil to grow plants at the scale needed to feed global populations. Before the arrival of commercial nitrogen fertilisers, famine was a frequent feature of the unreliable food supply across parts of the world. Without the fertiliser, famine will resume its gruesome role, something mainstream Net Zero politicians have to address in the near future. Virtue-signalling green delusions about ‘rewilding’, bug diets and organic farming will not feed the world, probably not even a quarter of it.

Read the full article here.

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

https://ift.tt/PR68CHj

May 11, 2023 at 03:24AM

via STOP THESE THINGS

https://ift.tt/ToMPg07

May 11, 2023 at 02:31AM

 Fresh
research has shown Britain has the sixth most expensive energy rates in the
world

As the cost of living crisis rumbles on in the UK, households continue to be
wary about their energy consumption.

Although the government extended its Energy Price Guarantee for homes until
June, which brings the average energy bill to £2,500 a year, the cost is still
eye-watering. Now, new research has revealed that Brits pay nearly twice the
European average per kilowatt of energy.

Figures from The Underfloor Heating Store show that, at 39p per kilowatt,
Britain has the sixth most expensive energy globally, after the Solomon
Islands, Vanuatu, Benin, Denmark and Germany. On average, Europeans pay 23p per
kilowatt of energy – almost half of what we pay in the UK.
 
Full post

via climate science

https://ift.tt/5knsgZ6

May 11, 2023 at 02:00AM

“… the economist is looking for the why-behind-the-why. And that is where negative pricing for wind and low margins in general from the regulatory setup ruined the economics of the [natural gas] industry, resulting in premature retirements, a lack of new capacity, and cost avoidance. Are you saying that there was a ‘market failure’ with natural gas in [the Texas blackout of February 2021]?” (Bradley to Kiesling, below)

She engages and then disappears. She is the “classical liberal” who refuses to question the climate alarm and favors the government-forced energy transformation to wind, solar, and batteries–and demand-side rationing from the political center. And she is all-in with the centrally planned wholesale power markets, better known as Independent System Operators and Regional Transmission Organizations (ISOs and RTOs).

She trumpeted the Texas ISO as the national model until it imploded in February 2021–and now blames natural gas, not wind and solar or central government planning. With the wounded Texas grid, she is gung-ho about devising demand-side rationing models that will use smart meters to control your usage from a government planning entity. (It will start voluntarily, of course.)

She claims familiarity with Austrian School (market process) economics but does not present their views in her primer articles, much less consider viewpoints against “natural monopoly” and “market failure.” (They conflict with her opening assumptions to get her on the regulatory track.) She has bastardized the worldview of F. A. Hayek by claiming he would have supported mandatory open access (a basic violation of private property rights) and endorsed a centrally planned wholesale electricity market in order to have a ‘competitive’ retail market.

She does not recognize the process of regulation where one intervention leads to another and yet another–and her role in tip-toing down this road to serfdom (and trying to bring classical liberals with her). She seems to be more of a planning technocrat (specialty: ‘smart grid architecture’) than a political economist in the real world.

Here is my latest exchange with Lynne Kiesling where she ducks low when the questions get uncomfortably toward the bottom lines of her thinking.

——————-

Kiesling: The Texas Senate is politicizing their electricity markets, which will only harm Texas electricity customers through higher costs and distorted investments. https://knowledgeproblem.substack.com/p/the-state-senate-is-messing-with

Bradley: Texas’s grid is already politicized, right? The Federal Power Act of 1935, Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, Energy Policy Act of 1992, Texas Public Utility Regulatory Act of 1975, Texas Public Utility Regulatory Act of 1995, Texas Electric Restructuring Act of 1999…. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Public Utility Commission of Texas, Electric Reliability Council of Texas, North American Electric Reliability Corporation, National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners….

Bradley: On your analysis of the ‘why’ of the Texas debacle [her linked paper], blaming natural gas and excusing wind and solar is disingenuous to me. Yes, the why of the event certainly involved the failure of thermal generation. But the ‘why behind the why’–the business and economic reasons–was a decade of wind and solar forced on the grid by government incentives that ruined the margins, the economics, of the reliables.

Incentives matter, and Atlas Shrugged. Never happened before in a century-plus of electricity ….

Kiesling: Did you read the data analyses, the academic papers, the FERC-NERC investigation report? If you read all of the analyses and you still don’t conclude that natural gas production and processing problems were the main cause, you are engaging in highly motivated reasoning.

Bradley: I have read a lot of them. Their conclusion is that yes, natural gas failed. That is the ‘why’–the physical why. But the economist is looking for the why-behind-the-why. And that is where negative pricing for wind and low margins in general from the regulatory setup ruined the economics of the industry, resulting in premature retirements, a lack of new capacity, and cost avoidance. [1]

Are you saying that there was a “market failure” with natural gas in this episode?

Bradley (to Tom Stacy): I do not see ‘market failure’ in electricity markets like Lynne does. Neither do I see natural gas as a “market failure” in the Texas debacle because … there was no free market.

Kiesling: Don’t put words in my mouth, Rob, particularly econ jargon words.

Bradley: Lynne: Let me ask you again. Why did natural gas fail in Texas in February 2021? Is it a ‘market failure’?

Kiesling:No

Bradley: Then why did natural gas fail? Anything to do with renewables?

Kiesling:No

Kiesling: I’m traveling for work today and through the week, so not very available to chat.

Bradley: Renewables had nothing to do with the failure of natural gas??

CRICKETS; This is a conversation that she is not comfortable having, and thus the vague answers and excuse to disengage.

[1] [Note: She revised her linked post to mention negative pricing after my comment.]

Appendix

Here are my posts on why wind and solar ‘failed’ natural gas (and coal) to create the crisis (in conjunction with central planner ERCOT):

Wind, Solar, and the Great Texas Blackout: Guilty as Charged (February 15, 2022)

Renewables “Market-Failed” Natural Gas in Texas (March 26, 2021)

And on the question of Lynne Kiesling as a free-market pretender:

Classical Liberalism and Electricity: Ten Questions for Lynne Kiesling (August 17, 2022)

Classical Liberalism and Electricity: An (Unfinished) Exchange with Lynne Kiesling (August 16, 2022)

Kiesling seems to have backtracked from her earlier ‘confession’ about wind/solar mispricing and grid instability from the intermittents:

Pokalsky, Borlick, Kiesling: Capacity Markets Now Essential in Texas (central planning rethink) August 5, 2021. Robert Borlick of her camp stated, quite bluntly:

I have stated earlier that the ERCOT market’s reliance on scarcity pricing did not foresee an environment with high penetration of zero-marginal cost resources. Back in 2005 I generically simulated an energy-only market to demonstrate how scarcity pricing would work. I never anticipated the mass introduction of renewables at that time.

And two posts on classical liberal electricity policy to differentiate from the government central planning endorsed by Kiesling (and Michael Giberson, Josiah Neeley, et al. at R-Street):

The Great Texas Blackout of 2021: Classical Liberalism and Electricity (May 3, 2021)

The Great Texas Blackout of 2021: Is Planning Necessary? (May 6, 2021)

The post Electricity Policy: An Exchange with Lynne Kiesling (more statism from a ‘classical liberal’) appeared first on Master Resource.

via Master Resource

https://ift.tt/m54YsWX

May 11, 2023 at 01:05AM