Month: September 2023

Ross Clark: Will Germany be the first to ditch its net zero commitments?

By Paul Homewood

Which country will become the first to rat on its net zero target, to find some of putting it off, watering it down – or changing the definition of what counts? There must be a lot of money on it being Germany.


Things are not going well in Germany’s bid to reach net zero by 2045, five years earlier even than Britain’s own unrealistic target. For months, the German government has been trying to devise a way to save its heavy industry from high energy prices which are sending production fleeing to Asia. Just last year, chemicals giant BASF announced that it would invest in a new £10 billion plant in China rather than Europe, thanks to the cost of energy.


Now, the government seems to have found a way. It is going to raid its £200 billion climate transition fund, which was supposed to invest in green technology. The fund was also meant to compensate householders who have been groaning under the expense of policies such as next year’s proposed ban on new gas boilers.


Instead, some of the money will be going towards subsidising cheaper energy for heavy users (although householders may end up paying more). Needless to say, some of the subsidies will be disappearing into the pockets of the owners of coal-fired power stations – given that some of these have had to be fired up again to cope with the disappearance of Russian gas.


At the same time, Germany is pushing back against EU proposals for new reporting requirements on climate and other environmental issues. It wants to change the rules so that they affect only companies employing more than 500 people, rather than 250. The German car industry has already succeeded in watering down an EU ban on petrol and diesel cars from 2035 – internal combustion engines will still be allowed if they are capable of being run on synthetic ‘e-fuels’ manufactured from hydrogen and carbon dioxide. Given that you can make synthetic fuels to any recipe you like, this effectively means that the car industry will be able to continue making internal combustion engines pretty much as now.


So how did Europe’s most ambitious nation on net zero turn into a laggard (without so far actually ditching the increasingly unreachable 2045 target)? Reality, that’s what.
For years, Germany pursued a policy of relying on cheap Russian gas while hoping that some solution to the problem of intermittent renewables would magically appear. This is a policy which it continued even as Putin lined up his tanks on Ukraine’s borders – three nuclear power stations were closed prematurely on New Year’s Eve 2021.


Now, the costs are becoming clearer. Wind and solar are not going to deliver sufficient energy that is cheap and reliable enough to replace all fossil fuels – at least not without some as-yet unclear technology to allow the affordable storage of vast quantities of energy. The inevitable result of trying to plough on with net zero will be yet more sections of German industry disappearing off to South Asia, which is unencumbered by legally-binding targets.


The question is, which country will become the first to rat on its net zero target, to find some of putting it off, watering it down – or changing the definition of what counts? There must be a lot of money on it being Germany, although it may still take a few years before any government feels brave enough to admit the inevitable.

https://netzerowatch.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=c920274f2a364603849bbb505&id=766d2df28a&e=4961da7cb1 

 

Given that the FDP are already rebelling against Germany’s climate policies, there is in my view a very real possibility that they will join with the Christian Democrats after the next election to begin the unravelling of the climate agenda.

It may be slow at first, but once it starts, it will have a momentum of its own.

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

https://ift.tt/YKlfwGt

September 19, 2023 at 01:45PM

Sunak considering weakening key net zero policies


Funny how unpopularity and an approaching election year can have an effect even on climate-obsessed politicians who love fantasising about ‘dealing with climate change’.
– – –
Rishi Sunak is considering weakening some of the government’s key green commitments in a major policy shift, says BBC News.

It could include delaying a ban on the sales of new petrol and diesel cars and phasing out gas boilers, multiple sources have told the BBC.

The PM is preparing to set out the changes in a speech in the coming days.

There is no suggestion that Mr Sunak is considering abandoning the legal commitment to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050.

But he is expected to declare that other countries need to bear more of the burden of dealing with climate change.

If Mr Sunak presses ahead with the plan it would represent a significant shift in the Conservative Party’s approach to net zero policy, as well as establishing a clear dividing line with the Labour Party.

According to multiple sources briefed on Downing Street’s thinking, Mr Sunak would use the speech to hail the UK as a world leader on net zero.

But he would also argue that Britain has over-delivered on confronting climate change and that other countries need to do more to pull their weight.

Full article here.

via Tallbloke’s Talkshop

https://ift.tt/oGYNW4q

September 19, 2023 at 12:27PM

“What happened?”

AP News wonders why green Germany’s economy is in such bad shape, and blames high energy prices due to the war in Ukraine.

Germany went from envy of the world to the worst-performing major developed economy. What happened?

No mention of Germany’s green energy policies or the US blowing up their gas pipeline.

Germany hails EU deal on renewable energy raising target for 2030 to 45% | AP News

How America Took Out The Nord Stream Pipeline

via Real Climate Science

https://ift.tt/o48PX05

September 19, 2023 at 12:22PM

Extremely Common Rarities

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach.

With all the recent interest in rare or extreme weather events, I got to wondering … what makes a weather event rare or extreme?

With that in mind, here’s a thought experiment whose relevance will be made clear shortly.

Imagine some woman works in the Tennessee Valley plant of a big corporation. It’s a 24/7/365 operation. The Regional Manager likes to visit each plant, spend a day or more there, and stir things up. So the woman decides to record the comings and goings of the Regional Manager. At the end of the year, she graphs it up and it looks like this:

Figure 1. Dates of visits of the Manager to the plant.

When she runs the numbers, she finds out that the Regional Manager’s been visiting the Tennessee Valley plant about one day in five.

So here are two questions.

In Figure 1, is a visit by the Regional Manager a “rare event”?

In Figure 1, are these visits “extreme events”?

Obviously, no. Something that happens about one time out of five is neither rare nor extreme.

Why is this a relevant thought experiment? Well, like I said, I was wondering what makes an event “rare” or “extreme”. So I went to “THE SCIENCE”, which in this case are the Glossaries of the two latest IPCC Assessment Reports. Here are the definitions from the Fifth (AR5) and Sixth (AR6) Assessment Reports.

Extreme weather event

An extreme weather event is an event that is rare at a particular place and time of year. Definitions of rare vary, but an extreme weather event would normally be as rare as or rarer than the 10th or 90th percentile of a probability density function estimated from observations.

and

Extreme weather event 

An event that is rare at a particular place and time of year. Definitions of ‘rare’ vary, but an extreme weather event would normally be as rare as or rarer than the 10th or 90th percentile of a probability density function estimated from observations. By definition, the characteristics of what is called extreme weather may vary from place to place in an absolute sense. 

I cracked up when I saw those definitions. 

Why? 

Well, because on average, one observation out of every five is “as rare or rarer than the 10th or 90th percentile of a probability density function estimated from observations”.

So the IPCC is claiming that one weather observation in five is “rare” … here’s how that plays out for a few years of daily Chicago Midway Airport temperatures. This shows the IPCC-defined “extreme Chicago temperatures”.

Figure 2. Daily average temperatures at Midway Airport, Chicago. Horizontal red lines show the 10th and 90th percentiles of the observed temperatures. Yellow area shows the one in five temperature records that exceed those percentiles. Middle white area encompasses the 80% of the data between the 10th and the 90th percentiles.

I swear, the inmates are in charge of the IPCC asylum.


CODA: This post is about extreme weather events. About a month ago, in a post called “The IPCC Says No Climate Crisis” I highlighted that the IPCC agreed with a recent study pointing out how little change there’s been in extreme weather events.

The study was entitled “A critical assessment of extreme events trends in times of global warming“, and the conclusion says:

In conclusion on the basis of observational data, the climate crisis that, according to many sources, we are experiencing today, is not evident yet.

Can’t say it any better than that. And the IPCC itself agrees. Here, shown as white squares in the first data column, are the areas of the weather where the IPCC says there is no significant change in frequency or strength.

Figure 3. IPCC AR6 Table 12.12. The column entitled “Already Emerged In Historical Period” shows climate phenomena that the IPCC says have or haven’t changed due to “global warming”.

Let’s be clear about this. The following are the areas where the IPCC itself, in the graphic above, says there is low scientific confidence in the existence of any visible “global warming” effects in the form of weather extremes:

  • Air Pollution Weather (temperature inversions)
  • Aridity
  • Avalanche (snow)
  • Average rain
  • Average Wind Speed
  • Coastal Flood
  • Drought Affecting Crops (agricultural drought)
  • Drought From Lack Of Rain (hydrological drought)
  • Erosion of Coastlines
  • Fire Weather (hot and windy)
  • Flooding From Heavy Rain (pluvial floods)
  • Frost
  • Hail
  • Heavy Rain
  • Heavy Snowfall and Ice Storms
  • Landslides
  • Marine Heatwaves
  • Ocean Alkalinity
  • Radiation at the Earth’s Surface
  • River/Lake Floods
  • Sand and Dust Storms
  • Sea Level
  • Severe Wind Storms
  • Snow, Glacier, and Ice Sheets
  • Tropical Cyclones

So when folks claim things like “We’re already seeing the effects of global warming in storms/cyclones/floods/coastal erosion/fire weather/sea level/etc.”, feel free to tell them that the IPCC and reality itself both beg to disagree.

Now, you can clearly see above that the IPCC itself agrees wholeheartedly with the paper “A critical assessment of extreme events trends in times of global warming”. Both the paper and the IPCC Table 12.2 above say that to date there is very little sign of any change in almost all measures of extreme events.

Since my earlier post, however, there’s been a disturbing development. Despite the paper agreeing with the IPCC, in an act of venal scientific malfeasance, the usual alarmist “scientists” including the serial liar Dr. Michael Mann have intimidated the publisher of the paper into withdrawing the paper. 

I cannot find any report of any specific statement that these underhanded “scientists” found to be false. They just claimed unspecified problems with “the selection of the data, the analysis, and the resulting conclusions” … yeah, right. There’s an excellent discussion of the issues here.

Climate cowards. They can’t defeat an argument, so they try to censor it. Here’s the most subversive part of the paper they’ve censored …

Can’t have scientists saying things like that … it’s just not done.

But the good news is, you know these climate thugs are running scared when they have to illicitly prevent the publication of ideas that might do significant damage to their to-date-endless climate money gravy train …

My very best to all,

w.

USUAL CAVEAT: When you comment, please quote the exact words you are discussing. This avoids endless misunderstandings.

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/sIjEzVR

September 19, 2023 at 12:03PM