By Paul Homewood

 

The nutters are back again!

 

 

from the Guardian:

 

None of the big oil and gas producers surrounding the North Sea plan to stop drilling soon enough to meet the 1.5C (2.7F) global heating target, a report has found.

The five countries – the UK, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway and Denmark – have failed to align their oil and gas policies with their climate promises under the Paris agreement, according to the campaign group Oil Change International.

North Sea governments must act urgently, said Silje Ask Lundberg from Oil Change International, who co-wrote the report. “Failure to address these issues not only undermines international climate goals, but also jeopardises the liveability of our planet.”

The report found that policies in Norway and the UK were furthest from the Paris climate agreement because the countries were “aggressively” exploring and licensing new oil and gas fields. In 2021, the International Energy Agency found there was no room for new oil exploration in its pathway to net zero emissions.

Tessa Khan, the founder of the climate campaign group Uplift, said the UK was in a tiny club of countries driving a crisis for little public gain. “This government is set on squeezing every last drop out of the North Sea, yet we know we’ve already discovered more oil and gas than it is safe to burn.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/mar/12/no-big-north-sea-fossil-fuel-nation-plan-stop-drilling-global-heating

For a start, the  “pledges” made at Paris would not have been consistent with a 1.5C goal, according to the UNFCCC itself. Far from halving emissions by 2030, which was the objective, the pledges would actually result in emissions continuing to rise.

Secondly, the whole of Europe only accounts for 3% of the world’s oil and 5% of gas production, so is pretty much irrelevant in the overall view of things:

BP Energy Review

Moreover Europe consumes five times as much oil as it produces, and two and a half times the gas. Plainly it is not oil and gas production that is the issue, but consumption. Maximising North Sea assets will make no difference one way or another to consumption. But what it will do is reduce emissions, by reducing reliance on highly polluting countries and the need for shipping.

But commonsense never was a Guardian strongpoint!

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

https://ift.tt/VN0lejr

March 14, 2024 at 07:00PM

By Paul Homewood

h/t Patsy Lacey

 

 

From extreme weather to altered migration patterns for native birds, climate change is impacting nature around the UK in a myriad of ways. And with fossil fuel emissions billed as the main cause of the climate crisis, the solution for protecting the environment is clear: we need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels as a primary energy source.

Until humans cut carbon emissions, the adverse effects on nature may continue and worsen.

How is climate change affecting nature across the UK?

An obvious impact of climate change is warming temperatures. On average, temperatures have increased over the last century — resulting in hotter summers and warmer winters. While most of us love a hot, sunny day, these changes in temperatures can tweak the timing of seasonal events and wreak havoc on ecosystems.

Many animals set their inner body clock according to the seasons. So, if it becomes warmer than usual earlier in the year, wildlife wrongly assumes spring has arrived and begins acting accordingly. Flowers may bloom earlier than expected and have a detrimental knock-on effect for pollinators, like insects and birds, who rely on nectar, fruit and seeds.

Increased temperatures are also leading to a change in bird migration patterns, with many birds needing to move further north to escape hot weather. There have even been a few unexpected visitors, like the colourful bee-eater from Africa, appearing on British shores — which may delight birdwatchers but signifies unprecedented changes to animal behaviour.

These effects of climate change are happening too quickly for nature to react and adapt. Humans need to do all we can to lessen the impact. One way to start is with a switch to renewable energy.

Paving the way to a greener energy future

Even when under attack, nature is waiting in the wings with a solution. Renewable energy sources like wind and solar can help us power the nation in a greener way. To harness these natural resources requires an electricity grid capable of transporting renewable energy across the nation.

“The existing electricity transmission network was established over 70 years ago, at a time when most of our electricity came from coal-power stations, built in Britain’s coalfields. Many of them were in the middle of the country,” says environmentalist Chris Baines, who is chair of National Grid’s Independent Stakeholder Advisory Group.

“As we rely increasingly on renewable energy, the pattern of the electricity grid needs to change. This means building new infrastructure to take the energy from where it’s generated — much of it offshore —and carry it to wherever it’s needed. That’s a huge challenge.”

National Grid is working to provide everyone with cleaner, more affordable power. At the heart of this plan is The Great Grid Upgrade — the largest overhaul of the electricity grid in generations. The upgrade will involve building new electricity infrastructure (and updating old networks) to scale up the grid and make it fit for a clean energy future.

BLAH, BLAH, BLAH!!!

https://www.countryfile.com/news/how-could-switching-to-cleaner-energy-help-environment

The whole piece is clearly no more than advertising blurb on behalf of the National Grid. Quite apart from anything else, Britain can build as many wind farms as it wants, but it will have zero effect on the climate. But what it will have is a devastating environmental impact on the countryside, something you might have thought the BBC’s Countryfile might be concerned about.

I was going complain about such outright bias by the BBC, when I noticed the headline to the article:

ADVERTISEMENT FEATURE!!!

 

.

Since when was the BBC allowed to carry advertising?

I’ve no doubt they will claim that the Countryfile magazine is a commercial operation, but given its links to the Countryfile programme, the whole thing stinks.

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

https://ift.tt/hFcrbe5

March 14, 2024 at 07:00PM

By Paul Homewood

 

h/t Ian Magness

 

 

Rishi Sunak has made the case for building new gas-fired power plants on the grounds that reliable sources of electricity generation are needed to back up the intermittency of wind and solar generation. This simple statement of reality has prompted hostile comments from the usual suspects, claiming that this is inconsistent with Net Zero commitments.

The famous economist John Maynard Keynes once said: “When the facts change, I change my mind – what do you do, sir?”.  It is surely clear by now that our current Net Zero commitments are not physically achievable or economically affordable on the timescale claimed.

Like others, I have examined whether or how a decarbonised electricity system might work in 2035 using government projections of investment in wind and solar generation. Detailed analysis shows that we need at least 30 GW of flexible and reliable generation for up to a third of hours in the year when wind and solar generation plus supplies over transmission connections to the continent cannot meet demand. This is the gap that the PM wants to fill.

The alternatives to gas generation are either too expensive or unlikely to be developed in time. Battery systems cost a fortune and are only suitable for short term storage – a few hours at most. Hydrogen is expensive and will require years to develop the necessary infrastructure. Most variants of carbon capture for gas plants are still experimental and large-scale storage of carbon dioxide is proving to be more difficult than expected. Serious amounts of nuclear power cannot be built within 10 years.

Even under favourable assumptions, the alternatives to gas generation can only have a small impact by 2035. The realistic choice is between endlessly extending the life of old and inefficient gas plants or building new and much more efficient units. Unfortunately, the PM is somewhat naïve about the second option. Given the Government’s behaviour over the last 15 years, private investors will not build the plants required without ironclad guarantees backed by serious amounts of money.

The capital cost of gas is, I believe, much lower than for wind or solar when adjusted for availability. Still, about £2 billion per year for 15 years will need to be guaranteed for what are called capacity payments to ensure that new plants are built and available to operate whenever required. The reduction in carbon emissions will be significant. Modern gas plants produce at least 30% less carbon dioxide per MWh of electricity than running plants that are nearly 30 years old.

Building networks that provide reliable and universal electricity supplies is probably the great technological achievement of the 20^th century. The economic and social costs of unreliable electricity are huge – ask anyone in South Africa today. Everything from health care and education to offices, warehouses and industry depends on reliable electricity supplies. If businesses and households do not trust the electricity system, they will create their own backup systems using generators and batteries. No government rules will stop them. The result will likely be higher emissions as well as great expense.

The response to Mr Sunak’s article illustrates that many advocates of Net Zero live in a fantasy world and are, apparently, content to sacrifice the future welfare of the UK’s population on the altar of arbitrary and artificial goals. In our world there is a simple choice to ensure reliable electricity supplies in 2035. Either we build a lot of new gas-fired generation capacity, or we extend the life of older inefficient plants. In neither case is a fully decarbonised electricity system possible, but the option of doing little or nothing is clearly worse than making the commitment to building new plants.

There are too many artificial deadlines in the climate change field, but this one is real. It takes between 3 and 5 years to build a new gas-fired power plant at an existing site under the UK’s current planning system. Another 1-2 years is required for contracts and project finance. These are minimum periods as 30 GW of plant capacity can’t be built at one time. A program of this scale must start in 2025 or 2026 to have any chance of meeting the UK’s needs in 2035. Unless we start now, we face blackouts within a decade.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/12/rishi-sunak-gas-power-station-net-zero-blackouts/

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

https://ift.tt/FeI2MwH

March 14, 2024 at 07:00PM

By Paul Homewood

 

 

h/t Philip Bratby

 

Can the absurd Matt McGrath get any more absurd?

 

 

 

Bananas are set to get more expensive as climate change hits a much-loved fruit, one of the world’s top experts from the industry tells BBC News.

Pascal Liu, senior economist at the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation, says climate impacts pose an "enormous threat" to supply, compounding the impacts of fast-spreading diseases.

The World Banana Forum meets in Rome on Tuesday to discuss the challenges.

Some UK shops recently experienced banana shortages due to sea storms.

The UK alone imports around 5 billion bananas ever year, with around 90% sold through the major supermarkets.

Last week saw shortages of bananas in several UK supermarkets, which retailers said were down to storms at sea, delaying supplies.

Most consumers won’t have noticed, according to Prof Dan Bebber from the University of Exeter, who has studied efforts to make bananas more sustainable.

"The supply chain fluctuates but the UK is actually quite good at buffering those types of effects," he told BBC News.

"Mainly, because the ripening centres can accelerate or decelerate the rate at which they ripen the bananas when they arrive, which helps to buffer those types of fluctuations."

But while banana supplies can cope with short-term weather events like this, experts are concerned about the growing threats from a warming world, and from the diseases that are spreading in its wake.

"I think climate change is really an enormous threat to the banana sector," said Mr Liu of the World Banana Forum, a UN umbrella group that brings together industry stakeholders including retailers, producer countries, exporters and research institutions.

As well as severe weather impacting production, bananas are sensitive to temperature rises which could wipe out crops in some locations.

Perhaps the biggest immediate threat is the fact that rising temperatures are helping to spread disease.

The one causing the most worry is Fusarium Wilt TR4, a fungal infection, which has moved from Australia and Asia to Africa and now to South America.

Producers are also facing pressures from rising costs of fertilisers, energy and transport as well as problems in finding enough workers.

Taken together with the impacts of climate change on supply, prices in the UK and elsewhere are likely to go up – and stay up.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-68534309

Since the absurd McGrath has invoked the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation, maybe he should actually have quoted their own data, which shows banana production at an all time high in 2022. Output has actually doubled in the last twenty years, DESPITE global warming.

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

https://ift.tt/n5TckLQ

March 14, 2024 at 07:00PM