The perfectly inevitable failure of weather-dependent wind and solar has made way for the perfectly inevitable rise of nuclear power as the premier generation source of the future.

Anyone with their snouts in the wind and solar subsidy trough hates nuclear power for the same reasons we promote it: it works 24 x 365, whatever the weather and delivers power that people can afford around the clock. Moreover, for those worked up about carbon oxide gas emissions, nuclear is the only stand-alone generation source that does not emit CO2 in the process.

Sure, places like Australia with abundant coal reserves will be using coal-fired power for generations to come. But that’s not a reason to reject a nuclear-powered future. Especially in a country like Australia which holds the world’s largest uranium reserves and, despite its shifting policy of limiting the number of mines and states that have banned them, is the world’s third-largest uranium exporter.

That Australia, among the world’s largest uranium exporters, doesn’t rely on nuclear power astonishes those from the 30 countries where you’ll find nearly 450 nuclear reactors currently operating – including the French, Americans, Canadians, Japanese and Chinese. Another 15 countries are currently building 60 reactors among them. Nuclear power output accounts for over 11% of global electricity production. But not a lick of it in Australia.

The benefits of nuclear power are obvious to any sentient being with even a modicum of curiosity about where their power comes from. Cristina Talacko is one such character. Her road to Damascus moment is laid out in the piece below, in which Cristina headlines the reasons why a nuclear-powered future is not only obvious but perfectly inevitable.

Embracing Nuclear energy: my journey from sceptic to advocate
The Spectator
Cristina Talacko
20 June 2024

Eighteen months ago, I embarked on a journey to the United States and Canada with the Shadow Minister for Energy and Climate Change, Ted O’Brien, driven by my commitment to environmental causes and a burning question: How can we decarbonise Australia in a way that’s sustainable and reliable?

As someone who has always supported renewable energy, this journey was a significant pivot for me. I had begun to see the limitations of relying solely on intermittent renewable sources and felt compelled to explore nuclear energy as a potential solution.

Convincing my Coalition for Conservation Board was no easy task. Nuclear energy has been a contentious issue in Australia for decades, and most of our donors were staunch supporters of renewables. This shift in focus posed significant risks, but I believed it was worth it. So, alongside Ted and three other energy experts, I set out on a trip that would change my perspective entirely.

In Washington DC, our meetings with the Department of Energy (DOE) were eye-opening. The bipartisan support for nuclear power was unexpected and encouraging. We spoke with Democrats, Republicans, and think tanks like ClearPath and Third Way, all of whom agreed on the need for advanced nuclear energy. Their conviction that nuclear is crucial for a cost-effective and timely transition to Net Zero was compelling.

Our visits to industry giants like GE Hitachi, Westinghouse, and new players like TerraPower, X-Energy were equally enlightening. The technological advancements and benefits of nuclear power were impressive, making it difficult for me to understand why Australia maintains its ban. Ted and I asked every possible question about waste management, safety, costs, and policy. We left no stone unturned.

A stop in Paris to meet with the International Energy Agency (IEA) added another layer of insight. The Energy Markets Director’s assertion that ‘there is no Net Zero without nuclear’ struck a chord with me. Australia’s reliance on intermittent renewables seemed increasingly precarious, and the IEA’s endorsement of nuclear as a necessary component of a balanced energy mix was a wake-up call.

Returning to Australia, I prepared a detailed report for the Coalition for Conservation Board. The findings from our trip were clear and compelling:

Bipartisan Acknowledgement: In both the US and Canada, there’s bipartisan recognition that renewables will play a big role in future energy systems. Policymakers on both sides have ‘done the math’ and understand that an expansion of nuclear energy is vital for a cheaper, faster, smoother transition to Net Zero. Not all policymakers like nuclear energy, but they recognise that the transition cannot be made harder by playing favourites with technologies. No one we spoke to in policy and environmental advocacy circles, from either the centre-left or centre-right, believed 100 per cent renewable energy was practically achievable.

Economic Viability: Through world-class nuclear operations practices in both countries and due to its incomparable energy density, we learned that existing nuclear energy is the cheapest form of zero-emissions electricity in many markets, except for legacy hydro in some regions. In some markets, nuclear is cheaper than gas and coal. US and Canadian policymakers understand that how well projects are delivered is a key determinant of the cost of nuclear electricity, and there is clear evidence of more thoughtful project delivery after cost overruns at recent US nuclear projects. This includes completing the design before beginning construction, constructability planning, and more collaborative contracting. US and Canadian policymakers are focused on total system costs, not just the levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) for individual technologies. Regulators in both nations are working to reduce the cost and duration of licensing.

Clean Energy Label: Nuclear energy has access to the same production tax credits and investment tax credits (federally) that solar, wind, and geothermal do. These incentives, massively expanded through the recent Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), apply to existing and planned nuclear energy investments. Nuclear energy finally has a level playing field in the US and has recently become eligible for low-cost funding through the Canadian Infrastructure Bank’s clean energy mandate.

Advanced and Small Reactors: The US is placing very large bets on the first wave of advanced and small reactors, providing billions of dollars in direct funding to ensure that three full-scale demonstration plants are built by the end of this decade. These plants will go into commercial operation once built. In addition to this direct funding, the DOE is providing funding-in-kind to several other technology developers through funded access to the US National Labs system for R&D and paying for early engagement with the NRC to smooth the regulatory pathway.

Energy Security as National Security: The need for energy security was explained to us in every single meeting. Energy security has many different components, including grid resilience, fuel price and availability, technology supply chains monopolised by non-allies, vulnerability to unusual weather events, and ensuring the energy security of allies. Fuel and technology diversity is a key pillar of energy security for many nations, not just the US and Canada. It is also clear that Australia isn’t taking energy security seriously.

High Energy-IQ Communities: Locations, where many people understand where energy comes from and have the skills to economically benefit from their energy literacy, stand to attract the most investment. This includes energy-exporting states like Wyoming, West Virginia, Ontario, Alberta, and Saskatchewan. Local leadership in these communities understands the economic importance of energy and is positioning their states and provinces to retain energy leadership by supporting nuclear investment. Even Alaska communities have embraced nuclear.

Quality Jobs: Nuclear projects and operations require highly sophisticated training facilities, state-of-the-art robotics, advanced manufacturing, and a highly trained workforce. This means that nuclear workers are very well paid, and the SMEs that support the nuclear industries are profitable. Nuclear power plants last for decades, with several existing NPPs planning for an 80-year service life. These are multi-generational jobs. Engineers, trades, and workers from other heavy sectors can become nuclear-proficient very quickly. ‘You can tell who the nuclear workers are; they have a new truck and boat in the driveway and a cabin or holiday house on the lake.’ – Todd Smith, Ontario Energy Minister.

Private Capital: There is significant private capital being directed towards nuclear across the entire value chain. The last nuclear renaissance in the first decade of this century was underwhelming and only driven by large utilities. It was also characterised by poor project performance on new builds in Western nations (not in Asian countries, which successfully delivered many reactors). This time it’s different. The drive to decarbonise economies, leading to deep and durable political support, is a key differentiator. Others include the broad range of reactor sizes, applications (heat, hydrogen, remote communities), and many new players in the industry on both the technology side and the customer side. It’s not just large utilities this time.

Maximising Existing Infrastructure: The US and Canada are not rewiring their nations extensively. Communities are close to reaching their limit of what is acceptable in terms of new wind, solar, and transmission networks. Extensive new transmission build-out is viewed as expensive, difficult, and unnecessary. Because of the way transmission investment is paid for by electricity consumers, the structural price increases necessary to compensate transmission owners are politically contentious, especially when utilisation is factored in. Maximising the use of existing transmission by replacing coal with nuclear plants was highlighted as a key strategy of both nations.

Australia as a Preferred Partner: There was a clear interest in working with Australia to add nuclear energy to our national energy mix. There was an acknowledgment that Australia could move faster and more competently than nearly any other non-nuclear nation given our existing expertise and regulatory structures, strong legal system, and high-quality technical workforce. Australia as the natural nuclear gateway to SE Asia and the Pacific Islands, combined with our capacity to be a nuclear skills, services, and components hub, was frequently discussed.

Safety and Waste Concerns: Australian concerns about safety and waste are not widely shared in the US and Canada. Communities that host nuclear power stations, are not concerned about radiation doses received through normal operation and perceive the likelihood of a nuclear accident to be very low. These communities typically have the highest level of knowledge, as nuclear workers come from within their communities and can communicate how safe the technology is. Spent fuel is not a pressing issue since it has been stored without a single incident for many decades in both countries. Canada is making good progress towards selecting a location for its deep geological repository.

Strategic Fuel Supply Chain: A decision to enter the nuclear fuel supply chain is strategic, not economic. Fuel costs contribute very little to the overall price of nuclear electricity (5-8 per cent), and most steps in the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle are supplied as services. While a partially or fully native fuel supply chain is likely to be more expensive than competitively procuring these services within a global market, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is causing a re-think in the US. The relatively minor cost premium to nativise fuel supply is outweighed by the strategic imperative of energy security. Australia has the technological sophistication to enter any part of the fuel supply chain, with enrichment being the most difficult and expensive part.

When the leader of the opposition, Peter Dutton, announced the Coalition’s first energy policy plan, I felt a profound sense of pride. Despite the initial resistance and the loss of funding from pro-renewable donors, our advocacy for a mixed and diverse energy system had paid off. It was a significant achievement to see at least one side of politics acknowledging the need for a balanced energy mix that ensures a reliable and clean power supply.

Australia’s current stance on nuclear energy is increasingly untenable. The Albanese government’s signing of the Framework for Prosperity, which supports the adoption of nuclear SMRs in the Indo-Pacific region, stands in contrast to its domestic campaign against nuclear energy. This dichotomy is perplexing and suggests a double standard that undermines Australia’s potential leadership in the global nuclear landscape.

As the world embraces nuclear energy for its safety, affordability, and reliability, Australia’s continued ban isolates us from our neighbours and limits our ability to achieve true energy security. The Prime Minister and Australian climate and environmental agencies’ fear-mongering tactics do a disservice to the informed and science-based discussions we need. Australians are capable of discerning the facts and recognising the successes of nuclear power in many G20 countries.

It’s time for our leaders to rise above misinformation and engage in honest, constructive debates about nuclear energy. We owe it to ourselves to explore all viable options for a sustainable and secure energy future.
The Spectator

H. Sterling Burnett

YOU SHOULD SUBSCRIBE TO CLIMATE CHANGE WEEKLY.

IN THIS ISSUE:

• International Climate Conference Debunks Science and Policy Consensus Claims
• Video of the Week: Polar Bears
• Swiss Defend Democracy Against European Court’s Climate Ruling
• Average and Peak Summer Temperatures Warmer in the 1930s than in Any 10-Year Period Since
• Podcast of the Week: Climate Alarmism & Anti-Humanism – In The Tank #45
• Biden Administration Hopes to Restart Mothballed Nuclear Plants
• Climate Comedy
• Recommended Sites

---

Watch ALL the Presentations by the ALL-STARS of Climate Realism at the Archive of Heartland’s 15 Climate Conferences

---

International Climate Conference Debunks Science and Policy Consensus Claims

The Heartland Institute partnered with the Germany-based European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE) and the U.S.-based Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) to hold a two-day climate conference on June 14-15 in Vienna, Austria. This was the 16th International Conference on Climate Change; Heartland has either hosted or participated in all of them.

The speaker’s line up for the conference was outstanding, boasting some of the world’s top climate scientists, and economic and policy experts, including Heartland’s own President James Taylor, not long after a successful European trip during which he provided invited testimony on climate change to the European Union Parliament. Within days of Taylor’s presentation, the EU Parliament rejected a bill to require net-zero carbon dioxide emissions throughout Europe.

Since that time, new EU elections have been held, and a number of climate skeptics replaced Green party representatives in the EU parliament.

The climate conference was the first of its kind to take place in Austria, whose populist conservative Members of Parliament wield increasing influence within the EU Parliament.

As I write, videos of the conference sessions have not been posted; but below, I categorize and note some of the speakers and topics, and Taylor has provided brief descriptions of a few of the talks. On the science front, an international group of scientists, including Nicola Scafetta, Ph.D., Willie Soon, Ph.D., Nir Shaviv, Ph.D., and Henrik Svensmark, Ph.D., discussed the role the sun and cosmic rays play in warming and climate change. William Happer, Ph.D., described the role that clouds play in radiation transfer. Roy Spencer, Ph.D., discussed the idea that temperature extremes are becoming more common. Taylor, Craig Rucker, and Nobel Prize laureate John Clauser, Ph.D., each discussed how climate alarmists and the media are lying, either directly or through omission of key facts, to promote the idea of climate emergency in need of a big government fix—and discussed ways to successfully debate and debunk their claims.

Other researchers discussed the science and politics of energy and climate change, including the potential of different energy sources and how and why climate alarm is being fought in legislatures and the courts. They included such analysts as Marc Morano, Marcel Crok, László Csaba Szarka, Ph.D., Bernhard Strehl, Ph.D., Manfred Haferburg, Douglas Pollack, and Benjamin Zycher, Ph.D.

Below, Taylor briefly describes the content and impact of a few of the presentations, including his own.

To a packed house at the conference hall in Vienna, I (Taylor) set the stage for presentations by some of the world’s most accomplished climate scientists and climate policy experts. I explained how climate alarmism is a Trojan horse for the global left to consolidate money and power in global government institutions while depriving us of our most basic freedoms. After congratulating the audience on sending even more freedom-focused policymakers to the upcoming EU Parliament session, I noted how Heartland is working closely with EIKE and other public policy organizations and policymakers throughout Austria and throughout Europe. I gave a presentation on specific examples of climate change misinformation making the rounds in the establishment media. I then turned the floor over to presentations by participating scientists and policy experts.

“No chance” was the key takeaway from a presentation by Dr. Will Happer. Happer and a colleague, W. A. van Wijngaarden, Ph.D., published a paper in 2020 showing the atmosphere has nearly reached its carbon dioxide saturation point. Carbon dioxide impedes the flow of longwave radiation to space within a specific spectrum range. At current atmospheric CO2 levels of approximately 420 parts per million, atmospheric CO2 is nearly saturated, meaning nearly all potential warmth retention from atmospheric CO2 has already occurred, such that additional CO2 emissions will have almost no impact on global temperatures. During his presentation, Dr. Happer said there is no chance that the saturation effect he documented could be wrong. From the humble and affable Dr. Happer, that is as forceful a statement as you will ever hear. That is good news for people worried about future climate change, and should end the debate about any future climate change crisis.

In a subsequent one-on-one conversation that I had with Danish scientist Dr. Henrik Svensmark, he confirmed Happer’s assessment of the CO2 saturation effect, saying, “Dr. Happer is correct, CO2 saturation as described by Dr. Happer is a well-known and well-understood matter of science.

“Nobody with any basic understanding of atmospheric physics can claim it is wrong,” Svensmark concluded.

Dr. John Clauser, the 2022 Nobel Prize winner for physics, gave a compelling blow-by-blow takedown of climate alarmism. Among other things, Clauser emphasized that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its computer models are spectacularly wrong in their assumptions about clouds.

Clauser pointed out that average cloud cover throughout the planet is approximately 67 percent. IPCC claims clouds have an albedo of 0.34, meaning they reflect approximately 34 percent of sunlight back into space, with 66 percent of the sunlight that strikes cloud tops reaching Earth’s surface. In reality, Clauser emphasized, cloud albedo is approximately 0.80. The sun is a variable star, meaning the output of solar energy varies a significant amount. Compelling scientific evidence shows solar output has increased significantly during the 120-plus years since the beginning of the 20th century. Drastically underestimating cloud albedo allows IPCC to underreport the impact of the recent increase in solar output on global climate and allows IPCC to claim a much greater impact from carbon dioxide emissions than is justified by sound science.

Wish I could have been there. I’ll update readers when the videos are posted, so you can view them at your leisure.

Source: EIKE

---

NEW: Get Climate at a Glance on your mobile device!

---

Video of the Week

For my entire life I’ve been told they are threatened by global warming, and could even go extinct on our watch. Turns out, this couldn’t be farther from the truth. Heartland Institute Research Fellow Linnea Lueken explains.

---

Read the brutal truth about how battery production for electric vehicles cause immense environmental destruction and human tragedy.

---

Swiss Defend Democracy Against European Court’s Climate Ruling

The democratically elected Swiss government has decided they will not impose the climate restrictions on their citizens demanded by a ruling of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

In a case widely touted by the media as precedent-setting, more 2,000 Swiss women over the age of 64 brought a climate lawsuit before the ECHR, arguing the Swiss government was violating their fundamental right to life by not doing enough to tackle the climate crisis. In April, the court ruled in their favor, saying the government had to impose stricter climate goals and plans, requiring deeper emission reductions and more restrictions on fossil fuel use in the county.

“Switzerland, like many developed countries, has failed to meet targets to reduce planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions,” reports The Independent. “The case was touted to have set an international precedent for governments to be made legally accountable for inaction on the climate crisis.

“Climate groups said the ruling would establish that protecting the environment and human health from the spiraling adverse impact of the climate crisis was a human right and force governments to act,” The Independent said.

With the Swiss Parliament’s action The Independent notes, a quite different precedent may, in fact, be set.

“By rejecting the ruling, the Swiss parliament just set a ‘concerning precedent’ for how such legal action could go in the future, experts said, [with] Isabela Keuschnigg, legal researcher at the London School of Economics, say[ing] the move could ‘set a concerning precedent, undermining the role of legal oversight in democratic governance,’” The Independent writes.

During a June 12 session of parliament, Swiss lawmakers strongly criticized the ECHR’s ruling as “interference” in the country’s sovereign democratic government.

Although Andrew Cutting, a spokesperson for the Council of Europe, told Reuters that no member country has ever outright publicly refused to implement a judgment from the ECHR, governments have failed to comply with and implement approximately half of the most significant decisions issued by the court over the past 10 years.

It is unclear at present whether Switzerland’s Federal Council will comply with the ruling despite the parliament’s decision. The Independent notes that the government must inform the Council of Europe by October what steps it is taking to implement the ECHR’s decision. Maybe it could simply ignore that deadline, as the Swiss parliament has said the government should do with the court’s ruling.

Source: The Independent

---

Average and Peak Summer Temperatures Warmer in the 1930s than in Any 10-Year-Period Since

Using data from the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), 24/7 Tempo produced a ranking of summer temperatures by decade from June through September, for 1895 to present. They looked at the NCEI’s data for each summer month over the past 129 years, and averaged them by decade, pulling out the high temperature year in each decade.

What the data show won’t surprise anyone who has followed Heartland’s long-time work using data to regularly debunk claims that this or that month, season, or year “is the hottest ever,” but it may shock those who have maintained an open mind but who have so far believed what alarmists are telling them.

The data show that the decade of the 1930s—not either of the first two decades of the 21st century, which have been declared the hottest ever by climate alarmists—registered the hottest summers, and the highest average summer temperature by year. The website 24/7 Tempo writes:

1930 to 1939, also saw a new average record of 85.73 degrees Fahrenheit in the summer of 1936.

Additionally, this decade had hotter summer months, bringing the average temperatures to between 83 and 85 degrees Fahrenheit. These higher-than-average temperatures meant a new average of 84.37 degrees Fahrenheit, up almost 2 degrees from the previous decade.

With an average over the decade of 84.37℉, the 1930s remain the warmest decade of summer temperatures on record. The second warmest decade is 2010 to 2019, with an average summer temperature of 84.06. The decade from 2000 to 2009, and 1950 to 1959, recorded the third and fourth highest summer average temperatures, respectively, on record.

The highest single year’s summer temperature was also measured in the 1930s: 1936, at 85.73℉. The second warmest single summer year was 2012 at 85.37℉; 1988 was the 3rd warmest summer year on record.

What the data shows is slight fluctuations from year to year, but no sustained warming trend, with no new summer records being set in the 2000s. Rather, temperatures peaked nearly 100 years ago, fluctuating slightly from year to year after that, but in general cooling for six decades, only to begin warming again in the 2000s. No temperature trend tracks the relatively steady rise in carbon dioxide emissions.

Source: 24/7 Tempo (Newsbreak)

---

Heartland’s Must-read Climate Sites

---

Podcast of the Week

Phoenix is hiring a “Chief Heat Officer,” in response to rising heat related deaths, which the city blames on climate change. The truth is most of those dying are homeless or drug addicts with underlying health conditions, people already in poor health. As far as Phoenix’s heat, that is due, not to climate change but the city’s massive growth and related increased Urban Heat Island effect. Responding to homelessness and drug use will do far more to prevent premature deaths in Phoenix than efforts to fight climate change or control the weather.

Subscribe to the Environment & Climate News podcast on Apple Podcasts, iHeart, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts. And be sure to leave a positive review!

---

Biden Administration Hopes to Restart Mothballed Nuclear Plants

As part of its efforts to hit net zero targets, the administration of President Joe Biden is unexpectedly pushing the reopening of a number of nuclear plants that were previously decommissioned and mothballed. Nuclear power plants provide reliable power with almost no carbon dioxide emissions. Recently, a number of nuclear power plants have been shuttered or taken offline due to policies enacted by the federal and various state governments that made it more profitable for utilities to build and operate “renewable” wind and solar power facilities, despite their intermittency, instead of continuing to operate or go through the relicensing process for existing nuclear power plants.

Oil Price reports that U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Jennifer Granholm recently told Reuters the Biden administration believes the increased use of nuclear power is necessary to reach its net-zero emissions reduction goals, but because the cost of building new nuclear reactors is time-consuming and expensive, reopening previously shuttered plants is an option on the table.

As part of that effort, in March, the DOE issued a $1.52 billion conditional loan to Hotec International to finance the restart of the Michigan-based Palisades reactor, which was closed in 2022. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s approval of a plan to restart the plant is one of the conditions of the loan.

Granholm indicated that the DOE was currently participating in discussions to make loans to reopen other recently closed nuclear plants, among them 12 reactors closed since 2013.

Source: Oil Price

---

Climate Comedy

---

Recommended Sites

Roger Caiazza

According to Pew Research, Americans still want renewable energy, but support is waning.

Pew Research Center June 27, 2024

How Americans View National, Local and Personal Energy Choices

Most Americans want more renewable energy, but support has dipped. Interest in electric vehicles has also declined

By Alec Tyson and Brian Kennedy

The planet’s continued streak of record heat has spurred calls for action by scientists and global leaders. Meanwhile, in the United States, energy development policy is being hotly debated on the national and local levels this election year. How do Americans feel about U.S. energy policy options, and what steps are they willing to take in their own lives to reduce carbon emissions? A new Pew Research Center survey takes a look.

Among the major findings:

There’s been a decline in the breadth of support for wind and solar power. The shares who favor expanding solar and wind power farms are down 12 percentage points and 11 points, respectively, since 2020, driven by sharp drops in support among Republicans.

Interest in buying an electric vehicle (EV) is lower than a year ago. Today, 29% of Americans say they would consider an EV for their next purchase, down from 38% in 2023.

Still, a majority of Americans (63%) support the goal of the U.S. taking steps to become carbon neutral by 2050. When asked which is the greater priority, far more Americans continue to say the country should focus on developing renewable energy than fossil fuel sources (65% vs. 34%).

The survey, conducted May 13-19 among 8,638 U.S. adults, finds a fairly modest share of U.S. adults (25%) say it’s extremely or very important to them personally to limit their own “carbon footprint.” Far more give this middling or low priority.

These findings illustrate how large shares of Americans back more renewable energy that would decrease overall carbon emissions. Still, this general orientation does not necessarily translate into strong commitment to reducing personal carbon emissions or interest in buying an EV.

Read more: https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2024/06/27/how-americans-view-national-local-and-personal-energy-choices/

Maybe it is just me but the lead sentence claim that record heat is spurring action smacks of bias.  I checked the description of how they did the survey to see if my concerns were warranted:

Pew Research Center conducted this study to understand Americans’ views of energy issues. For this analysis, we surveyed 8,638 U.S. adults from May 13 to 19, 2024.

Everyone who took part in the survey is a member of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way, nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the ATP’s methodology.

Here are the questions used for this report, along with responses, and its Methodology.

The questions used for the survey were not overtly biased.  Nothing like “In order to save the planet from imminent doom are you in favor of solar farms?”  My only reservation is that these questions were part of a bigger survey, so it is not clear if previous questions primed the pump towards climate impact alarm.  One other point is that the methodology was different from most surveys.  Instead of a phone survey the Pew Research Center has established the American Trends Panel “a nationally representative panel of randomly selected U.S. adults who participate via self-administered web surveys.”  I have no opinion if this affects survey results.

Rather than just provide the results of the survey the Pew website description addresses the question of what’s behind the declines in support for wind and solar.

Declines in public support for renewable energy have been driven by Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, whose support started to fall sharply after President Joe Biden took office in early 2020.

• 64% of Republicans say they favor more solar panel farms, down from 84% in 2020.
• 56% of Republicans say they favor more wind turbine farms, a 19-point drop from 2020.

Over this same time period, views among Democrats and Democratic leaners on these measures are little changed, with large majorities continuing to support more wind and solar development.

In some cases, gaps between Republicans and Democrats over energy policy now approach the very wide partisan divides seen over the importance of climate change.

In May 2020, Democrats were 26 points more likely than Republicans to say the country’s priority should be developing renewable energy (91% vs. 65%). Four years later, that gap has ballooned to 49 points, due almost entirely to changing views among Republicans – 61% of whom now say developing fossil fuels like oil, coal and natural gas should be the more important priority.

However, the authors do admit that it is not just political affiliation:

But changes in attitudes about policies that would reduce carbon emissions are not solely the result of more negative views among Republicans. For instance, the share of Democrats who say they are very or somewhat likely to consider an EV for their next car purchase has declined from 56% to 45% in the last year. And the share of Democrats who call climate change a very big problem for the U.S. has declined from 71% in 2021 to 58% today.

New York’s Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) mandates massive changes to the energy choices of New Yorkers that require action today.  I have followed the Climate Act since it was first proposed, submitted comments on the Climate Act implementation plan, and have written over 400 articles about New York’s net-zero transition.  One over-riding conclusion based on my work and discussions with others who share my concerns is that the majority of New Yorkers have no clue what is coming at them. 

Nationally the mandates and potential impacts are much less imminent, I believe that a big part of the decline in support of wind and solar is increased knowledge.  The survey includes more detailed questions regarding solar developments – Would solar development make the landscape unattractive, take up too much space, bring in more tax revenue, and lower the price you pay for electricity.  I believe that answering those questions requires personal knowledge and in my personal experience it has only been in the last several years that I have seen solar developments.  Having seen them I doubt many would think they are attractive and do not take up too much space.  The more knowledge people have the lower the favorability in my opinion.

The survey also addresses electric vehicles. 

Amid a major policy push at the federal level for electric vehicles, Americans are unenthusiastic about steps that would phase out gas-powered vehicles.

In March of this year, the Biden administration announced a rule aimed at dramatically expanding EV sales. Overall, 58% of Americans say they oppose these rules that would make EVs at least half of all new cars and trucks sold in the U.S. by 2032. Republicans overwhelmingly oppose this policy (83%). Among Democrats, 64% support these rules to expand EV sales, while 35% say they oppose them

In support of my belief that knowledge spurs skeptical concerns note the following results for a question about EV reliability:

As more people hear about electric vehicle experiences the reality of problems with the technology become evident.

The survey also included questions about personal carbon footprints.

Discussions about reducing carbon emissions often include the everyday actions people can take to reduce the amount of energy they use. One-in-four Americans say it is extremely or very important to them personally to limit their own “carbon footprint.” Larger shares say this is either somewhat (42%) or not too or not at all (32%) important to them.

There is one important aspect of energy choice that was not included in the survey.  What about the costs?  The follow up questions for wind and solar development included a question asking whether respondents thought that those developments would reduce electricity prices.  There were also questions about electric vehicle cost to purchase and refuel them.  Nothing about overall costs was included.  I have yet to see a poll that indicates that people are willing to pay much for the energy transition being forced down our throats.

The description of the survey claims that “large shares of Americans back more renewable energy that would decrease overall carbon emissions.”  It also admits that “this general orientation does not necessarily translate into strong commitment to reducing personal carbon emissions or interest in buying an EV”.  If the willingness to pay aspect had been incorporated into the poll, I have no doubts that support for wind and solar would drop significantly.  I am confident that as more people become aware of the hidden costs of renewable energy the inevitable result will be much less support.

---

Roger Caiazza blogs on New York energy and environmental issues at Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York.  This represents his opinion and not the opinion of any of his previous employers or any other company with which he has been associated.