The climate change narrative has gained significant traction over the past few decades, driven by a coalition of scientists, activists, and political figures. However, beneath the surface of this narrative lies a complex web of financial backing that often goes unnoticed. Recent disclosures have revealed that organizations associated with Hillary Clinton, such as the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI), have funneled substantial funds into activist groups like Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion. This financial support prompts a critical examination of the motives and consequences of such alliances, especially considering the often exaggerated claims of an impending climate catastrophe.
The financial support provided by Clinton-run organizations to climate activist groups is significant. These funds often flow through intermediaries like the Climate Emergency Fund (CEF), creating a buffer between the donors and the controversial actions of the recipient groups. The CEF, for instance, has been a major donor to Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion, groups known for their disruptive tactics, including road blockages and vandalism. This indirect funding route serves to shield the Clinton-affiliated organizations from direct association with these activities, while still allowing them to influence the climate activism agenda.
A group founded by Mrs Clinton from the ashes of her failed presidential bid has donated $500,000 (£391,500) in the last three years to the protest group’s California-based financiers.
American voters who have bought tote bags decorated with pictures of Mrs Clinton or sweatshirts promoting abortion rights have inadvertently funded disruption in the UK.
Just Stop Oil’s largest financial backer is a controversial Californian non-profit, the Climate Emergency Fund (CEF), which pays for stunts by environmental groups across the world, including Extinction Rebellion.
A paper trail of transparency disclosures, seen by The Telegraph, shows that one of the CEF’s major supporters is Onward Together, a campaign organisation founded by Mrs Clinton in the aftermath of her 2016 presidential campaign against Donald Trump.
The motivations behind such financial support are worth scrutinizing. On the surface, Clinton-run organizations present themselves as champions of climate action. However, a deeper dive suggests that their motives may include maintaining political relevance and consolidating power. By aligning with radical climate activism, these organizations can position themselves as leaders in the fight against climate change, appealing to a specific voter base and securing political influence.
Furthermore, the climate change narrative offers a convenient platform for advancing specific political and economic interests. The push for renewable energy, carbon taxes, and other green policies often benefits certain industries and financial interests aligned with the donor class. Thus, the financial backing of activist groups by these organizations may not be entirely altruistic; it could be a strategic move to shape policy and public opinion in a way that serves their broader objectives.
The CEF was established in 2019 by Aileen Getty, the granddaughter of the oil tycoon J. Paul Getty, and campaigns for governments to adopt climate-friendly policies.
The support from Clinton-run organizations has significant ramifications for the nature of climate activism. Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion have been at the forefront of promoting a sense of urgency and crisis around climate change. However, the methods they employ—such as public disruptions and sensationalist messaging—often do more harm than good. While these tactics generate media attention, they also alienate the public and create divisions. The financial support from well-connected political figures lends an air of legitimacy to these actions, but it also raises questions about the authenticity of the activism itself.
These groups claim to represent grassroots movements, yet their operations are heavily funded by wealthy donors. This financial backing can lead to a form of controlled opposition, where the activism is steered in a direction that aligns with the interests of its benefactors rather than representing genuine public concern. This reality undermines the credibility of these groups and casts doubt on their purported independence.
One of the primary tools used by climate activists and their supporters to justify radical policies is climate modeling. However, these models are far from reliable. They are based on numerous assumptions and often fail to accurately predict future climate conditions. The inherent uncertainties in climate science make these models more speculative than definitive. Yet, they are frequently presented as incontrovertible evidence of an impending climate crisis.
This misuse of climate models serves to bolster the narrative of urgency that activists like Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion propagate. By promoting worst-case scenarios as likely outcomes, they create a climate of fear that justifies extreme measures. However, this approach neglects the significant gaps in our understanding of the climate system and ignores the possibility that the models could be wrong. The over-reliance on these speculative tools can lead to misguided policies that may have more negative consequences than the problems they aim to solve.
The push for radical climate policies, often supported by well-funded activist groups, carries substantial risks. Policies like Net Zero and aggressive carbon reduction targets can have severe economic and social repercussions. These include job losses in traditional energy sectors, higher energy costs, and increased economic strain on lower-income households. The rush to implement these policies, driven by a sense of urgency promoted by activists and their financial backers, can lead to poorly thought-out solutions with unintended consequences.
Moreover, the history of large-scale environmental interventions is littered with examples of failures and unintended consequences. From the ethanol mandate, which drove up food prices, to solar panel projects that failed to deliver promised benefits, the track record of such initiatives is mixed at best. The financial support from Clinton-affiliated organizations for groups advocating these policies raises concerns about the real beneficiaries of these actions. Are these policies truly in the public’s best interest, or are they serving a different agenda?
The role of the media in shaping public perception of climate issues and the activism surrounding them cannot be overstated. Media coverage often highlights the most sensational aspects of protests, such as arrests and disruptions, while glossing over the complexities of the underlying issues. This selective reporting can create a skewed perception of the urgency and legitimacy of the climate crisis.
Clinton-run organizations, with their extensive media connections, can significantly influence this narrative. By funding groups that engage in high-visibility protests, they can keep climate issues at the forefront of public discourse. However, this also risks creating a one-sided narrative that marginalizes dissenting voices and oversimplifies the complexities of climate science and policy. The media’s complicity in promoting this narrative, often without critical examination, contributes to a climate of groupthink that stifles genuine debate and exploration of alternative viewpoints.
The financial support from Clinton-run organizations for climate activist groups like Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion exposes the complex interplay between politics, finance, and activism. While these organizations present themselves as altruistic champions of the environment, their involvement raises important questions about the authenticity and motivations behind the climate movement. The reliance on flawed climate models, the promotion of radical policies with questionable benefits, and the manipulation of public perception all point to a need for critical scrutiny.
As we observe the ongoing climate wars, it is crucial to maintain a skeptical stance, questioning the motives and interests behind the scenes. The potential for harm from poorly conceived policies is real, and the influence of wealthy donors can skew the public discourse in ways that do not necessarily align with the public’s best interest. It is essential to critically examine the networks of funding and influence that shape the climate agenda and to remain vigilant against the potential for manipulation.
The involvement of Clinton-run organizations in funding climate activists highlights the need for a thorough and critical examination of the forces at play. Only by doing so can we hope to uncover the hidden agendas promoting policies being pushed in the name of climate change.
If you had free choice for stimulating conversation, who would you invite to dinner around your kitchen table? Personally, I’d accept Taylor Swift, Lady Gaga and Nicole Kidman, and serve my favourite Peking duck from a Luv-a-Duck box.
If they’re unavailable, I’d settle for my Climate Council pals Tim “Ghost Metropolis” Flannery, his CEO Amanda McKenzie and co-Councillor Joelle Gergis. But what to serve them? They’d want to maintain their tiny food-carbon footprints. In the climate emergency, as global boiling accelerates on our highway to hell, they’d surely be on planet-friendly insect diets. I’d select the sustainable insects approved for human food by our Ag Department.
For entrée I’d serve ground Achaeta domestica (house crickets). Mains would be a paste of Zophobas morio (super mealworms), drizzled with a jus from black soldier ant larvae.[1] Dessert? Whole Tenebrio molitor (mealworm beetles).
The best news for the Climate Council trio is that the three species are certain to be augmented soon to many more creepies, crawlies and buzzing fliers. The Straits Times reported last month the Singapore Food Agency’s approval of an expanded list of 16 plate-ready bugs. Among the endorsed species (“Grub’s on! Come and get it!”) are four crickets, two moths, a grasshopper, three mealworms, silkworms, two locusts, a honeybee and “a Giant Rhino Beetle Grub”. Nothing surprises me about Singapore’s cuisine — during my visit last year, a restaurant menu on New Bridge Road included “Fried Jew’s Ear”.[2]
As the Guardian exults, “From fried silk worm pupa to protein bars packed with ground mealworm, Singapore’s long list of edible insects could be a sign of things to come. Singapore paves the way for plates to become wrigglier, leggier and more sustainable.” Singapore also gets plaudits in the Guardian from Skye Blackburn of Edible Bug Shop, an Australian entomologist and food scientist. Her website says,
Skye feels that by educating people about the way that edible insects can be farmed as a eco-friendly alternative protein, she can help reduce some of the misconceptions about eating bugs. You don’t just have to eat bugs if you are stuck in the bush and have nothing else to eat. When prepared properly, and you get over the initial YUCK factor, bugs are very tasty and are also good for you (and the environment).
Not too spicy but ohh so yummy! … Each pack contains approximately 30-40 roasted crickets. This is a ready to eat product … These are whole crickets, some customers prefer to remove wings and/or legs before consumption.
This reminds me of a playground chant at my Nedlands State School, Perth, which went:
A boy stood on the burning deck Eating blowflies by the peck.[3] “Father, may I eat the wings?” No no my son! They’re dirty things!
I thought initially that this topic was a bit of fun. But it turns out that entomophagy, as it’s called, is an essential component of the Western lemmings’ race to net-zero. To make net-zero work, we have to demolish high-tech agriculture and especially meat production which causes 18 per cent of global CO2 emissions. What to eat then? Answer: climate-friendly plants, synthetic meats courtesy Bill Gatesand, not least, crunchy protein-filled bugs.
This food transformation is being organised top-down from the United Nations with its 17 so-called Sustainable Development Goals endorsed by the 193 members, including Australia. Insect-eating is also a pet projectof the billionaire/trillionaire club of “Davos Man”, namely the World Economic Forum. And everywhere that Greens groups have gained political powers, the assault on high-tech farming and livestock is under way — notwithstanding backlash from organised farmers in the Netherlands and France.
In Australia, our efficient and world-leading farming and pastoral industries are under assault from every woke direction — the climate crowd, Green lawfare against growers and exporters, conservation zealots, and the Aboriginal Industry’s land-rights brigade.
A generation of anti-farming schoolkids is arising — future voters brainwashed by internal and externalpoliticisers. The kids are incited to protest broad-acre farming, to demand re-wilding of part of the landscape and converting the rest to hippie-style unploughed plots.[4] If this sounds mad, it’s no madder than destroying our once cheap and reliable electricity grid with wind turbines and solar farms.
Normally a country’s science establishment — in our case, the Academy of Science and the CSIRO — would use its intellectual heft to put the brakes on net-zero witchcraft. Instead, they’ve fallen in line with end-of-the-world preachers like that Greta Thunberg and the UN’s Antonio Guterres with his “global boiling” hyperbole.
For a take on the Academy, see herehere and here. But I’ve just had my brains scrambled by reading the CSIRO’s 57-page magnum opus dated April 2021: Edible insects -A roadmap for the strategic growth of an emerging Australian industry.[5] The Labor/greens-friendly CSIRO has earned derision from nuclear expert Dr Adi Paterson, ex-ANSTO[6], over its propaganda “Gen-Con” report (at 2.10mins) on how cheap renewables supposedly are compared with nuclear.[7] CSIRO’s “Edible Insects” report has somehow flown under the radar to date, but is doubly risible with its Aboriginality overlay on insect-eating sustainability baloney.
The report was pulled together by CSIRO’s Dr Rocio Ponce-Reyes and Dr Bryan Lessard, better known as Bry the Fly Guy for naming his new but inedible horse fly after pop star Beyonce. The foreword was by Professor Michelle Colgrave, Future Protein Lead, CSIRO.[8] She sang the report’s praises for “laying out a detailed and comprehensive plan for this emerging industry.”[9]
Even before the CSIRO’s report gets down to the nitty gritty,it genuflects before what it calls First Nation’s past and continuing “extraordinary contributions to all aspects of Australian life including culture, economy and science.” It evokes a near-religious reverence for First Nations’ eating of some 60 insects. The best-known are witchetty-grubs (which I’ve tried and they aren’t bad.) The authors have possibly been sucked in by Bruce Pascoe’s Dark Emu tale of pre-colonial yeoman farmers. They write (p22):
As Australia’s first agricultural scientists, First Nations Peoples have a rich history of farming and harvesting native animal and plant species, including insects…
They also warn that white theft of Aboriginal intellectual property in regard to insect-eating initiatives “may also lead to considerable spiritual harm of certain communities and perpetuate the social and economic injustices of colonisation”.
The 2021 report was the leisurely by-product of CSIRO’s 2019 Brisbane conference about insect-eating, billed as a “Cutting Edge Symposium” with hashtag #EatBugsAU. (When I was a reporter, no editor ever allowed me a two-year deadline). The Cutting Edge yarning circle involved 17 time-rich CSIRO boffins plus 14 academics, two bureaucrats, one consultant, nine industry players (e.g. Buggybix, GrubsUp and Edible Bugshop) and five “private individuals” possibly including an insect chef and students, aka“stakeholders”. The academics included blow-ins, no pun intended, from universities of Cambridge, Mexico, Copenhagen and Netherlands. Maybe they happened to be at a loose end in Brisbane, or did we taxpayers spend a bomb on their airfares and nice rooms at Brisbane’s Stamford Plaza?
In this panoply of insect-eating expertise, one First Nations player is mentioned, Ms Birdy Bird (pronoun “they”), a Paying the Rent reparations enthusiast from the Land & Sea Corporation.[10]However, Aborigines are continually cited in the report as leaders of the insect-eating industry, lending it “an incredible and compelling distinction.”[11]
The main takeaway is that if everything goes very well Australia could be boasting a $10 million a year insect-food industry by 2026, which is pitched helping to lower the global temperature. This would be achieved via reduced CO2 emissions thanks to displacement of burping cows. CSIRO believes that as a potential grasshopper and mealworm superpower,[12] Australia could add this $10 million industry to our primary production output. Last fiscal year this output happened to be worth $100.1 billion or $100,000,100 million.
It is true that the current Australian insect protein industry is small and emerging, however, it consists of determined and passionate professionals…Our members are pushing boundaries, looking for new insect species to adopt, raising robust and healthy colonies from limited seed stock, creating products, recipes and systems… I look forward to seeing [the report’s] recommendations in action as insects become a more sustainable and high-value part of the modern Australian diet well into the future.
The authors Ponce-Reyes and Lessard say:
Now more than ever is the time for Australian businesses, in conjunction with First Nations Peoples, researchers, industry and government to identify and invest proactively in new resilient markets, processes and products. Failing to do so could limit the economic value, job creation and global reputation of the Australian agricultural sector.
Of course, in the CSIRO hive mind any CO2-reduction project, no matter how batty or trivial, should have taxpayer dollars thrown at it. Under the header, “Funding and Policy” its report argues,
Australian insect businesses currently have limited resources and require seed funding, government grants and venture capital investments to create business plans and build capacity in farming, production, product research, development, and market analysis.
The Executive Summary begins with CSIRO’s claim that current agriculture can’t meet the challenge of feeding the world’s growing population — an item of faith among climate Jeremiahs despite food output and yields well outpacing population since the 1960s and with no sign of slowing. CSIRO adds that Europe and the US now host 400-plus insect-food businesses, which actually isn’t all that big a deal for 800 million potential consumers. CSIRO put Australia’s insect-based businesses at 14, including a chef and consultant or two.
Contrary to output data (“The breaking of a three-year east-coast drought in 2020 has been followed by successive years of record-breaking production“), CSIRO claims insect production can rescue farming that is supposedly beset by “unprecedented droughts, fires, storms and floods due to the changing climate, environmental stress, biodiversity loss, pest outbreaks andreduction of arable land.” The authors should study the sixth IPCC report that rubbishes such claims about weather extremes.[13]
Regretting insects’ absence from Western dietary staples, CSIRO appeals to its United Nations betters and their 17 Sustainable Development Goals. Of those, ten could justify bug-eating, CSIRO thinks, “for a better and more sustainable world”.[14]
Its tasty edibles list includes beetles, ants, bees, wasps, crickets, grasshoppers, moths, butterflies and termites. Technically, if you’re into bugs, they’re an efficient food.[15] Sure, give the little critters 2kg of food and they’ll offer 1kg of protein. At least 80 per cent of your typical insect is edible (you might want to spit the front and rear ends into a saucer). Moreover, say the authors, bugs nicely “compliment” local foods, as in “kangaroo and cricket meat sausages”, shades of Kath’s butcher beau Kel Knight in TV’s Kath & Kim. Insect campaigners, the report urges, should target “adventurous, novelty eaters” and “foodies looking for a unique experience, or conscious of sustainability, nutrition and health and fitness.”
However, industry problems include “neophobia” (fear of new foods) “misguided public perceptions of insects” and media “perpetuating insect stereotypes”. A more tangible problem mentioned is the high Australian labour costs (“Most [providers] agree that their customers are more affluent who can afford the higher prices of introductory products”). But the report says, “As younger Australian’s (sic) become more worried about climate change, edible insects have the potential to become an environmentally sustainable and secure food source.”
The symposium’s insect-eater crowd have a quaint belief that they can whistle up favourable media coverage which in turn will be swallowed by the public:
♦ Deliver positive media campaigns featuring influencers, i.e. chefs and celebrities… Create dynamic stories about insect foods and businesses that can be widely communicated via popular media.
♦ .Positive stories about insect foods in media may assist to change consumer attitudes and incorporate edible insects into the Western diet…
One job for industry members is to apply a feminist overlay to insect-eating. They should combat false negativity involving “masculinity [real men don’t eat pupae?], food conspiracy [mealworm deniers?], and disgust” :
Most Western cultures have developed an aversion for insects, perpetuated by stereotypes of insects being dirty, pests, dangerous, only eaten in times of desperation or having an inherent “yuk” factor.
Occasionally reality seeps in
The true sustainability of the global industry is largely unknown due to
significant knowledge gaps in life cycle analyses for farmed and native species.
Insects have been largely heralded as environmental saviours to the agricultural industry, however, there is limited knowledge regarding the life cycle assessments of commercially farmed or native species.
As Australian agriculture swings to urban insect farms, says the paper, there will be more scope in 2025-30 for “reducing land clearing rates and allowing us to rewild and restore native habitats.” Any remaining pastoralists can do their bit for methane reduction by feeding cattle seaweed.
On the downside, the authors also concede that some people could get the same allergic reaction to insects in their breakfast as from shellfish. “Grasshoppers, moths and silkworms are also known to cause respiratory sensitisation for some insect farmers.” On top of that, “Some insect species act as intermediate hosts for parasites that may be potentially pathogenic to humans.”
We are all familiar with shoot-outs in Hollywood Westerns between cattle and sheep ranchers. The CSIRO authors understandably want grasshopper ranchers to keep a low profile. They warn: “Narrative that insects will replace conventional farmed animals may perpetuate perceived rivalry between industries.”
Among conference breakthroughs was agreement to stop saying “bugs” because it reminds consumers of disease. There was also sad head-shaking about industry members who tiptoed around the word “insect” in their packaging, “which some interpret as a potential lack of pride in the industry”. The report, lavishly illustrated with colour pics of bugs seething on dinner plates, concludes,
As Australia’s national science agency and innovation catalyst, CSIRO is solving the greatest challenges through innovative science and technology. CSIRO. Unlocking a better future for everyone.
Especially, I’d add, if you enjoy fried Giant Rhino Beetle pupae. But I’ve certainly found the CSIRO paper handy in Scrabble matches, when I play the report’s “poikilothermic” (cold-blooded insects) against my dismayed opponents.
Tony Thomas’s latest book from Connor Court is Anthem of the Unwoke – Yep! The other lot’s gone bonkers. $34.95 from Connor Court here
[2] The Singapore Food Authority letter of July 8 sets out “with immediate effect” a list of importable insects and insect products “of low regulatory concern” for human and animal consumption. Importers have to provide health and hygiene certificates including that Insects are not harvested from the wild and they have not been fed with manure, decomposing organic material or diseased animals and fish. The SFA defines “decomposing” as “identified by putrid odours, mushy/slimy, or with visible mould or bacteria growth.”
The Singapore list of human-safe insect foods includes
# Crickets: grasshoppers, house crickets, and African and American locusts
The SFA provides separate product codes for insects salted in brine, smoked, dried, fried, marinated, powdered, in crackers, in chocolate block filling (under 20%), and in pasta and spaghetti.
[4] The CSIRO report itself says, “Australia is a drought prone continent… [O]ur current food systems are a major contributor to large environmental impacts, including biodiversity loss, greenhouse gas emissions, contamination and shortages of water, largescale ecosystem pollution, and land degradation. Climate change is also impacting on the quality and quantity of agricultural produce resulting in economic and humanitarian crises.”
[5] CSIRO = Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation.
[6] Australia’s Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation
[7] See Dr Paterson also, “Australia’s refusal to consider nuclear energy is absolute madness“, July 3 2024 and “Australia’s nuclear ban is toxic energy fascism“, June 24.
[8] Now Deputy Director (Impact) in CSIRO Agriculture and Food.
[9] The CSIRO project “received grant funding from the Council on Australia Latin America Relations of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and from CSIRO.”
[10] Birdy Bird: “…decolonising the Australian economy through a voluntary reparation scheme.”
[11] An attendee from My Dili Bag business might also be an Aboriginal-identifier.
[12]“Through increased [subsidised] investment, ongoing collaboration, as well as foundational research and development, Australia can become a leading international player in producing nutritious, sustainable, and ethical Australian-branded edible insect products that will contribute to meeting the global challenge of achieving food security…By building resilience, the edible insect industry will strengthen food supply chains throughout Australia and the world to help achieve food security in a time of changing climates, food shortages and emerging health crises.Native edible insect species can inspire new and exciting Australian- branded food products co-developed by First Nations led initiatives.”
[13] The IPCC’s latest Working Group 1 report, as distinct from “Summaries” written and vetted by its political masters, found human influence on weather as follows: Heatwaves, yes: heavy rain, yes; flooding, no; meteorological/hydrological drought, no; ecological/agricultural drought, yes; tropical cyclones, no; winter storms, no; thunderstorms, no; tornados, no; hail, no; lightning, no; extreme winds, no; fire weather, yes (although the IPCC table cited heredoes not corroborate the fire weather).
[14] The UN’s 17 goals are an unprioritized grab-bag generated by surveying a host of international green groups. The goals include a ridiculous 169 targets and 232 “specific indicators”.
[15]Compared to mealworms’ unit protein, chickens require three times more land and emit 50% more greenhouse gases, and beef requires 10 times as much land and produces 18 times more greenhouse gases. Compared to beef, both crickets and mealworms require less than a tenth of the feed needed per protein unit.
Should we cool the whole Earth first or just homes and offices?
By Jo Nova
It’s as if they’re trying to guilt trip people into installing some solar panels and catching the bus.
Climate Change, it seems, is linked to brain damage in children. Specifically poor children. It leaves them with lasting effects on brain development and particularly “white matter”. (And what kind of evil sod are you if you won’t buy an EV to save the brain of a kid in Barking & Dagenham? “Do it for the children!”)
The editors of the British Medical Journal review many recent papers talking about the dire situation:
British Medical Journal
Emerging evidence suggests that factors related to climate change, such as ambient heat exposure, can affect the brain.5 Heat stress has been linked to disruptions in neurodevelopment, slow cognitive and emotional functioning, long term learning loss and memory deficits, worsening of neurological and mental disorders, and increased permeability of the blood-brain barrier.6 Early exposure to extreme weather events, including antenatal exposure, has also been associated with an increased risk of anxiety, depression, attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, educational underperformance, diminished self-regulation, and psychiatric disorders in later life.78
They call for “Evidence Based Policy” an talk about “interventions” and screening, and public health campaigns, but what they don’t say are the words “fossil fuel” or “cheap electricity”. If the worst effects are found in children in poor socioeconomic groups, the answer surely is that the poor need access to air conditioning.
What it reckless experiments with electricity grids are causing brain damage and mental health issues with children? Would anybody care if pushing the price of electricity up was hurting reading scores and neurodevelopment?
Oh. It’s not just heat, it’s cold too:
by Eric W. Dolan, PsyPost, July 1, 2024
The study [by Granes et al] found that exposure to both cold and heat during early life was associated with significant changes in the microstructure of white matter. Specifically, cold exposure from the third month of pregnancy to the fifteenth month of life and heat exposure from the ninth month of life to 2.6 years of age were linked to higher global MD values at ages 9 to 12 years. Higher MD values indicate poorer white matter microstructure, which can affect neural connectivity and cognitive function.
Let’s give them air conditioning and heating too.
“It was interesting to see that there were some differences in the effects when we compared children living in neighborhoods with lower socioeconomic status vs those who were living in neighborhoods with a higher socioeconomic status, as we could see more effects in the first group,” Granés said. “Our hypothesis/interpretation of these findings is that these differences could be explained by poorer housing conditions or energy poverty (but this should be further investigated).”
Of course, it’s quite possible the study has nothing to do with climate change, or even temperature:
While this study provides valuable insights, it has some limitations. One key limitation is the lack of indoor temperature data.Since children, especially infants, spend significant time indoors, indoor temperatures could differ significantly from outdoor estimates, potentially affecting the accuracy of the findings.
Call me a skeptic that temperature could have such a detrimental effect on mammals that evolved in far harsher and more variable climates than anything we deal with today. I make the point about air conditioning because it’s Kyrptonite to a pack of toady fashion-queens pretending to care about poor children. If they did care, they’d campaign for cheap electricity.
First published JoNova; If only all coal plants were forced to close, then there would be no opportunity for greed because there would be no electricity.
Generators fill their pockets again, pushing grid prices to new highs and leaving renewables to cop the blame
Competition, they say, is good for the market. We can but hope. Right now, it is clear there is not enough competition in the Australian wholesale electricity market, and the big players – and some new ones – are intent on making hay while the sun shines, knowing that it is their “cherished” consumers who will have to foot the bill.
Wholesale electricity prices hit a new landmark on Tuesday night when all five states that make up Australia’s main grid, the National Electricity Market, had prices pushed above $15,000 a megawatt hour (MWh) at the same time. According to market observers, this has never been seen before.
…
Renewables are supposed to challenge this and lower the price on wholesale markets by introducing competition. But as the number of fully dispatchable generators declines, competition at critical times has actually been reduced – at least for the time – and like seagulls around a box of chips, the market players dive in.
What we see here is naked greed, around an essential service, enabled by the ability to manipulate prices to unreasonable peaks, and the complete inability to keep any sense of proportion or perspective.
…
And the problem is that in a hotly partisan energy debate, and a lop-sided and populist media disinterested in actual facts, it will be renewables that get the blame. We saw it last week with the reports on the latest June quarter wholesale prices.
Greens are deeply concerned that us heartless engineering types are suggesting that adding unreliable energy sources to the grid while punitively discouraging investment in reliable energy facilitated this latest round of hardball supply and demand capitalism.
The reference to “naked greed” and “essential service” in my opinion is thinly disguised call for energy assets to be re-nationalised.
Perhaps greens shouldn’t have fought so hard to stop entrepreneurs from building dispatchable zero carbon nuclear energy.
Iowa Climate Science Education 