From CFACT

By David Wojick

UN Climate COPs have always been about big money but until now there was a facade of emission reductions to hide it behind. This time the money is the big thing and it is amazingly crazy. They want many trillions from us starting next year.

That people take this nonsense seriously speaks volumes about the unreality of the UN climate program. But it will be great fun to watch them hit the NO WAY wall.

There are actually three big money issues to watch fail. First is the annual money for nothing from developed countries to developing ones that is supposed to jump from a measly $100 billion a year to a trillion a year and quickly growing to almost two trillion. I am not making this up.

Second is the as yet untold trillions we are supposed to pay the developing countries to make up for their bad weather. Which of these two is crazier is hard to say and I welcome suggestions.

Third is perhaps the most fun. People want China, one of the strongest economies in the world, to stop pretending to be a developing country and put big money into these two pots. By some measures China is by far the strongest economy. For example they produce and use more electricity than the US and EU combined.

Before getting further into the greenback craziness a procedural point must be made especially with Trump coming on. This big money stuff is about the MOP not the COP. How’s that for jargon?

The basis for these annual discussions is the 1994 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This is a treaty ratified by 198 countries including the US. The abbreviation COP stands for the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC.

The Paris Agreement is a 2015 supplement to the UNFCCC. It is not a treaty just what is called a Presidential Agreement in international law. President Trump cannot get us out of the UNFCCC but he can easily leave the Paris Agreement as he did last time he was Pres. Getting together under the Paris Agreement is called the Meeting of the Parties or the MOP.

COP 29 is actually part COP and part MOP. All three big money issues are on the MOP side where we will soon be absent. Off course the COP 29 MOP is under what is left of the Biden Administration so we will still be at the table but any promises made will be laughed at. This twist just adds to the frivolity.

Here’s a bit more on the jargon so you can follow the action. First the astronomical annual payment issue is called the New Collective Quantified Goal or NCQG which strikes me as unpronounceable. Suggestions welcome. At least there is an interior rhyme with C and G.

For purpose of discussion the starting value of the NCQG is $1.1 trillion in 2025 rising to $1.8 trillion in 2019. Yes it is a 5 year plan. No surprise there, right?

The second big money issue is called Loss and Damage. This bad weather pot is just getting off the ground or trying to which may not happen so there is a lot to watch.

The problem is there is more bad weather than money in the world so even possible funds are limited. Thus the basic issue is who gets how much and for what? There are no actual funds at this point. So the debate is entirely academic which diplomats love.

The Chinese issue seems to have no formal name but it is often termed as “China’s contribution.” That China is the world’s biggest CO2 emitter also plays into the guilt trip. China’s answer is that on a per capita basis they are still developing and have a long way to go. We shall see.

Mind you diplomats never say NO so that will not happen. They just never say YES. Watch for it in slow motion since they have two weeks to kill.

The money is laughably impossible and the US is pulling out of the MOP but the show must go on. Stay tuned to CFACT for a lot of fun to come.

If Ed Miliband’s promise to cut heating bills by £300 and deliver “100% clean power by 2030” were a movie, it’d be a sci-fi comedy, complete with magical wind farms and planning commissions that work as efficiently as Santa’s workshop. Unfortunately, the joke is on the UK, as this farce comes with a hefty price tag for everyday Brits. Strap in, folks, because this is where green pipe dreams meet the cold, hard wall of reality.

The NESO Report: Reality’s Not-So-Subtle Smackdown

The National Electricity System Operator (NESO) has essentially dropped a truth bomb on Miliband’s fantasy. Let’s recap the highlights:

1. No £300 Savings: At best, Miliband’s grand plan won’t save anyone a penny. Even with NESO’s so-called “Herculean effort,” costs remain the same. Best case. This isn’t a vision—it’s a mirage.
2. Infrastructure Mayhem: To even stay in the ballpark of this plan, we’d need to double the number of pylons and cables in the next five years. For context, that’s twice the infrastructure we’ve built over the past decade. Oh, and all this while communities object and supply chains choke on global shortages.
3. Deadline-Driven Disaster: Miliband’s team insists every single network project must finish on time. But let’s face it, nothing in government ever finishes on time—except maybe raising your taxes. Miss those deadlines, and we’re stuck with “constraint payments,” where wind farms literally get paid to do nothing.

Green Dreams, Green Levies

While Miliband fantasizes about a carbon-free paradise, ordinary Brits are stuck with the bill—literally. Green levies on electricity are set to rise by an extra £120 per household annually. That’s right, you’re funding this delusion, one painful payment at a time. And as the pace of wind power contracts accelerates, those levies will only go up, because why not pile more weight on the middle class?

But wait, there’s more! The entire plan hinges on gas prices hitting 100p per therm and carbon prices tripling by 2030. Right now, gas is priced at a far more modest 70p per therm, with carbon stuck at £38 per ton. Unless Miliband has a crystal ball—or a way to manipulate global energy markets—these numbers don’t pencil out.

The Offshore Wind Fiasco

Let’s talk offshore wind, the cornerstone of this green utopia. NESO insists we need to contract as much offshore capacity in two years as we did in the last six. Ambitious? Try laughable. Even if every turbine magically appeared on time, we’d still rely on gas to set prices nearly half the time. So, for all the expense and upheaval, you’re barely making a dent in “volatile gas pricing.” Brilliant.

Why This Plan Fails—Spectacularly

Here’s the harsh truth: Ed Miliband’s plan is a house of cards built on shaky assumptions. It assumes gas prices will soar (the International Energy Agency thinks the opposite). It assumes we’ll build infrastructure faster than ever before (despite worker shortages and community resistance). It assumes carbon prices will triple (without triggering a political revolt). And all of this for what? To cut gas pricing from 58% of the time to…47%. That’s not progress; that’s rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

Conclusion: Don’t Fall for the Green Grift

Miliband’s proposal isn’t a plan—it’s an ideological fever dream dressed up as policy. It’s the kind of scheme only a true leftist could love: long on promises, short on math, and guaranteed to make your life harder. While elites sip their soy lattes and pat themselves on the back, you’re left footing the bill for their green fantasies.

The NESO report doesn’t just poke holes in Miliband’s vision—it torpedoes it. So, let’s stop pretending this plan is anything other than what it is: a colossal joke at the expense of the British public. You deserve better than this shameless grift. If Ed Miliband wants to play superhero, he should stick to Halloween costumes, not your heating bill.