David Turver has done an excellent job unpicking all of the subsidies Dale Vince’s empire has accumulated over the years.
He even reveals that Vince’s companies have negotiated a derogation with OFGEM, which means they are not bound by the Energy Price Cap.
Must read!
This week we look at what it takes to become a green energy tycoon. Perhaps the best example is Dale Vince, owner of Green Britain Group that controls Ecotricity. He has stated that “wind energy is the fastest, cheapest, cleanest new energy we can make.” He has even said “the price of fossil gas sets the price of all electricity in our country – even that from the wind and sun, it’s an absurd market mechanism that enriches a few at the expense of the rest.”
However, most of Dale’s empire is reliant upon subsidies to be profitable and those profits may be at risk with subsidies running out and declining performance.
As Americans celebrated the 4th of July, Donald J Trump was busy delivering Independence from the grand subsidised wind and solar scam. Their President hates these things, with a passion, and is determined to Make America The Great Energy Powerhouse Again.
Unleashing America’s vast hydrocarbon reserves and turning them into productivity and prosperity is part of the plan. Which brings us to this week’s roundup, starting with a clip of Trump heralding the end of the greatest economic and environmental fraud of all time.
Pierre Gosselin reports on yet another “component liberation event”, when a 6-year-old Vestas V150 released one of its 70 m long rotor blades and splattered its toxic fibreglass entrails across (now permanently contaminated) German farmland.
Itxu Diaz provides further insight into Spain’s self-inflicted wind and solar calamity, noting how the sudden and ‘unexpected’ collapse in solar output on 28 April killed the grid, and how the only saving grace for the Spanish and Portuguese suffering the greatest blackout in their history, was nuclear power delivered by the French.
Craig Rucker reports on a top-level gaslighting effort by America’s wind industry to deflect attention from the thousands of eagles they kill every year. Using corrupt regulators under their command and control as a front, wind power outfits have engineered a plan to somehow make power poles “safe” for eagles, thereby allowing these things to slice and dice majestic raptors with impunity.
We wrap up with a video post from Senator Gerard Rennick slamming the Climate Industrial Complex and the great subsidised wind and solar scam. Senator Rennick finished his term on 30 June, but as a Federal Senator for Queensland spent his time fighting for all Australians, including by demanding an end to our suicidal energy policies.
Dr Peter Ridd has been researching the Great Barrier Reef and other things since 1984, has invented a range of advanced scientific instrumentation, and written over 100 scientific publications.
Since being fired by James Cook University for raising concerns about science quality assurance issues,
Peter Ridd receives no payment for any of the work he does.
Computer generated transcript. May contain errors.
One of my favorite statistics about climate change …is that apparently, 60% of Americans reckon that climate change has become like a religion, quote, “used to control people.”
Now, you’ve got to wonder—why do they think that? It’s not as though they have a deep understanding of climate science, the uncertainty of the models, or even past periods—say, the Egyptian period, which was a lot hotter than it is now.
The reason they think that is because they actually smell a rat. And one of the biggest, smelliest, hairiest rotten rats of the war in climate science is the way so many ridiculous things are now attributed to climate change—and I’ve got a good list of them here.
I was spurred to make this video because I saw just the other day that apparently some sort of sleep disorder is now caused by climate change. This is obviously a disaster. So I thought I’d do half an hour of Googling and find some other things which are really rather funny impacts, supposedly, of climate change.
So let’s start.
Apparently, the flavor of gin and tonic could be impacted by climate change, study finds—according to The Guardian. Apparently, the juniper berries—apparently in hot climates—they taste a little bit different. And that’s going to be a bit of a disaster.
Now, I mean, look: the ice caps are going to melt, a billion people are going to die, Bangladesh is going to be flooded—who the heck cares about the flavor of gin and tonics?
Yeah, okay. Bad example. Let’s try another one.
The climate crisis could lead to a banana crisis. Major banana exporters could face a 60% drop in growing area due to warming.
Look, I’m sorry, but I don’t actually believe that. I mean, we’re in a banana-growing area up here in North Queensland, and it’s noticeable that in the last 50 years banana growing has moved up from New South Wales, where it’s cold, to here in the tropics. And it can get a lot warmer than where we are here, and you can still grow bananas. Take it from me—I used to pick bananas when I was a student.
The next one: Satellite orbits are going to change and spike. Space junk is going to move faster because the top of the atmosphere is going to be slightly different. And of course, this is a disaster.
We’re going to need more study for the scientists to better understand how the changes brought by increasing CO₂ are going to affect the movement of satellites. I’m sure they’ll work it out.
This is the one I mentioned previously, and it’s in one of the top journals. Right? If you get into one of the top journals—in this case Nature Communications—the scientists will probably get a promotion just on that and the ability to get more funding.
So: Sleep apnea. Global warming may increase the burden of obstructive sleep apnea.
Now, I’m sure that’s right. You know, it’s hard to sleep on a hot night, but it’s also hard to sleep when you’re freezing cold. And there’s a whole lot of people that die of freezing cold. But we don’t hear about the sleep disorders or problems from them.
Now, I was looking for some of these things, and I came across this interesting article about how climate lies need to be criminalized:
“Climate misinformation turning crisis into a catastrophe,” report says.
They’re basically saying people like me—who reckon that gin and tonic changing flavor might not be a particular disaster, or that maybe there isn’t going to be a banana crisis, because actually, you’ll be able to grow bananas on the North Pole because it’ll be so warm there— well, sorry, I’ve got to go to jail for that.
This is a beauty: Shark attacks—they’re going to get worse. Of course, they’re going to get worse. You think all this is because it’s getting hot? All the sharks are going to move into northern Europe and up into Canada or somewhere. And that’s true, of course.
But it’s also because people are going to be so hot from climate change, more people are going to go swimming in the sea—where they’re going to be eaten by sharks.
Another really important one here: There’s going to be a chili shortage. The sriracha shortage is warning about the climate crisis.
And then we have: In Puerto Rico, some sort of frog—the croaks are now going to be of a higher pitch due to global heating.
I mean… You just sort of wonder, what were these scientists actually thinking when they were doing this research?
Even more important—goats are shrinking. Turns out the Alpine chamois mountain goat in Italy is now 25% smaller on average than in the 1980s.
So it’s not actually shrinking, but they are getting smaller.
And interestingly, National Geographic seems to have gotten themselves into a fairly typical knot where they say goat populations may also change as lighter goats are more likely to freeze to death in cold winters.
So the way it works is like this: Because it’s getting hotter, goats are now not growing as big. And because they’re not growing as big, they’re more susceptible to cold. So they’re all going to freeze to death in the winter. So the warming climate is going to make them freeze to death.
This is a serious one. Apparently, children’s IQ and mental development and brain development are going to be badly affected. In fact, I quote:
“This is nothing short of a public health emergency.”
And of course it is—but not for the reasons they claim. What these people have done to the children is scare the living daylights out of them. So they all think they’re going to die in 20 years’ time because the Earth is going to boil.
It’s not because of the little bit of increased heat. If it was increased heat, me living in the tropics—I should have my brain completely frazzled by now.
Yeah, okay. Let’s move on.
We’re going to have bumpier air flights. Now, of course, if you’re sort of the jet set with your private jet flying around the world telling everybody else how they’ve got to cut their carbon footprint—this is probably a big problem.
Because it’s true—in a warmer climate, there should be more turbulence. Up to three times, apparently, in the next decade.
But again, as I said before: if we’re all going to burn to hell and Bangladesh is going to be flooded—are we really worried about increased turbulence?
Now, this is an example where I think we need more climate change: Apparently, Australian lakes are turning pink. Climate change could turn more salt lakes pink in Western Australia. In fact, when I look at these lakes, I think I want more pink lakes. These are seriously cool lakes, and we want more like this.
Blood under pressure. How climate change threatens blood safety and supply chains.
Apparently, extreme weather events, vector-borne diseases—which of course are caused by climate change—and temperature fluctuation can disrupt blood collection, testing, transport, and storage. Threatening both the safety and sufficiency of blood products.
So look—in 20 years’ time, if you cut your toe: no blood transfusion for you. Because we just won’t be able to collect blood.
Then: Another one on mental health:
“How heatwaves can wreak havoc on your mental health.”
Well, they’re right—there has been a problem with mental health due to climate change. But it’s the reporting, and the exaggeration, and the catastrophization of it that is the real problem—not the actual heat itself.
Look, people get very depressed in cold, dreary climates. Go to the north of Scotland—goddamn Wales, where I was for a while. You want to cut your throat after a little while because you just want to see a little bit of sun and get a little bit of warmth.
So it’s not like, you know, heat is the only thing that causes mental health problems.
Shooing away more flies than usual. Climate change could be boosting fly numbers. Yeah, right.
All right, you’ll like this one: Baseball home runs are going to be 10% more likely.
This is an article in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society—a very prestigious organization. And look, I thought that this was some sort of spoof—that they were having a lend of me—but I don’t think they are.
So what they’re saying is that because the air is a little bit warmer, it’s less dense. And therefore, a baseball—or a cricket ball, for that matter—will go a little further. You get more home runs.
Not that I think 10% more home runs is really a problem, but I think they’re serious.
They say adaptations such as building domes on stadiums or shifting day games to night games reduce temperature effects on America’s pastime:
“Our results highlight the myriad ways that a warmer planet restructures our lives, livelihoods, and recreations—some quantifiable and easily adapted to, as shown here.”
Yes—it is actually pretty easy to adapt. You don’t put a dome on your stadium; you just make your bat a little bit lighter or your ball a little bit heavier. Or maybe you just live with a few more home runs.
This must be some sort of metaphor for how—if there’s going to be climate change (and I don’t think there’s going to be anything worrying)—but if there is, then you’re better off adapting to it. Because it’s cheaper than turning off the fossil fuel supply, which has been so important in improving our lives, rather than, you know, doing some of these silly things.
Look, you may well have other examples of silly effects where climatists are clearly trying much too hard for some unknown reasons and just making themselves look like gooses. If you do, put a comment below.
Now, when it comes to gooses—real gooses, otherwise known as geese—apparently they’re badly affected too. Global heating gave geese migrations stop off northwards. Well, what a surprise. They’re affected.
And actually, when I did this, it struck me—let me try almost any animal typing in the word “climate change” followed by animals.
So I did:
Climate change elephant — You’ll be surprised to know that climate change is a significant threat to elephants.
Climate change kangaroo — Climate change is impacting kangaroos in various ways, including changing their habitat, food availability, and overall health. They didn’t mention whether the kangaroo’s mental health is affected, but I’m pretty sure it is.
Climate change giraffe — Raid your house in Kenya for extinction because of poaching and climate change.
Climate change albatross — Climate crisis pushes albatross divorce rates higher. Albatrosses form monogamous relationships. But apparently… and this is in the Royal Society for goodness’ sake. You know—Isaac Newton.
I can barely believe this. Right? Apparently, albatrosses are splitting up more often.
Climate change gorilla — Yep. Climate change is making endangered mountain gorillas more thirsty.
Now look, I thought—I can see an adaptation here. We have this problem with the gin and tonics. What we can do is: the gin and tonic, which we can’t now sell because it tastes a little bit different due to climate change—we can give it to the mountain gorillas because they won’t notice, because they’re so thirsty. They’ll drink just about anything. Problem solved. Two problems solved in one go.
Well, you’ve got to ask—why is this happening?
Why are some perfectly sensible scientists forced into doing some things which really, you know, just makes them look a bit silly?
And actually, it’s turning people off.
People are looking at this and thinking: Why is it there’s nothing good about climate change? And some of these things are just really completely crazy.
What is actually happening here is that people are seeing through what’s happening, and they’re trusting science less and less—which is a bad thing in a way. But it’s a good thing because until the scientific institutions get their act together—especially on climate change and the other big issues of our time—unfortunately, this lack of trust in science is pretty well inevitable.
And as you’ve seen in a lot of my videos, this is something I’ve been trying to do something about. Because we need to make the scientific institutions reliable again. (I’m sounding like somebody there.)
Thanks very much.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
As part of local re-election outreach Governor Hochul turned up at a western New York restaurant to discuss affordability issues. Buffalo TV Station WRGZ 2 On You Side asked (suggested that a “slow down” on the Climate Act was needed and costs are an issue:
We asked: “On affordability, you mentioned utility bills. Heard you say it, governor. Isn’t it true that ratepayers are paying for that because of the climate change law. We do know the the Public Service Commission (in February 2023) actually allowed for increased rates to be able to pay for some of that, connecting various …”
The Governor responded, “This law goes back a number of years.”
At the end of her long response on utility rates and energy strategy, there was this summation from Hochul: “You’re absolutely right. Utility costs are a huge burden of families, and I’ll do whatever I can to alleviate that.”
It was inevitable that the impact of the Climate Act on energy affordability would become a political liability. The Governor’s suggestion that a “slow down” on implantation of the Climate Act was needed suggests that implementation has been on schedule. That is not true. Implementing regulations, proceedings, and legislation are all lagging behind schedule.
I used Perplexity (https://ift.tt/QoPdsrk) to generate summaries and references related to the implementation status and impact on rates for this response. In one example, the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) failed to meet the January 1, 2024 deadline for promulgating emissions reduction regulations. That prompted a lawsuit by environmental groups demanding action.
As a result of delays interim Climate Act targets are in danger. According to the Climate Act Dashboard , New York has achieved only a 9% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared to 1990 levels, representing just 23% progress toward the 2030 target of 40% reduction.
WGRZ-TV confronted Hochul about the implementation status and she said: “I had to take a closer look and realize we cannot reach those objectives there were, back before I became governor, in a time frame that’s going to not hurt ratepayers, so we’re slowing things down. I want to make sure people know that.” My cynical take is that this statement is pure political theater.
The reality is that there is a Public Service Commission mandate to provide an annual update of implementation status and ratepayer cost impacts. The first Informational Report was released in July 2023 but there hasn’t been an update since. I believe that the decision to delay the release was at the behest of the Governor’s office. There is no more direct and immediate impact of Climate Act implementation to New Yorkers than utility bills and that reality is becoming too large to hide.
The Perplexity reference analysis noted that the first and only Informational Report provided detailed breakdowns of climate-related costs passed through to customers. For residential electric customers, CLCPA-related costs represented 3.7% to 9.8% of total monthly bills, with some utilities showing higher percentages. For non-residential customers with 2,000 kW and 720,000 kWh usage, CLCPA costs represented 4.6% to 11.8% of total monthly bills. This evaluation was for 2022 when implementation efforts were just getting started. The most recent rate cases request double digit increases – National Grid’s Niagara Mohawk case is asking for 20% increase in electric delivery revenues.
It is no wonder that Governor Hochul has realized that she cannot simultaneously complain about the greedy utility rate increase requests and continue to support the inevitable costs associated with the net-zero transition.
There is another apparent realization by the Hochul Administration. They have figured out that wind and solar cannot be the backbone of the electric system and have come out in favor of developing new nuclear resources. The WGRZ-TV article noted:
“We need all of the above for energy,” she said. “We’re going to have to do more than just rely upon wind and solar and thermal. We have a large percentage of our state powered by hydro power. We’re blessed to have that, but I want to lean into nuclear power. Build it.”
Of course, the usual suspects are not happy.
Cornell Professor Robert W. Howarth, who is a biogeochemist and environmental scientist, told us: “The New York Climate Law is one of the most progressive pieces out there when we passed it in 2019. It was held up as a model to the rest of the world as to how we should move ahead. We’re behind in reaching those targets, and I’m disappointed that the governor doesn’t see the urgency in pushing ahead to meet those targets. We really should be doing that.”
Regarding nuclear power, Howarth said: “Nuclear power is extremely expensive technology, extremely slow to deploy. The resources are just much better put into renewable technology and the heat pump technologies.”
Professor Howarth also pointed out that the higher cost of electricity could also be tied to the higher cost of natural gas, which, again, is a significant part of the current power production mix for the state power grid.
I disagree with everything he said. Howarth has not had a stellar record for academic rigor. Nonetheless he has always had an outsized influence on the Climate Act and the Scoping Plan implementation process. Reality is catching up to him too.
Where does New York go from here? The Climate Act has always been about emotional arguments to cater to climate activist constituents and supporting crony capitalists feeding at the trough. I have spent the last couple of months trying to intervene in utility rate cases arguing that the State has not defined what they mean by affordability and reliability making continued investments risky. I believe that the Hochul Administration could use previously unacknowledged safety value provisions to argue that it is inappropriate to implement the Climate Act. The political approach could be to simply acknowledge that without Federal tax breaks and incentives that may all be gone with the recent passage of Trump’s Big, Beautiful, Bill that the net-zero transition is impossible. She already threw previous Governor Cuomo under the bus when she suggested that “we cannot reach those objectives” that were put in place before she became governor. The strategy where a Progressive Democrat blames others for the failure of her own misguided initiatives seems most likely to me.
I do not care how the madness ends if it stops.
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Iowa Climate Science Education 