From ClimateREALISM

By Linnea Lueken

A recent post by The Guardian titled “Firefly species may blink out as US seeks to list it as endangered for first time,” claims that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is considering listing a firefly species native to the North Eastern United States as endangered because of climate change. This is false, or at least the focus on the climate element at the start of the article is false. The threats listed are not climate effects, and the U.S. government proposal even acknowledges that human development poses the true threat.

The article describes a firefly species called the Bethany Beach firefly, which is found in coastal parts of Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia, claiming that it is “facing increasing dangers to its natural habitat because of climate change-related events” including sea level rise over time and “lowering groundwater aquifers.”

It is important to note first that the article admits the sea level rise issue is projected to impact firefly habitat “by the end of the century” – about 76 years from now. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the firefly is only found in freshwater marshes near coastal dune environments. The FWS release is more specific, and says between 76-95 percent of those habitats may be lost to high-tide flooding by 2100… according to climate models.

This might be true, but it is not clear that those habitats will be lost forever because of rising sea levels, and not just pushed back inland gradually over the course of those intervening decades. Dune environments are by default extremely volatile, changing with every tide, and left to nature will grow and recede. The freshwater marshes (swales) associated with them likewise change by the season.

Climate Realism has on several occasions pointed out that sea level rise is hardly the accelerating danger that the media make it out to be, here, here, and here, for examples on the East Coast specifically.

Amazingly, the Guardian article itself quickly mentions a contributing factor to relative sea level rise on the East coast that is also damaging the freshwater environments the firefly needs, and that is “lowering groundwater aquifers.” These aquifers on the East Coast are not lowering due to climate change, they are lowering due to increasing populations necessitating greater water withdrawals. This causes the land to sink, increasing the relative rate of sea level rise in some areas. Delaware, for example, is seeing about 1.7 millimeters of land subsidence each year, which adds up to about 7 inches over 100 years.

The real crux of the issue comes later in the article, where the Guardian finally mentions the abrupt changes to the firefly’s habitat that actually impact its survival on the short term, and that is “growing threats from coastal development and light pollution, the latter of which can interfere with the insects’ ability to use their bioluminescent lights to communicate with each other.” The Guardian points out that the Bethany Beach firefly only flashes in full darkness, which is becoming less available due to light pollution from housing development on the coast.

Looking at human population trends for the three states that have Bethany Beach fireflies; Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia, all three have seen exploding population growth over the past few decades.

“Within the past several years,” the Guardian reports, “Bethany Beach fireflies have been displaced and populations wiped out because of development on coastal wetlands.”

This is obviously not due to climate change, and it comes across as cynical and misleading when the article, and the FWS report, try to make that connection as though climate change is the driver behind declining firefly numbers. The FWS went so far as to try to claim intensifying severe storms were also projected to cause more firefly habitat destruction, but the data simply does not support that hypothesis.

The Guardian and the FWS would be better served telling the truth upfront instead of allowing it to be buried at the bottom of an article, which fewer readers will end up seeing. It’s deceptive and doesn’t help the Bethany Beach firefly they allegedly care about.

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

h/t Doug Brodie

Who would have guessed we have a £22bn black hole?

The government has pledged nearly £22bn for projects to capture and store carbon emissions from energy, industry and hydrogen production.

It said the funding for two “carbon capture clusters” on Merseyside and Teesside, promised over the next 25 years, would create thousands of jobs, attract private investment and help the UK meet climate goals.

Sir Keir Starmer, due to visit the North West on Friday with Chancellor Rachel Reeves and Energy Secretary Ed Miliband to confirm the projects, said the move would “reignite our industrial heartlands” and “kickstart growth”.

But some green campaigners have said the investment would “extend the life of planet-heating oil and gas production”.

Up to £21.7bn will subsidise three projects on Teesside and Merseyside to support the development of the clusters, including the infrastructure to transport and store carbon.

It will also support two transport and storage networks carrying captured carbon to deep geological storage in Liverpool Bay and the North Sea.

The government said the move would give industry confidence to invest in the UK, attracting £8bn of private investment, directly creating 4,000 jobs and supporting 50,000 in the long term.

It will also help remove 8.5 million tonnes of carbon emissions each year, officials said.

The projects are expected to start storing captured carbon from 2028.

Although much of the money will only start flowing after carbon capture operations begin, billions will have to be spent in the next few years, building the infrastructure needed. Yet nobody in the world has yet proven that carbon capture can work commercially at scale. So we could end up chucking billions down the drain.

And only 8.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide will end up being captured a year. The UK’s total emissions total 327 million tonnes, so wasting £22 billion of our money will barely make a dent.

To make matters worse, carbon capture projects don’t capture all of the carbon dioxide, so the saving will likely be even less than claimed. Then there are the upstream emissions to take account of – using natural gas from, say Qatar, involves methane emissions at the well heads, pipeline losses and emissions resulting from liquifying and transporting the stuff. When these are taken into account, net emission savings will be tiny or non-existent. The government is only concerned about emissions that appear on the UK’s balance sheet.

Of course the admission that the UK will still need natural gas makes a nonsense of Miliband’s desire to shut down North Sea gas as soon as possible.

As for who will pay for all of this, Sky News say that the funding is to come from a mixture of Treasury money and energy bills, but the government has been coy about the split so far. Almost certainly though, while the initial infrastructure will be paid for out of taxation, the ongoing costs will be subsidised via Contracts for Difference and added to bills.

What is certain though is that producing electricity using carbon capture is more expensive than not using carbon capture, not least because the process itself wastes a lot of energy. Similarly hydrogen produced from gas with carbon capture is much more expensive than just using the gas itself in the first place. All of this inefficiency will add to energy bills.

It is hard to think of a more stupid waste of public money.