Daily News 29 May 2025

Climate Change Is Impacting People’s Ability to Have Healthy Pregnancies

By Paul Homewood

h/t Ian Magness

Today’s silly climate scare comes from Time:

https://time.com/7285515/climate-change-impact-healthy-pregnancy/

They write:

As the number of extreme heat days continues to rise due to climate change, the high temperatures are taking a toll on our health—extreme heat has been linked to a range of health issues, including heatstroke, dehydration, and respiratory problems. But some people are at greater risk than others: warmer days are putting pregnant people at a higher risk for health complications.

One Climate Central analysis published on May 14 found that extreme heat caused by climate change is posing dangerous risks for maternal health and birth outcomes. Between 2020 to 2024, the average number of pregnancy heat-risk days—defined as days in which maximum temperatures are warmer than 95% of temperatures observed in a given location—doubled in 222 countries. The greatest increase in heat-risk days occurred primarily in developing areas with limited access to health care, including the Caribbean, parts of Central and South America, and sub-Saharan Africa.

Climate Central, of course, are not scientific experts in climate or anything else – they are a lobby group set up to misinform the public.

As for all these supposed heat effects on babies, the facts tell a different story.

Take Nicaragua, for example:

Babies there have never been healthier.

But you won’t hear that from Time.

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

https://ift.tt/XWq1PgB

May 29, 2025 at 03:15AM

Daily News 29 May 2025

Exposing Alaska’s Green New Deal (Part II)

Ed Note: Trump Administration beware! This two-part backgrounder warns DOE Secretary Chris Wright, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin that their June 3, 2025, participation at Governor Mike Dunleavy’s fourth annual Sustainable Energy Conference is a set-up for Alaska’s Green New Deal. A course reversal is in order.

Part II walks through my own testimony (Part I) against Alaska’s proposed Renewable Portfolio Standard; the hoops I had to jump through just to get my written remarks added to the public record; and the telling exchange I had with one of the main activists pushing this nonsense. Spoiler: there’s been no official response or acknowledgement to the damning context they asked for—just the usual dodge-and-disappear routine.

After checking the Alaska Legislature website under the bill documents, I discovered my testimony was not posted. This is not the first time I had witnessed this on testimony opposing legislation this session. I followed up to house.energy@akleg.gov, cc’ing Rep. Ky Holland

May 7th, 2025: Subject: FW Opposition to HB 153

I am writing to respectfully note that my opposition letter does not appear to have been included in the public documents for HB 153. I submitted it on April 12th and would appreciate confirmation that it was received and properly entered into the record.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Kassie Andrews

5/7/2025 – Representative Ky Holland responded very quickly, appearing irritated that his legislation was stalling due to economic realities and a lack of immediate support from the co-ops:

I’ve asked the committee aides (Shaina and Ariel) to check to see if this is in the record. As I assume you know we suspended consideration of amendments for HB153 to see if we could get the utilities to go on record with their input on the bills. They are not ready, though a couple have since had some meetings to advance their consideration and feedback. As a result we are going to hold some hearings this summer when the utilities are ready; and I hope when the uncertainty around tariffs on equipment for energy projects, and federal pauses on funding programs and energy credits are sorted out.

I had no idea when we introduced the bill the world would get turned so upside down or that the gasline would get the support of tariff based bargaining and federal mandates for support. Sort of strikes me as another version of federal mandates to incentivize desired outcome, but in this case it’s being used for an alternative outcome. It think it’s just ironic to see folks opposed to government actions to incentive renewables; and then to see the response to be new government actions to force non-renewables…

Are you following the Senate version of the bill? Its the same as our original bill at this point and had its first hearing today. They will also be holding future hearings and advancing their bill to something closer to our current house version that has the changes we’ve developed with the utility advice. Here is a link to today Senate hearing – Alaska State Legislature

5/8/2025 – The Energy Committee Aide, Shaina Kilcoyne—seemingly the brains behind this bill (she presented it to the committee and fielded questions)—responds about the missing testimony:

May 8th, 2025: Subject: RE Opposition to HB 153

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I actually was looking through them just yesterday and saw that it was missing but didn’t see it in our energy folder either. I will make sure this gets fixed today. I apologize for this.

Shaina Kilcoyne Energy Committee Aide [Office of Rep. Holland, House District 9, Office 418]

5/8/2025 – Shaina responds again to let me know that my testimony has been uploaded onto the state website and will be printed for the committee members. I didn’t know they did that! Learn something new every day.

May 8th, 2025: Subject: RE Opposition to HB 153

Your letter is now uploaded in Basis and I will have printed copies for the committee members today.

5/8/2025 – Shaina responds for the third time in about two hours—this time asking for sources on Winter Storm Uri that I referenced in my testimony. Then she offers her two cents on what she thinks happened, likely because it looks terrible to have clear links between renewable mandates, overreliance on intermittent renewables, centralized planning failures, and the very bill they’re scrambling to convince the public to accept—acknowledging that reality would completely undermine the policy they’re pushing.

Could you please share your source on the Texas outage that you reference? There has been substantial review of what caused the outage and I understand it was largely due to a lack of weatherization of gas plants – they were not able to deliver fuel to power the plants and some wells were unable to produce as much natural gas due to the freezing conditions. Here’s an article from the Texas Tribune about the storm.

There’s actually a podcast called the Disconnect: Power, Politics and the Texas Blackout – it offered a deep dive with some heart wrenching stories of people living through the storm.

Thanks for sharing any new resources.

5/8/2025 – My response addresses the ongoing issues with public testimony this session and responds to Shaina’s request for sources on Winter Storm Uri. Here, I lay out the “why behind the why” – because this isn’t a cut and dry situation, and pretending it is only serves to obscure the bigger picture. In the end, I requested that my response, along with Shaina’s original question on Uri be attached to the permanent record for sake of transparency. Will they post it? That remains to be seen.

Before I begin, I’d like to point out that this is not the first time that testimony in opposition to legislation has failed to appear in the public record this session. My husband’s testimony, and that of several friends, was also not entered into the system on another bill they opposed. It raises a fair question: how does this keep happening? And while no one is making accusations, it is beginning not to feel like a coincidence, especially when many Alaskans assume their input is recorded and don’t have the time to constantly verify it. That kind of inconsistency erodes trust in what is supposed to be an open and accountable process.

Thank you for your question on Winter Storm Uri. It’s a common misconception that natural gas “failed” during Winter Storm Uri simply because of a lack of weatherization. The deeper and more complex issue was how gas was treated in Texas’s market structure.

Natural gas wasn’t prioritized as firm baseload power – it was treated as a backup to heavily subsidized wind and solar. When those intermittent sources collapsed, there wasn’t enough reliable generation online to fill the gap. Gas plants couldn’t ramp up because they weren’t running- they weren’t warm, pressurized or ready. As the supplied FERC/NERC report notes: “Most of the natural gas production and processing facilities surveyed were not identified as critical loads or otherwise protected from manual load shedding.”

Yes, frozen equipment was a factor, but why was the system so compromised? It’s because of how distorted the ERCOT market has become. Wind and solar, through federal production tax credits, can bid negative prices into the market and still profit. This undercuts gas, coal and nuclear, draining margins and making it unprofitable to build or maintain firm capacity. And worse: Revenues are siphoned off by unreliable generation schemes rather than invested in resilient, baseload infrastructure. The co-ops are expected to make up the difference—we will be paying more, while being told that these unreliable sources are somehow “cheap.” That is the “why behind the why.” In Texas, resource adequacy was hollowed out long before the storm hit.

Add to that the flawed assumption from climate models that Texas winters would trend warmer—not colder. Relying on these forecasts, ERCOT did not mandate proper winterization or spinning reserve planning. When reality hit, the system collapsed.

This wasn’t a natural gas failure—it was policy failure, compounded by the failure of centralized planning. A politically micromanaged grid, riddled with subsides, mandates, and misaligned incentives cannot respond to real world stress. At the core of that failure was the Renewable Portfolio Standard, which artificially accelerated the build out of wind and solar without requiring firm backup, reliability standards, or adequate storage. It distorted the market, hollowed out dispatchable capacity, and left the system vulnerable, as if it was intended sabotage. That’s exactly why we must not replicate this in Alaska. Resilient energy policy starts with prioritizing reliability, not ideological agendas or top-down energy experiments.

For transparency, I would appreciate it if the committee was provided with and reviewed both Shaina’s original question and this full response in context and that it becomes part of the permanent public record for this bill. The back-and-and forth helps illuminate why these issues matter so deeply to Alaskans concerned about grid stability and affordability.

Sources:

https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2021-12/Cold%20Weather%20Report_%202021_120821.pdf

https://www.masterresource.org/windpower-problems/texas-windpower-negative-

pricing-neeley/

Prescient warnings back in 2012:

https://www.texastribune.org/2012/09/06/renewable-incentives-spark-debate

I hope this sheds some light on a complex issue and encourages thinking beyond partisan lines.

5/9/2025 – The latest (and so far, final) response thanks me for bringing the missing testimony to their attention and for providing information on the Texas outage. However, there was no acknowledgement of my request to include my response and Shaina’s question in the permanent record. Hopefully, the process still works as intended and partisanship takes a back seat; after all, Representative Holland is registered as an “independent.”

May 9th, 2025 at 10:10 AM: Opposition to HB 153

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. It alerted us to a miscommunication gap in our process, which we are working to fix. Thank you for the information on the Texas outage. I look forward to reviewing this.

Conclusion

Part I and Part II have laid out the political machinery powering Alaska’s “Sustainable Energy” Conference, a carefully curated showcase for the Green New Deal rebranded. Key figures from the Trump Administration (DOE Secretary Chris Wright, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin) are scheduled to take center stage during a June 3rd lunch presentation at Governor Mike Dunleavy’s fourth annual Sustainable Energy Conference. They have some correcting to do to align state energy policy to national policy.

The fix is in regarding this conference, the plan being to showcase the Trump officials and then get down to Green New Deal business. Immediately following their remarks, a “micro networking break” on carbon management and nature based solutions: greenwashed language to push carbon credit schemes, land use restrictions, and bureaucratic control under the guise of sustainable development.

As for the rest of the conference? A green parade of panels on financing wind and solar, advancing carbon capture, integrating renewables, and sustainable aviation fuels. Meanwhile, just 75 minutes out of a three-day conference are dedicated to the only truly sustainable energy sector in Alaska, oil and gas- with coal not even mentioned once.

It’s worth remembering: in 2022, Republican Governor Dunleavy introduced a Renewable Portfolio Standard mandating that Alaska generate 80 percent of its energy by 2040—a statist policy that he set in motion, and one that ENGOs and dark-money-funded leftist activists are all now too eager to run with.

This is far from a balanced energy conference. It’s a soft rollout of a climate agenda most Alaskan’s never voted for. One can only hope that Trump’s team does their homework because what is on the agenda doesn’t match what most of us thought we signed up for.

The post Exposing Alaska’s Green New Deal (Part II) appeared first on Master Resource.

via Master Resource

https://ift.tt/X8WxJVn

May 29, 2025 at 01:08AM

Daily News 29 May 2025

Reliance on ‘Renewables’ Makes Widespread Blackout Nightmare More Likely

By Gary Abernathy

This article was originally published here at The Empowerment Alliance and is re-published here at RealClearEnergy with permission.

Imagine taking the subway to work when the train comes to a sudden halt halfway between scheduled stops. You pull out your smartphone to go online and see what the problem is, but you have no reception – no cell signal, no internet.

Hours later, rescue workers arrive to extract you and your fellow passengers from the stalled train. You make your way to the street in hopes of taking a taxi or an Uber. But without your phone apps and with credit card machines inoperable, you are forced to search for an ATM – only to discover those aren’t working, either.

You soon realize that everyone else is in the same predicament. Hospitals operating on emergency backup systems. People trapped inside elevators. Traffic snarled due to inoperable stoplights. Gas station pumps not functioning. Airport terminals closed. People in darkened homes desperately searching for candles and battery-operated radios to learn what’s happening.

On April 28, the residents of Spain, Portugal and parts of France didn’t have to try to imagine this nightmare scenario. They found themselves prisoners of it for hours when an unprecedented blackout impacted at least 55 million people after the Iberian Peninsula electric grid system failed.

The outage, described as one of the worst ever in Europe, “disrupted businesses, hospitals, transit systems, cellular networks and other critical infrastructure,” according to the France 24 news channel.

Many news agencies, particularly in the U.S., insisted for days that it was too early to say what caused the massive blackout. Others, though, acknowledged the obvious. The Reuters news agency reported early on, “Redeia, which owns Red Electrica, warned in February in its annual report that it faced a risk of ‘disconnections due to the high penetration of renewables without the technical capacities necessary for an adequate response in the face of disturbances.’”

While many observers did their best to point fingers at alternative causes, others were more straightforward in identifying the culprit.

Raúl Bajo Buenestado is a nonresident energy scholar at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy in Houston. He received a Fulbright scholarship as a graduate student and a grant for young researchers from Spain’s Ministry of Education, and received his Ph.D. in economics from Rice. Currently, he is “primarily working on the generation investment incentives and capacity markets in the electricity sector. He also conducts research on gasoline retail markets,” according to his online biography.

After studying the April 28 blackout data, Buenestado authored a commentary concluding that mere minutes prior to the grid collapse, “renewable sources accounted for 78% of electricity generation in the Iberian Peninsula grid system, with solar alone contributing nearly 60%. By contrast, conventional technologies, such as gas-fired and nuclear power plants, comprised only around 15% of the total generation mix. This configuration is not unusual in Spain or Portugal, where high shares of renewable generation are common, particularly during sunny and windy days.”

Buenestado added, “What sets April 28 apart, however, is that, according to Spain’s national electricity grid operator (Red Eléctrica de España), two consecutive generation loss events occurred in southwestern Spain, likely involving large solar installations.”

Buenestado noted that “the risk of large-scale blackouts in electricity systems with high shares of renewable energy is well-established. However, the Iberian blackout of April 28 brings these long-recognized vulnerabilities into sharp focus.” He explained that unlike conventional power plants, solar and wind installations “depend on a stable grid to function correctly and cannot autonomously support grid stability during disturbances.”

Before President Trump reversed the previous administration’s war on fossil fuels, President Biden had committed the U.S. to reaching “100% clean electricity” by 2035 – a goal that seriously imperiled our own infrastructure. Biden’s corresponding attacks on affordable and reliable energy sources like natural gas were unrealistic and unpopular with many consumers who preferred gas appliances and heating sources over those that would be allowable under federal mandates.

Likewise, Spain is “currently aiming to phase out fossil fuel and nuclear generation in favor of renewables,” with a goal of renewables comprising 74% of total output by 2030, under the plan.

The insistence on replacing affordable, dependable energy with more expensive and unreliable alternatives is both illogical and impractical. Natural gas remains the most cost-effective, reliable and increasingly clean fuel choice in the world.

It is telling that despite the Spanish government’s anti-fossil fuel rhetoric, the U.S. recently became the main supplier of liquefied natural gas to Spain. Much of Europe – mimicking extremist climate change rhetoric – publicly decries America’s continued production and use of traditional energy, while simultaneously gobbling it up.

Will the disaster of April 28 make European leaders think twice about abandoning our most reliable energy sources? Hardly. Following the devastating blackout, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez said his government would not “deviate a single millimeter” from its plans to transition to so-called renewables.

That’s unfortunate. In the meantime, it is worth noting that one of the primary sources of energy used to restore electricity to the tens of millions in Spain, Portugal and parts of France who lost power was one that officials there claim to abhor – natural gas.

Gary Abernathy is a longtime newspaper editor, reporter and columnist. He was a contributing columnist for the Washington Post from 2017-2023 and a frequent guest analyst across numerous media platforms. He is a contributing columnist for The Empowerment Alliance, which advocates for realistic approaches to energy consumption and environmental conservation.

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/EfvzlGL

May 29, 2025 at 12:09AM

Daily News 28 May 2025

India Rejects Carbon Tax, Backs Fossil Fuels and Trade in Defiance of Green Policies

By Vijay Jayaraj

Like many developing economies, India faces coercion from the United Nations and Europe to conform to climate policies, especially through the imposition of carbon taxes on imports into their countries. But Delhi is not about to bend to such tactics.

“If they (EU and U.K.) put in a carbon tax, we’ll retaliate,” said India’s Union Minister Piyush Goya at the Columbia India Energy Dialogue in New York City. “I think it will be very silly, particularly to put a tax on friendly countries like India.”

That isn’t a bluff. It’s a moral, strategic and scientific imperative grounded in realpolitik and economic logic.

India and the U.K. have inked a trade deal that promises to boost bilateral trade by more than $33 billion and increase U.K. gross domestic product and wages by many billions.

On paper, this deal is a triumph for both nations, removing duties on 99% of Indian goods entering the U.K. For India, this means greater market access for textiles, agriculture and manufactured goods – sectors that employ millions and drive economic growth.

Yet, the U.K.’s pending Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) remains in place, with no exemptions for Indian steel, cement and aluminum, despite the trade agreement.

Starting January 2027, the U.K. is to impose a levy on these “carbon-intensive” imports, supposedly to compensate for the difference between the U.K.’s domestic carbon tax and India’s lower assessment at home. The tax on imports is to prevent “carbon leakage” — the idea that emissions are “outsourced” to countries with fewer regulations.

This hocus-pocus is nothing more than repugnant virtue signaling that penalizes manufacturers in developing countries for using the very fossil fuels that powered the West’s rise in the 19th and 20th centuries.

India’s export of these products to the EU and U.K. are a critical part of its economic engine. In 2022 alone, 27% of India’s iron, steel and aluminum exports went to the EU.

Yet, the EU’s CBAM, set to take effect in 2026 prior to the U.K. tax, would slap tariffs of 20-35% on these goods.

For Indian exporters, this translates to a steep cost increase. India’s predominantly coal-based blast furnaces have higher carbon intensity of around 2.5-2.6 metric tons of CO₂ emissions per metric ton of steel produced in comparison to the global average of 1.85 metric tons of CO₂. This means a higher CBAM assessment for India.

Profit margins for steel exports could shrink, while aluminum exporters might face a sudden surcharge once indirect emissions from coal power are factored in. Take the case of Tata Steel, which employs over 75,000 people and produces 30 million tons of steel annually. A 20-35% carbon tax under the EU’s CBAM would erode profit margins, forcing layoffs or price hikes that could cost it market share.

India’s dismissal of the climate war on fossil fuels is grounded in necessity and science. Economically, the nation aims to become a $5 trillion economy by 2027, a goal that demands rapid industrialization and infrastructure growth.

Steel, cement, and aluminum are the building blocks of this ambition, used in everything from bridges to skyscrapers, and an important source of export revenue. Fossil fuels, particularly coal, are the lifeblood of these industries, providing the energy needed to keep production costs low and globally competitive.

Coal generates more than 70% of India’s electricity. It powers the factories that make steel and cement. It keeps the lights on in rural hospitals and schools. And it fuels the economic engine that has lifted 415 million people out of poverty in the past two decades.

The modern crusade against fossil fuels is based on the false premise of a disintegrating global environment. But that is not the case. Carbon dioxide is not a toxin. It is a colorless, odorless gas essential to life on Earth.

Even the term “carbon emissions” is a sleight of hand. The emissions are carbon dioxide, but calling them “carbon” conjures images of potentially harmful soot and smoke. Fear perpetrated by lies have made people less resistant to destructive policies like CBAM.

However, India won’t bow to carbon taxes and it won’t join an unscientific climate war that sacrifices its future. The U.K. and EU would do well to listen, lest they find themselves on the losing end of an Asian-dominated trade battle over manufactured goods.

This commentary was first published at Real Clear World on May 24, 2025.

Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO₂ Coalition, Arlington, Virginia. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India.