My last post ended with the following sign-off:
“Let’s just implement the madness on a slightly longer timetable” is not going to be enough to avert disaster.
Where the following definitions apply:
Madness = breakneck efforts to massively reduce CO2 and methane emissions
Disaster = deindustrialisation, pauperisation, the terminal decline of the Occident (the “West”) and re-alignment of geopolitics in favour of the Orient
The annual COP jamboree ended a few days ago and - as much as it is tempting to ignore the topic for the next 50 weeks until the delegates reconvene for more chinwagging and gravy train promotion - it is worth pulling together some of the strands.
Much of my thinking is summarised in this letter to Reaction.life, published earlier this week following a question posed by the editorial team:
My published response:
The main thrust of Bruce Anderson’s article is one of realism: we’re talking a big tent where renewables, more efficient use of resources, oil & nuclear are all welcome. But calling John “by 2013 we will have the first ice free Arctic summer” Kerry a ‘decent old stick’ is surely far too lenient on a man who can forget (under oath!) that his wife recently sold a private jet, while having made a fortune for himself flying around the world (in said CO2-emitting aircraft) making doom-laden forecasts that inevitably never come true. He is – at best – a self-promoter and contra-indicator.
Anthony Peters is suitably scathing about the means and motives of the 97,000-odd souls that have selflessly emitted copious quantities of global warming goodness in order to get their trotters in the COP trough. And he correctly introduces the concept of the Energy Cost of Energy by referencing the ‘chief economist of some broking firm’, writing “How I wish I had not lost the report and how I wish I could remember who had produced it. It was a work of genius”. I suspect Peters is referring to Dr Tim Morgan, formerly of Tullett Prebon, and his 2013 report entitled Perfect Storm – Energy, Finance and the End of Growth. Peters – who will hopefully be pleased that this research is still available in distributable format – is not wrong about Morgan’s insightfulness – the report is very much worth reading in full. For the TL;DR crowd: energy that is intermittent, or of low energy density, or only available at the wrong time or at eye-watering cost, doesn’t work. Chopping down forests in California, processing the lumber into pellets and shipping these to a ‘wood burner’ in the UK also doesn’t work, however many carbon credit certificates you award to this process. And much like Malthusian catastrophists were defeated by human ingenuity, there is nothing stopping society continuing to increase living standards – but not if we fail to build cheap and reliable nuclear power, which has the highest energy density (and greatest reliability) or all our mainstream fuelled power sources.
These articles read very well as a ‘COP cohort’ – but they are missing a core insight, eloquently outlined yesterday by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in the Daily Telegraph: “We no longer need the COP circus – technology and markets are already solving the climate crisis”. Amen to that, and I am in almost complete agreement with much of his article, which is a whistlestop tour of the key arguments for and against various technologies and policies. AEP might be considered a ‘pragmatic believer’ in man-made climate change, where I am a ‘pragmatic sceptic’ (while I see numerous crises, I see no evidence of a ‘climate crisis’) – our points of disagreement are that there is (in my view) zero justification for any investment in eye-wateringly expensive carbon capture projects that would take plant food out of the atmosphere for essentially zero impact this century as per state-of-the-‘art’ climate modelling. For the sake of the planet, energy security & education are surely greater priorities?
And here a final point – we should learn the lessons from the great big climate panic, which are not dissimilar to those of the covid panic. Beware of people demanding action to avert a crisis of unimaginable proportions… if only you will buy their ‘miracle’ cure. There are, in fact, very good reasons to question whether man-made CO2 is the root of all our troubles. Questioning this sacred cow is tantamount to heresy these days (why does Peters feel obliged to disclaim that he is “not a ‘climate denier’” – what does on earth does this shorthand mean?), but as prophesied tipping points repeatedly fail to materialise, it is worth noting that this simplistic “CO2 bad” premise is the sole foundation of the rationale for this energy transition malarkey.
No, Mr Peters, you are not a climate denier, nor should you be. Neither should you deny climate change. But perhaps you should question why it changes, whether recent changes are material and whether they have anything to do with mankind’s labours. And we should all discuss whether there might – possibly – be some underlying complexities, and whether the vested interests wanting to sell miracle cures should, a la AEP, succeed or fail in what is now an established market, and not determined by which of them can scream, toddler-like, for the biggest bail-out.
I would heartily recommend downloading Tim Morgan’s Energy Cost of Energy report from 2013 (see second quoted paragraph above). Compare and contrast with
(Ed Conway)’s take on similar matters in a recent post, and note my comment. I am hoping to write a longer post on this at some point soon: it is amazing the convoluted contortions that people will put themselves through to avoid questioning their fundamental assumptions and beliefs. Shibboleths will be shibboleths, I guess.Back to the letter - as ever, it is instructive to note which sections suffered the ministrations of the censor’s sub-editor’s pen…
A throwaway intro didn’t make it:
Compared to recent fairytales about climate broiling from the likes of the Biased Broadcasting Corporation, I am delighted to read various articles in Reaction that would tend to indicate that the pendulum is swinging back from extreme panic to something akin to normality.
A short paragraph on our meddling monarch was deemed surplus to requirements:
Bruce Anderson’s lampooning of Lord Goldsmith is a delight, perhaps only missing an additional barb aimed slightly higher up the hereditary tree, namely at our actual monarch, who (in the words of another Lord of the realm) “disgraced himself, the monarchy & the UK with his half-witted speech to the UN climate summit”. Let us not forget that King Chiles – as my seven-year old daughter affectionately calls him – promised to be a ‘non-meddling’ monarch (“I’m not that stupid…”) yet he persists with his promotion of policies that will mean energy poverty for the masses while his estates cash in on a bona vacantia bonanza.
And a whole section was excised:
Taking a somewhat different tack, the anonymous Giga Watt – formerly in communications & policy in the oil & gas sector – argues that there will be a backlash to recent comments by the clear-speaking COP President (no other than Dr Sultan Al Jaber, the CEO of ADNOC, the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company) who stated that “there is no science out there, or no scenario out there, that says that the phase-out of fossil fuel is what’s going to achieve 1.5C”, referring to the UN Paris Agreement. Presumably having read Morgan’s 2013 Tullett Prebon report he continued “please help me, show me the roadmap for a phase-out of fossil fuel that will allow for sustainable socioeconomic development, unless you want to take the world back into caves”. Jaber is of course entirely right, and all the more relevant commentary given that climate modellers agree that the ‘tipping point’ scaremongering (encapsulated by the long-out-of-date-but-gutter-press-favourite RCP8.5 pathway) of recent years was just embarrassing nonsense. But according to Giga Watt there will now be a backlash, apparently, as Jaber’s comments have caused a furore with frothing-at-the-mouth Just Stop Oilers, resulting in him having to make placatory statements in support of ‘The Science’. Hmm. Giga Watt – who seems remarkably supportive of cash-guzzling Net Zero boondoggles (see my counter-arguments here) and wants more government subsidies for wind power – should perhaps declare his interests. I’ll hazard a guess that he no longer works in oil & gas – would he care to discuss over a beer?
I would love to have that drink (and fireside chat) with Giga Watt. He has subsequently written a note tubthumping in favour of the final communiqué (a ‘very important COP’), which stands in stark relief to more pragmatic views, both mainstream (a ‘farce’) and in the longer-term sceptical community (the ‘latest COP farce’). It would be appropriate for Giga Watt to disclose his interests, even if he continues to write under his pseudonym. I fear that the policies he espouses will result in substantial power downgrades. Milli Watt doesn’t have quite the same cachet.
Enough already. More to come on Conway’s capers.
PS. Greenland melt-watch update… check out Russia!!! Brr.