“While America’s unabated movement toward electricity from breezes and sunshine have transferred the countries’ fossil fuel demands onto foreign countries, the data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) shows that the growing demands of societies for petroleum-based liquid fuels will remain strong — and in fact grow — through at least 2050 as America, like much of the European Union, places more reliance on hostile foreign powers for its energy security.”
Not only is the climate-obsessed West suffering from a dangerous deficit of cheap, reliable energy, but also a deficit in reason, common sense, logic, and debate.
Putin has been emboldened to invade Ukraine, not because he’s a “murderer and a war criminal” but because the indolent and ideological West has become so weakened in their obsession with ridding the world of invisible, odourless trace gas and plant food, Carbon Dioxide.
Why attack Carbon dioxide? Because it’s the byproduct of ~80% of the world’s cheap, reliable energy supply — fossil fuels/thermal energy.
Control CO2 and you control the world and the lives and livelihoods of every single person on the planet.
This *is* the ClimateChange™️ agenda.
This is what it’s always been about — power and control over you.
By Ronald Stein ~
China and Russia are great War historians of WWI and WWII, and know that the countries that controls the minerals, crude oil, and natural gas, controls the world! Biden has done an excellent job of relinquishing “CONTROL” for the “green” materials to China, and relinquishing “CONTROL” of the crude oil to OPEC and Russia! God help America!
How is it possible that America has allowed itself to become so dependent on authoritarian countries like China, Russia, Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia over the 30 years since the end of the Cold War? The weaponization of energy by China and Russia have been extensively discussed in the three books co-authored by Ronald Stein and Todd Royal, including the 2022 Pulitzer Prize nominated book “Clean Energy Exploitations – Helping Citizens Understand the Environmental and Humanity Abuses That Support Clean Energy.
America is in a fast pursuit toward…
View original post 878 more words
“Engineers have always played a leading role in the development of powerful adaptation technology. Engineering education should therefore stay far away from ideology-driven computer models. These models steer them in the wrong direction. That is my message to the Academies of Engineering and the Universities of Technology.”
I’ll take the undeniable power, safety and consistency of technical-based decisions made through reason, data and the scientific method (engineering) over politics, ideology, UN climate models and fact-free emotions any day.
By David Wojick, Ph.D. ~
Professor Guus Berkhout has published a challenge to the engineering community, to step up and make the Western energy transition work. He emphasizes that reliable and affordable energy is the key to future prosperity and well-being. So, if the transition fails then the Western world will fall back into poor economies without any power and authority. His opening call is pointed and clear:
“Experienced Engineers must take the lead in the Energy Transition. Green politicians made a big mess of the energy transition and climate scientists encouraged them with their computer models. Putin and Xi JinPing must have watched the self-destruction of the Western World with utter amazement and gratitude. Experienced engineers must pick up the pieces soonest.”
Berkhout says there are actually three distinct challenges, all engineering intensive. One is developing the technology needed for adaptation to climate change, whatever the cause of…
View original post 645 more words
“Switching one’s energy dependence from oil supplies to China-controlled electrical energy equipment is foolish, bordering on insane, in strategic terms. Where are the senior security analysts in the US Department of Defense willing to point this out?”
Where are they? They are purposefully and actively weakening America, by design, by authority.
“Build Back Better” isn’t merely a slogan. They mean it.
The problem is, what does “better” actually mean? They haven’t told us yet, just as Marx (to his credit) warned that he had no idea what his theory of Marxism would portend for the future.
We all (now) know how Marxist doctrine has played out since — misery and death for all.
By Dr. Jay Lehr and Robert Lyman~
The United States Army has just published its climate strategy. In the foreword, Secretary of the Army Christine Wormuth, holder of a Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science from Williams College and a former civilian employee of the Department of Defense, proudly stated that:
“The army must adapt across our entire enterprise and purposefully pursue greenhouse gas mitigation strategies to reduce climate risks. If we do not take action now, across our installations, acquisition and logistics, and training, our options to mitigate these risks will become more constrained with each passing year.”
One might wonder why, as Russian troops invade the Ukraine and China ceaselessly builds up its air, surface and naval forces, the United States Army is turning its mighty attention to the goal of defeating carbon dioxide emissions. The Army’s former recruiting slogan, “Be…
View original post 1,159 more words
In a Greenpeace action, a CO-2 sign stands in front of the Brandenburg Gate with flames coming out of it. (Jörg Carstensen via Getty Images)
“We know only too well that war comes not when
the forces of freedom are strong,
but when they are weak.
It is then that tyrants are tempted.“
– Ronald Reagan
Republican National Convention, July 17 1980
A superb article by @ShellenbergerMD on the root causes of Western weakness in the face of Russian aggression.
While we banned plastic straws, Russia drilled and doubled nuclear energy production.
How has Vladimir Putin—a man ruling a country with an economy smaller than that of Texas, with an average life expectancy 10 years lower than that of France—managed to launch an unprovoked full-scale assault on Ukraine?
There is a deep psychological, political and almost civilizational answer to that question: He wants Ukraine to be part of Russia more than the West wants it to be free. He is willing to risk tremendous loss of life and treasure to get it. There are serious limits to how much the U.S. and Europe are willing to do militarily. And Putin knows it.
Missing from that explanation, though, is a story about material reality and basic economics—two things that Putin seems to understand far better than his counterparts in the free world and especially in Europe.
Putin knows that Europe produces 3.6 million barrels of oil a day but uses 15 million barrels of oil a day. Putin knows that Europe produces 230 billion cubic meters of natural gas a year but uses 560 billion cubic meters. He knows that Europe uses 950 million tons of coal a year but produces half that.
The former KGB agent knows Russia produces 11 million barrels of oil per day but only uses 3.4 million. He knows Russia now produces over 700 billion cubic meters of gas a year but only uses around 400 billion. Russia mines 800 million tons of coal each year but uses 300.
That’s how Russia ends up supplying about 20 percent of Europe’s oil, 40 percent of its gas, and 20 percent of its coal.
The math is simple. A child could do it.
The reason Europe didn’t have a muscular deterrent threat to prevent Russian aggression—and in fact prevented the U.S. from getting allies to do more—is that it needs Putin’s oil and gas.
The question is why.
How is it possible that European countries, Germany especially, allowed themselves to become so dependent on an authoritarian country over the 30 years since the end of the Cold War?
Here’s how: These countries are in the grips of a delusional ideology that makes them incapable of understanding the hard realities of energy production. Green ideology insists we don’t need nuclear and that we don’t need fracking. It insists that it’s just a matter of will and money to switch to all-renewables—and fast. It insists that we need“degrowth” of the economy, and that we face looming human “extinction.” (I would know. I myself was once a true believer.)
John Kerry, the United States’ climate envoy, perfectly captured the myopia of this view when he said, in the days before the war, that the Russian invasion of Ukraine “could have a profound negative impact on the climate, obviously. You have a war, and obviously you’re going to have massive emissions consequences to the war. But equally importantly, you’re going to lose people’s focus.”
But it was the West’s focus on healing the planet with “soft energy” renewables, and moving away from natural gas and nuclear, that allowed Putin to gain a stranglehold over Europe’s energy supply.
As the West fell into a hypnotic trance about healing its relationship with nature, averting climate apocalypse and worshiping a teenager named Greta, Vladimir Putin made his moves.
While he expanded nuclear energy at home so Russia could export its precious oil and gas to Europe, Western governments spent their time and energy obsessing over “carbon footprints,” a term created by an advertising firm working for British Petroleum. They banned plastic straws because of a 9-year-old Canadian child’s science homework. They paid for hours of “climate anxiety” therapy.
While Putin expanded Russia’s oil production, expanded natural gas production, and then doubled nuclear energy production to allow more exports of its precious gas, Europe, led by Germany, shut down its nuclear power plants, closed gas fields, and refused to develop more through advanced methods like fracking.
The numbers tell the story best. In 2016, 30 percent of the natural gas consumed by the European Union came from Russia. In 2018, that figure jumped to 40 percent. By 2020, it was nearly 44 percent, and by early 2021, it was nearly 47 percent.
For all his fawning over Putin, Donald Trump, back in 2018, defied diplomatic protocol to call out Germany publicly for its dependence on Moscow. “Germany, as far as I’m concerned, is captive to Russia because it’s getting so much of its energy from Russia,” Trump said. This prompted Germany’s then-chancellor, Angela Merkel, who had been widely praised in polite circles for being the last serious leader in the West, to say that her country “can make our own policies and make our own decisions.”
The result has been the worst global energy crisis since 1973, driving prices for electricity and gasoline higher around the world. It is a crisis, fundamentally, of inadequate supply. But the scarcity is entirely manufactured.
Europeans—led by figures like Greta Thunberg and European Green Party leaders, and supported by Americans like John Kerry—believed that a healthy relationship with the Earth requires making energy scarce. By turning to renewables, they would show the world how to live without harming the planet. But this was a pipe dream. You can’t power a whole grid with solar and wind, because the sun and the wind are inconstant, and currently existing batteries aren’t even cheap enough to store large quantities of electricity overnight, much less across whole seasons.
In service to green ideology, they made the perfect the enemy of the good—and of Ukraine.
Green campaigns have succeeded in destroying German energy independence—they call it Energiewende, or “energy turnaround”—by successfully selling policymakers on a peculiar version of environmentalism. It calls climate change a near-term apocalyptic threat to human survival while turning up its nose at the technologies that can help address climate change most and soonest: nuclear and natural gas.
At the turn of the millennium, Germany’s electricity was around 30 percent nuclear-powered. But Germany has been sacking its reliable, inexpensive nuclear plants. (Thunberg called nuclear power “extremely dangerous, expensive, and time-consuming” despite the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change deeming it necessary and every major scientific review deeming nuclear the safest way to make reliable power.)
By 2020, Germany had reduced its nuclear share from 30 percent to 11 percent. Then, on the last day of 2021, Germany shut down half of its remaining six nuclear reactors. The other three are slated for shutdown at the end of this year. (Compare this to nextdoor France, which fulfills 70 percent of its electricity needs with carbon-free nuclear plants.)
Germany has also spent lavishly on weather-dependent renewables—to the tune of $36 billion a year—mainly solar panels and industrial wind turbines. But those have their problems. Solar panels have to go somewhere, and a solar plant in Europe needs 400 to 800 times more land than natural gas or nuclear plants to make the same amount of power. Farmland has to be cut apart to host solar. And solar energy is getting cheaper these days mainly because Europe’s supply of solar panels is produced by slave labor in concentration camps as part of China’s genocide against Uighur Muslims.
The upshot here is that you can’t spend enough on climate initiatives to fix things if you ignore nuclear and gas. Between 2015 and 2025, Germany’s efforts to green its energy production will have cost $580 billion. Yet despite this enormous investment, German electricity still costs 50 percent more than nuclear-friendly France’s, and generating it produces eight times more carbon emissions per unit. Plus, Germany is getting over a third of its energy from Russia.
Germany has trapped itself. It could burn more coal and undermine its commitment to reducing carbon emissions. Or it could use more natural gas, which generates half the carbon emissions of coal, but at the cost of dependence on imported Russian gas. Berlin was faced with a choice between unleashing the wrath of Putin on neighboring countries or inviting the wrath of Greta Thunberg. They chose Putin.
Because of these policy choices, Vladimir Putin could turn off the gas flows to Germany, and quickly threaten Germans’ ability to cook or stay warm. He or his successor will hold this power for every foreseeable winter barring big changes. It’s as if you knew that hackers had stolen your banking details, but you won’t change your password.
This is why Germany successfully begged the incoming Biden administration not to oppose a contentious new gas pipeline from Russia called Nord Stream 2. This cut against the priorities of green-minded governance: On day one of Biden’s presidency, one of the new administration’’s first acts was to shut down the Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada to the U.S. in service to climate ideology. But Russia’s pipeline was too important to get the same treatment given how dependent Germany is on Russian imports. (Once Russia invaded, Germany was finally dragged into nixing Nord Stream 2, for now.)
Naturally, when American sanctions on Russia’s biggest banks were finally announced in concert with European allies last week, they specifically exempted energy productsso Russia and Europe can keep doing that dirty business. A few voices called for what would really hit Russia where it hurts: cutting off energy imports. But what actually happened was that European energy utilities jumped to buy more contracts for the Russian oil and gas that flows through Ukraine. That’s because they have no other good options right now, after green activism’s attacks on nuclear and importing fracked gas from America. There’s no current plan for powering Europe that doesn’t involve buying from Putin.
We should take Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as a wake-up call. Standing up for Western civilization this time requires cheap, abundant, and reliable energy supplies produced at home or in allied nations. National security, economic growth, and sustainability requires greater reliance on nuclear and natural gas, and less on solar panels and wind turbines, which make electricity too expensive.
The first and most obvious thing that should be done is for President Biden to call on German Chancellor Scholz to restart the three nuclear reactors that Germany closed in December. A key step in the right direction came on Sunday when Vice-Chancellor Robert Habeck, the economy and climate minister, announced that Germany would at least consider stopping its phaseout of nuclear. If Germany turns these three on and cancels plans to turn off the three others, those six should produce enough electricity to replace 11 billion cubic meters of natural gas per year—an eighth of Germany’s current needs.
Second, we need concerted action led by Biden, Congress, and their Canadian counterparts to significantly expand oil and natural gas output from North America to ensure the energy security of our allies in Europe and Asia. North America is more energy-rich than anyone dreamed. Yes, it will be more expensive than Russian gas sent by pipeline. But it would mean Europe could address Putin’s war on Ukraine, rather than financing it.
Exporting gas by ship requires special terminals at ports to liquify (by cooling) natural gas; environmentalists oppose these terminals because of their ideological objection to any combustible fuel. So it’s a good sign that Chancellor Sholz announced plans on Sunday to build two of these terminals to receive North American gas, along with announcing major new military spending to counter Russia.
Third, the U.S. must stop shutting down nuclear plants and start building them. Every country should invest in next-generation nuclear fuel technology while recognizing that the current generation of light-water reactors are our best tool for creating energy at home, with no emissions, right now. What you’ve heard about waste is mostly pseudoscience. Storing used fuel rods is a trivial problem, already solved around the world by keeping them in steel and concrete cans. The more nuclear power we generate, the less oil and gas we have to burn. And the less the West will have to buy from Russia.
Putin’s relentless focus on energy reality has left him in a stronger position than he should ever have been allowed to find himself. It’s not too late for the rest of the West to save the world from tyrannical regimes that have been empowered by our own energy superstitions.
Best-selling author of “San Fransicko” (HarperCollins, 2021) “Apocalypse Never” (HarperCollins 2020) :: Time Magazine “Hero of Environment” :: Green Book Award winner :: Founder and President of Environmental Progress
Shellenberger related :
- NOW That We Know Renewables Can’t ‘Save The Planet’, Are We Really Going To Stand By And Let Them Destroy It? | Climatism
- SCIENCE : UNreliable Nature Of Solar And Wind Makes Electricity More Expensive, New Study Finds | Climatism
- Environmentalist Tells Tucker Carlson: Renewables Can’t Save The Planet | The Daily Caller
- America’s Top Green – Michael Shellenberger – Pushes Nuclear Future & Calls Wind & Solar ‘The Worst for the Enviroment’ | Climatism
- MUST READ : On Behalf Of Environmentalists, I Apologize For The Climate Scare | Climatism
“Dead-calm Weather Kills Energy”, perhaps a more apt headline. Net-Zero-Energy-poverty, here we come…
It’s almost as if this is all by design. 🤔
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” – (Quote by Maurice Strong, founder of UNEP, billionaire elitist, primary power behind UN throne. Made his billions via oil and gas.)
Dead-Calm Weather Killing ‘Inevitable’ Renewable Energy‘Transition’
Wind power is, by definition, a wholly weather-dependent power source. So, it should come as no surprise that – whenever a burst of calm-weather hits – those charged with responsibility for delivering power, as and when we need it, scramble to obtain it from any convenient and, more importantly, reliable source. Which is why Germany and the UK have reverted to reliance on their ‘dreaded’ and purportedly ‘dirty’ coal-fired power plants.
Back in January this year, the Germansmandated the closure of 11 coal-fired power plants(with a total combined capacity of 4.7GW). But the legislative shutdown barely lasted a week, with all of those plants being hastily brought back online in response to an outbreak of, you guessed it, calm weather.
Likewise, the Brits have been forced to bring old (thought to be redundant) coal-fired power plants…
View original post 1,171 more words
“Could Scotland’s unwanted wind turbines be turned into playparks?”
Absoultely! With more than 13.9 million trees felled (massacred) in Scotland for windmill development from 2000–2019 there appears to be ample room for playparks and beyond! https://climatism.wordpress.com/2020/02/23/scotlands-net-zero-forest-management-program/
There may even be ample room to facilitate future UN COP meetings next to, said, kiddies playparks if “Net Zero” requires such intesne and massive deforeastion to house industrial wind and solar ‘playparks’.
Oh, the irony… kids and globalist bureaucrats all playing (and paying) together in the future playparks of denuded-forest-gulags.
“Build Back Better!”
Windy Standard wind farm, Scotland [credit: RWE.com] Ideas, opinions, feedback etc. are invited here. It could be said they’ve already had decades to think about this, but any negativity will no doubt be ignored. Existing uses include children’s play areas and bike sheds, but there’s only so many of those that would find a place.
– – –
One wind farm company is looking for imaginative ways to repurpose turbines at the end of their lives, says BBC News.
When Windy Standard was built in Dumfries and Galloway in the mid-1990s, it was Scotland’s second largest wind farm.
Now it is coming to the end of its functional life and the old turbines are set to be replaced by more powerful machines.
But what happens to the original turbines? Owner Fred Olsen Renewables wants to find creative and sustainable ways to ensure they do not end up in…
View original post 378 more words
UK theoretical ‘windmill’ capacity = 24GW, but is running at less than 2GW.
Windmills are your enemy, not the fossil fuel tech that happens to create and sustain, symbolic UNreliables.
The real enemy of ‘sustainability’, is symbolism itself.
By Paul Homewood
h/t Dennis Ambler
We’re currently relying on Europe for 16% of our electricity, as wind power plummets once again. Last night the proportion reached 20% as solar power disappeared.
Our thousands of wind turbines have a theoretical capacity of 24 GW, but are running at less than 2GW. Yet we plan to double that capacity in the next few years.
Are there any grown ups in charge of our energy policy?
“Wind generation was higher on this day than it was on the day before. The average for the day of 2552MW gave wind generation a daily operational Capacity Factor of 31.4%” – Anton Lang
31.4% Capacity Factor 🤦♂️.
Welcome to the Pleistocene Epoch (the era of Joe’s ‘Neanderthals’).
For comparison :
“Nuclear has the highest capacity factor of any other energy source—producing reliable, carbon-free power more than 92% of the time in 2016. That’s nearly twice as reliable as a coal (48%) or natural gas (57%) plant and almost 3 times more often than wind (35%) and solar (25%) plants.” – Office of Nuclear Energy (US Gov)
By Anton Lang ~
This Post details the daily wind power generation data for the AEMO coverage area in Australia. For the background information, refer to the Introductory Post at this link.
Each image is shown here at a smaller size to fit on the page alongside the data for that day. If you click on each image, it will open on a new page and at a larger size so you can better see the detail.
Note also that on some days, there will be a scale change for the main wind power image, and that even though images may look similar in shape for the power generation black line on the graph when compared to other days, that scale (the total power shown on the left hand vertical axis) has been changed to show the graph at a larger size to better fit the image for that…
View original post 667 more words
“Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work;
we need a fundamentally different approach.”
–– Top Google engineers
“Suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels
in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole
is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.
–– James Hansen
(The Godfather of AGW alarmism / former NASA climate chief)
Vijay Jayaraj is a Research Contributor for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation and resides in Bengaluru, India. He received his M.Sc in Environmental Science from the University of East Anglia (UEA), England. His first hand experience of the controversy within the climate fraternity came when he was a graduate student at UEA, which also houses the Climatic Research Unit – the heart of the Climategate scandal in 2009. (Climategate: Emails leaked from personal accounts of alarmist climate scientists revealed their attempts to deliberately exaggerate the warming rate in the 20th century).
His subsequent journey in understanding the reality of the climatic system made him espouse the position of climate realism, a position that views climate in terms of the real-world climate measurements (that shows no signs of dangerous increase) and not through the lenses of faulty forecasts that predict a climate apocalypse. He advocates for the use of fossil fuels in developing countries, the very same energy sources that lifted the Western society out of poverty in the last two centuries.
In this exclusive op-ed written for Climatism blog, Vijay illustrates the brazen hypocrisy of the climate-obsessed Western mainstream media, vilifying conservative leaders such as Australia’s PM Scott Morrison for supporting fossil fuels and coal, while remaining silent on – ‘green’ energy darling of the Left – Angela Merkel’s ramping up of coal-fired power stations in order to negate the disastrous economic and environmental fallout from her countries disastrous 500 billion Euro (failed) Energiewende experiment.
From a perspective of humanity, Vijay highlights the deadly importance of utilising cheap, reliable fossil fuels in order to lift billions of people in developing countries out of abject poverty by allowing an estimated 1.3 billion of them to experience actual electricity. According to the Washington Post, “around the world, 1.3 billion people lack access to electricity. More than 600 million are in sub-Saharan Africa, and more than 300 million are in India alone.”
As well, Vijay recognises the undeniable need for advanced societies to maintain their use of cheap, reliable and clean fossil fuel technologies, such as HELE, in order to maintain economic wealth, keep the lights on, as well to maintain environmental health. After all, the greatest threat to the environment is not affluence, it is poverty. The border between Haiti and Dominican Republic, a fine example. See : UN Carbon Regime Would Devastate Humanity And The Environment
Mainstream Media’s Hypocrisy of Blacklisting Australia
By Vijay Jayaraj
As a stage when the Paris agreement conveners are looking up to Germany to represent itself as a leader in emission reduction, the opening up of coal plants comes across as a slap in the face of the agreement between Berlin and Paris.
When a nation like Germany, touted as the global leader in ‘clean’ energy, can open up new coal plants, why can’t economies like Australia do the same?
Why are the left and the greenies branding Australia as a “fossil badboy”? Are only leftists and developed European nations entitled to reliable and affordable power from fossil fuels?
Germany Chancellor and Fossil Hypocrisy
Germany is a leading economy, not just in Europe, but in the world. But that status is under threat as the country’s political leadership is struggling with its obsession for “clean” energy and the increasing pressure to provide energy access at an affordable rate.
Though being touted as the global leader in renewable energy, the country failed miserably in fulfilling its emission reduction targets during recent years and made headlines across the globe for its failure. Despite setting aside $580 billion in expenses to transform its energy systems away from fossil, the country could not achieve its own emission reduction targets.
This year, the country’s premier Merkel went a step further to upgrade her dismal record in keeping promises and embraced fossil fuels.
Unable to meet the growing energy needs, she had no option but to approve the activation of six state-of-the-art HELE supercritical coal-fired power stations in Germany’s Datteln, Lünen, Hamburg, Stade, and Schkopau.
Surprisingly, the chancellor did not go through the same treatment that some of her counterparts in other parts of the world are going through for embracing fossil fuels!
Mocking Australia’s Coal Embrace is Heights of Hypocrisy
In contrast to the treatment Merkel enjoys in the global mainstream media, Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison has been the subject of ridicule for his open embrace of fossil fuels, especially coal.
The global mainstream media’s treatment of the Australian PM is nothing but blatant hypocrisy! While leaders like Angela Merkel are allowed to use fossils, those like Morrison are ridiculed for doing the same.
In fact, the hypocrisy becomes more intense when considers the total CO2 emissions from different countries so far! Australia is ranked 16th but Germany is ranked 6th. China, who are currently being praised for their announcement of carbon neutrality target, stands number one in the ranking for total CO2 emissions.
Make no mistake, CO2 emission is not a bad thing! But the fact that the leftist’s mainstream media chose to blacklist few political leaders while allow others to run scot-free exposes their hypocrisy.
Media Morphing the Importance of Australian Coal as Evil
Moreover, the leftists seldom care about the lives of millions in Asia who directly depend on Australian coal. Though countries like India and China have abundant coal reserves, they still depend on Australian coal to meet domestic energy needs.
In addition to fueling their energy plants, Australian coal—which is a cleaner form of black anthracite coal—is the preferred fuel in their steel plants. Australian coal production increase is partly induced by the soaring export demands from developing nations like India and China, and even developed economies like Japan.
In 2019, Australia’s total coal export was valued at $64 billion, with Japan alone buying $17 billion worth of coal. China bought coal worth $13.7 billion and India $10.5 billion. Ironically, the host of Paris agreement, France, took in $0.6 billion worth of coal from Australia in 2019.
In fact, the energy sectors of these coal import countries are highly sensitive to disruptions in supply of Australian coal. This was evident recently when a ban on import of Australian coal—due to the on-going political tensions between China and Australia—plunged thousands of homes into darkness in China.
Institute of Public Affairs in India estimates that Australian coal could help 82 million Indians access electricity. In a nation where hundreds of millions are yet to experience uninterrupted power supply, Australian coal supply could be vital.
And it is not just the foreign economies that benefit from Australian coal. Coal is mined in every state in Australia and it is one of the country’s economic lifeline. In 2019, It was responsible for 56% of the nation’s electricity requirements.
Estimates indicate that the Australian economy has been strongly supported by 9,100 million tonnes of black coal and about 2,300 million tonnes of brown coal since the 1700s. Mining and resources have been a key contributor to Australia’s economic growth, according to 2019 National Accounts data by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
Instead of broadcasting actual benefit of superior grade Australian coal in Asia Pacific, the liberal mainstream media has branded Australia’s coal sector as evil and cast Prime Minister Morrison as the villain in their anti-fossil propaganda drama. To rub salt on the wound, they’ve cast climate hypocrites in Europe as climate saviors.
If the CO2 emissions are the real concern—to the climate alarmists—then they must actually promote Australian coal and clean coal technology like the HELE supercritical coal technology that emit 30 percent less CO2.
Rather, the failure of support for high grade Australian coal and the HELE technology has revealed the alarmist’s and left’s unwillingness to the rising cost of energy prices from renewables or the huge financial burden non-fossil technologies are having on the economies and the industries which act as their backbone.
Author: Vijay Jayaraj is an environmental researcher and commentator on climate and energy issues globally. He graduated with a Master’s in Environmental Science from the University of East Anglia, which was home to the infamous Climategate scandal.
- ANGELA MERKEL : The New Climate Change ‘Denier’ | Climatism
- UN Carbon Regime Would Devastate Humanity And The Environment | Climatism
- JAPAN ACKNOWLEDGES THE GLOBAL WARMING ‘PAUSE’ : Sanctions 35 New Coal Power Plants Added To The 100 Currently Operational | Climatism
- SNOWFALL Will Signal The Death Of The Global Warming Cult | Climatism
- ‘GREEN’ ENERGY POVERTY: Volunteer Knitters In High Demand As Soaring Power Prices Leave People Cold | Climatism
- COGNITIVE BIAS : Climate Change Alarmists Refuse To Accept ‘The Science’ That Proves Extreme Weather Events Are NOT Increasing | Climatism
ENERGIEWENDE-Fail Related :
- ENERGIEWENDE FAIL: German CO2 Emissions Higher Now Than In 2009 | Climatism
- UN Carbon Regime Would Devastate Humanity And The Environment | Climatism
- Germany’s €Trillion Euro Disaster: Wind Power ‘Transition’ Destroys its Industrial Heartland | Climatism
- TRULY GREEN? How Germany’s #Energiewende Is Destroying Nature | Climatism
- IF CO2’s Your Poison, Renewable Energy Is No Antidote | Climatism
- GREEN Party Co-Founder : Germany’s Energiewende “An Economic, Social and Ecological Disaster” | Climatism