It is hard to tell sometimes whether the climatistas actually believe their apocalyptic catechism about “settled science,” how we can meet all of our energy needs with wind, solar, and processed banana peels, or whether it is just an excuse to centralize more political power over people and resources, preferably at the international level. (Of course, the two hypotheses are not mutually exclusive.)
Or maybe, as we suggested Sunday in another context, the climatistas are just dumb and unserious. Yesterday the New York Times—the freakin’ New York Times!—noted that the closure of New York’s Indian Point nuclear power plant is going to increase fossil fuel use to meet New York’s electricity needs. Indian Point currently produces more electricity than all of New York’s wind and solar power installations combined.
So far, most of the electricity produced by the nuclear plant, known as Indian Point, has been replaced by power generated by plants that burn natural gas and emit more pollution. And that trade-off will become more pronounced once Indian Point’s last reactor shuts down on April 30. . .
After one of Indian Point’s two working reactors was permanently shut down last summer, the share of the state’s power that came from gas-fired generators jumped in 2020 to about 40 percent, from about 36 percent in 2019, federal data show. . .
When even the New York Times can figure this out. . .
Meanwhile, what about India and China, who are both making public pledges to embrace the Paris Climate Accord and cut emissions, but who continue to build . . . lots of new coal-fired power plants. India has just approved eight brand new coal mines, along with the expansion of 24 existing coal mines. Also:
New Delhi: Coal is projected to remain the largest single source of electricity in India in 2040, according to Michelle Manook, Chief Executive, World Coal Association. She said that coal will continue to play a vital role in supporting intermittent renewable energy sources to underpin infrastructure development and industrialization.
“India is choosing to prioritize economic growth enabled by a resilient energy mix, inclusive of coal and clean coal technologies,” Michelle said.
China’s coal output rose last year to its highest since 2015, despite Beijing’s climate change pledge to reduce consumption of the dirty fossil fuel and months of disruption at major coal mining hubs.
The world’s biggest coal miner and consumer produced 3.84 billion tonnes of coal in 2020, data from the National Bureau of Statistics showed on Monday.
This has all led the BBC—the freakin’ BBC!—to report that “‘net zero’ targets are pie-in-the-sky.”
Sharp divisions between the major global emitters have emerged at a series of meetings designed to make progress on climate change.
India lambasted the richer world’s carbon cutting plans, calling long term net zero targets, “pie in the sky.” Their energy minister said poor nations want to continue using fossil fuels and the rich countries “can’t stop it”. China meanwhile declined to attend a different climate event organised by the UK.
Incidentally, the opening gag about energy from processed banana peels . . . isn’t entirely a gag. The serious term for it is “biomass,” and biomass energy is considered a green, renewable energy source. Except that. . . maybe it’s not. Politico—Politico!— reports:
In Europe, “biomass power,” as it’s technically called, is now counted and subsidized as zero-emissions renewable energy. As a result, European utilities now import tons of wood from U.S. forests every year—and Europe’s supposedly eco-friendly economy now generates more energy from burning wood than from wind and solar combined. . .
But when it comes to power from ground-up trees, there’s still a raging substantive debate about whether it’s a forest-friendly, carbon-neutral alternative to fossil fuels, or an environmental disaster. . .
In February, more than 500 scientists and economists wrote to President Joe Biden and other leaders to warn that converting wood into power is a carbon disaster, a forest destroyer and an absurdly inefficient way to generate energy. Supplying just 2 percent more global energy from biomass, they estimated, would require doubling total global wood harvests.
When the New York Times, the BBC, and Politico are all punching holes in the green energy mania, you’d think the climatistas might want to take stock of things. Don’t hold your breath. (Besides, if you hold your breath, you probably increase your personal CO2 emissions.)