climate change

The solution to this is massive spending upon the grid. OK, so spend massively on the grid or spend massively on curtailment but either makes renewables really, really, cheap, dunnit?

There is a very short logical step from that to Headline Newds. And so we have the launch episode, The Sun is Daddy, in which Prescott slowly removes her clothes while explaining that solar energy could meet our global energy demands with less land than is being used by the fossil fuel industry. Or, in her words: “Daddy is a giver.”

The usual calculation is that we could power the UK by solar using only – “only” being the size of all current houses and gardens – 3% of the land area. I’m really very sure that we don’t use 3% for fossil fuels.

Unless, of course, they’re lying like banshees and claiming that land used to absorb CO2 emissions is used only and exclusively to absorb CO2. Which is total bollocks, as all who have bothered to read the footnotes to carbon footprint reports know.

Which really only leaves us with one interesting question if they’re going to be lying like banshees. This Prescott bird. Nice tits then?

They’ve still a very colonial mindset, no?

Opening new oil and gas fields in the North Sea would “send a shock wave around the world”, imperilling international climate targets, undermining the UK’s climate leadership and encouraging developing countries to exploit their own fossil fuel reserves, experts have warned.

Credulous Darkies – lovely people, of course, but children, really – can’t actually think through things for themselves, make decisions. They’ll just copy whatever White Bwana does, d’ye see?

Opening new oil and gas fields in the North Sea would “send a shock wave around the world”, imperilling international climate targets, undermining the UK’s climate leadership and encouraging developing countries to exploit their own fossil fuel reserves, experts have warned.

Apparently we are such beacons of light and hope to hte more benighted parts of the planet that we should still be running them. Look, everyone, just do as we do.

The UK government is under stiff pressure from the oil industry, the Conservatives, Nigel Farage’s Reform UK party, some trade unions and parts of the Treasury to give the green light to new oil and gas fields, despite clear evidence that doing so would not cut prices and would have almost no effect on imports.

Two of the biggest fields remaining in the North Sea, which is more than 90% depleted and where the last pockets are increasingly costly and energy-intensive to extract, are within the licensing system. But the Rosebank and Jackdaw fields, if exploited, would displace only 1% and 2% respectively of the UK’s gas imports, research has shown.

It’s difficult to grasp the logic here, eh? They’re trivial, don;t mean much, there’s not much there. OK, I guess – but why, if they’re trivial, are you getting so pissy about it?

Ed Miliband faces cheating accusations over plans to exclude emissions generated in foreign gas-fired power stations from UK totals.
He has pledged to make the grid 95pc gas-free by 2030 – but 15pc of UK power comes from neighbours such as Belgium, the Netherlands and France, which have coal and gas-fired power stations.
Mr Miliband has ruled that all such imported power is be classed as zero-carbon – making it look as green as wind or solar – because the emissions occur outside UK borders.

You’re cheating Eddie, you’re cheating.

New research published in the journal Transnational Environmental Law offers the first systematic analysis of how major fossil fuel companies defend themselves when taken to court over their role in causing global warming. Drawing on case documents from landmark lawsuits, the research identifies three distinct strategies companies are using.

The first and broadest argument is that climate change is a collective problem caused by society’s demand for energy, not by the companies that supply it. Chevron and Shell, in separate cases on different continents, cited the same passage from the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report – that greenhouse gas emissions are driven by “population size, economic activity, lifestyle, energy use” – to argue that responsibility lies with modern industrial society as a whole.

Those who emit bear the responsibility for the emissions. Works as an argument, no?

In the RWE case, lawyers challenged a peer-reviewed Nature Geoscience study attributing flood risk at a Peruvian glacial lake to human-caused warming – not by denying climate change but by arguing that the glacier model contained underlying uncertainties, and that CO2 molecules were “indistinguishable from each other”, making it legally impossible to trace a specific emission to a specific harm.

That works too. You’re suing over a specific harm you gotta be able to show the folk you’re suing are responsible for that specific harm.

A third strategy involves questioning the credibility of those producing the science. In the RWE case, the company’s lawyers submitted printouts of tweets by the leading climate scientist Friederike Otto – noting she had described climate lawsuits as “interesting” – to argue she was too partial to serve as a court-appointed expert. When the claimant submitted an independent attribution study by Oxford and Washington researchers, the lawyers attacked the lead author’s social media posts and professional associations, arguing that links between scientists constituted evidence of a coordinated network.

Some undoubtedly are vile grifters. So, say that.

But it’s that first one that’s strongest to me. Emissions are the responsibility of emitters. You knoiw, users of fossil fuels.

The record-breaking heatwave scorching the US west this week would have been “virtually impossible” if not for the climate crisis, a team of scientists has determined.

Millions of Americans from the Pacific coast to the Rockies baked under unseasonably warm and even dangerous temperatures this week, with temperatures up to 30F (17C) above average for the time of year.

The climate crisis, caused primarily by the burning of fossil fuels, has made this kind of heatwave four times more likely to occur over the last decade, according to a new rapid analysis released Friday.

“These temperatures are completely off the scale for March,” said analysis co-author Ben Clarke, who is an extreme weather and climate change researcher at Imperial College London, in a statement.

We’re All Gonna Die!

In a world without global warming, the current heatwave would have also been milder, with temperatures about 1.4F (0.8C) cooler, says the analysis by World Weather Attribution, an international consortium of climate researchers.

Oh. So the Big Scary Monster makes a difference of under a degree? A warm March could/would have happened anyway, we’re arguing about that last 0.8 oC? Umm, yeah, well, OK……and?

Even though gas accounts for about a quarter of electricity in Britain, it sets the electricity price most of the time. This means that cheaper renewables, nuclear and hydro power are given inflated prices — set at that of the higher gas price.

I have a feeling that’s not actually true. Or, rather, the second part isn’t, not very often.

The renewables guys are all on CfDs, no?

The scheme offers a fixed “Strike Price” to generators over a typically 15 year long contract period. This provides financial certainty, unlike the wholesale electricity market which can fluctuate significantly. With the contract for difference, if the market price for electricity drops below the Strike Price, LCCC pays the generator the shortfall, however if the market price rises, the generator must pay back the difference. The costs, or benefits, of the scheme are passed onto consumers via their electricity bills.

The renewables guys are getting the same price whatever. WEell, except for those not covered by a CfD which I would imagine is a very small subset. Who pays them changes, yes, but not the amount. So, where are those excess profits from a surging gas price?

If anyone really does understand this system then get in touch. A little reportette might not be a bad idea if I’m right here. Of course, wholly possible I’m wrong and knowing that would be nice too.

One proponent of this idea is Prof Michael Grubb at University College London. In a March 2026 post on LinkedIn he says:

“The impact of surging gas prices on electricity will again highlight the oddities of our current electricity market – which make sense to many economists, but to hardly anyone else.”

Call me picky but isn’t it a good idea that an idea is regarded as sensible by the specialists in the field? That an intricate bit of economics makes sense to economists? Like, say, we might think that gearbox experts tell us whether a gearbox is built the right way?

Only five MPs voted against passing the Climate Change Act in 2008. Before the last election, over Tory 130 MPs belonged to the Conservative Environment Network, or over half of all Conservative backbenchers. The star of the Centre for Policy Studies’ 2022 Margaret Thatcher Conference on Growth was Octopus Energy Group CEO Greg Jackson, who told nodding heads in the audience that “it’s absolutely unarguably cheaper to make electricity from renewables than from fossil fuels”.
That wasn’t true then and it isn’t true now, but conformity to the green ideology was enforced with an iron fist. Incredibly, Liz Truss gave the job of “reviewing” her climate policy to Chris Skidmore, the greenest of the green Tories, who duly delivered what the blob wanted: “Mission Zero”. With the honourable exception of the late Nigel Lawson’s Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), the Tory intellectual apparatus in SW1 has kept a pretty low profile on the biggest issue of the day.

By far the cheapest component of our energy supply is the electricity produced by renewables, principally wind and solar. It’s the same story worldwide. But the price of electricity does not reflect the mix of sources. It is set at almost all times by its most expensive component. And what might that be? Oh yes, fossil gas. Even before the current war, gas prices were astronomical, and had been rising in leaps and bounds. This, overwhelmingly, is the reason for our high energy bills.

Nowt to do with CfDs, grid upgrade costs, intermittency, back up requirements, the required subsidies. Oh no.

The only interesting thing is whether Geroge actually believes this shit himself, or not.

Even so, it doesn’t offer this gas to UK customers at special rates. The companies sell it, as everyone else does, on the international market, at the international price. Extracting every last cubic metre from the North Sea would not shift the price by one penny.

Supply goes up, price changes. Sigh.

Perhaps George really does believe this shit?

Renewables are highly competitive and, for this reason, low-profit. Fossil fuels are uncompetitive and high profit.

He certainly seems stupid enough to believe it, yes.

When Middle Eastern wars sparked an oil crisis in the 1970s, tripling energy prices and throwing economies into chaos, some countries looked beyond short-term solutions. The French made nuclear the pillar of their power system. Scandinavians insulated buildings and funnelled waste heat into homes. The Dutch built bike lanes where others wanted motorways. The Danes developed wind turbines.

Which is why, of course, if you want to change the enrgy mix it is prices you should change…..

BLOOM releases an explosive investigation into US interference in the European Parliament

Behind the dismantling of the Green Deal lies a conservative right-wing traitorous to the interests of the European Union, serving instead the agenda of climate-damaging lobbies and Trump’s bid to change Europe’s political regimes.

Being anti-birdchopper is treason now, eh?

In December 2025, a historically significant domino fell in the construction of European unity: the European Parliament adopted the first act to dismantle the Green Deal in an unprecedented union between the conservative right and the European far right. This dangerous shift in the political balance in Brussels did not happen overnight: it was the result of the Trump administration’s strategic action plan to bring about a white, Christian supremacist world order, backed by the extractive industries of fossil fuels and petrochemicals.

This democratic politics shit. We’re going to have to do away with that, right?

Cold snap leaves Florida streets littered with frozen iguanas
Reptiles drop from trees as mercury hits -4C in Orlando – the lowest recorded in February in more than a century

Obvious, innit?

From a PR email:

Paris – At a time when the climate crisis has never been more urgent, the French Senate yesterday adopted a bill to revive oil and gas extraction in French overseas territories, in an unprecedented move to dismantle a cornerstone of French climate policy. The proposal tramples on the legacy of the landmark 2017 Hulot Law, which prohibits the granting of new licenses for the exploration of oil and gas and mandates a complete end to all oil and gas extraction on French soil, including overseas territories, by 2040.

At odds with scientific evidence and the opinion of the International Court of Justice on the obligations of States with regard to climate change, this decision is an insult to frontline communities who bear the brunt of climate impacts. At a time when every tenth of a degree counts, the bill severely undermines the credibility of France’s climate leadership.

Fanny Petitbon, 350.org France Country Manager said:

“France is shattering its international credibility.

Yeah, like Frogs are credible, right?

But, anyway, why?

French Guiana has significant, largely untapped offshore oil potential within the Guyana-Suriname Basin, with estimates suggesting over 15 billion barrels of undiscovered resources. Despite this, environmental regulations, including a French ban on new exploration/production licenses, and previous project cancellations have stalled development, leaving the territory without active production while neighboring nations boom.

Oh, right.

The German chancellor, Friedrich Merz, has said he wants the North Sea to become the “largest reservoir of clean energy worldwide”, as he announced plans to accelerate efforts to link up offshore wind power projects with Europe.

The UK and nine other European countries have agreed to accelerate the rollout of offshore windfarms in the 2030s and build a power grid in the North Sea, in a landmark pact to turn the ageing oil basin into a “clean energy reservoir”.

They will build windfarms at sea that directly connect to various countries through high-voltage subsea cables, under plans that are expected to provide 100 gigawatts (GW) of offshore wind power, or enough electricity capacity to power 143m homes.

A reservoir is a “place of storage”. Which this isn’t going to be. Be a lovely collection of birdchoppers, sure it will be. Also a nice grd no doubt. But it ain’t reservoir. Because it doesn’t store power.

And, yes, those dunkelflautes can indeed cover this entire area and more at times. That is, it doesn’t actually solve the main problem either.

Research published last year found that the stretching of the polar vortex in this way is contributing to extreme weather in the US and that global heating, counterintuitively, could be playing a role in accelerating this process.

Vast winter snowstorms are evidence of global warming. You’re right, it’s not a science, is it, given that it is not refutable by any form of evidence…..

Britain’s wind farm turbines wasted enough energy to power all of London’s homes last year, new figures show.

A record 10 terawatt hours (TWh) of wind power went to waste in 2025, according to a report from energy analyst Montel – costing billpayers a total of £1.4bn in “curtailment costs”.

This was up 22pc on the year before, as growing strain on the grid prevented wind power from being transported to the cities and towns that need it most.

Well, we know the answer that will be given – we must invest in hte grid to make use of that ‘leccie. And investment is good, right? Creates jobs!

But, jobs are a cost, investment is a cost. So, we’ve just increased the costs of wind power by calling for more jobs, more investment.

Now, it could be true that carrying those extra costs are worth it. The net result could be beneficial and therefore we do it. But to work that out we’ve got to be clear about all of the costs involved and all of the benefits. So, who thinks MiliEd will give us clarity on that?

Well, quite….

Just 32 fossil fuel companies were responsible for half the global carbon dioxide emissions driving the climate crisis in 2024, down from 36 a year earlier, a report has revealed.

The idiots are assuming that the people who drill for the oil are responsible for the emissions of people using the oil. When, obvs, it’s the people using the oil responsible. For if no one wanted to use the oil then no one would drill for it. Obviously.

More than 300 earthquakes have been recorded in the UK this year, according to the British Geological Survey (BGS).

If we’re going to have earthquakes anyway might as well be warm and toasty while we do.