climate change

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.

The loss of his house hadn’t been confirmed at the time of the interview, but Gibson said his son had just sent him “a video of my neighbourhood, and it’s in flames. It looks like an inferno.” According to World Weather Attribution, January’s fires in California were made significantly more likely by climate breakdown. Factors such as the extreme lack of rainfall and stronger winds made such fires both more likely to happen and more intense than they would have been without human-caused global heating.

No. There are two causes of the increase in fires in Medierranean ecospheres – which California is.

One is the absence of goats. Not something that really applies in ericher areas of CA to be fair but the base reason is still applicable. Not clearing the brush. That increases the fire load, obviously. The other is that climate change should – if the predictions are correct – increase winter rains in such areas. Whci increases the growth of said brush whioch then dries back to tinder in summer. Increasing the fire load.

It’s *not* to do with higher summer temperatures for summer temperatures are always high enough to allow fires. These environments are, in fact, built – OK, adapted – to burn occasionally. Not allowing them to burn occasionally, or, not allowing and also not clearing the brush, increases the damage when they do.

And, yes, CA has been preventing people from clearling brush for a long, long, time now. On, you know, environmental grounds?

And that tool is cheap energy from the sun and the wind and the batteries to store that power when the sun goes down or the wind drops.

But *it doesn’t work*.

Batteries to carry an entire civilisation through a three week dunkelflaute just do not work as an economic proposition. Therefore this idea does not work.

Sigh.

It’s far, far, too political:

I had been dreading the treaty anniversary as an occasion to note that we have not done nearly enough, but in July I thought we might be able celebrate it. Because, on 23 July, the international court of justice handed down an epochal ruling that gives that treaty enforceable consequences it never had before. It declares that all nations have a legal obligation to act in response to the climate crisis, and, as Greenpeace International put it, “obligates states to regulate businesses on the harm caused by their emissions regardless of where the harm takes place. Significantly, the court found that the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is fundamental for all other human rights, and that intergenerational equity should guide the interpretation of all climate obligations.” The Paris treaty was cited repeatedly as groundwork for this decision.

This puts into the law what Greenpeace thinks is clean, healthy and sustainable. Not what actually is. Thererfore the court that did this needs to be destroyed. Because it’s put the nutters in charge, that’s why.

This flawed deal might have been all that was possible, given the geopolitical headwinds – a US president who shunned the talks and is wedded to oil and coal, the rising tide of rightwing populism, conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, intolerable levels of inequality, and global economic uncertainty.

Inequality has to be in there, somewhere, right? But how does this lead to climate change?

Further, given that inequality is falling – and on a global level, falling fast – that would be a good thing, no?

The world is still on track for a catastrophic 2.6C increase in temperature as countries have not made sufficiently strong climate pledges, while emissions from fossil fuels have hit a record high, two major reports have found.

Even – even – they are saying disaster has been averted and we can all calm down now. Which is good, no?

That this always was the correct answer is another thing…..

Rich countries have lost enthusiasm for tackling climate crisis, says Cop30 chief

Because “tackling” always does seem to mean ship tonnes and tonnes of money to the poor thieves out there in poor world governments.

Brazil’s André Corrêa do Lago says countries should follow China’s lead on clean energy as conference begins

So that would be keep building coal plants?

That this is the Guardian’s lead story on the main page – yet another jamboree on the same damn subject really isn’t that now, is it?

But the true reach of fossil fuel tentacles is undoubtedly deeper as the lobbyists data

In a report about how fossil fuel companies send people to COPs etc.

“Tentacles” is just one of those words not to use, not unless you’re talking about how to cook Octopus.

Warming oceans probably fueling Hurricane Melissa’s rapid intensification
Climate scientists have long warned that warming oceans are making explosive storm development more common

But just one of those things. I’d have a great deal more faith in them all – and the Guardian etc – if they’d been running articles on “Where did the hurricanes go this year?”

We are – substantially – below average in hte number of ’em in 2025. But we get a piece about how climate change is making this one faster to develop – and yet not anything about how few there are.

You know, almost as if they’re being biased? As if you could believe such a thing.

So we killed off our coal use. At some significant cost too. In order to show the world how it should be done:

Coal use hit a record high around the world last year despite efforts to switch to clean energy, imperilling the world’s attempts to rein in global heating.

The share of coal in electricity generation dropped as renewable energy surged ahead. But the general increase in power demand meant that more coal was used overall,

Oh.