Monday, 26 June 2017


Here's a great look at what's going on in the energy world . I found this website to be most informative. The piece about whether the USA electricity grid could go over to 100% renewables by 2050 is particularly fascinating. One professor says "yes", while another group says "no". What do you think?

Sunday, 25 June 2017


This article shows that CO2 follows temperature with highly variable time lags depending upon whether the climate is warming or cooling. At the onset of the last glaciation the time lag was 8,000 years and the world was cast into the depths of an ice age with CO2 variance evidently contributing little to the large fall in temperature.

Saturday, 24 June 2017


One of the pillars of the current climate change phenomenon is the government, complete with the opposition and even the third and fourth parties in parliament. All these politicians, with the exception of a very small number of honourable dissenters, are constantly telling us that "the science is settled", we face an emergency (or crisis) due to emissions of CO2. And yet time and time again these same politicians are found wanting. They were sure it was a good idea to invade Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, even Syria, though in the latter case there was sufficient dissent to stop them. We were told to buy diesel cars. We also trusted that they could protect us from fires with ever stricter fire regulations.  Now we know better.

But have we learnt anything from their mistakes? I think those of us who have lived through all the mistakes have, but young voters who have not lived through probably have not.  Hence the large number of young voters who voted for extreme socialist policies at our recent election.

Once the public have seen the political class to be deeply flawed they may become even more cynical about their extreme adherence to what look like very dubious and extremely costly climate change policies.

Friday, 23 June 2017


This article explains that by focusing only on risks to carbon intensive assets, whilst ignoring the possibility that current climate policies may be causing poor investment opportunities in renewable energy technologies, the Bank of England is failing in its statutory duty to identify and address risks to the resilience of the UK financial system.  Nowhere in the Bank's document looking at risks tot the UK economy is there any evidence that they recognises that the very large investments in renewables, the Bank itself mentions “tens of trillions of dollars”, are themselves risky. Like the rest of the debate on climate change there can be no room for doubt.

The Bank of England writes that: "The allocation of capital and labour to projects not aligned with climate policies and technological changes could be a drag on productivity and economic growth. Conversely, allocating capital and labour to green technologies can be growth-enhancing".

Then again it might, and not at all improbably, be quite the other way around. Failing to allocate resources to projects not aligned with climate policies may destroy wealth, and directing them instead to green technologies could well reduce productivity and suppress growth. There is, no doubt, a real possibility that the policy driven commitment of capital resources to renewable energy generation is malinvestment that will have to be written off within a decade or two. This especially true if new technology emerges such as nuclear fusion, or other yet unknown methods of energy production.

Much will depend on what the rest of the world does (not what it says it will do).  

Thursday, 22 June 2017


This piece puts the present climate debate into its long term context. This is essential for all of us if we are to learn the full picture of where we are. It is what is missing from all the alarmist headlines that we read about in the news and the pronouncements of the "true believers" in Greenpeace or the Friends of the Earth etc.

Wednesday, 21 June 2017


This piece shows how a very plausible article written by a climate scientist can be debunked easily by someone with a good understanding of the facts - something very few members of the public have. It is very instructive to read the linked piece right through to see how the facts can be misrepresented.

Tuesday, 20 June 2017


This report puts the recent spate of floods in the UK into context over a much longer period. That is the only way to assess weather or climate.  The study proves that though the past decade was wetter than many recent decades it was no wetter than many other periods going further back. The trouble is that we humans have relatively short lives and even shorter memories. The only reliable thing is data.

Monday, 19 June 2017


This data-packed essay looks at the full implications of the Paris climate accord. When you read it you can see the logic behind President Trump's decision to pull the USA out. Princeton physicist Will Happer wrote of this essay, "Most of your essays are very good, but this one is especially so.  Many thanks for all you are doing for our country." I agree.

Sunday, 18 June 2017


This paper explains that the association between air quality and acute deaths is not causally related, contrary to the popular belief that is constantly being put out by mainstream media. Of course the public are far more concerned about the affects of air quality on health than they are on some vague assertion that emissions of CO2 will in some way affect the climate at an unspecified time in the distant future. This paper should give some reassurance on the health issues related to air quality.

Saturday, 17 June 2017


The UK government had been encouraging us to drive diesel vehicles since the early 2000's. The reason was to reduce our emissions of CO2, as they claim this will improve the climate, or prevent it deteriorating at some point in the future. Now they have been told by the EU that our vehicles are emitting too much nitrogen oxides (NOx) and to reduce this they are now trying to reduce the number of diesel vehicles. However they already knew that diesels produced more NOx gases (which are bad for those with lung problems like asthma). They claim they were duped by the car manufacturers who claimed that these emissions were being controlled. That is a poor excuse, as surely they ought to have tested these vehicles independently? What this shows is how easily the government can be fooled by accepting the word of others and go on to put in place very costly policies which they then discover are completely wrong.

In order to comply with their own Climate Change Act, the government would like to get us all to drive electric vehicles, or at least hybrid electric/petrol. They cannot do this straight away, as it would cause massive opposition from the public and massive costs to the government, so they are starting to "nudge" us in this direction by mandating councils to set up Clean Air Zones. They do not say what these zones will require, but it seems obvious that they will ban diesels - but will they go much further than that and only allow electric/hybrids? If so then they are going beyond what is necessary to make the air clean enough to be safe. They would be effectively banning diesel and petrol engines from our town centres in order to comply with their so-called climate change commitments.

Regular readers may have noticed that I have recently put the cost of the UK Climate Change Act on the top right of the blog. It is an eye-watering figure of £300 to 400 billion up to 2050. It is rarely stated publically but should be shown as often as possible. The benefits to the public of this massive spend I have said are NONE.

Friday, 16 June 2017


New Study: Large CO2 Emissions From Batteries Of Electric Cars
New Technology, 29 May 2017

Johan Kristensson
Enormous hope rests on electric cars as the solution by the motor industry to climate change. However the batteries of electric cars are not environmentally friendly when manufactured. Several tonnes of carbon dioxide are being released, even before electric batteries leave the factory.

IVL, the Swedish Environment Institute has, on behalf of the Swedish Transport Administration and the Swedish Energy Agency, investigated the climate impact of lithium-ion batteries from a life-cycle perspective. Batteries for electric cars were included in the study. Lisbeth Dahllöf and Mia Romare have produced a meta-analysis, that is, a review and compilation of existing studies.
The report shows that battery manufacturing leads to high CO2 emissions. For each kilowatt-hour storage capacity in the battery, emissions of 150 to 200 kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent are generated, already in the factory.

The researchers have not studied individual car brand’s batteries, just how they were produced or what electrical mix they used. But to understand the importance of battery size here’s one example: Two standard electric cars on the market, Nissan Leaf and Tesla Model S, have batteries of approximately 30 kWh and 100 kWh respectively.

As soon as you buy the car, CO2 emissions of approximately 5.3 tonnes and 17.5 tonnes, respectively, have been released for batteries of these sizes. The numbers may be difficult to relate to. By way of comparison, a trip for a person returning from Stockholm to New York by air causes emissions of more than 600 kilograms of carbon dioxide, according to the UN organization ICAO’s calculation model.

Another conclusion of the study is that about half of the emissions occur during the production of raw materials and half during the production of the battery in the factory. The mining itself accounts for only a small part of between 10-20 percent.
The calculation is based on the assumption that the electricity mix used by the battery plant is based on more than half the power  being generated by fossil fuels. In Sweden, power generation predominantly consists of zero-carbon nuclear and hydropower, as a result of which lower emissions can be achieved.

The study also reveals that CO2 emissions rise almost linearly with battery size, even though data is scarcer in this area. This means that a Tesla-size battery contributes more than three times as much CO2 as Nissan Leaf’s battery. It is a result that surprised Mia Romare.

“It should have been less linear because the electronics used do not increase to the same extent. But the battery cells themselves are as influential as the production looks today, she says.

“One conclusion is that you should not drive unnecessarily cars with large batteries,” says Mia Romare.

The authors emphasise that a large part of their study was about finding out what data was available and finding out what information they hold. In many cases they found that it was difficult to compare existing studies with each other.

“We have been frustrated, but it is also part of the result,” says Lisbeth Dahllöf.
Mats-Ola Larsson, their colleague at IVL, has calculated how long you need to drive a petrol or diesel car before it has released as much carbon dioxide as an electric car battery. The result was 2.7 years for a battery of the same size as Nissan Leaf and 8.2 years for a battery of Tesla size, based on a series of assumptions.

“It’s great for companies and government to embark on ambitious environmental policies and to buy climate-smart cars. But these results show that one should not think of choosing an electric car with a larger battery than necessary, he says, and points out that politicians should also address this in the design of instruments.

An obvious part to look at in life cycle analyses is recovery. The authors of the report note that what characterises batteries is the lack of the same as there is no financial incentive to send the batteries for recycling and that the volumes are still small.

Cobalt, nickel and copper are recycled, but not the energy required to make the electrodes, says Mia Romare, pointing out that recycling points are resource conservation rather than carbon dioxide emissions.

Peter Kasche from the Energy Agency, the publishers of the report, stresses the importance of the close relationship between the size of the electric battery and CO2 emissions.

One really needs to make sure to optimise electric batteries. One should not drive around with a lot of kilowatt hours unnecessarily. In some cases, a plug in-hybrid may be the optimum, in other cases a clean battery device.

Thursday, 15 June 2017


In this article we see how a short term trend can be easily used to make quite wrong predictions for the longer term. This kind of thing is all too prevalent in the eagerness of climate alarmists to make out their case. But when the trend ends or changes they are left with egg on their faces.

Not long ago California was in drought.
Senator Barbara Boxer famously told us, “In California, we can just look out the window to see climate change’s impacts.”
Sorry, Senator, science doesn’t work that way.
Since then, of course, El Niño / La Niña current and weather patterns kept right on naturally doing their thing and California and the West experienced tremendous precipitation and replenished reservoirs from deep snow melt.
Our weather, extreme or otherwise, remains well within the range of historic norms.
According to a NASA study released Monday, climate computer models have been predicting a drier Earth than real-world observations show.
details at
“NASA and four universities compared climate data from 1995 to 2005 to 23 climate model simulations for the same period. More than 70 percent of the climate models underestimated the amount of rain compared to real world observations.”
Although far from perfect, computer simulations can be very valuable for short-term meteorology, including such important applications as forecasting hurricane tracks.
The climate, however, is incredibly chaotic and complex.
Long-term climate simulations have never come close to being accurate.
Global warming politics makes them worse.
Computer simulations are currently not sufficiently reliable to be the main determinant of energy, economic or climate policy.
They may never be.

Wednesday, 14 June 2017


 As Donald Trump pulls out of the Paris deal on climate change, questions are being asked about aid money to build solar plants in countries that export the electricity

At the end of May, Zimbabwe’s state monopoly, ZESA, reached a last-minute deal to continue importing electricity.
ZESA owed $43m to South Africa and Mozambique and, with part-payment and terms agreed for clearing the debt, neither country turned off the flow.
South Africa is a continental giant, but one might ask why Mozambique is selling to anyone, given 80 per cent of her own people are not connected to the grid and, even in Maputo or Beira, supply is so unreliable that homes and shops have their own generators.

But Mozambique ranks among the world's 20 largest exporters of electricity, chiefly from Cabora Basa dam on the Zambesi River, a short way from Kariba. And here's the irony. Not far east of Cabora

But Uganda is the biggest external supplier of power to Kenya, East Africa’s largest economy, while at home only one-in-five Ugandans have the lights on.
Even the Democratic Republic of Congo, one of the world’s poorest countries, exports electricity to Zambia and South Africa while local supply languishes around 15 per cent. Kinshasa receives billions in aid from the US, Britain and Europe, much of it for “green” projects.

“A matter of shame”
When it comes to numbers, India has more people than all of Africa, squashed into about 10 per cent of the space. And, here, electricity is political.
In Delhi, the minister for power, Piyush Goyal says it’s “a matter of shame”, that after nearly seven decades of independence from Britain, “we have not been able to provide a basic amenity like electricity.”
In truth, they’ve done better than many former colonies, but out of 1.2 billion Indians, an estimated 300 million (more than the SADC countries combined) are yet to be connected.
At the 2014 election, prime minister Narendra Modi promised to end this within his term, and with the next vote less than two years away, he’s been racing to make it happen.
The government has also rolled out a record number of solar plants with a pledge that, by 2022, three per cent of power will come from renewables. Last year the World Bank assigned more than $600m to the plan.
But connecting just a million homes needs an estimated 10 000 acres of solar panels and, in a country where land is scarce, this has become an issue.
Former Irish president Mary Robinson who served as UN high commissioner for human rights and now heads a foundation on climate issues, sounded a caution after a rise in complaints by indigenous groups.
“Recent experience shows that renewable energy installations can result in human rights being undermined if local communities are not consulted,” she said.
India only signed the Paris Accord, “contingent on receiving billions and billions and billions of dollars in foreign aid”. This was Donald Trump in full throttle recently as he withdrew America from the Paris deal on climate change.
True, Delhi does receive vast amounts of aid, and solar farms and wind turbines have become the new chic for donors and NGOs.
But with no sun at night, and the monsoon season when it rains for weeks, solar will provide less than one per cent of the country’s needs over the next five years. Instead, like South Africa and Zimbabwe, most of the power comes from coal.
And, like Mozambique, in spite of a shortfall, India sells electricity to neighbouring states, including Bangladesh.
In London, Dr Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a non-partisan think-tank on energy and climate, said it was, “hard to imagine a case for any kind of aid where the receiving government is exporting power while their own people go without.”
But he said “prioritising green energy schemes” was also a problem.
“Donors and NGOs may feel good installing millions of solar panels across Asia and Africa, but they ignore the fact that renewable energy is unable to provide much needed electricity when the sun isn’t shining.”
“Cheap and reliable power”
Kenya, Tanzania and Botswana are building new coal-fired power stations, Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Ghana and India are upping their use, South Africa relies on it for 93% of Eskom’s output, but if a single mine is reopened in Wyoming the green lobby treats it like an act of war.
This upsets Donald Trump who rode to office on a promise of jobs, including along the coal belt that runs through the centre and east of America.
His bombast and choice of words, attacks on other countries and endless tweets — often contradicting his own policy — have made him a target for comedians.
But it’s hard to counter his claim that, under the Paris Accord, countries like USA are expected to cut emissions now, while Africa, Asia and Latin America can go on polluting until 2030, then trim their footprint.
The president’s ire was not so much for the main agreement, but a $100bn “Green Climate Fund” that’s part of the deal. The plan is for wealthy countries to finance projects in the developing world, especially solar and wind power.
But the fact that many poor countries are exporting power while capacity remains short at home has been seized on by lobbyists in Washington.
Mr Trump’s defenders say he has not walked away from Paris, merely asked for a better treaty.
And they point to his speech: “We will start to negotiate, and we will see if we can make a deal that’s fair,” he said.
In or out of a global pact, Washington looks unlikely to pay for new generating plants that don’t maximize output and serve local communities.
Dr Peiser said it was important to remember that aid “comes from taxpayers’ money donated principally from the US, Britain and the rest of Europe.”
It could not be used, he said, “to generate costly and unreliable electricity in countries where hundreds of millions need the exact opposite: cheap and reliable power”
This, he said, had to include the latest gas and clean-coal technology.
Dr Peiser called on the US administration to review all aid linked to energy.
“That way, the most cost-effective projects can be selected to achieve their objective of helping poor nations to power their people and economies.”

Tuesday, 13 June 2017


Here is the proof that electric vehicles are not attractive to buyers without the big subsidies provided by government.  As soon as the subsidies were withdrawn the sales plummeted. The government then decided to extend the subsides to 2020. Will they ever be able to compete in a free market?  

Monday, 12 June 2017


This report explains that the new EPA chief, Scott Pruitt is considering setting up an adversarial system with "teams" of experts on both sides of the debate grilling one another publicly. Apparently those who in favour of the theory are strongly against such a move. I wonder why - are they afraid that their hypothesis will be undermined by such a process? I say bring it on!

Sunday, 11 June 2017


This article discusses this issue and concludes that it is the sun's radiation and not CO2.

Saturday, 10 June 2017


This post reminds us of the policies of the UK political parties put before the people on Thursday. Of course these will have had little direct impact on the result, but it gives an idea of where the main parties stand. Unfortunately only UKIP has a really sound policy and they have no influence at all, however the Conservatives are at least better than Labour and in reality they are not really in favour of the awful Climate Change Act and many members of it would repeal it tomorrow if it were politically possible, but they fear the so-called consensus.

Friday, 9 June 2017


NIGEL LAWSON  Daily Tel. 3rd June 2017

Our low-carbon obsession is costing us dear

The next government must prioritise energy that is cheap and reliable
if it is to mend public trust

Donald Trump‘s decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris
Agreement has dealt a hammer blow to an elite consensus which has
built up around the issue of climate change. That consensus has placed
cutting carbon dioxide emissions above people‘s jobs and protecting
the environment. With US industry already enjoying a substantial
competitive advantage over European firms, this decision will make
European climate policies all the more unsustainable. If Britain is to
keep up with the rest of the world, it is essential that the next
government rethinks energy policy to prioritise competitiveness and

The 2017 Conservative manifesto has promised to do just that, and sets
a target for Britain to have the lowest energy prices in Europe. This
is a striking change of tone compared with previous manifestos, but
this objective will only be achieved through extensive reforms to
existing policies, alongside the political will to fight powerful
vested interests.

The next government will first need to acknowledge what has gone
wrong. Britain‘s obsession with unilateral decarbonisation has taken
precedence over relieving fuel poverty and keeping prices competitive.
It is inconceivable how political parties can reconcile being on the
side of working people while at the same time driving up their cost of
living. The Climate Change Act is set to cost the UK economy
approximately £320 billion by 2030 - equivalent to funding the NHS in
England for three years.

Existing energy policies that claim to be ”environmental• are nothing
of the sort. Bjorn Lomborg, the head of the Copenhagen Consensus
Centre, has estimated that even if every nation meets its pledges
under the Paris climate change agreement, the total reduction in the
planet‘s temperature will only be 0.17C by 2100. With America‘s exit,
even this paltry figure may not be achieved.

By contrast, the bad environmental consequences of energy policies
have been tangible and significant. Commitments to bioenergy are
damaging biodiversity and have distorted international food markets.
The rare earth metals used in wind turbines come from poorly regulated
mines in China which leak toxic and radioactive waste into nearby
lakes on an industrial scale, perfectly illustrating the vacuity of
the ”out of sight, out of mind• attitude of virtue-signalling ”clean•
energy advocates.

But the harmful consequences of low-carbon policies are harder to
ignore when they are right on your doorstep, or even inside your home.
Britain‘s air pollution crisis is the result of misguided low-carbon
policies that incentivised diesel cars. People have died because
politicians couldn‘t resist the desire to ”save the planet•. Recent
research also suggests that biomass power stations may not have lower
CO2 emissions than coal and gas. What will it take for politicians to
question the wisdom of spending hundreds of billions on failing
policies instead of putting the needs of ordinary families first?

Flexibility will be crucial to a more competitive approach. The
current programme of five-yearly decarbonisation targets guarantees
prohibitive costs for consumers today, and prevents the UK from taking
full advantage of the falling costs of various technologies. Renewable
energy lobbyists often claim that costs have come down to competitive
levels; this should be put to the test by the removal of subsidies
after 2020.

The manifesto also described ”the discovery and extraction of shale
gas in the US• as ”a revolution•. As a result, US manufacturers have
done even better and investors are flocking back to North America;
perhaps $160 billion has been earmarked for petrochemical plants alone
since 2012. Proposals to change the planning law for shale
applications could not come soon enough.

Energy policy in recent years has been marked out by an unhealthy
relationship between government and lobbyists from large renewable
energy firms. After leaving office, former energy secretary Ed Davey
walked into three advisory roles with firms with links to renewable
energy companies: unmistakable evidence of a ”revolving door• between
big business and government, even if no rules were broken. The power
of lobbying interests can be seen clearly in the fiasco surrounding
the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon. This project, promoted by another former
energy minister, is expected to be formally rubber-stamped by
government in the next few weeks despite being a completely uneconomic
technology. If expensive projects like this continue to get the green
light, the full benefits of the shale gas revolution are unlikely to
be realised. Stronger safeguards against corporate lobbying will lead
to better value for the taxpayer and a more competitive energy sector.

Britain‘s decision to leave the EU has illustrated a deep disconnect
between the political elite and many people in the rest of the country
who feel ignored and left behind. By leaving the Paris Agreement,
Trump has delivered on his pledge to the left-behind in America. We
too must now look beyond a narrow obsession with renewables to a
fairer alternative that prioritises cheap and reliable energy. This
will help mend broken public trust, boost the economy and put Britain
on a secure footing as we look outward to trade with the rest of the

Thursday, 8 June 2017


John Constable: Energy Cost Is Why We Disagree About Climate PolicyGWPF Energy, 4 June 2017

Dr John Constable: GWPF Energy Editor

By withdrawing the United States from the Paris Agreement President Trump has put the burden of proof on those private investors and nation states that believe renewable energy is economically beneficial. Far from being a disaster, this is a step towards a reasonable and spontaneously attractive climate change policy.

Like many of those vilified for their views on the subject of climate change, President Trump is more of an energy policy sceptic than an anti-rational “denier” of atmospheric science. He senses, and with good reason, that the aggregate of energy policies proposed to mitigate climate change brings with it the threat of major wealth destruction and a reversal of several centuries of exponential increases in human well-being.

Mr Trump sees this from his own national perspective, believing, again with good reason, that the policies are extremely and comparatively disadvantageous to the United States. However, this narrow view is a subset of and entirely compatible with the broader conclusion that renewable energy policies will be damaging to human prospects at the global level, however much they may favour certain countries in the short term.

Those who disagree with him are, for the most part, either explicitly or implicitly affirming the contrary proposition, namely that the renewable energy transition envisioned is already economic and will bring enhanced global prosperity.

That is the black and white of the matter; you either think that the low carbon energy policies make sense, or you don’t, and it is this root level division that provides the most profound explanation of why we disagree to any extent about climate change. If there were no differences of opinion about energy, there would be hardly any disagreement about climate change policy.

Furthermore, this account not only explains the fact of the quarrel, but also the haut en bas and moralising tone of Mr Trump’s critics. If you believe that economic, low-emitting renewable energy is already available, then it will also seem to you that only ill-will and stupidity prevents its adoption, and thus that President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement is ignorant at best and probably malign.

But his views are neither of these things. The reasoning is certainly elliptical, and the manner is brusque, to say the least, but in the last analysis he simply has a different view about the economic consequences of renewable energy, views that are in fact widely held amongst both specialists and the general public.

The case for renewables is not proven, and in spite of a rolling barrage of positive PR round the industry there are still very good grounds for reserving judgment. Even if the claimed equipment cost reductions are real, and this is extremely dubious in the case of wind power, the economic lifetimes remain deeply uncertain, and the electricity system integration costs for uncontrollable generators are without doubt extremely high. Upbeat babble about electricity storage, smart metering and ingenious demand management cannot conceal the fact that these “solutions” all tend towards increasing the capitalization of the electricity sector, thus greatly reducing its productivity, a clear recipe for higher consumer costs and for deeply unpleasant macroeconomic impacts.

As with many problems in technology and commerce, a resolution to this matter cannot be delivered politically or administratively. It is, to use Easterly’s convenient phrase, not a matter of administrative deployment, but a research question, the answer to which can only be discovered by free experiment and the taking of risks. Indeed, the President’s de facto rejection of state support for alternative energy actually brings this discovery closer.

A number of US corporates and other interests are now declaring that they will continue to invest in low carbon technologies in spite of the President’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. Fine. Let them do so. If the enthusiasts are right, then renewable technologies will sweep the board through fundamental and real advantage, bringing general benefit. If they are wrong, the lesson will be learned painfully and in full public view but with limited malinvestment.

So in pursuit of truth, let us remove all the deep market coercions that are currently feeding the suspicions of President Trump, amongst others. Delete the portfolio standards, abolish the tax credits and income support subsidies, and make the ‘alternative’ technologies pay their costs on the system and earn their their place in the wholesale markets through normal competition. And by all means do the same for equivalent subsidies to fossil fuels, though green campaigners will be disappointed to find that these are not nearly as common as they think.

Many “Parisians” are now consoling themselves with the thought that a Trump presidency cannot last more than eight years at the most. That is an evasion. The reality to which Mr Trump has given voice is enduring. It can be temporarily suppressed, but it will not go away. The disagreement about energy is not trivial. Cheap energy is the cause of prosperity. Climate policies grounded in anything other than cheap energy will not be sustainable.

Wednesday, 7 June 2017


This article confirms that Bjorn Lomborg, the self-styled Skeptical Environmentalist, believes that it is foolhardy and foolish for world leaders to stay fixated on Paris – not only will it likely falter, but it will be hugely costly and do almost nothing to fix climate change.

Here is a good piece on Lomborg's calculations (peer-reviewed) on the actual effectiveness of the Paris accord on limiting future temperature rises.

Tuesday, 6 June 2017


This piece looks at this week's article by Christopher Booker in the Sunday Telegraph in which he expresses the view that President Trump's speech on withdrawal of the USA from the Paris agreement shows it to be a meaningless fraud. This is the dirty secret at the heart of the Paris accord. 

Monday, 5 June 2017


This piece records some light-hearted banter by the Russian president. It doesn't appear that Putin takes the global warming meme all that seriously, just like most of the public.

Sunday, 4 June 2017


This post looks at the behaviour of investors to the announcement by Donald Trump to take the USA out of the Paris climate accord. It seems clear that the investors think it will be good for business, despite all the negative responses of other political leaders. Interesting!

Saturday, 3 June 2017


UKIP energy spokesman, Roger Helmer gave a short radio interview on his views of the USA pulling out of the Paris Accord. It was encouraging to hear such sensible views being aired. Listen here.


You can read his speech here. and view it here (it starts at about 60 minutes in) This announcement has been predicted and hinted at for some time, but there were always other rumours that he would back-peddle and not deliver. So this is tremendous news. It must have taken a lot of courage for him to ignore all those telling him not to do it. For the USA this is a great boost for jobs and the cost of living. For us in the UK it is a ray of hope that we could follow his lead if we had a political leader with similar courage - especially when we leave the EU, probably in 2019. By then it will become much clearer how the gulf between the USA and Europe is widening as far as living costs and jobs are concerned.

Friday, 2 June 2017


This article explains the mad idea which would impoverish us all based on the unsupported claim that increase in CO2 would lead to significant changes in global surface temperatures. In reality it is the carbon tax which would cause the more serious change - in the economy and our ability to afford to use electricity.

Thursday, 1 June 2017


This piece looks at the president's potential scientific advisor's views. His decision is said to be due in the next few days and pulling out will be a very courageous decision which could spell the beginning of the end for the climate scare. I wish him well.

Wednesday, 31 May 2017


This post gives the details. Surely the President will now follow through and make good his promise to pull out of the Paris agreement. This funding cut must leave a big whole in the climate change programmes of the UN. Maybe we will see it starting to die. 

Tuesday, 30 May 2017


This article implies that they are. To me it seems more like they are leaving it in  the long grass, rather than killing it off. It appeals to energy companies for the reason that they will be able to do away with meter readers (I doubt if they are interested in emissions of CO2). Also I suspect that these meters will soon lead to prices being changed at different times of day. At first this will be presented as a means of customers saving money by offering cheaper prices at times of low demand, but later it will be used to jack up prices in high demand times. Beware the Trojan horse!

Monday, 29 May 2017


This piece gives the details. How ironic that environmentalists are so fond of windfarms that they reject these findings. It is a trait of human nature to believe the things that fit your own deeply held views.

Sunday, 28 May 2017


This story had an outing in yesterday's Daily Mail. Admittedly it was only a small paragraph on page 12, but it shows the hardcore warmists are still trying. But what they forget is that if we have affordable reliable electricity supplies then there is a very simple answer - air conditioning! Oh well it was a nice try.

Saturday, 27 May 2017


Global Warming Policy Forum, 16 May 2012
 Methane hydrates constitute the world’s No. 1 reservoir of fossil fuel. Ubiquitous along vast stretches of Earth’s continental shelves, they hold enough natural gas to fuel the world for a thousand years – and beyond.

In a joint announcement two weeks ago, the United States and Japan (along with ConocoPhillips, the U.S.-based multinational oil company) announced the world’s first successful field trial (in Alaska) of a technology that uses carbon dioxide to free natural gas from methane hydrates – the globally abundant hunks of porous ice that trap huge amounts of natural gas in deposits, onshore and offshore, around the world. It’s a neat feat. You use CO2, which

Methane hydrates constitute the world’s No. 1 reservoir of fossil fuel. Ubiquitous along vast stretches of Earth’s continental shelves, they hold enough natural gas to fuel the world for a thousand years – and beyond. Who says so? Using the most conservative of assumptions, the U.S. Geological and Geophysical Service says so.

The U.S. now produces 21 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of natural gas a year. But it possesses 330,000 tcf of natural gas in its methane hydrate resource – theoretically enough to supply the country for 3,000 years (give or take). Using less conservative numbers (for example, a methane hydrate resource of 670,000 tcf), the U.S. is good to go for 6,000 years (give or take).

Worldwide, methane hydrate reserves add 1,000,000 tcf to the global natural gas resource. We have a ways to go before commercial exploitation begins but the question must now be asked: Isn’t it time to relax a bit about peak oil – or, for that matter, peak primary energy? We are not apt to run out of carbon to burn for a very long time. It is true: Only a fraction of these resources can be deemed economic in the near term. But a fraction of them could still deliver plentiful energy for many centuries.

According to one conservative academic calculation, Earth’s conventional reserves of natural gas hold 96 billion tonnes of carbon. Earth’s reserves of oil contain 160 billion tonnes. Earth’s reserves of coal contain 675 billion tonnes: Taken together, 931 billion tonnes of fossil fuel. But Earth’s methane hydrates contain 3,000 billion tons of carbon.

Or more. Methane hydrates are found at larger and larger volumes the deeper you drill. ConocoPhillips drilled 830 metres for its field test at Prudhoe Bay. At this level, you calculate the reservoir of methane gas in the hundreds (100s) of trillions of cubic feet (tcf). Drill deeper and you calculate reserves in the thousands (1,000s) of trillion cubic feet. Drill deeper still and you calculate reserves in the hundred-thousands (100,000s) of trillion cubic feet. Earth’s reserves of this resource could theoretically reach millions (1,000,000s) of trillion cubic feet.

Friday, 26 May 2017


China Claims Methane Hydrates Breakthrough May Lead To Global Energy RevolutionCNN Money, 20 May 2017
 China is talking up its achievement of mining flammable ice for the first time from underneath the South China Sea.
 Methane Hydrates: China’s Real South China Sea Goal?
 Estimates of the South China Sea’s methane hydrate potential now range as high as 150 billion cubic meters of natural gas equivalent. That’s sufficient to satisfy China’s entire equivalent oil consumption for 50 years.

The fuel-hungry country has been pursuing the energy source, located at the bottom of oceans and in polar regions, for nearly two decades. China’s minister of land and resources, Jiang Daming, said Thursday that the successful collection of the frozen fuel was “a major breakthrough that may lead to a global energy revolution,” according to state media.

Experts agree that flammable ice could be a game changer for the energy industry, similar to the U.S. shale boom. But they caution that big barriers — both technological and environmental — need to be cleared to build an industry around the frozen fuel, which is also known as gas hydrate.

China, the world’s largest energy consumer, isn’t the first country to make headway with flammable ice. Japan drilled into it in the Pacific and extracted gas in 2013 — and then did so again earlier this month. The U.S. government has its own long-running research program into the fuel.

The world’s resources of flammable ice — in which gas is stored in cages of water molecules — are vast. Gas hydrates are estimated to hold more carbon than all the world’s other fossil fuels combined, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.

An image from Chinese state television shows gas extracted from flammable ice burning in the South China Sea.

And it’s densely packed: one cubic foot of flammable ice holds 164 cubic feet of regular natural gas, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Chinese state news agency Xinhua says that makes the fuel a strong contender to replace regular oil and natural gas. But like any fossil fuel, flammable ice raises significant environmental concerns.

Experts worry about the release of methane, a superpotent greenhouse gas with 
25 times as much global warming potential as carbon dioxide. And although burning natural gas is cleaner than coal, it still creates carbon emissions.

The fuel source has a lot of potential in China, analysts at Morgan Stanley said Thursday, citing the country’s successful trial and government support to develop the industry.

But commercial production is unlikely in the next three years due to high costs, potential environmental concerns and technological barriers, the analysts said in a research note.

“If there is a real breakthrough,” they wrote, “it could be as significant as the shale revolution in the United States. Under such a bull case scenario, we’d expect a significant increase in offshore exploration and production activities.”

Thursday, 25 May 2017


The following is from the Committee For A constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) and explains the latest disaster movie from Hollywood which is attempting to demonise coal.

When it comes to pushing radical environmentalism, no one does it with more vigour than Hollywood.

Such is the case with their latest gem, “From the Ashes,” which purports to showcase the evils of America’s use of coal to generate electricity.

As we’ve done in the past, CFACT sent in an undercover operative to a special sneak preview earlier this week to get the early scoop on how the filmmakers are trying to snooker the American public with yet another slick presentation of one-sided facts.

What our operative found was no surprise: A bunch of hype very short on substance.

The movie, produced by (appropriately named) “RadicalMedia,” is being distributed through National Geographic and makes no pretence of being even remotely unbiased.

During an “invite only” reception before the special movie screening, a prominent Sierra Club member was overheard saying there are roughly 350 U.S. Sierra Club members funded by the Bloomberg Foundation (the same Left-wing foundation that bankrolled this film) “who wake up every day with the sole purpose of shutting down coal mines.”

The film itself launched into a number of diatribes against coal use, all bordering on the preposterous:
Fortunately our operative informed us the film dragged on for about 75 minutes, which seemed to tax even this dedicated crowd of true believers’ attention spans. One suspects it will have even less success with general audiences during its upcoming limited release.

Wednesday, 24 May 2017


Here is the evidence. Try telling that to the climate alarmists and they will simply not accept it. The fact is that to the nearest whole number it is correct.

Tuesday, 23 May 2017


This pledge may have gone un-noticed in a manifesto full of nationalisation pledges and tax increases, but for those who consider its implications it is actually the nuttiest of all.  It may be that they meant to say electricity instead of energy. If so then they are extremely careless. In either case they are unelectable, and thankfully the polls currently show that to be the case.

Monday, 22 May 2017


John Constable: How Ed Miliband Neutered UK Energy RegulatorGWPF Energy Comment, 16 May 2017

Dr John Constable: GWPF Energy Editor
There is likely to be increasing pressure to reform the gas and electricity regulator, Ofgem, which is widely held to have failed in the protection of consumers. This accusation is to a large degree both misguided and unjust. Ofgem is constrained by its Statutory Duties, which were revised by Ed Milliband in 2010 to put climate policy costs beyond criticism. It is this, as much as institutional lassitude, that accounts for it being so ineffective a consumer champion.

In the wake of concern about rising electricity retail prices to domestic households, the Conservative Party has suggested a price cap on Standard Variable Tariffs. It is fair to say that this policy has not been well received by commentators and economists, who with very good reason believe it likely to be counterproductive. Whether the voting public will be persuaded that a price cap is in their long-term interest remains to be seen, but it could well prove popular. – With a maladroit sense of timing that is typical of the hapless energy industry my own electricity and gas supplier has just sent me a letter explaining that due to price rises next year’s annual dual fuel bill is likely to be about 8% higher.

Doubtless many other households are receiving similar news, and perhaps thinking positively about Mrs May’s offer to stamp on rip-off tariffs.

One, more sophisticated, reaction to this sort of news is to blame the regulator, Ofgem. If the government needs to wade in to protect consumers, surely the regulator must have failed in its job. This is an understandable conclusion, but to a very significant degree it is unjust to Ofgem, which is itself tightly regulated by the legal definition of its Statutory Duties and powers. These are defined in the Gas Act 1986, the Electricity Act 1989, the Utilities Act 2000, the Competition Act 1998, the Enterprise Act 2002, the Business Protection from Misleading Marketing Regulations 2008 and the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, and, crucially, in amendments to these acts. Perhaps the most important of these amendments occurred in the Energy Act of 2010, which originated under Ed Miliband when he was Secretary of State at the Department of Energy and Climate Change. Though a small change, it drew the regulator’s teeth.

The Utilities Act 2000 had described the overarching principal objective for energy regulation as 
the protection of the interests of existing and future consumers, wherever appropriate by promoting competition (for further details see this DECC analysis). This was a lucid and unconstricting brief. A determined regulator could range far and free in the pursuit of consumer welfare.

Energy Act of 2010 amended this principal objective by defining “interests” thus in two separate paragraphs (16 (3) 1A and 17 (3) 1A referring to gas and electricity:

Those interests of existing and future consumers are their interests taken as a whole, including—
(a) their interests in the reduction of gas-supply/electricity supply emissions of targeted greenhouse gases; and

(b) their interests in the security of the supply of gas/electricity to them.

This change was of enormous importance, since an increasingly large part of the charges on the consumer were (and still are) the result of policy. In effect, the revision to Ofgem’s principal purpose made them unable to comment on the imposition of cost increases resulting from measures to mitigate climate change.

Since these coercive cost increases are invisible to the market and cannot be reduced by competition, there was no means other than the regulator, or the slow and uncertain cycles of electoral democracy, to expose them to criticism.

This is no trivial matter. Policies now account for about 17% of the price to domestic households, in other words about £26/MWh of a total price to household consumers of £154/MWh (see the Committee on Climate Change Energy Prices and Bills). Median annual domestic electricity consumption in the UK is approximately 3.5 MWhs per household, so this amounted to about £91 per household per year, or roughly £2.4 billion a year, assuming 26 million households, a sum that greatly exceeds the £1.5 billion a year rip-off that prompted Mrs May to suggest a price cap.

According to the government’s estimates, in the now discontinued Estimated Impacts, we can see that this problem is set to grow dramatically. In 2020 the domestic price impact will have in all probability doubled, to £52/MWh, or about £180 a year on the electricity bill, a nationwide cost of about £5 billion per year.
Constrained by its remit, as set out by Ed Milibands Energy Act of 2010, Ofgem is powerless to comment on these enormous impositions. In essence, by being compelled to have regard to the interests of future consumers in the light of climate change the regulator has been absorbed by government and, like the Committee on Climate Change, made a mere cog wheel in the policy delivery mechanism. Consequently, and with the sole exception of the National Audit Office, there is no statutory body that has any interest in holding the government to account on climate policy costs, and none that is exclusively focused on the energy sector.

Restoring Ofgem’s Statutory Duties to their earlier free-ranging state could yield enormous benefits for the consumer. Such a reform should also be supported by electricity retailers, who, for all their faults, are carrying the can for climate policy related price increases over which they have no control. By contrast, a ‘reform’ of Ofgem that further weakened an already crippled body would be a disaster for all concerned. 

Sunday, 21 May 2017


Germany’s Grand Coalition Energy Experts Reject Greens’ Coal Exit PlansClean Energy Wire, 16 May 2017
 Energy experts of Germany’s grand coalition of conservatives (CDU/CSU) and Social Democrats (SPD) have rebuffed the Green Party’s plans for an accelerated coal exit.

“We cannot phase out both nuclear and coal-fired power production within 15 or 20 years,” conservative Thomas Bareiß said at a party debate hosted by utilities RWE and innogy. Bareiß argued that exiting coal “with a sledgehammer-approach” would “massively damage” Germany’s industrial capacity and undermine the “basis of our prosperity”.

The SPD’s Bernd Westphal said his party would put “no signature” under a hypothetical coalition treaty with the Greens that included an accelerated coal exit. Westphal said the energy transition affected “a very diverse array of interests” and limiting debate to climate protection was “wrong”.

The Green Party’s Julia Verlinden said accelerating Germany’s coal exit was “a red line” for her party as “there is simply no other way to meet our climate goals”. She rejected the other parties’ insistence on a market-based approach for exiting coal as “there is no market because carbon emission costs are not internalised”.

Verlinden added that a coal exit was inevitable and taking action now would “increase our flexibility and allow for better adaptation” by affected industries. In their draft election programme, the Greens envisage a coal exit by 2030.

Saturday, 20 May 2017


Further to yesterday's post, see what is going on in Pakistan. We are supposed to be saving the planet from catastrophic climate change while our competitors seem to be quite oblivious to the predicament - or is it that they believe it is nonsense, but still claim to believe, so they can get their hands on some of the climate fund that we have promised them. Rather like a young child's belief in the tooth fairy.

Chinese Firms To Invest $15bn In Pakistani Coal-Fired PowerPower Engineering International, 3 May 2017

Diarmaid Williams
Officials at the Pakistani water and power ministry have said Chinese companies are expected to spend around $15bn over the next 15 years to build close to a dozen coal-fired power plants of varying sizes around the country.

Reuters reports that Mohammed Younus Dagha, the former federal secretary for water and power, who became commerce secretary at the end of March, is emphasising that the coal plants are part of a larger plan.

That is the $54bn China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), which includes spending of about $33bn on a total of 19 energy projects, including coal-fired and renewable power plants, transmission lines, and other infrastructure.

“Hefty investment under the CPEC project has held out hopes of significantly spiking domestic power generation (by) around 6,000 MW by the end of 2018,” Dagha said.

Combined, the projects will eventually generate 16,000 MW of electricity, which the government says is urgently needed.

Coal power will, according to these projections, account for 75 per cent of the newly generated power, which the government says will be installed with the latest in pollution-minimizing equipment.

The same is true for India.

Coal To Remain India's Energy Mainstay for Next 30 Years: Policy PaperReuters, 16 May 2017

Coal will remain India's main energy source for the next three decades although its share will gradually fall as the country pushes renewable power generation, according to a government report seen by Reuters.

The country is the world's third-largest coal producer and the third-biggest greenhouse gas emitter. It depends on coal for about three-fifths of its energy needs and aims to double its output to 1.5 billion tonnes by 2020.

By 2047, however, coal's share of India's energy mix would shrink to 42-48 percent, from about 58 percent in 2015, the report, which has yet to be made public, showed.

"India would like to use its abundant coal reserves as it provides a cheap source of energy and ensures energy security as well," the report said.

It was written by Indian think tank NITI Aayog, which advises the government on policy issues and is chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and the Institute for Energy Economics Japan (IEEJ).

Friday, 19 May 2017


Read the following piece and see how we in the west are handing over control of coal and its use in power plants to China. This is a massive financial loss, all in a futile attempt to control the climate.

China’s Energy Silk Road Based On Building Coal Power Far And WideChina Dialogue, 12 May 2017

Feng Hao
China was involved in 240 coal power projects in 65 of the Belt and Road countries between 2001 and 2016.

Officials and leaders from over 110 countries gathered in Beijing on May 14-15 for the first ever 
Belt and Road Forum. China’s ambitious attempt to boost economic growth across a vast area stretching from its southeast coast all the way to Africa is known as the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

Its two parts – a 
Silk Road Economic Belt and a Maritime Silk Road – are focused on channelling enormous investment in infrastructure to connect the region and to open new markets for Chinese products, services and capital.

But the BRI is also causing concern within China and internationally because Chinese companies are investing heavily in coal power in BRI countries. The fear is that China will help lock developing countries into coal-power assets that will last decades, damage people’s health, and contribute to climate change.


Investments on the up
Global Environment Institute (GEI) has recently carried out a long term review of China’s involvement in coal power projects in 65 countries that are now participating in the Belt and Road Initiative.

GEI’s figures show that between 2001 and 2016 China was involved in 240 coal power projects in BRI countries, with a total generating capacity of 251 gigawatts. The top five countries for Chinese involvement were India, Indonesia, Mongolia, Vietnam and Turkey.

The GEI research also found that China’s involvement in coal power projects in BRI countries, which often takes the form of contracting and equipment supply, has been increasing overall, despite large year-to-year fluctuations…

Thursday, 18 May 2017


This article looks at a piece in the Telegraph which attempts to put a positive spin on the change from centrally produced electricity from power stations to small, locally produced energy. The writer has gone beyond using the correct facts, which do not support the case and instead produced incorrect information in order to hoodwink the readers, who inevitably are unable to challenge what is presented. They get away with it time and time again.

Wednesday, 17 May 2017


This article by Christopher Booker explains how the free market could be used to reduce our bills rather than a cap controlled by the government.

Tuesday, 16 May 2017


This article explains the latest way of extracting more money from the hapless businessman. How long before a similar scheme comes into play to hoodwink you and me? All in the name of "saving the planet". Maybe then we will see some people out in protest (with some greens among them).

Monday, 15 May 2017


This post serves to remind us just how dangerous some climate change extremists can be. I thank those courageous scientists who speak out with a message of common sense. If they were silenced we would soon find the extremists would push a lot more of their doctrinal beliefs on to us. 

Sunday, 14 May 2017


This article looks at an agreement that has been signed by Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, which appears to support the Paris climate agreement. This suggests that the President may be softening on his pledge to withdraw the USA from the Paris agreement. This would be a great pity and a lost opportunity to return to common sense on this issue.

Saturday, 13 May 2017


Yes, contrary to all the scare stories, methane gas escaping from the floor of the ocean may turn out to be beneficial according to this report. This is extraordinary and very encouraging news (which you will certainly not hear on the TV news).

Friday, 12 May 2017


This link gives the details including a link to sign up. Please sign up and pass this on to others.

Thursday, 11 May 2017


This article draws attention to the dangerous policies on energy being rolled out in Australia. If they carry on increasing renewables (or "unreliables" as some people call them) then the economy is at risk. Over here in the UK we should be watching closely and learning the lessons. 

Wednesday, 10 May 2017


This article gives the details. There has been a lot of speculation on whether President Trump will pull the USA out of the Paris climate agreement. We will have to keep guessing.

Tuesday, 9 May 2017


Here is an excellent letter to the Telegraph from Paul Homewood. So good that it would be worth adapting it to send in to other papers to inform the public of the reality of the situation.

Monday, 8 May 2017


This report looks at the reason as well as the impact of falling oil prices. This is the complete opposite of the prediction of the UK government and makes nonsense of their energy policy though they certainly won't admit it.  Time for our politicians to hold the government to account.

Sunday, 7 May 2017


This article focuses on what should be the government's response to the never-ending calls by environmental campaigners for removing all forms of "pollution" however small. In a rational world they should be looking at real risks and their management rather than hypothetical hazards.  Balancing risks and benefits would be even better. 

Saturday, 6 May 2017


This piece looks at the latest study which confirms the reality of the global warming pause. It is the climate alarmists who are in denial now as they try desperately to find ways of making this pause disappear.

Friday, 5 May 2017


This article looks at the hysterical reaction to a mainstream USA newspaper publishing something even mildly critical of the alarmist theory of man made climate change. If you read some of the critical letters you cannot fail to see the horror of those who appear to regard climate change as a sort of religious text that simply is beyond criticism, or even mild questioning.  This is what makes the ordinary person take a closer look at what lies behind the alarmist headlines. As Shakespeare once wrote - they protest too much!

Thursday, 4 May 2017


This article refers to a lecture given in a local science café attended by the writer. He describes how the professor seemed to have a blinkered approach and refused to discuss the many awkward questions from his audience. What a disaster.

Tuesday, 2 May 2017


Competitive Enterprise Institute, 25 April 2017

Marlo Lewis Jr
April 29th will mark the end of President Trump’s first 100 days in office. He has taken several significant actions in energy and climate policy, and seems to be on a roll. What really matters, of course, is how much he accomplishes during the next two to four years, and how much of his energy agenda endures after that.

Image result for Trump 100 days

E&E Daily reporter Arianna Skibell reminds us that the 100-day benchmark originated with President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who pushed Congress to enact 15 major pieces of legislation—the foundation of what became the New Deal—within 100 days of taking office. The conditions for that achievement—a highly visible domestic crisis and large congressional majorities favoring the president’s agenda—have no analogue today. Journalists and pundits persist in comparing presidents based on their first hundred days partly because of the influence of pro-New Deal historians, who popularized that metric to ensure that F.D.R.’s early legislative accomplishments would always seem especially impressive.

That said, President Trump has shown himself to be a high achiever in politics no less than in business. According to the White House press office, Trump has: 

  • Worked with Congress to enact more legislation and signed more executive orders in his first hundred days than any president in a half century;
  • Worked with Congress to enact 28 pieces of legislation, more than any other president since Truman;
  • Signed 25 executive orders, the most of any first 100 days in over 50 years (will be over 30 by day 100); and
  • Removed more job-killing regulations through legislation than any president in U.S. history.

On energy and climate policy, Trump has taken big steps to change the direction of the country. His March 28th Energy Independence Executive Order

  • Directs the Environmental Protection Agency to review and, if appropriate, suspend, revise, or rescind the Clean Power Plan and related rulemakings;
  • Disbands the Obama administration’s Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Carbon;
  • Lifts the Obama administration’s coal leasing moratorium on federal lands;
  • Directs the Department of Interior to review, and if appropriate, suspend, revise, or rescind Obama administration regulations restricting oil and gas exploration on federal lands;
  • Overturns Obama’s climate policy executive orders; and,
  • Directs executive agencies to “review all existing regulations, orders, guidance documents, policies, and any other similar agency actions ... that potentially burden the development or use of domestically produced energy resources, with particular attention to oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear energy resources.” 
In addition, Trump approved permits for the Dakota Access Pipeline and Keystone XL Pipeline, ending the Obama policy of inviting anti-growth activists to block and delay investment in critical energy infrastructure. He eliminated the Stream Protection Rule, which threatened the viability of Appalachian coal mining. He directed the EPA to reexamine its de-facto fuel economy standards for model years 2022-2025 motor vehicles, which auto companies warn would price low-income households out of the market for new cars. Trump also directed the EPA to review the Waters of the United States rule, which endangers property rights by expansively redefining “navigable waters of the United States” to include seasonal ponds unconnected by streams to navigable waters.

The one critical energy and climate issue on which Trump has not yet taken action is the Paris Climate Agreement. As my colleague Chris Horner and I discussed previously:

Withdrawing the United States from this treaty would put a stop to Obama’s attempted end-run around the constitutional treaty process, and ensure that elections, not U.N.-organized, political pressure campaigns, determine the direction of U.S. domestic economic and energy policy. If President Trump fails to do this, domestic and foreign opponents of Trump’s energy policies and possibly activist courts can continue to invoke this “international commitment,” and any future U.S. administration will have free rein to pick up where Obama left off.  

President Trump’s energy and climate record is one of solid achievement so far. However, until Trump cancels America’s participation, the Paris Agreement will provide the framework for global political pressure campaigns directed against Trump’s pro-growth energy agenda and legal pretexts for rebooting the EPA as the nation’s unlawful climate legislator.