|
|
||||
 Image by AngMoKio By Jo Nova The Daily Telegraph has discovered a major Net Zero project has signed up several Chinese companies. The huge battery and solar scheme in Bundey South Australia has been given the red carpet treatment by the Albanese government. It will be fast tracked as a priority by the government and cash will rain down from the “Capital Investment Scheme (CIS)” . The group running the project is Ganaspi Energy. Supposedly it is based in Sydney, except that when the Daily Telegraph visited the office there, it was empty. No one was responding to emails or text messages, and the phone number didn’t connect. If this company was a ghost corporation, or a front for Chinese interests, they don’t seem to be trying hard to disguise it? Ganaspi Energy has brought in several Chinese firms, and held a party with some them in Suzhou to celebrate. Supposedly, the Bundey BESS and Solar project will be the largest battery storage power station in the Southern Hemisphere. Taxpayers are underwriting the project for the first 15 years. Revealed: Net Zero project’s major links to Chinese businessBy James Willis, The Daily Telegraph National security expert Michael Shoebridge, a director at Strategic Analysis Australia, said it appeared the Chinese Government had successfully completed a “backdoor Belt and Road Initiative” with an Australian company.
“The Chinese Government can by law direct its companies to hand over all its data and even interrupt the operation of its systems,” Mr Shoebridge said.
Two of the suppliers are the China Energy Engineering Corporation, and CEEC Energy Storage Technology, both of which are owned by the Chinese Communist Party. Indeed, the CEEC is listed as a stakeholder of the BRI (Belt and Road Initiative). The danger with battery projects is that unlike coal or gas plants, they are digitally connected, full of sensors, and often linked by remote management systems. If a state-owned Chinese firm or its subsidiaries help design or integrate these systems, Beijing potentially gains a lot of real time data:
Access like this to the national grid not only gives China oversight over our energy flows, it gives it a foot in the door, and a precedent to bring in other Chinese projects. How can we object when there is already a large piece of critical infrastructure approved. If and when the Australian government ever wanted to criticize the CCP, it would only take a small nudge from a friend of the CCP to silence the PM. Nice grid you have there… We know China wants to bring Australia into the Belt and Road program. In 2021 Dan Andrews tried to sign up Victoria to the Belt and Road program but it was rejected by the Coalition government as “inconsistent with Australia’s foreign policy…” This is a win for China on so many levelsKeeping the renewable dream alive in Australia is good for China. It helps sabotage our reliable coal power. A few more Australian factories will close and move to Shanghai. We’ll buy even more Chinese made windmills, more EVs, battery packs and solar panels. It embeds Chinese standards in electronics and battery control software, a form of “technological colonisation” that increases the odds and advantages of future Chinese projects. Indeed, we can almost imagine a Chinese representative siding up to Anthony Albanese in his darkest Net Zero days, and generously offering to help rescue him from the mess it has become. Who knows? Anthony Albanese and Chris Bowen might have been very amenable to offers of rapid big batteries, with the guarantee it will profit from taxpayer schemes, as long as they look the other way on the foreign investment risk. When asked, Mr Bowen told The Daily Telegraph that “Labor was delivering “the maximum value to the taxpayer.” But all the details are hidden from the public because they are ‘commercial in confidence’. It could just as easily mean the Albanese government sold our national security for a sweet deal to rescue their own reputations. How would we know this wasn’t the case? The Opposition has fittingly demanded there be an inquiry into the $2.6 billion dollar project. However government sources told the Daily Telegraph that Ganaspi is an Australian owned company and usually the sub-contracting arrangements of Australian companies don’t trigger investigations under the foreign investment framework. A $2.6 billion dollar foot in the door…
By Jo Nova All around the world, politicians are stepping back from Net ZeroThe Net Zero debacle has become such a deadweight for the UK Labour Party, that Tony Blair, Former Labour Prime Minister has dropped a second bombshell on the Environment Minister, blaming renewables for high electricity prices and telling him to abandon Net Zero targets and green levies. This is good news, but before anyone think he has seen the light, be aware the light his team are watching is mostly the rising star of Reform UK. What he’s really afraid of, apparently, is that the horrid “Right-wing populists” might win more elections. It’s a thought so awful, even a Labour stalwart is willing to give up the Net Zero incantation. Imagine how much damage Nigel Farage might do to the Blob if Reform UK romped home? This then, is damage control to stop an electoral wipe-out:Tony Blair urges Ed Miliband to abandon green leviesJonathan Leake, Sir Tony Blair has urged Ed Miliband to abandon his clean power targets and slash expensive green levies. The Tony Blair Institute (TBI), the former prime minister’s think tank, warned that a pledge to decarbonise UK electricity by 2030 was destroying industry and damaging households. The target to ditch fossil fuels puts Labour at risk by pushing voters towards Reform UK before next year’s crucial Scottish, Welsh and English regional elections. Ryan Wain from the TBI urged the Energy Secretary to instead focus on making electricity much cheaper to stop “Right-wing populists” undermining support for net zero. One wonders if Tony Blair would have said a single word about the poor suffering victims of Net Zero, if Reform wasn’t streaking far ahead in the polls, and the Conservatives were still cheering on the plan too. Where was Blair in last year’s elections? With a former Labour heavyweight speaking up against Net Zero in the UK, and US Democrats recognizing that “climate change” turns off voters, The Australian conservatives could end up being the last people on Earth still endorsing Net Zero. This is a do or die point for Sussan Lee and the Liberals
Polls show 83% of Australians don’t want higher emission targets, nor do they want to pay for it. The IPA poll found 93% of Australians only want to pay $2 a week, or nothing at all to reduce our emissions. As long as the Liberals pander to Net Zero, they’ll never know the passion and strength of the millions of skeptics who are fed up with bullying, namecalling, secret costs and hidden taxes on pagan quests. Tony Blair is just mapping out the escape path for the Labour Party — how they sell their retreat: They’ll never say they were wrong, they’ll just rebrand the mission. Tony’s Blair’s personal thinktank (TBI) has put out a report called “Cheaper Power 2030 … Resetting the UK’s Electricity Strategy for The Future”. Like a true Blob production he still wants to electrify everything so all the minions can be tracked. He still wants to pander to the hobgoblins and waste money on Carbon Capture and Storage, and decarbonisation, but the TBI is pro-nuclear, at least and talks about energy security as a strategic concern. The Labour Party, he thinks, should still fight climate change, but they can turn off the tap to more wind and solar power, and cut out the subsidies, and ahem, even call it a day on any more emissions reduction: At the same time, the global context is changing. Addressing climate change is an increasingly pressing imperative, as extreme weather is felt more and more around the world. The efforts of the global community to curb emissions have been substantial but insufficient. Technological progress offers hope of easing this transition, but we are reaching a stage where further reduction of emissions carries a higher and higher economic and political cost. NetZeroWatch says this is good news but the TBI still doesn’t get the physics of affordable high density energy: Where it falls short is in its prescription. It treats electrification as the route to abundance rather than the outcome of it, focusing on technical market tweaks and “flexibility” while ignoring the physical foundations of any affordable system – density and reliability. The first and second laws of thermodynamics are not policy choices. Replacing dense, controllable sources like gas, coal and nuclear with diffuse, intermittent ones such as wind and solar increases entropy across the system — more infrastructure, more storage, more loss. The result of the renewables-based grid the TBI assumes is a structurally higher-cost, lower-efficiency system. Since 2005, when Britain’s generation peaked, firm power has fallen from 95 per cent to less than half. In two decades, we have de-densified our grid and made the supply of electricity more volatile. The consequences are clear: soaring policy and systems costs (which total £17 billion today), collapsing industrial competitiveness, and stagnant productivity. No amount of flexibility or subsidy can offset low energy density. Neither cheaper finance nor higher gas prices will alter that physical reality. … The TBI’s calls for a delay will reduce this burden, but will not reduce bills. For the record, there is a new party in Australia called Reform. Check them out… Cheaper Power 2030 … Resetting the UK’s Electricity Strategy for The Future”.Tony Blair Institute, (TBI) The bombshell in May: Sir Tony Blair says climate policies are unworkable, irrational, and everyone is afraid of being called a denier Image by ReligionsInTheRaw.blogspot.com from Pixabay
By Jo Nova The State of Climate Action for 2025 is out, looking like a kindergarten report with red and orange stickers for all the areas the world is failing in, which is everything. Show this report to any MPs who tell you Australia is in danger of being left behind. Ten years after the Paris Agreement even The Guardian notices that despite the bonanza in new wind and solar power, coal use hit a record high last year.
Progress is marked with school teacher lingo like “Well off Track” or “U Turn needed”. As if the world is waiting to hear, and can just, ‘bing’, make planes fly on pumpkin seeds. The graph of zero-carbon sources in electricity generation rather sums it all up — the outstanding hell-for-leather uptake of renewables is almost a flat line, but in their dreams renewable power is about to launch into space. (“S-Curve likely” they say, which is code for a slow start but with great news just around the corner.) These kindy-totalitarians have big plans. Wow.
For some inexplicable reason the share of wind and solar power is a key outcome in and of itself, as if the world needs windmills and photovoltaic panels to be whole, or fix holes in its Chakra. This graph is the wet-dream of the renewables industry…
It’s almost like hundreds of thousands of people tried a heat pump and didn’t like it.
Meanwhile direct carbon capture is… a wasteland:The acceleration required in direct carbon capture is “greater than tenfold”, they say, on a graph that shows a that what they really want is a 400-fold increase. It was brave of the team to include global aviation. Especially given that the lifespan of an electric battery in a plane is about three weeks. But look at the fantasy…
Who knew, Climate Action means we’re not supposed to drive our passenger cars as far (even if it’s an EV charged by a nuclear plant?) They are still dreaming of 15 minute cities, saying — “planners and developers must redesign cities to being foods and services closer to where people live and avoid the need for motorized passenger travel…”  … And this is the current progress on Green hydrogen production, as written by renewables fans: They don’t say it, but production needs to ramp up by a factor of 662 by 2030.
If anything, the report proves that the world has no chance of meeting its Net Zero target and that the government boondoggles, NGOs and tech giants (like Bezos Earth Fund) have far too much money to waste.
h/t El Gordo
October 23rd, 2025 | Tags: Aviation, Carbon Capture (CCS), Hydrogen, Net Zero, Renewable Energy | Category: Global Warming, Renewable |  Print This Post | | By Jo Nova The Great Unwinding of Climate Change is upon us.Even the US Democrats have realized that times have changed and talking about “climate change” has become toxic to voters, but the Australian conservatives can’t figure it out. Even as Sussan Ley, the Opposition Leader, contemplates taking a baby step away from “Net Zero” targets (pushing it back to 2060), the latest advice for Democrats is “Don’t say Climate Change”. The Democrat leaders say they’ve seen the light because of a recent Searchlight poll, but polling numbers have been the same for the last ten years. Voters have always said climate change is a catastrophe, because it was social-death to say anything else, but they also rank climate change near the bottom of their ToDo lists. They never cared, and it didn’t matter — not until their electricity bills caught fire, and the smelters started closing. Then it mattered, but in a bad way. The field is ripe for a real opposition to pick up this dissatisfaction, instead the Australian Liberals tinker with a different shade of pagan fantasy, while the world moves on, and the left gear up for a flanking manouver. Don’t expect to hear a nano-quark of a mea culpa, or any lessons learned — the people at the front of this political wagon are not admitting they were wrong, they’re just agreeing to hide their obsession with weather-changery, and then lie about how the Republicans are making electricity expensive. They’re still patting themselves on the back, and telling themselves they’re smarter than the voters. Listen to Rep Sean Casten (D) as he softens the bad news for the genius Democrats: “There’s no obvious electoral upside in being really smart on energy and climate policy.” Shucks it must be hard to be so gifted… H\t to Willie Soon for the link: Why Democrats aren’t talking about climate change much anymoreBy Kate Yoder, Grist Nearly a year after the 2024 election, Democrats are still trying to figure out what went wrong. In the midst of this soul-searching, a new piece of advice has appeared: “Don’t say climate change.” Having hammered us with righteous Climate Fear for twenty years, the Democrats are just starting to realize that the voters know the party cares more about the climate than it does about the voters… That’s the takeaway from a recent poll by the Searchlight Institute, a new Democratic think tank. Americans said they see climate change as a problem, but it’s rarely one of their top issues — voters in battleground states are more concerned with affordability and health care. But when asked which issue they think the Democratic Party prioritizes, climate change was number one. The Searchlight poll shows that half the population will still call climate change a serious sort of crisis, but only a pitiful 1 to 6% actually think it’s the top issue. If only US Democrats had been reading skeptical blogs they would have known this years ago.  SearchLight So this is a win for skeptics, but gird your loins, the battle is just shifting to a new front — “cheap” energy: Advocacy groups are on board, too, with the League of Conservation Voters, Climate Power, and others running an ad blitz this summer blaming Republicans for increasing energy costs. So conservatives had better sharpen up their knives explaining how unreliable energy is a vandal on the grid, that pushes up the cost of every other generator. They need to start talking about the cost of the whole system, not just the 5-minute bids. Australian conservatives still think they need a “Net Zero” policy to impress the voters, but as Barnaby Joyce says, it’s the liability that cost them the last two elections.Half of Australia doesn’t want to pay a single cent on Net Zero targets. Who do these people vote for? Not the Liberals!
A few past polls:
By Jo Nova The information war goes onThis is just another public service announcement so nobody misses out on finding out just how far the media will prostitute themselves to trick the voters. Two policemen were put in hospital at the March for Australia rally, but it was by rabid left leaning protestors throwing rocks, and bottles filled with broken glass. Despite that, the ABC didn’t even think it was worth mentioning at all and SBS used the violence to suggestively imply that both sides of the anti-mass-immigration protest were badly behaved. The ABC said not one word about mass protests in every capital city, but they had time to tell Australians about anti-Trump No Kings March on the other side of the world and a tour of Japanese lamb-chop chefs. Even bunkers in Finland were more important. Priorities mate… If a dozen people had turned up to protest climate change, they would have been on the news. Victorian Police were understandably fed up. Commander Wayne Cheeseman was blunt — the violence was all from the left and the March for Australia crowd were peaceful and well behaved. His words, from The Australian: Bottles filled with shards of glass were being thrown at police. Rotten fruit, bins and flags were set on fire. People came to pick a fight with police. “The people that came to pick the fight with police were the issue-motivated groups on the left,” he said. “The March for Australia group – they were peaceful, engaging and followed instructions. The others came with masks, hoodies and umbrellas, throwing rocks and hiding behind barriers. They came to harm our members, and it’s got to stop.” — by Mohammed Alfares, Joanna Panagopolos, and Mackenzie Scott at The Australian: It was like a parallel universe on SBSThe Blob is very afraid these protests against mass immigration will grow. The point of news stories like this one below, by the publicly funded SBS is to scare middle Australia away from attending these rallies. The last thing the Blob wants is for people to bring out their kids to wave the Australian flag? Oh No! That’s the wrong kind of pride… SBS has a long write up of the protests but does not use the word “left” even when quoting the Police Commander. Should we call that misinformation, or malinformation? Just ask, would SBS staff get bigger salaries if the message in the protests spread and Australians voted in a cost cutting government?! The violence becomes the story, like a smoke flare, to hide the real topic — look a squirrel!The violent lefties provide the performance the Blob-Media needs to tar, feather and confuse ordinary Australians. But equally as important, the violence itself fills the news cycles like a smoke bomb, hiding the real topic. Most Australians won’t go to bed tonight thinking about a pithy comment made by a speaker at a rally, because they didn’t hear the speakers. The whole topic was reduced to barely one word, anti-immigration. If we had an honest media, people would be talking about this protest at the watercoolers tomorrow…
The next big protest rally will be Australia Day January 2026. Get ready. Spread the word. _______________________________________ UPDATE: Reports from commenters who were there at the Melbourne rally include a report that an ebike was deliberately ridden into the crowd injuring an older lady. Keep reading → October 20th, 2025 | Tags: Corruption (Media), Media bias, Protests | Category: Australia, Big-Government, Politics | Print This Post | | March for Australia Against Mass Immigration will be held in every major city as well as Grafton, Wodonga, Rockhampton, Townsville, Mackay, and Yeppoon. Take your Australian Flag! People who want to print and drop flyers in letterboxes can find the PDF files here.
What are you passing on to your children?A NATION WITHOUT FAIR WAGES A NATION WITHOUT HOUSING A NATION WITHOUT SAFETY A NATION WITHOUT COMMUNITY A nation without identity YOU OWE IT TO YOUR CHILDREN
___________________ *For other cities details, and footnoted references, see March for Australia. [Melbourne, Parliament House Steps | Brisbane, Emma Miller Place | Adelaide, Light Square, Currie st | Perth, Langley Park | Canberra, Captain James Cook Memorial | Hobart, Salamanca Gardens | Grafton, Grafton Tafe | Rockhampton, Central Park | Yeppoon, Central Park | Townsville, Anzac Park | Darwin, “TBA” | Wodonga, Les Stone Park | Mackay, Bluewater Quay. ] The ABC won’t let you know about this, so I’m passing it on as a public service. Share it with a friend, eh? October 18th, 2025 | Tags: Immigration, Protests | Category: Australia, Big-Government, Global Warming | Print This Post | |
By Jo Nova It’s time to move the goalposts to rescue some reputationsWe always knew this day would come. The moment when history gets rewritten so The Blob can pretend their life and death battle for climate change was not scientific Voodoo, and a total waste of twenty years and a thousand billion dollars. If we move all the goalposts, the Paris Agreement is looking good, even though man-made emissions are rising, and almost no one is meeting their targets. Watch the agitprop in action — firstly they pretend this is about maths — “the numbers are in” as if they have evidence and can count to four. But every number is completely invented, totally elastic and all of it was modeled, and none of it has happened. They’re just saying (and lying) that things could have been a lot worse, but phew, the Paris Agreement is working: Has the Paris Agreement started to work? The numbers are inBy Nick O Malley, The Sydney Morning Herald As global heat records keep tumbling, a new analysis shows the Paris climate treaty is having an impact, with warming on track to reach 2.6 degrees if nations meet their commitments, rather than 4 degrees as was predicted before the agreement was signed in 2016. O’Malley is trying to gaslight the audience into thinking that the IPCC was “predicting 4 degrees C” as the most likely outcome when the range stretched from 0.3°C up to 4.8°C, and all the talk at the time was about staying below 2 degrees with an aspirational target of 1.5°C. The 4 degree extreme predictions came only from the absurd “RCP 8.5 scenario” — where the whole world flew Concordes to work every day and CO2 reached 936ppm. (But even die-hard modelers like Gavin Schmidt and Zeke Hausfather now agree this was an unlikely and unrealistically extreme outcome.) But nine years later, after coal use hits record highs and renewables projects are collapsing, there’s not even a hint that global CO2 levels have slowed at all — yet The Blob cheer-squad hails a modeled 2.6 degrees future as a success (if everyone keeps their word which they never do). And since the 2.6 degree “future” is calculated with models we know don’t work, every single part of this might as well be chicken entrails. If man-made emissions mattered at all, this is not what “success” looks like:
Back in 2016, the goal was 2 °C. Later, when it looked like the disasters weren’t coming in fast enough, they decided that 1.5 °C of warming was still a terrible thing. Now they’re celebrating 2.6 °C. Only in climate politics can every miss be a win. REFERENCESIPCC AR5 Working Group I, Summary for Policymakers, page 23. Table SPM.2 Z. Hausfather, and G.P. Peters, “Emissions – the ‘business as usual’ story is misleading”, Nature, vol. 577, pp. 618-620, 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-00177-3
October 17th, 2025 | Tags: Climate Models, Propaganda, Spin & PR | Category: Global Warming | Print This Post | |  Image by Alana Jordan from Pixabay By Jo Nova A Climate Oracle hath spoken and the ABC soaked it all up, no questions askedIn research believed to be “the first of its kind” badly trained scientists have gone where no respectable scientist dared to go. They have “attributed” some deaths that haven’t happened to a specific fossil fuel project. This opens the door (they think) to a legal bonanza. Modelling shows gas project emissions will cause hundreds of heat-related deathsBy Jo Lauder, ABC Australian researchers have linked a single fossil fuel project to climate impacts, modelling that Woodside’s Scarborough project will cause 484 heat-related deaths in Europe. It is the first time a scientific paper has attributed the climate impacts of a specific fossil fuel project. It also found that the incremental rise in global temperatures from that one project would result in an additional 16 million corals lost in every bleaching event on the Great Barrier Reef, and expose an extra 516,000 people around the world to unprecedented heat. This study is a scientific wasteland of unverified, unskilled models that fail on humidity, rainfall, sea ice, storms, droughts, floods, upper tropospheric temperatures, ocean cycles, feedbacks, and global temperature trends now and in the past. They also fail in everything about Antarctica and most of the major past climatic events. That aside, their interpretation is biased, incomplete and incompetent. The whole 30 year Scarborough project will only warm the world 0.00039 degreesEven according to their exaggerating skillless models, the entire effect of Scarborough emissions will supposedly raise global temperatures by all of four ten-thousandths of a degree. Frankly, this analysis will have the exact opposite effect the researchers hope. It’s going to reassure Australians that it would be crazy to stop this project going ahead. In the new paper published in the Nature journal Climate Action, researchers found Scarborough’s 880 million tonnes of emissions over its lifetime — including emissions when the gas was burnt — would increase global temperatures by 0.00039 degrees. If only it had been peer reviewed by a respectable journal, the editors would have sent them packing… Firstly, if emissions could warm the world, it would save lives. Death rates from the cold, swamp any paltry losses to heat theoretically imagined in 50 years time. Cold weather is not just 10% more deadly, it’s 600%, 1000% or 2000% more likely to kill. Any reduction in cold weather will save lives. Plus heatwaves tend to kill people who were going to die in the next six weeks anyway. Secondly, cheaper gas saves lives immediately, (what’s the discount rate on a theoretical death in 2100?). Gas heats homes, fertilizes food, cooks food, and makes cheap clothing. If Scarborough was not approved, all these things would be slightly more expensive, thus hurting the poorest of the poor. Thirdly, if Scarborough were shut down the gas would just be dug up somewhere else. Most countries are not banning gas exploration or extraction, and are not adopting suicidal taxes in a quest to change the weather. The authors don’t even consider this “leakage of carbon emissions” which is an industry standard in this sort of analysis.  Image by Noah Newbauer from Pixabay
The Scarborough Gas project will save so many lives, it would be a crime to stop itThe researchers claim they took the beneficial effects of warming into account and say magically “The increase in temperatures would result in fewer cold deaths in some parts of Europe, but even accounting for those deaths, the study estimates that 118 more people would die in Europe overall.” So the 484 deaths in the headline is really 118 extra deaths even in their own paper. Are they here to serve Australians or deceive them? Cold weather kills 6, 10, or 20 times as many peopleGlobal warming saves 166,000 lives a year. (Zhao et al). Studies of 74 million people show the same pattern all over the world; in terms of the climate nothing is more deadly to humans than winter. (See Gasparrini et al). For every summer heat wave death, at least 6, 10 or even 20 people die due to cold weather in winter. The largest study across 13 countries found cold deaths were twenty times more common than heat deaths. In richer European cities, with gas stoves and coal fired power stations *only* ten times as many people will die of the cold. (Mazzelot et al) Even in warm sunny Brisbane, Australia, six times as many people die in mild cold weather as in the heat of summer. (Cheng et al). Abram et al (this new paper) uses the Gasparrini data set, but extrapolated far outside what it was intended for. a/ The new modeling assumes the warming-death trend is linear even down to fractional tiny increments of a degree which is “brave” given that daily temperatures vary in any given city by 20,000 times as much. b/ They assume that only temperature matters and ignore changes in wealth, unemployment, or healthcare. c/ They assume if Scarborough was shut down the emissions are not just emitted elsewhere, which they almost certainly will be. If climate modelers were paid to show windmills and solar panels kill people, it would be easyIf the Greens think they can stop projects with “attribution lawfare” they could get a nasty surprise. Once the doors are open on this scientific swamp of dubious extrapolation, the crocodiles will eat their own favourite projects alive. We all know that modelers can find any answer they want if they have enough free parameters to toss their salad with. Obviously, when it comes to deaths due to unreliable energy and higher electricity costs modelers have plenty of gears to turn. Senior citizens and the poor will die in cold rooms they can’t afford to heat. Food prices will rise, so families will run out of money to pay for healthy food and have to feed the kids cheezels for breakfast. Et Voila, there is obesity and diabetes to add to the funeral pyres. Sooner or later, a proper blackout will kill people on operating tables and in train tunnels. As electricity prices rise, businesses and factories will fail, so jobs will be lost, which raises suicide rates, homelessness, poverty and divorce. And of course, there’s always the big one, that nations with no industrial strength are sitting ducks for foreign invasion and takeover. Could unreliable energy and pagan quests to control the weather with electrical generators break a civilization? Don’t get me started. You want mortality? Someone could ask Lee Zeldin, Administrator of the US EPA, if he could fund that modeling? REFERENCESAbram, N.J., Maher, N., Perkins-Kirkpatrick, S. et al. Quantifying the regional to global climate impacts of individual fossil fuel projects to inform decision-making. npj Clim. Action 4, 92 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44168-025-00296-5 Cheng et al (2019) Impacts of heat, cold, and temperature variability on mortality in Australia, 2000–2009, Science of The Total Environment,Volume 651, Part 2, 15 February 2019, Pages 2558-2565, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.186 Masselot et al (2023) Excess mortality attributed to heat and cold: a health impact assessment study in 854 cities in Europe, The Lancet, DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(23)00023-2 Gasparrini et al. (2015) Mortality risk attributable to high and low ambient temperature: a multicountry observational study. The Lancet, May 2015 DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)62114-0. Full PDF. Zhao, Qi et al. (2021) Global, regional, and national burden of mortality associated with non-optimal ambient temperatures from 2000 to 2019: a three-stage modelling study, The Lancet Planetary Health, Volume 5, Issue 7, e415 – e425, DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(21)00081-4
 … By Jo Nova At the top of the Magic Faraway Tree, the cheapest form of energy needs more subsidies. Just keep pouring the money…The Australian Energy Market Commission (AEMC) has finally quietly admitted that they’ve given up on wind and solar power becoming cheaper than coal. Instead, renewables are so uncompetitive they will need another ten years of subsidies, or however long it takes until the last coal plant shuts off. It’s so revealing. Once upon a time they might have thought (or at least pretended) that subsidies were there to get the unreliable generators ‘over the development hump’ so they could compete in a free market. But after 20 years of subsidies, there are no new economies of scale left to wait for. We got to the bottom of the cost efficiency curve and we’re going up the other side. Costs are now rising as the new projects have to go to far flung fields and wait for impossible transmission towers to appear. Windmills kept getting bigger until there was a nasty surprise in the maintenance bills that wiped 36% off Siemens shares in a single day. AEMC opine about getting back to a free market once the coal plants are forced off the grid by the Big Government subsidies. They might as well be telling the world that wind and solar will never be as cheap as coal is. How could the new unfree market, post coal, possibly be cheaper than the old one? Australia’s official energy policy adviser says government subsidies for renewables will likely be kept in place for as long as coal-fired power generation keeps operating, locking in underwriting schemes for at least another decade. It’s not renewables fault, it’s because we need “an orderly transition” (to a forced, fixed, and unfree market): The Australian Energy Market Commission said underwriting mechanisms were needed to ensure there was an orderly transition to green energy as coal generation exited the nation’s power grid. Sorry, did we say the subsidies would end? We meant “maybe”. “Are we going to get past this at some point when we won’t have governments underwriting new capacity. Maybe once we’ve seen coal exit and we’ve built out this phase of the transition,” AEMC commissioner Tim Jordan told the Citi Australia and New Zealand Investment Conference on Tuesday. All the talk of free markets is just an illusion: “We can then return to a more market-led approach where underlying demand growth will determine whether new capacity enters.” Mr Jordan said the industry and government should aim for “market principles to take over again” once the transition from coal to renewables was complete. What do we call a free market when the cheapest competitor is banned? If the green subsidies can’t end until coal power is gone, it looks more like their primary goal was not to help renewables so much as to destroy coal… October 15th, 2025 | Tags: Coal, Renewable Energy | Category: Global Warming, Renewable | Print This Post | | |
Jo appreciates your support to help her keep doing what she does. This blog is funded by donations. Thanks!
Follow Jo's Tweets
   
 
|
|||
|
Copyright © 2026 JoNova - All Rights Reserved |
||||
Seen at the last rally:
Recent Comments