The Impossible Claim

By July 15, 2020Other

A few years ago the ACT Government declared that it would so organise things that the ACT would be carbon-neutral before very long. It was going to achieve this outcome by providing more alternative energy sources. At the time I wrote that this was a most misleading claim. You can see the most recent version of the claim here. No matter what the ACT Government does, ACT consumers are part of the eastern electricity grid, which is supported overwhelmingly by fossil fuels, mostly coal and gas. What the government and the media should have said was that the addition of alternative energy sources would in time offset the ACT’s use of fossil fuels. I also pointed out that alternative energy sources are erratic, intermittent and sometimes absent altogether, as is frequently the case in Canberra’s cold, still winter nights. They need back-up, and the back-up is usually gas, a fossil fuel. The more alternative energy you have in your grid, the more back-up you will need. It seemed to me a case of the snake chasing its tail. 

Who would benefit from all this? Certainly not the consumers of the ACT, who would be paying more for something they already had. The turbines and solar arrays that would not be built in the ACT (most of them) would benefit the States where they were being built, but again, at the expense of the poor old ACT consumers. Why on earth were we doing this? Well, it seems to have been part of the Green bargain with Labor, though I have no direct evidence of a pact of that kind. Every time the issue is mentioned I fulminate, though mostly privately. I don’t like misleading claims and wasteful expenditures, and wish that the Opposition in the Legislative Assembly were prepared to have a go at the Government over it. Alas, they’ve decided against that. Too many Canberra citizens seem to think the claim is real, and that they are doing something virtuous. For a population said to be the most intelligent in Australia, that would be funny if it weren’t so serious.

Well, Rowjay, a commenter on Jo Nova’s website  did the sort of homework that I probably should have done myself. Rowjay took the core of the claim — With 640MW of renewable energy already contracted, 100% renewable energy is now secure — and subjected it to critical analysis.  He (forgive me, Rowjay, if you are a woman) starts with name-plate capacity, that is the intended full-load sustained output of the generating facility, whether wind or solar. ‘Rated capacity’ is another frequently used term. What was the actual performance of the alternative energy suppliers for the month of June? Name-plate capacity and actual performance are different things. Did the suppliers of alternative energy meet the peak and base-load requirements of the ACT?

It seems not. In the month of June, where the ACT electrical demand was about 290,000 MWh (megawatt hours), the alternative energy suppliers could only come up with about 90,000 MWh. That’s about 31 per cent of what was needed. Alternative energy sources failed to cover 59 of the 60 peak consumption periods for the month, unsurprisingly, given that 31 per cent only was available, and could not maintain a consistent stable minimum base load of 250MWh. How does Rowjay know all this? The suppliers, well nearly all of them, are registered with the AEMO (the Australian Energy Market Operator) so we know what they provided.

Okay, says Rowjay, if that’s the best the suppliers can do, what sort of performance would we get if we just tripled the ACT renewables portfolio to cover peak demand? That would require 1839 MWh in nameplate capacity, and something like 400,000 solar panels and 558 wind turbines (just multiplying by three the generators already contracted).

That would give you about 270,000 MWh, about 93 per cent of the target. But in terms of meeting base-load and peak demands it would still be insufficient. In thirty days the morning peak would still only be covered nineteen times and the evening peak fourteen times. And we still haven’t factored in the need for back-up. Nor did the ACT Government, which seems not to have provided any. Rowjay contrasts this unimpressive performance with that of the Bayswater Power Station’s Unit 1, which has 660Mwh nameplate capacity. Unit 1 generated not quite 400,000 MWh, which is 134 per cent of the target, and would have covered both morning and evening peaks with plenty to spare. Bayswater, near Muswellbrook in New South Wales, has four of these units, and any one of them would easily cover the ACT’s electricity needs.

My thanks to Rowjay, whose work has more than justified my scepticism, indeed, my intense irritation with the impossible claim that somehow that ACT is running on renewable energy. I didn’t have the numbers; now I do. It just isn’t true that in 2020 the ACT is running of renewable energy. To say so in official publications is akin to a fraud, I think.

What can and should be done about this? It depends on how important you think the issue is. Ordinarily you would expect the media to find the flaws in official statements and expose them. To the best of my knowledge that hasn’t happened in the ACT, or anywhere else for that matter. Why not? It may be that the journalists who would do the work are already convinced that alternative energy is the way to go, and are uninterested in finding out anything to the contrary. Or maybe The Canberra Times has a position on the issue which is supportive of the ACT Government. 

Ordinarily, again, you’d expect the Liberals in the Assembly to point all this out, and keep hammering at it. After all, an election is coming later this year, and the Liberals need an issue or two. However, my understanding is that the Liberals have already done some private polling that has convinced them they’d be on a hiding to nothing if they went on the attack here. I shake my head, and wish for one or two lone independently-minded MPs like the late Bert Kelly, a voice for free trade when his Government was for protection. Someone has to point out the absence of clothes on the Emperor.

Altogether, this whole alternative-energy issue has become a fantasy. Not only is there no sign that increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been other than beneficial to nearly all living things, because of the role of CO2 in the life of plants, but the frenzy about our apparently desperate need to transfer to alternative energy, to ‘decarbonise’ the Earth, is causing idiotic decisions that affect us all. I keep waiting for a voice of sanity somewhere in government and politics. If it’s about, it’s really quiet.

Join the discussion 55 Comments

  • John Wilden says:

    Well said Don.Just sound commonsense which is sadly lacking in our”Leaders”. John.

  • Lauchlan McIntosh says:

    Spending time to check data is becoming an outdated practice. The least you should expect is a response to the figures you quote from the ACT Govt. And by the way Bjorn Lomberg keeps up the challenge for checking the relativity of concerns, see

  • Karabar says:

    We must be a country of misinformed idiots incapable of critical thinking, led by morons and greedy Greens. While that analysis applies to the ACT alone, the entire continent is on a crusade to stamp out the gas of life, insisting that tilting a windmills and magic mirrors is some sort of solution. If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

  • Boambee John says:

    Is anyone surprised that a fraudulent “crisis” produces fraudulent solutions?

    Time to follow the money. Who is gaining the benefit from harvesting the vast subsidies granted to so-called “renewable” energy sources?

  • Boxer says:

    This crisis in rational thought is still best illustrated, for me, by the Xhosa cattle killing episode in 1856-1857.
    The Xhosa people of South Africa were in a period of existential distress, caused by new diseases in their cattle, white settlers from the south and the Zulu from the north. A Xhosa prophet, Nongqawuse, recommended this crisis be resolved by killing their own cattle, which were fundamental to their economy. They killed about 400,000 head of cattle and also burnt a lot of their crops, with famine for the Xhosa being the net result. A classic example of millennialism.

    Of course we are so much more advanced, and would never do such a thing.

    The technical issues have become marginal to this energy crisis. The ACT Opposition dare not raise a concern about stupid policies because they don’t want to suffer social rejection at a personal level, or rejection at the ballot box. People who have their doubts about the causes of observable climate change tend to keep their opinions to themselves, while the righteous believers, as always, pronounce their faith at every dinner party. It seems that the wealthier a social group becomes (Canberra, or the inner city suburbs), the more divorced they are from the reality of survival, and more obsessed they become about climbing the greasy pole of social acceptance.

  • Aynsley Kellow says:

    For a mob that is forever telling the world to ‘follow The Science’ (a statement that is profoundly antiscientific!), they are very good at overlooking engineering science.

    I would recommend anyone who wants a good grounding in the realities to read the free e-book written by David MacKay FRS, formerly the Regius Professor of Engineering at the University of Cambridge, before his untimely death: ‘Sustainable Energy – Without the Hot Air’. This is available as a free download at:

    The problems you discuss with the ACT are well enough known by electrical system engineers and uncontroversial. (You might say they are ‘settled engineering science’, but science is never settled). Renewables are inevitably intermittent, and the frosty. anticyclonic days we have been experiencing lately occur every year and sometimes during summer. At night time, you then have a problem when the sun goes down just as domestic demand ramps up as people come home, heat their homes, cook dinner, etc.

    The current course relies on investors in thermal plant copping costs by having them sit idle for most of the day and then firing up for the convenience of consumers. Battery storage doesn’t cut it, and Snowy 2.0 is (literally) a pipe dream. we do not have enough pumped storage capacity to waste 15% of generation in this way to make renewables seem workable.

    That is not to mention the additional transmission investment needed to connect to low density generation sources, able to cope with maximum demand, but only achieving 30% capacity factor.

    This whole enterprise is just plain dumb, and driven by rent seekers who are making money by impoverishing consumers and investors in conventional energy. The international examples show that many have consumed the Koolaid. France has increased its installed capacity of wind, and thus increased its GHG emissions, because its (zero emission) nuclear plants cannot ramp up and down quickly and they have to use single pass gas turbines.

    My personal favourite was the solar generator in Spain who was found to be harvesting the generous subsidies by using diesel generators to power floodlights, so they could generate ‘solar’ power at night.

    Then there is the life-cycle comparison, which Michael Shellenberger has done – one reason he now opposes renewables in favour of nuclear. Renewables are much more materials intensive per kWh, use much more land, and pose immense waste management challenges disposing of their composite materials after their 20-25 year life (often less in reality).

    Add to that production impacts. With solar, this includes the use (and therefore release) of solvents like SF6 and NF3 that have GWP numbers around 20,000 times CO2.

    Or we could build ultrasupercritical coal stations (as are the Chinese and much of Asia) and reduce GHG emissions by around 25% (or about our Paris commitment) compared with the existing fleet of pulverised black coal stations (40% for brown coal).

    How have we been so stupid? One answer: treating this as a moral issue and thinking prohibition is therefore the answer. It rarely is, and should be kept for crimes like murder.

  • Neville says:

    Here’s Craig Kelly MP talking to Peta Credlin yesterday on Sky News about the S&W disaster.
    The NSW Coalition govt are still pursuing these fraudulent toys and don’t seem to understand very simple maths.
    But then again the rest of the world’s govts are the same and the stupid US Dems are promising more of the S&W idiocy if Biden falls over the line in Nov.

  • Neville says:

    At Lauchlan McIntosh’s link above we have access to 25 pages of Lomborg’s new book “False Alarm.”
    Contrary to the rubbish in the media everyone will be much healthier and wealthier by 2050 and 2100 than we are today. And he uses UN forecasts as well.
    He also checks the nonsense about so called future dangerous SLR and the flooded island states + Bangladesh, Vietnam, Holland etc and uses today’s studies+data that Bolt has been referring to for years.
    But I’ll let you read it for yourselves.

  • Ben says:

    A few years ago the minerals council commissioned BAEconomics to investigate RE subsidies throughout Australia. The section on ACT stands out, with the government entering 20yr PPAs with wind farms at $180/MWh.

    The reality is of course that large-scale wind and solar can only reduce wholesale prices, and only when the weather works. Wind and solar increase the cost of all other components in the electricity supply chain. Rooftop PV is eroding the market share of all generation types, with large-scale RE benefiting from renewable certificates still above $30/MWh, government PPAs, preferential dispatch and no accountability for grid stability functions.

    A recent AER paler talks about making all large wind and solar farms fully dispatchable. I call this a partially level playing field, because we are still only covering bull electricity, ignoring system strength functions. It can’t happen soon enough.

    The RE lobby is strengthening. They want a ‘post-COVID renewables stimulus’. This is comprised of direct government spending, RE targets and further subsidies.

    Hiding in plain sight.

  • Boambee John says:

    And it is all for nothing (if you believe the climate modellers).

    Via Jo Nova.

    “We confirm that in the short-term, surface temperature trend projections are dominated by internal variability, with little influence of structural model differences or warming pathway. Additionally we demonstrate that this result is independent of the model-dependent estimate of the magnitude of internal variability.

    Indeed, and perhaps counter intuitively, in all models a lack of warming, or even a cooling trend could be observed at all individual points on the globe, even under the largest greenhouse gas emissions.


    Maher et al., (2020) Quantifying the role of internal variability in the temperature we expect to observe in the coming decades,”Environmental Research Letters, Volume 15, Number 5

  • Neville says:

    Dr Pat Michaels checks the latest modelling for the AR 6 report and of course this shows even warmer scenarios for the decades ahead.
    BUT the only accurate (Russian) modelling team have dropped their sensitivity even further, from 2.1 c to 1.9 c.
    And a new study( Maher et al 2020) just released finds that ENSO and natural variability could be an important factor over the next 30 years and a new cooling trend may develop.
    Of course Dr Christy has found that most of the climate models are showing far too much sensitivity and the Russian model is the only one that so far matches observations since 1990.

  • Karabar says:

    “Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them.”
    Eric Blair (George Orwell)

  • Neville says:

    Sorry not a reduction to 1.9 c above for the Russian team, but down to 1.8 c.
    BTW there’s some interesting info by Zeke Hausfather on the new sensitivity numbers coming in from the climate modelling teams.
    Interesting that some of the more extreme guesstimates seem to fare badly in hindcasting. IOW if you run the models backwards they tend to be very inaccurate.
    So far no CSIRO models are in but Nasa GISS has 3 on their list and tends to be mid range to lower. Sort of 2 bob each way for GISS so far. And UK model is at the higher range. Big surprise NOT.
    This summary from Zeke was written in FEB this year. BTW Zeke and Mosher are prepared to take on Willis and his experience at WUWT and Steve McIntyre and Dr Curry and maths guru Nic Lewis.
    But the group above usually handle them well and seem confident of their position. But at least these two true believers try and argue their case.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Thanks Don. Well said as usual.

    “War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery and Ignorance is Strength.”

    This is what the world believes today. How do get the brainwashed multitude to wake up?

  • spangled drongo says:

    Sceptics have been calling out the middle class welfare for years but now more people are finally waking up to the “impossible”:

  • Neville says:

    Here’s another super cost that our dopey Greens+ Labor wouldn’t even try to understand.
    A new UK study has shown a massive 200 bn $ blow out in the energy budget if everyone has to change to EVs, to try and meet their so called net zero emissions target.
    The expert study has found that every driveway will be dug up and much heavier infrastructure installed to meet the requirements of home chargers etc.
    Don’t forget that Don told us about this during last years Aussie Federal election in May 2019.
    And both Labor and Greens will AGAIN take a net zero emissions target to the next election.

  • Boambee John says:

    A few threads ago, Stu defended adamantly the position of the ACT government that the electricity supply was fully renewable. Now, with actual data available, where is he? And where is Chris W to shout “deniers”?

  • Neville says:

    This is how the real “Dirty Harry” and the Meghan donkey actually live.
    While these giant HIPPOS endlessly lecture us, they have a carbon footprint to easily match Gore, Di Caprio, Madonna, Elton John, Prince Charles, Attenborough etc or about 26 times higher than the average UK resident.
    Watch the video or read the article.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Yes Neville, they couldn’t exist without a huge serving of hypocrisy.

      But hippos who need sceptics to agree with them in order to survive have to serve up a different menu:

      A growing number of Labor MPs are urging Anthony Albanese to adopt the Coalition’s 2030 emissions reduction targets, with one warning the party may never win another election unless it takes a more moderate position on ­climate change.

      “If we don’t accept that, we may never get back into government,” Senator Gallacher told The Weekend Australian.

      • Neville says:

        SD there are so many vile HIPPOS among the arrogant elites that I wonder why anyone would waste their time on them.
        They annoy me and I find that I would rather switch off the telly and not waste my time on these con merchants any more.
        Lomborg delivered a very sound talk to the CIS in Sydney in FEB this year and covered most of the data for so much of the so called CAGW issues and this video was the result.
        His talk lasted about 45 minutes and was then followed by an interesting Q&A.
        He tries hard to show that we should do something, but also says that we must act less dumb and stop wasting endless billions $ for a ZERO return.
        I think we should use adaptation, more R&D and only spend money where there is clear evidence that we’ll see a proper return.
        But he shows the accepted data and evidence and why we should or shouldn’t spend money on so called problems today and in the future.

  • Curiozity says:


    Thank you for bringing this issue in the ACT to attention, along with the excellent work by Rowjay and Jo Nova for publishing it at

    “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” – George Orwell

    It is important to remember that, at the root, this is a prospectus for “investment” by Government, with capital compelled from taxpayers (or electricity billpayers), spent on favoured technologies and suppliers, for claimed benefits of the most dubious nature. Somehow, these seem to occur without the most basic standards of disclosure, as would be required of any ASX security or other regulated security. Whatever happened to Government being a moral exemplar?

    As a resident of the ACT, I wrote to my MLA in October 2019 in objection to the triumphant declarations of victory in Canberra, as the ACT Government ‘high-fived’ itself for supposedly having achieved 100% renewables before 2020, cheered on by the usual Cognoscenti.

    On cue, the Australia Institute then joined the chorus by boasting that the ACT is the first Australian jurisdiction to achieve this, one of only 7 in the world. (Source: The cup of eco-virtue simply overflows.

    And then Labor MLA rushed to media releases proclaiming the moral superiority of the ACT Labor-Green Alliance, in showing the world how easy this is, while other jurisdictions and the Federal Government in particular, knuckle-drag and take no action on climate change.

    But hold the bus……

    The claim appears to be based on a non-independent 2017 report, commissioned by the claimant. (Source: ). In fact, the report was written by a member of the Australia Institute, now the cheerleader. Paid for by the ACT Government, the report gushingly provides the basis of the ACT Government’s virtue-claim. It washes away inconvenient accounting of emissions and replaces it with a model that give the ‘right’ answer:

    * The claim appears to side-step the intermittency of solar and wind and hydro, by using annual averages and, in the case of drought-affected hydro, a 5 year rolling average. This veils the night/day intermittency, cloudy days and windless days. Thus, intermittent power is made reliable. Nothing to see here. However, in the real world where reliable power is critical 24/7, the ACT has to buy non-renewable power all the time to make it so. So, its 100% renewables, except for all the other power purchased……

    * The National GHG Inventory is prepared according to the rules supporting the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC), including GHG reductions being attributed to the jurisdictions in which they are achieved. As you point out, the actual generation is done in jurisdictions other than the ACT, so it appears that the ACT appropriates them to itself where ACT consumers are the buyer. Doesn’t this double-claims the Victorian and NSW emissions reduction?
    * One of the major components is a pro-rata allocation of the Commonwealth’s Large Scale Renewable Energy Target, to the power distributed by ACTEWAGL. This, of course, has nothing to to with the ACT Government.

    * What it calls “renewables” is actually solar, wind and hydro. These may not burn fossil fuel in their operating phase, but they certainly aren’t “renewables” – tonnes of metallurgical coal for the steel towers, concrete, carbon fibre blades, tonnes of copper, rare earths, lead, cadmium, and other toxic chemicals, all turned-over every 15-30 years. And then there is the gas turbines kept on standby, and the non-renewable Li batteries.

    I could go on.

    The ACT is nowhere near “100% renewables”. It cannot disconnect from fossil fuels. The claimed benefits of this investment are dubious, to say the least, and the costs are born most by the poor. As Rowjay points out, the results are now clear. It should be a scandal.

  • Neville says:

    Even Princess Anne understands the BS about their so called CAGW.
    When asked about her older brother’s ideas on climate she said their conversations are very short. Bravo to Anne.

  • Neville says:

    Boris closes down more coal jobs for UK miners and now imports even more dirtier Russian coal that includes much higher co2 emissions as part of the deal.
    But idiots like EXT Rebs and the Greens and Putin will be very happy, because they’ll sell this con trick to the public as a reduction in co2 emissions for the UK.

  • Neville says:

    Here’s Bolt’s interview of Shellenberger where they discuss Moore’s “Planet of the Humans”.
    This takes just 9 mins to watch and it clearly shows why S&W energy are a disaster and can never power a modern economy.
    Dilute power systems require about 400 to 500 times the area of base-load power systems like Gas or Nuclear and last about 20 years, are unreliable and must always be backed up by base-load plants.

  • BB says:

    The hundred percent claim is quite remarkable and unless you look at the data most will believe it. Canberra pays less for its electricity than the states. According to the AMEC we pay 27.09 cents per kW hour whereas South Australia is 37.07 cents per kW hour. It is the most expensive. These are 2019 prices.

    I have looked at the report and find some surprising figures. I have looked at the performance of wind extensively and for years. The efficiency is called capacity factor and consistently I get 29%. The Canberra government brochure is claiming up to 48.2%, this is most unlikely. I have specialised in wind. The wind component of the scheme is nearly 600 MW but on average it supply 178 MW. The capital cost is $1.35 billion and will need to be replaced in 20 years maximum. Land area occupied 273 km².

    Unfortunately that is not the worst of it there is a website which graphically shows performance on any day it is hourly data. This looks worse if one uses five-minute data. On that day at 8 AM it dropped and averaged 7% for the next 40 hours. One might say that is an unusual event but no it’s not. In 2019 there were 20 such outages of nine hours or more in some cases it went as low as 4%. That means in the case of Canberra the wind would be supplying 24 MW!

    Thanks Don for this I am trying to contact Rowjay, and propose collaboration. In the meantime I will be looking at the actual performance of this combination of wind and solar and will write a report on what it produces. Wind often fails to deliver even 29% and solar does so nightly but this is not newsworthy because it is not noticed. So little is actually supplied fossil fuel stations just pick up the difference and continue on. I surmise most Canberran’s will have a warm fuzzy feeling about being so virtuous saving the planet. I hope to get one of them to have a look at this it is really worth a watch. It is not about greenhouse gases. In this it is clear it is a horrific idea for those such as the Greens to have an energy source that is cheap and pollution free. That is their worst nightmare.

    • Neville says:

      Thanks for your comment BB and I hope you can get some insiders to wake up and speak up.
      I’ve just linked to a Lomborg article where he checks the NZ data for so called net zero emissions and the ruinous cost to 2100.
      Of course the voters would rebel very quickly so it would quickly fall in a heap. But his point is it would achieve ZIP even if the voters were stupid enough to continue voting for this idiocy until 2100.
      Lomborg has a team that includes 3 Nobel laureates, so he is always worth reading compared to the left wing loons who attack him for not following their extremist agenda.

  • Neville says:

    Lomborg wrote this article for the NY Post 7 months ago and it should sound alarm bells for all of the left wing loonies and their crazy ideas. Here’s the article and the link and again just very simple maths that any school kid should be able to understand. But apparently not and after spending that ruinous 5 trillion $ they achieve a temp drop of a whopping 0.004 c by 2100 SARC. Four thousandths of 1 degree C yet all we hear are crickets from the so called scientists, world govts, economists etc.

    So why is it that these dummies continue to ignore the data and evidence?
    “Reality check: Drive for rapid ‘net zero’ emissions a guaranteed loser”

    By Bjorn Lomborg

    December 8, 2019 | 9:24pm
    Enlarge Image
    Reality check: Drive for rapid ‘net zero’ emissions a guaranteed loser

    “The UN climate summit is underway in Madrid, and activists are sounding their usual calls for world leaders to achieve carbon neutrality as fast as possible. It’s a fool’s errand”.

    “From California to France to Chile, environmentalists laud leaders for already making the promise, and sometimes even passing legislation, to stop putting more greenhouse gases into the air than they take out.

    Democratic presidential hopefuls are adding their voices to the chorus. Front-runner Joe Biden promises to “ensure the US achieves a 100 percent clean-energy economy and reaches net-zero emissions no later than 2050.” Some of his competitors, including Cory Booker and Julian Castro, envision completing this Herculean task at least five years earlier.

    Climate change is a real problem. It is man-made, and it will have negative consequences. But trying to stop emitting CO? by 2050 or sooner is a very expensive way to do almost no good.

    We just have to look to New Zealand, the only country to have actually made an estimate of the cost of achieving carbon neutrality.

    New Zealand’s prime minister, Jacinda Ardern, received plaudits this year for passing legislation designed to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050. To her credit, her government asked a respected economics institute to estimate the cost. This revealed that getting to 50 percent below 1990-levels in 2050 would cost at least 5 percent of GDP annually by 2050.

    Why so expensive? For the same reason it is expensive anywhere: Weaning economies off fossil fuels and onto pricier, less efficient forms of energy reduces growth and prosperity. The impact quickly adds up.

    For New Zealand, the cost is similar to today’s entire expenditure on socialized education and health care. And getting all the way, rather than halfway, will likely cost 16 percent of GDP by 2050. That is more than New Zealand today spends on social security and welfare, health, education, police, courts, defense, environment, and every other part of government combined.

    Across the century, the cost for the small island nation of 5 million souls would add up to at least $5 trillion. And this assumes New Zealand implements climate policies efficiently, with a single carbon tax across all sectors of the economy over 80 years.
    Greta Thunberg says voyage to US ‘energized’ her climate fight

    No economy has ever introduced climate policies that effectively, because politicians love to pick winners, promote ineffective solutions like electric cars and lavish subsidies on poorly performing technologies.

    What will this achieve? Let’s ­assume that in every one of New Zealand’s elections between now and 2100, governments are chosen that continue to fulfill the promise of going to zero by 2050 and staying there. Imagine, too, that New Zealanders don’t rebel against the inevitably large tax hikes on energy — no “yellow-vest” protests.

    In these artificial conditions, if New Zealand meets its promise of zero emissions in 2050 and stays at zero for five decades, then the greenhouse-gas reduction, according to the standard estimate from the United Nations’ climate panel, will deliver a temperature cut by 2100 of 0.004 degrees.

    New Zealand is considering spending at least $5 trillion to ­deliver a physically unmeasurable impact by the end of the century.

    The math is comparable for most economies: enormous costs and very small benefits. Of course, huge nations like China and America going carbon-neutral by mid-century would indeed generate measurable impacts by 2100, but the costs would also run into the hundreds of trillions, and in the case of China, mean more poverty. Unsurprisingly, most governments and presidential candidates shy away from publishing any real analysis of their promises.

    The climate challenge will not be solved by asking people to use less and more expensive energy. A sensible middle ground must be found that could include policies like a low and rising carbon tax. But we must ultimately focus on the reality that the best way to fix climate change is innovation that lowers the price of clean energy below that of fossil fuels.

    In Paris in 2015, world leaders promised to double spending on research and development into green energy. They are on track to miss that target. The Madrid conference should focus its energy on innovation — rather than wild-goose chases”.

    Bjorn Lomborg is president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center.

  • Neville says:

    The Climate Council has just launched a 76,000 clean jobs program to fight climate change and help mend the economy after the CV-19 disaster.
    Heaps more of the S&W disaster and something called green hydrogen, plus etc, etc. Flannery and others launched this idiocy today and I’m sure our clueless media will tell every lie in the book to promote this nonsense and continue this for the next few months.
    It looks like they’re getting desperate and the usual suspects will promote this wildly from now on.
    Here’s their PDF and more on you tube.

  • Neville says:

    More lefty extremism from the BBC etc about the fate of Polar bears by the year 2100. Here’s a quote from Dr Crockford to try and enlighten these dummies. Even Zeke Hausfather agrees that the RCP 8.5 scenario is nonsense and requires a 500% increase in the use of coal + a 6 c increase in temp by 2100.

    “However, zoologist Susan Crockford has pointed out that the creators of this new model incorrectly used the widely discredited RCP8.5 climate scenario. The RCP8.5 climate forecast was recently exposed in a peer reviewed paper published earlier this year by Zeke Hausfather and Glen Peters as being an implausible ‘worst-case’ scenario that assumes an unrealistic 500% increase in coal and a 60C rise in global temperature by 2100. This alone is enough to discount the polar bear prediction as scientifically implausible”.

    “Crockford also notes that the paper uses only polar bear data from Western Hudson Bay (a subpopulation that is far from typical) as a proxy for all polar bear subpopulations worldwide. For example, even in the 1980s (the ‘good times’ for polar bears), Western Hudson Bay bears spent the longest time on land during the summer but most females still managed to produce three cubs per litter and wean them at one and a half years of age, whereas females in all other locations typically gave birth to twins weaned at two and a half years of age”.

    Crockford concludes:

    “The combination of inappropriately using Western Hudson Bay data as a proxy for the response of all other subpopulations of bears to future sea ice levels, coupled with the dependence of the model on the most extreme and now discredited RCP8.5 climate scenario, is all that’s needed to dismiss it as exaggerated-fear-mongering-by-proxy. Why would anyone believe that the output of this new model describes a plausible future for polar bears?”

    • Stu says:

      Why is it unbelievable? Marohasy claims as usual that “ It was very significant that Peter Ridd won on the issue of academic freedom: that he did have a right to ignore the university administrators and continuing to speak out about the lack of quality assurance and explain how and why important scientific institutions had become so untrustworthy. “

      Sorry but that is just plain wrong. He did not win on that issue and he has lost again. Time to move on.

      Here is Vasta’s judgement in the original case



      Some have thought that this trial was about freedom of speech and intellectual freedom. Others have thought that this trial was about the manner in which academics should conduct themselves. Some observers may have thought that this trial was about the use of non-offensive words when promulgating scientific ideas. Media reports have considered that this trial was about silencing persons with controversial or unpopular views.
      Though many of those issues were canvased and discussed throughout the hearing of this matter, this trial was about none of the above. Rather, this trial was purely and simply about the proper construction of a clause in an Enterprise Agreement. Whilst the Court acknowledges that there may be consequences that touch upon these other issues because of the Court’s construction of that clause, none of those consequences can play any part in the determination of the proper construction of that clause.
      The clause in question is cl.14 of the James Cook University Enterprise Agreement. It is headed “Intellectual Freedom”. It, and it alone, is the focus of this judgement.
      Even though in this application, the Applicant is asking for the Court to make declarations that the Respondent breached the Enterprise Agreement and therefore contravened s.50 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (“the FW Act”), the parties have asked me to simply rule whether certain findings and directions were lawful.
      If I find that they are lawful, that will be the end of the litigation. If I find that they are unlawful, I will give the parties the opportunity to make submissions about declarations and penalty.”

      Now The Federal court of Appeal has upheld the appeal by JCU. You can read the full judgement here.

      It is quite long and wordy but I am sure you will be able to follow the line of argument. The depth of precedence referred to by the judges is amazing. This was not a spur of the moment judgement.

      • spangled drongo says:

        That’s riiight stueyluv!

        Science is whatever the JCU sez it is.

      • Boambee John says:


        Good to see you.

        Any comment on the lead subject of this thread? Is the ACT truly fully renewable, or are the figures correct, and it is worthless virtue signalling?

        • Stu says:

          As I wrote previously I see no point participating in this one strand echo chamber, but I do continue to follow your slowly evolving positions. By that I mean that it seems that the bulk of players here now accept that climate change is real, but still can’t agree on the cause or the solution. Please continue.

          • Boambee John says:


            “By that I mean that it seems that the bulk of players here now accept that climate change is real …”

            I doubt that any sentient being denies that the climate changes. As I have said on numerous occasions, the key questions are the extent of anthropogenic influence, and whether the effects will be harnful.

            This has been said so many times, that I must congratulate you on finally accepting it.

            Embarrassed about the deceptions by the ACT town council?

          • Boambee John says:


            Had to go earlier, dinner time.

            I must say, I never cease to be amazed by your efforts to claim “victory”, essentially by redefining the problem, if there is one, as something entirely different to the claims of alarmists.

            You would make an interesting psychological study into the phenomenon of reality denial that seems to afflict many alarmists. Reality not matching the models? Redefine the issue!

      • Chris Warren says:

        Ridd’s aggressive campaign has now been debunked and James Cook University has been vindicated.

        Those peddling the Marohasy line were peddling fake news.

        Ridd’s claim was the impossible claim.

        So it would seem.

        • Boambee John says:


          So you deny the clear evidence of fraud by the Swedish PhD student? And the deceptive use of old photos to represent current events?

          Turning to the subject of this thread, are you embarrassed about the deceptions by the ACT town council? Claiming to be fully renewable, when the evidence is clear that the usage is not covered by the (expensive) so-called offsets purchased?

        • spangled drongo says:

          Like JCU, you should try a little science, blith.

          Stu too.

          “Mediterranean Sea was 3.6°F hotter during the time of the Roman Empire – the warmest it has been for the past 2,000 years, study shows”:

          • Neville says:

            SD you beat me to it, just one more study to add to the list.
            But these pair of donkeys are totally clueless and now silly stu claims that we’ve just started to believe in his CC?
            I’ve been telling him and all the others about their so called CAGW for years. THE CLIMATE ALWAYS CHANGES AND HAS BEEN DOING THAT FOR MILLIONS OF YEARS.
            So far our climate since the end of the LIA has been a paradise for Humans and everything today is much easier, healthier, wealthier etc than at any time over the last 11,000 , or 100,000 or 200,000 years.
            Just a few years ago Hitchens, Dawkins, Ridley, Pinker etc thought that Humans were only fully evolved in the last 100 to 150 thousand years, but that’s now been extended to at least 200,000 years BP and perhaps even longer.
            That’s just to try and help these dopes with my timeline above.
            So yes I THINK that CC has been around for a very long time and I’m just trying AGAIN to explain things more clearly for our silly fools.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Yes Neville. When they are so really determined to be stupid, nothing will save them.

            Here is something the woke bunch in the ACT need to read:

            New paper reveals hidden cost of Net Zero decarbonisation.


          • Boambee John says:


            “silly stu claims that we’ve just started to believe in his CC?
            I’ve been telling him and all the others about their so called CAGW for years. THE CLIMATE ALWAYS CHANGES AND HAS BEEN DOING THAT FOR MILLIONS OF YEARS”

            I suspect that Stu tries to encourage himself by claiming that we are coming to see the light. We need to be kind to him, as he continues to grope around in the darkness of climate alarmism.

      • spangled drongo says:

        If you want some “depth of precedence” stu, there is a great article in the Australian by Greg Craven, who is the Vice Chancellor of the Australian Catholic Uni, re what he thinks Unis should be all about.

        “The point is, universities can create regimes with teeth, if they want to. At ACU, our senate ­enacted a statute — not a policy — for freedom of speech and intellectual freedom. It is a super-statute, overriding all other statutes and policies, as far as law permits. And it’s broad, covering not only intellectual freedom, but general freedom of speech — and it expressly allows staff to publicly criticise ACU.”

  • Neville says:

    Shellenberger’s article in the NY Post is very accurate and exposes a lot of the Left’s religious extremism about their so called CAGW. This bloke is fast catching up with the Lomborg team and let’s hope he is able to help the IPCC before they publish even more exaggerations in the upcoming AR 6 report.

    A number of extra links in the article here.

  • Neville says:

    We all know that the Green donkeys believe in a fantasy world and can’t even understand very simple graphs showing countries’ co2 emissions since 1990.
    But here a UK spokesperson for the UK Greens doesn’t even understand the fraudulent nature of their so called mitigation and the extreme folly of the UK striving to become a zero net emitter.
    This type of extremism would be laughable if it wasn’t so serious and yet most of the OECD govt’s seem to believe this mitigation junk.
    Meanwhile China, India and developing countries just want cheap, reliable base-load power for their people ASAP. Like coal, gas, hydro, nuclear .

  • Neville says:

    Another massive coal energy boom is set to take off in China. While OECD countries mess about with the fraudulent S&W idiocy and the hideous environmental disaster this will bring for future generations.

    Also India is set to become a fossil fueled power house by 2040 and this latest report proves that we are wasting our time on the S&W disaster that will wreck our electricity grid and lead to higher energy prices, zero base-load power and a guaranteed environmental mess for future generations to clean up. Here’s Vijay Jayaraj’s report.

    Vijay Jayaraj: India Crafts Fossil Pathway to Secure its Future

    Date: 13/07/20
    Vijay Jayaraj, GWPF Energy

    “India is on the way to become a fossil fuel-based energy powerhouse of the 21st century”.

    “India’s developmental goals for the future are quite ambitious. They ought to be: From tackling the surging poverty rates to providing affordable utilities, the country faces a steep challenge. The key to achieving any of its developmental goals is a strong energy sector. India is the third largest energy consuming nation and is following the fossil fuel pathway (like the West did during the 20th century) to achieve energy independence in the near future.
    Relationship to Paris Agreement

    The transformation of the energy sector in 21st century India is a remarkable story and it can be singularly credited to fossil fuels, especially coal and oil. The predominantly fossil-based energy sector has grown by leaps and bounds in recent decades. But ever since the country’s membership in the Paris agreement, and its decision to pursue billions of dollars’ worth Renewable projects (like the Asia’s largest Solar Plant that was inaugurated this week), there were doubts and uncertainty surrounding how the country would move ahead with its fossil fuel sector. Green crusaders believed that India’s inclusion in the agreement and their proclivity to large renewable projects would make them a major player in the global effort to offset fossil fuel dependency.

    However, that has not been the case. Anti-fossil fuel lobbyists and international bodies like the UN have had zero success in limiting India’s coal use. This is because the country’s “Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC)”—a set of promises that were pledged as a part of Paris agreement—clearly states that the country has sovereign rights to excavate, import, export, and use fossil fuels, and that it will not be determined by non-binding treaties made with UN or other developed countries.
    No Holds Barred

    India’s recent approach towards fossil utilization can be summed up in three words, “No Holds Barred”. The country has been unapologetic in its pursuit of fossil fuels, especially coal. This attitude was more evident than ever during the recent global COVID-19 lockdown. Despite staring at a big slump in GDP for the foreseeable future, the government allocated a significant sum of its COVID-19 stimulus package to enhancing coal productivity in the country. In May 2020, the country’s Finance Minister Mrs. Nirmala Seetharaman announced a massive stimulus package for coal infrastructure. The Rupees 500 Billion plan (USD 6.7 billion) was directed at improving evacuation of the mined coal at India’s coal mining blocks.

    The country’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been unequivocal in his support for coal and oil. In the recent move to enhance coal production and make the sector more competitive, the government decided to auction 41 coal mining blocks to private miners. During the inauguration of the auction process, PM Modi commented, “Allowing private sector in commercial coal mining is unlocking resources of a nation with the world’s fourth-largest reserves.”

    India’s Coal Minister Pralhad Joshi said that these measures are unprecedented and will give a boost to the country’s coal sector: “Allowing commercial mining in the coal sector, the Govt has completely opened it up for investments. Several restrictions have also been removed, promoting free trade of coal. These are some of the biggest-ever reforms in the coal sector to boost Ease of Doing Business.” As of July 5, 2020, there were 1140 bidders, including 60 international companies. The mines are expected to make up 15% (225 Million Tonnes) of the country’s total coal production in 2025 and generate 280,000 jobs.

    Last year alone, India imported 235 million tonnes of coal to meet demand-supply gap, costing the country USD 23 billion. Despite the COVID-19 lockdown and the subsequent drop in energy demand, Coal India Limited’s production dropped just by 11% in April and May 2020. GlobalData has predicted that India’s increased coal production in 2020 (forecasted to be 8.3% higher than previous year) will offset the slight global pause in coal production due to the lockdown, resulting in an overall global coal production of 8.1 billion tonnes by the end of this year. In order to meet the growing demand, India has set a target to produce 1 billion tonnes of coal by 2023-24.
    Oil and Gas

    The import and production of oil and natural gas have skyrocketed too. Gas accounts for 6% of the total energy demand in India and will more than double in the coming decade. To meet growing demand, India has increased its oil and gas imports from the U.S. significantly and also announced a string of measures to increase production. . Last week, India announced that it will pump USD 140 Billion of new direct investments in gas over the next eight years. Gas production is predicted to reach 90 billion cubic metres in 2040.

    The ministry of petroleum and gas has reported that 859 oil and gas related domestic projects, valued at approximately Rupees 3.57 Trillion (USD 48 Billion), are currently being pursued to improve the oil and gas accessibility in the country. The Minister of Petroleum & Natural Gas Dharmendra Pradhan said that, “India plans to almost double its oil refining capacity to 450-500 million tonnes in the next 10 years to meet the rising domestic fuel demand as well as cater to the export market.” The current refining capacity stands around 250 million tonnes and exceeds the domestic fuel demands.
    Beyond Imports

    Besides increasing imports, the country has also earned global recognition as a fossil fuel destination. Despite sacking employees from the COVID-19 fallout, the European Oil and Gas giant British Petroleum (BP) is set to hire 2000 workers for its upcoming new global business service center in India. Earlier this year, Royal Dutch Shell’s Indian arm entered into partnership with an Indian firm to provide door-step delivery of Natural gas to customers who do not have access. Saudi Aramco, the oil company with the highest revenue in the world, has entered into a USD 60 Billion deal with India to build an oil refinery. The refinery will be based in the coastal state of Maharashtra and will produce 1.2 million barrels per day.

    India, like its neighbour China, is aware that energy independence and rapid poverty alleviation can happen only with the complete utilization of fossil fuels available in the country. In order to rescue its dependency on imports, India is also opening up more coal mines, oil refineries and hydrocarbon wells. With a strong fiscal support from its government and continued investments from major fossil fuel enterprises, India is truly on the way to become a fossil fuel-based energy powerhouse of the 21st century”.

  • Chris Warren says:

    Not looking good for our fossil fueled-up denialists …

    • Boambee John says:


      Se the previous comment.

      Not looking good for denialists of reality. Mitigation is a non-starter. Smart nations and people are looking towards adaptation to whatever occurs in the future, not tying themselves to a single, model driven, projection.

      • Neville says:

        BJ the donkey is beyond hope and just proves AGAIN that he never learns.
        We’ve been trying to get him to look at the co2 data for years and now he starts to wake up? The donkey’s stupidity is mind boggling.
        He should read the last article I posted from the GWPF about China, India intentions over the next few decades, but alas he’s too stupid to understand.

  • Neville says:

    Could this be more evidence about the cause of the rapid Younger Dryas cooling? Who knows, but very interesting?

  • Neville says:

    NOAA trends in annual mean growth rate of co2 per decade are shown here 1960 to 2019. Since Paris COP 21 in DEC 2015 the trend has increased, so all pain for ZERO gain.

    Dr Hansen said that Paris COP 21 was just BS and fraud and Lomborg, Shellenberger etc seem to agree. Here’s the link to NOAA per decade trend chart since 1960.

  • Neville says:

    More trouble ahead for big solar projects. What a disaster for our electricity grids trying to cope with this taxpayer funded lunacy and of course ZERO change to temp or climate now or decades into the future.
    See my previous NOAA co2 data above since 1960 and then start to wake up.

  • Neville says:

    It looks like the S/H EV market is a joke. Nobody wants to risk buying a S/H ev because it is just a quick way to lose money.

Leave a Reply