A carbon-constrained future? Climate Science: The Facts.

A question for Josh Frydenberg. How come Australia has to have a “carbon constrained future”? An hour or so ago the AEMO Data Dashboard indicated that “Wind and other” were contributing some 2.7GW towards the Eastern States demand of 24GW. Some days last week Wind and other were often delivering less than 0.5GW. Meanwhile our coal exports are booming, hundreds of new coal-fired stations are in the pipeline overseas and the prediction is that Wind and Solar will only provide about 4% of the world’s energy in 2050.

The first edition of Climate Change: The Facts (now in a third edition) appeared in 2012 and the second in 2015. The Institute for Public Affairs has been on the case for some time with a sceptical piece in their journal in 1992. This is appropriate, after all they have been around since 1943, before the Mont Pelerin Society and F A Hayek was an early contributor to the journal as he acknowledged during his tour of Australia in 1976.

The 2017 edition is dedicated to Bob Carter (1942-2016) a world-class scientist and leader in climate realism. Some time before he died he thought the tide was turning in the debate but he spoke too soon due to the resources dedicated to alarmism through national governments, multiple agencies in the UN, NGOs and major charitable/political foundations in the US. The record of the great foundations is especially odious because many were set up by captains of industry like Rockefeller.

Nisbet examined the climate-change and energy grants given by 19 green-leaning philanthropies — including familiar names like the Hewlett, Kresge and MacArthur foundations. Between 2011 and 2015, the 19 foundations made 2,502 grants totaling nearly $557 million to environmental groups like the Sierra Club (the largest single recipient, with nearly $49 million in grants), Natural Resources Defense Council and Environmental Defense Fund.

Of that $557 million, the big environmental groups received nearly $187 million to promote renewable energy and efficiency. They got another $92.5 million for “climate change-related communication, media and mobilization” and nearly $82 million to oppose hydraulic fracturing and to “promote actions to limit/oppose [the] fossil fuel industry.”

With all the billions from government and other sources that flow to alarmist research and development they still fume over a few millions provided to promote the other side of the story.
The 22 papers in Climate Change: The Facts provide essential background information to inform the debate that we have to have about power. And the information on the Data Dashboard indicate hour by hour the absurdity of the current policy pursued by the Government, the ALP and of course the Greens.

This entry was posted in Global warming and climate change policy, Rafe. Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to A carbon-constrained future? Climate Science: The Facts.

  1. Dr Fred Lenin

    When the Peoples Revolution comes I suggest wooden walls be erected to line the carpetbagger climateers against to be shot ,workcover insists on wooded walls to contain bullets and prevent ricochets injuring the firing squads . Before they are shot they will make public apologies Stalin style , admitting their guilt and saying they give all their family assets to the People fir the cost of their trial ,excecution and cremation .
    Windmills and solar rubbish will be revel ,no trace will be left except in inner city suburbs where they will whirl 24/7 to remind the insidious gangrenes of their stupidity and the fate of their leaders .
    What goes around ,comes around .

  2. OldOzzie

    strong>EDITORIALS
    Reliable and affordable power must be the priority

    Less than a month from the “Super Saturday” by-elections and with the opposition in disarray over tax, the last thing Malcolm Turnbull needs is agitation within the Coalition, whipped up by Tony Abbott. That said, and more important for the nation, the last thing the economy needs is for soaring power prices and unreliable supply to undermine productivity, confidence and investment. The Prime Minister will be peeved over Mr Abbott’s feisty address to climate-sceptic think tank the Australian Environment Foundation, in which the former prime minister called for Australia to follow the US in exiting the Paris Agreement and abandon emissions targets to “save” the Liberal Party. It is true, as Mr Abbott said, that Australia would never have signed the Paris Agreement had the US not been a party to it.

    Closer to home, the Nationals, in a two-page list of demands agreed in their partyroom last week and obtained by Joe Kelly, are demanding the building of three new baseload power stations in which the commonwealth or the states would hold equity. A “government-owned company model”, used to deliver other vital infrastructure including the western Sydney airport, would keep any new power stations off budget. The Coalition partner also wants part of a $5 billion fund available to coal, gas or traditional hydro projects capable of delivering “electricity 24 hours a day, seven days a week, regardless of weather conditions” to deliver shorter-term improvements to the energy market. The fund would help extend the life of power plants, boost their capacity and cut emissions.

    Regardless of the former prime minister’s personal motivation, it is alarming but true, as Mr Abbott said on Monday, that the Turnbull government will be relying on the support of Labor states to back its ­national energy guarantee at next month’s crucial COAG meeting. Should the states, some of which are committed to renewable energy targets of 50 per cent, withhold their support, or offer it with unacceptable conditions, or if Mr Turnbull and Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg fail to secure Coalition support for the NEG, the government could be left scrambling without an energy policy to meet one of its main responsibilities — ensuring the provision of reliable and affordable power. The fact Australia faces such a possibility reflects woeful planning at state and federal level.

    The Nationals’ pragmatic stance is well timed
    . It comes as coal is set to regain its position as our biggest export earner due to rising prices and surging demand from Asia. China, Japan, India and Indonesia are among nations that have turned to cleaner coal technology to meet their expanding energy needs. Decision-makers here should not be blind to what is happening in other parts of the world. As we noted a fortnight ago, “this is a lesson Australia appears doomed to learn the hard way”. And despite the determination of some states to lock up their gas resources, LNG exports also are booming.

    While much of the national debate has been anchored in the politics of climate change and the Paris Agreement to limit global warming to less than 2C, the needs of business and households for reliable baseload power at competitive prices have been overlooked in some quarters. This should not be the case in a nation rich in energy resources. Nothing that Australia does, as Mr Abbott writes today, will make the slightest difference to climate. It is also true that China, responsible for 28 per cent of global emissions, and India (7 per cent) have made no Paris commitment and the US (15 per cent) has pulled out. Australia is on track to meet its Paris target; but it is time to regain perspective. Emissions abatement should not jeopardise living standards.

  3. Clinton

    2017 edition, and Bob Carter died 2017.

    Simple typos

    Loving the chain of posts you are making on this.

  4. mh

    The intended outcomes of the UN climate change agreements have nothing to do with emissions reduction. They are about the transfer of wealth from the west to other nations more compliant with international socialism. Mal, Josh and Julie know this.

  5. Rafe Champion

    At 11.30 Wind and Other were having a good day, delivering 2.8GW towards demand of 22GW.

  6. Dr Fred Lenin

    Hey Rafe and it only cost $600.000.000.000. To get a third of power supply ,wots not to luv?

  7. I wonder if any of these politicians and other Leftists and Greens understand that carbon is the building block of life on earth. No life, as we know it, would exist without carbon. There’s a very real reason why CHON is such an important group that it’s what be base our extraterrestrial search for life on, as well as our own coming into existence.

  8. Genghis

    Rafe,
    I too follow the Wind Farm Output. But what you are saying is a bit silly. You say ‘2.8GW towards a demand of 22GW’. However the total Wind Farm Capacity is 5.2GW therefore Wind Farms were producing at around 60% of capacity. The time it will take to build Wind Farms, Solar Hydro and Pumped Hydro to get to peak demand of around 30GW and climbing will take decades and then there will be prolonged periods of <10% wind. It is beyond belief what politicians are doing to us.
    I have mentioned before that during the last 13 days of April Wind Farms worked at less than 10% of capacity for 25% of the time!
    I also think your readers should know that in Ontario, Canada in provincial elections early June the following happened. Justin Trudeau's Liberal Party proposed a Carbon Tax. The provincial Liberals went from 55 seats to 7 seats. The Progressive Conservatives went from 27 seats to 76 seats. The people are waking up but the decision is fraught with danger in Australia, punish the Liberals and get worse.

  9. Rafe Champion

    Genghis we are both making the same point, I am not sure what is silly about the way I am making it. I am open to suggestions about making the point more clearly so people in the street can understand what we are doing to ourselves.
    The problem was more obvious in recent days when they were down to a fraction of capacity. Then SA had the most expensive power which I think is a telling point. But of course on this site we are preaching to the converted.

  10. Entropy

    According to the zealots, Australia will have a “carbon constrained future” not only because as it shifts to renewables we will generate less CO2, but because if we in their eyes are stupid and do not shift to renewables, our “major trading partners” will assign pariah status to Australia, and stop buying stuff from us in trade retaliation. Thus to make sure our “major trading partners” keep buying our stuff, we need to move to a carbon constrained economy.

    That our “major trading partners” mainly buy coal, iron ore, aluminium, beef, dairy and sugar, production and use of which is heavy in CO2 emissions, is lost on these numpties. I suspect the ignorant idiots are daydreaming of France and Germany when they say “major trading partners”. You know, the kind of countries that have high tariff and quota barriers to our stuff already.

    Also, explicit in all forward projection tables of future economic structure is a reduction in domestic brown and black coal consumption while black coal exports continue to grow. Hypocrites.

  11. egg_

    explicit in all forward projection tables of future economic structure is a reduction in domestic brown and black coal consumption while black coal exports continue to grow.

    Which Friedeggburger would be well aware of.

  12. Confused Old Misfit

    I am open to suggestions about making the point more clearly so people in the street can understand what we are doing to ourselves.

    My suspicion is that the people in the streets, and by this I mean the streets of the capital cities and any regional centre infected by a university population, care little for what it is doing to their country as long as they can feel virtuous about it.
    They are the cliques that believe Australia “punches above its weight” and the other nonsense about being a world leader in this, that or the other cause du jour.
    About the only way through to them is to make them feel good about themselves making energy affordable again. After all, it’s ALL about them! Isn’t it?

  13. Entropy

    egg_
    #2754588, posted on July 4, 2018 at 1:24 pm
    explicit in all forward projection tables of future economic structure is a reduction in domestic brown and black coal consumption while black coal exports continue to grow.

    Which Friedeggburger would be well aware of

    Yes, at trading nation level, the AGW thing has always, always been about economic advantage, right back to Kyoto.
    The greens in this context are just useful idiots and shock troops so that Big Government and Big Corporate can tweak the rules to either give themselves a leg up (China) or nobble their competitors (EU vs USA). Every country signs up to a different type of commitment.
    The only relevance Australia has in this context is to be a useful idiot for Europe. It is why Howard was able to easily negotiate an actual increase in emissions to 108% on 1990 emissions for Kyoto, and of course 1990 was chosen as the base year (rather than you would think, the agreement date) as it meant the Europeans had to do nothing while looking virtuous to the poorly informed, as that was the time all the dirty Eastern European industries were shut down.

  14. Roger

    A question for Josh Frydenberg. How come Australia has to have a “carbon constrained future”?

    Josh is busy saving the environment.

    A. Because we’re governed by gullible idiots with a cultural cringe towards “the international community” (which doesn’t exist; there are only national interests and political-military alliances) who can’t bear to be seen as sticks in the mud by U.N. apparatchiks and may, indeed, be angling for a job as such after their illustrious political careers in Oz are over.

  15. Speedbox

    Just had a look at the Data Dashboard. Wind and other is still around the 2.8GW area. Prices are low at around $45.

    But, so what? It’s winter and you would expect higher winds at this time of year. And, as Genghis points out, that is still only 60% of the plated capacity. Most of the time when I look at the Data Dashboard, the Wind and other category is <1GW (or <20% of plated capacity) which would appear to be pretty crappy bang for your buck considering how much money has been sunk into this nonsense.

    What a farce. Is there no 'Trump-like' politician willing/able to lead this country out of this mess? No? Ok, then we are f*cked.

  16. Mother Lode

    care little for what it is doing to their country as long as they can feel virtuous about it.

    I suspect a lot of people have little grasp as to how blackouts will effect them, even if they stop for a moment and consider they might happen.

    They likely believe that the government will swiftly do something if any real problems occur.

  17. Roger

    They likely believe that the government will swiftly do something if any real problems occur.

    Abracadabra: A new coal fired power station or three!

    They are going to be sorely disappointed…and then very angry, when irregularity and shortage of supply
    impinges upon their lifestyles.

  18. RobK

    Consider also maintenance and lifespan of wind vs baseload (coal or nukes). The former is perched around a 100m off the ground, spread over the countryside far and wide, subjected to wind, lightning, heat and the blades are subject to stresses of gravity, down then up, a wobble past the tower. Higher wind speed at the top, moderate wind speed at the bottom (and a hundred metres of cantilevered blade has to yaw to follow the breeze)…stresses all round; bearing life design 20years, all going well. High prices or subsidies required.
    Compared to baseload: an enclosed dedicated facility housing gigawatts of capacity. Service personnel on site, specialised equipment onsite, scheduled maintenance in all conditions for machines that can output at better than 80% for 50+years. The basis for a predictable business model (other than government sabotage).

  19. Mother Lode

    Abracadabra: A new coal fired power station or three!

    Persactly.

    It has been sold as easy virtue., and conspicuous virtue that the rest of the world will be watching.

    It has never been sold as something with actual consequence based on logic, so no one draws the connections.

  20. Confused Old Misfit

    It has been sold as easy virtue., and conspicuous virtue that the rest of the world will be watching.

    But the rest of the world is NOT watching.
    It is like what is seen of Canada in Australia. Only the disaster of Ontario’s energy policies and Trudeau’s Indian trip make the news here (and usually via an English channel rather than an Australian) none of the Canadian virtues are extolled in TEH Australian editorial utterances.
    The largest, most free and vibrant economy in the world is in the process of rejecting the criminal carbon calumny and the so called “science” promulgated by the rent-seekers.

  21. Rafe Champion

    You would think the South Australians know better now.
    Or do they have short memories?
    Also they have been deindustrializing which helps to save on power.

  22. RobK

    Also they have been deindustrializing which helps to save on power.

    Just a form of long term load shedding whilst the coal based RET contributions pour in from out-of-state (in the SA case).
    How are they going to replace all this stuff once coal has atrophied. The parasite will kill the host. This is not a good plan. The cost will be high.

  23. Speedbox

    Abracadabra: A new coal fired power station or three!

    I mentioned in another post a few days ago that I think a Federal Government will be compelled to build 3-4 traditional power stations (whether coal or gas fired) within the next decade along the eastern seaboard.

    Realistically, they should be built well before that time but assorted political groups will bring pressure to bear and the decision will be deferred as long as possible. Only when the situation is critical and rolling brown-outs occur across the eastern states will ‘the public’ demand action.

    By the way, prepare for a deluge of advertisement and promotion of domestic and small business rooftop solar systems. An increased take up of these systems is critical to the overall plan.

  24. Confused Old Misfit

    You would think the South Australians know better now.

    You would indeed! But consider Adelaide: highly labourite northern suburbs; highly university infected southern suburbs; highly “elite”, doctors wives, horse hobbyist infested eastern suburbs; yachties and beach dwelling hedonists on the fringe of the western suburbs. All of these still follow the 97% of all scientists say dictum
    There aren’t enough people outside Adelaide to make enough difference. And the politicians, on all sides, are drawn from these swamps.
    Having the example of South Australia before them you would think that the people of Victoria would also know better. But do they?
    Ditto for New South Wales and Queensland.
    Hell, when you look at it this way you have to think “What if we’re wrong?”
    But I can”t see it working out well unless there is a Trump hiding somewhere in the Australian woodwork.

  25. RobK

    The parasite will kill the host. 
    I should have said:” the parasite is designed to kill the host.”

  26. Louis Hissink

    Given we are carbon based life forms, how long will it be before excess carbon consumers will need to be factored in mitigation efforts to ensure a carbon constrained future?

    This is not going to end well.

  27. Myrddin Seren

    Louis

    Given we are carbon based life forms, how long will it be before excess carbon consumers will need to be factored in mitigation efforts to ensure a carbon constrained future?

    Can’t remember where, but I saw a stack of quotes the other day from various Catastrapharians pushing the ‘urgent depopulation’ thing.

    A ready example is here:

    …in 1971—three years after writing The Population Bomb—Ehrlich placed the limit at 500 million.

    The trouble they have is trying to achieve some sort of popular mandate or democratic consensus for a mass cull. I am sure busy minds are working on the issue though.

  28. Boambee John

    Myrddin at 1524

    Can’t remember where, but I saw a stack of quotes the other day from various Catastrapharians pushing the ‘urgent depopulation’ thing.

    Strangely, the solution never seems to include reducing immigration.

  29. Entropy

    I mentioned in another post a few days ago that I think a Federal Government will be compelled to build 3-4 traditional power stations (whether coal or gas fired) within the next decade along the eastern seaboard.

    Realistically, they should be built well before that time but assorted political groups will bring pressure to bear and the decision will be deferred as long as possible. Only when the situation is critical and rolling brown-outs occur across the eastern states will ‘the public’ demand action.

    Quite so.

    In fact, when I think about it, it will be so urgent the only solution is a bank of Rickovers to power a bunch of regional cities. Think about it. Nuclear power plants that fit on the back of a truck for transport. Stick a few in, a fenced off paddock, let them operate for twenty years, then ship them back for replacement.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.