Who would have ever thought…And on the other hand…

That beavers would destroy the planet!

RE is not killing conventional power. Don Aitkin sums up the world energy projections from the BP 2020 Statistical Review of World Energy. Like the International Energy Agency BP suffers from serious RE bias and this comes through in charts that plot the % increase in installed capacity of various energy sources. The RE sources are coming off a low base, practically zero at the turn of the millennium, and so it is easy to show impressive % gains compared with the conventional sources. But in real terms the small % gains on the large base of the conventionals means that the inroads of RE are trivial even at 2050.

The end result of billions of dollars spent by taxpayers and energy consumers in Britain to advance green energy is a sick joke.

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

29 Responses to Who would have ever thought…And on the other hand…

  1. Infidel Tiger King says:

    Anyone who has met a woman knew this.

  2. Slim Cognito says:

    I’m doing the T shirts.
    “Save the Planet….. eat a Beaver”.

  3. cuckoo says:

    Those dam’ beavers!

  4. cuckoo says:

    Perennial US sports headline: Cougars beat Beavers

  5. Perplexed of Brisbane says:

    One has destroyed Prince Harry.

  6. Leo G says:

    Arctic beavers running amok, threatening poley bears?
    It seems that only the other day beavers were “a critical landscape scale force of nature and a resource in combatting global warming“.

  7. Baa Humbug says:

    So a new lake is formed which degrades ice-rich permafrost in the basin

    This is the give away that these “scientigrifters” are garden variety environazis.
    Us dumb common peeps know life doesn’t much like ice, therefore less ice the better.

    Now we await the publishing of the myriad “The Permafrost Is Melting, We’re All Gunna Die From Metane Release” papers co-authored by at least 6 “scientigrifters” per paper.
    The two questions they won’t answer is “How did the Fucking Methane get there?” and “Did you ever fart in a jar and leave it out in the sun for a couple of hours?”

  8. RobK says:

    Ok, only because one has posted it in a while:

  9. RobK says:

    Third time lucky
    Nice beaver

  10. PaulW says:

    maybe if we put them on the murray darling we won’t need a bradfield scheme, they will increase the amount of water in the system by themselves

  11. Lee says:

    “Imported electricity” (10% in UK) is obviously not an option here, and nuclear (6% in UK) has been ruled out in Australia.
    So for RE promoters and carpetbaggers to compare Australia with Europe and the U.S. is disingenuous to say the least and fraudulent.

  12. Lee says:

    Sorry, “imported electricity” (1% in UK) …

  13. Astatine Jones says:

    So a new lake is formed which degrades ice-rich permafrost in the basin

    This is the give away that these “scientigrifters” are garden variety environazis.
    Us dumb common peeps know life doesn’t much like ice, therefore less ice the better.

    Are you serious?
    No, it’s a just giveaway that:
    (1) You no understanding how polar ecosystems function (you know, the ones in the Arctic and the Antarctic where the living things you find there have evolved to live with ice);
    (2) You can only respond to an environmental science paper with a reflexive ‘left-wing commie environazi on-the gravy-train worthless bullshit’ because you don’t have any understanding how Science works generally.

  14. Rafe Champion says:

    Thanks Astatine. Our colleague Jamal has a more nuanced rejoinder that I will post later if he does not get in first.

  15. Astatine Jones says:

    Just pointing out the intrinsic objectivity behind most scientific studies, that’s all, regardless of subject matter or subsequent interpretation down the line.
    Wish I could type properly though…

  16. RobK says:


    “you know, the ones in the Arctic and the Antarctic where the living things you find there have evolved to live with ice”

    Implicit in your response is acknowledgement that those ecosystems have always been dynamic. Lacking in any of the reports is evidence of anthropogenic culpability or proof that it is a negative for the biosphere generally.
    A static ecosystem, is likely a myth and unlikely to be a stable or healthy thing for diversity of life.

  17. Bronson says:

    What was the range of beavers before trapping? Might this not just represent the recovery of the beaver population to pre-trapping levels? Also what is the situation with beaver predators are they declining or increasing in numbers. It’s not a very adequate paper if they don’t address these basic questions.

  18. Rafe Champion says:

    A critical appraisal of the evidence for increasing release of methane from permafrost.

    Conclusion. It is noteworthy that the authors were able to detect a large release of N2O from thawing permafrost in the North Slope of Alaska but their further interpretation of the data in terms catastrophic runaway positive feedback warming due to the extreme GHG effect of N2O is not evident in the data.

    With a survey of relevant literature for people who are seriously interested.

  19. Herodotus says:

    Yes, respect the science, when and if you see any.

  20. Alex says:

    10% is Biofuel, i.e. wood chips from the US. And they prefer this to coal!? Crazy. Enjoyed the Leslie Neilson video clip, they just don’t make them like that any more! The clip not the beaver.

  21. Nob says:

    BP, like all big oil companies, gives prominence to its renewable activities.

    This is not just virtue signalling – they have to “buy indulgences” as it were in order to keep operating, especially in rich western countries who indulge in “social licensing”, whether they call it that or not. Like “net zero” etc, it means chucking zillions of cash into the RE trough and employing loads of unproductive people.

    Of course, close to 100% of their revenue comes from oil & gas, enough to support all this corporate welfare.

    Oil & gas can thrive without RE, but RE cannot even survive, let alone thrive, without oil & gas.

    But the media is blinded by wishful thinking and lack of applied industry/engineering/economic knowledge , so they continue to mislead the public that wind and solar are viable solutions to the Problem they have created for themselves.

    I wish I could say they were maliciously lying, but really they are not even that intelligent.

  22. Nob says:

    By the way, wind and solar’s contribution in the UK is not because it’s cheaper, or technically better, than the alternatives, but because it’s legally required for the grid to prioritise it.

    The gas and nuclear and hydro and woodchip will still be required for baseload and dispatchable power no matter how many turbines you erect, and their overall contributions would be greater if they were not deliberately held back by law in order to favour wind and solar (when its able to contribute).

  23. Astatine Jones says:

    I agree with you Rob K. The polar environments, like all on the planet, are dynamic and change over time. Antarctica was tropical 50+ million years in the past and had more ice than today 10000 years ago.

    And you are correct in that there is nothing in the paper concerned directly with anthropogenic climate change or signalling a motivation to control beavers because of any environmental damage they might cause. The paper is basically about how permafrost thawing is opening up new habitat for beavers (hence advantageous to them) and how (because they build dams) this has led to an increase in surface water. This in turn has a positive feedback effect on permafrost thawing. So in essence we need to consider this in any evaluation of permafrost change in the Arctic – from what the authors have found, beavers can be a significant determinant.

    This is simply an example of basic science: hypothesis, observation, analysis of data, interpretation of results. Nothing to do with the authors’ political persuasions, religious beliefs, musical taste, sexual orientation, whether they prefer pulp fiction or historical novels, whatever. Likely they’re just really interested in Arctic tundra and beavers. Nothing even obviously related to their position on climate change, despite what some are quick to conclude.

    When scientific studies are knee-jerk embraced/dismissed as supporting one agenda or another without even a cursory objective, dispassionate assessment of what they’re about and how they’ve been undertaken, then we may as well give all of science away and go back to consulting the tea leaves for answers.

  24. chaamjamal says:

    “BP 2020 Statistical Review of World Energy. Like the International Energy Agency BP suffers from serious RE bias”

    Or maybe it’s just marketing.


Comments are closed.