wattsupwiththat--2020-04-18--Futurist: Oil Industry Doomed by ChiCom-19 Because Climate Change…

Guest “ I couldn ’ t make this sort of schist up if I was trying ” by David Middleton Apr 5 , 2020,07:06pm EDT After COVID-19 , The Oil Industry Will Not Return To “ Normal ” The coronavirus pandemic has shuttered the world ’ s economies , overwhelmed healthcare systems and taken loved ones from us .
Politicians have promised their citizens a “ return to normal ” following the pandemic .
However understandable , this longing for “ normal ” will lead us to a mirage .
Worse , our recovery from COVID-19 could be a short-lived @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a “ normal ” economy again .
Normal created a climate change timebomb that may make the economic consequences of coronavirus look mild by comparison .
Normal would give two brutal dictators the power to topple North America ’ s fossil fuel industry whenever they feel like it .
Normal also caused the mass destruction of ecosystems , human desperation for animal protein and increased human-wildlife contact .
Combined , these factors led to Ebola , Hanta , bird flu , SARS , MERS and now COVID-19 to find a new , more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spending around the world has already eclipsed the 2009 recovery measures and “ New Deal ” programs of the 1930s .
And more spending is inevitable .
Will your taxpayer money be wasted on a return to normal ?
Or , could it be used to… Let ’ s not misuse taxpayer money to rebuild an economy that survives COVID-19 and then succumbs to climate change .
Instead , let ’ s create a future economy with good jobs , a habitable earth and reprieve from the whims of erratic dictators .
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And we can do much , much better than normal if we refuse to waste this crisis .
I called this dude a “ futurist ” because I couldn ’ t figure out what he was… For more than 30 years , I have devoted my career to sourcing , investing in and helping to commercialise breakthrough innovations for energy intensive industries .
During this time , I have gained unique industry insights and deep operational experience as a venture capitalist , corporate executive , international consultant and university professor .
For the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been President & CEO at Chrysalix Venture Capital , an award-winning VC firm focused on innovation , sustainability and cleantech , where I have helped raise more than $ 250M and participated in more than $ 1B in venture capital funding .
Our investments include breakthrough technologies like 3D printing of steel , fast charging electric vehicle infrastructure , emissions-free solar steam , smart mining and nuclear fusion .
Before officially joining the corporate world , I spent several years as an Associate Professor at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam , where I obtained @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the World Bank and European Union .
This has to be the single dumbest sentence ever written by a human being : It ’ s as if the Bozo is saying , “ Don ’ t save the economy from ChiCom-19 , because we have to save it from the weather.
” The title of the article was : “ Normal ” is boom & bust .
Low prices eventually cause high prices and high prices eventually cause low prices .
This is as close as he got to actually discussing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up my Jeep the other day for the first time in three weeks , and paid $ 1.19/gal ( with my $ 0.20/gal Albertsons/Safeway/Randalls/ Tom Thumb discount ) .
I normally fill it up twice a week .
When the ChiCom-19 hostage crisis ends , demand will not continue to decrease ; nor will “ low-cost renewables ” push any sort of transition , much less an energy transition… If for no other reason than the fact that there has never been an energy transition – We convert more biomass into energy now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ using fossil fuels .
The ChiCom-19 hostage crisis has caused demand for crude oil to drop by 20-30 % .
This has caused about a 50 % drop in the price of crude oil .
At $ 20/bbl a lot of producing oil fields become uneconomic .
Guess what happens when a producing oil well can no longer cover its own lifting costs ?
Wells get shut in .
Legacy oil & gas production has dropped rather sharply in every tight/ ” shale ” play in the Lower 48 .
The drop has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Production from new wells was still up , but will soon begin to decline .
The legacy production drop in the Permian Basin was so steep that overall production dropped for the first time in a long time .
How long will demand be suppressed ?
It depends on how long the Fire Marshal Gumps of the world keep us under house arrest .
This is the EIA ’ s latest forecast ( which has to be better than a futurist waving his arms ) … Global production will probably dip more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s anyone ’ s guess as to how quickly the over-supply will be worked off .
If oil prices track the current futures market and STEO forecast , the industry will still be in “ bust ” mode through at least next year .
“ Shale ” players , particularly the smaller ones will be filing for bankruptcy at a record pace .
If oil prices track a little above that , $ 50-60/bbl , the industry will be back to “ normal ” ( somewhere between boom & bust ) .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the confidence interval , the industry will be in “ boom ” mode ( as opitmisic as I am , I don ’ t see how this can happen in the 2020-2021 time period ) .
If prices , track the lower bound of the confidence interval , we will be in a deep “ bust ” mode… Many , if not most oil companies , particularly independents , “ hedge ” a significant percentage of their production .
They effectively sell the oil in advance at a fixed price .
Some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ production hedged .
This buys time for most companies to lower their spending to the point that they can be cash flow-positive at $ 30/bbl .
If oil prices evolve along the lines of current futures contracts , the oil industry will , indeed , return to “ normal.
” Apparently “ futurists ” are clueless about what ’ s “ normal ” for the oil industry , Day Whatever of America Held Hostage by ChiCom-19 I ’ ve lost track of what day of the week it is , so , keeping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crisis it is seems pointless .
Fire Marshal Gump was at it again yesterday .
Gump needs to look at his own fracking data : Thankfully , it appears that the Dallas County Commissioners Court has slapped Gump down again… Just a couple of weeks ago , Gump ( Jenkins ) made a YUGE production of shutting down Hobby Lobby and other craft stores .

Guest “I couldn’t make this sort of schist up if I was trying” by David Middleton
Apr 5, 2020,07:06pm EDT
After COVID-19, The Oil Industry Will Not Return To “Normal” Wal van Lierop Contributor
Energy The coronavirus pandemic has shuttered the world’s economies, overwhelmed healthcare systems and taken loved ones from us. Politicians have promised their citizens a “return to normal” following the pandemic. However understandable, this longing for “normal” will lead us to a mirage. Worse, our recovery from COVID-19 could be a short-lived victory if we aspire only to have a “normal” economy again. Normal created a climate change timebomb that may make the economic consequences of coronavirus look mild by comparison. Normal would give two brutal dictators the power to topple North America’s fossil fuel industry whenever they feel like it. Normal also caused the mass destruction of ecosystems, human desperation for animal protein and increased human-wildlife contact. Combined, these factors led to Ebola, Hanta, bird flu, SARS, MERS and now COVID-19 to find a new, more plentiful host in human beings. Stimulus spending around the world has already eclipsed the 2009 recovery measures and “New Deal” programs of the 1930s. And more spending is inevitable. Will your taxpayer money be wasted on a return to normal? Or, could it be used to… […] Let’s not misuse taxpayer money to rebuild an economy that survives COVID-19 and then succumbs to climate change. Instead, let’s create a future economy with good jobs, a habitable earth and reprieve from the whims of erratic dictators. There is no path back to normal. And we can do much, much better than normal if we refuse to waste this crisis. Forbes
I called this dude a “futurist” because I couldn’t figure out what he was…
For more than 30 years, I have devoted my career to sourcing, investing in and helping to commercialise breakthrough innovations for energy intensive industries. During this time, I have gained unique industry insights and deep operational experience as a venture capitalist, corporate executive, international consultant and university professor. For the past nearly 20 years, I have been President & CEO at Chrysalix Venture Capital, an award-winning VC firm focused on innovation, sustainability and cleantech, where I have helped raise more than $250M and participated in more than $1B in venture capital funding. Our investments include breakthrough technologies like 3D printing of steel, fast charging electric vehicle infrastructure, emissions-free solar steam, smart mining and nuclear fusion. Before officially joining the corporate world, I spent several years as an Associate Professor at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, where I obtained a PhD in Economics, and consulting to the World Bank and European Union. Forbes
This has to be the single dumbest sentence ever written by a human being:
Let’s not misuse taxpayer money to rebuild an economy that survives COVID-19 and then succumbs to climate change.
It’s as if the Bozo is saying, “Don’t save the economy from ChiCom-19, because we have to save it from the weather.”
The title of the article was:
After COVID-19, The Oil Industry Will Not Return To “Normal”
“Normal” is boom & bust. Low prices eventually cause high prices and high prices eventually cause low prices.
This is as close as he got to actually discussing the “oil industry”…
There is no return to normal for the shale and oil sands producers. From now on, the fate of the oil industry is tied to the whims of two egomaniacal autocrats. Demand will continue to decrease as low-cost renewables keep pushing the energy transition.
I filled up my Jeep the other day for the first time in three weeks, and paid $1.19/gal (with my $0.20/gal Albertsons/Safeway/Randalls/ Tom Thumb discount). I normally fill it up twice a week. When the ChiCom-19 hostage crisis ends, demand will not continue to decrease; nor will “low-cost renewables” push any sort of transition, much less an energy transition… If for no other reason than the fact that there has never been an energy transition – We convert more biomass into energy now, than we did before we started using fossil fuels.
The ChiCom-19 hostage crisis has caused demand for crude oil to drop by 20-30%. This has caused about a 50% drop in the price of crude oil. At $20/bbl a lot of producing oil fields become uneconomic. Guess what happens when a producing oil well can no longer cover its own lifting costs? Wells get shut in.
Figure 1. Permian Basin legacy oil & gas production (April Drilling Productivity Report, EIA)
Legacy oil & gas production has dropped rather sharply in every tight/”shale” play in the Lower 48. The drop has been particularly steep in the Permian Basin. Production from new wells was still up, but will soon begin to decline. The legacy production drop in the Permian Basin was so steep that overall production dropped for the first time in a long time.
Figure 2. Permian Basin oil & gas production (April Drilling Productivity Report, EIA)
How long will demand be suppressed? It depends on how long the Fire Marshal Gumps of the world keep us under house arrest. This is the EIA’s latest forecast (which has to be better than a futurist waving his arms)…
Global production will probably dip more the the EIA forecast, but it’s anyone’s guess as to how quickly the over-supply will be worked off.
Figure 4. WTI oil prices, futures and STEO. EIA
If oil prices track the current futures market and STEO forecast, the industry will still be in “bust” mode through at least next year. “Shale” players, particularly the smaller ones will be filing for bankruptcy at a record pace. If oil prices track a little above that, $50-60/bbl, the industry will be back to “normal” (somewhere between boom & bust). If prices move toward the upper bound of the confidence interval, the industry will be in “boom” mode (as opitmisic as I am, I don’t see how this can happen in the 2020-2021 time period). If prices, track the lower bound of the confidence interval, we will be in a deep “bust” mode…
Figure 5. The price of oil required to “keep the lights on”. EIA
Many, if not most oil companies, particularly independents, “hedge” a significant percentage of their production. They effectively sell the oil in advance at a fixed price.
McConn and his team at Enverus and RS Energy Group Intelligence estimated there is 2.5 million barrels per day of aggregate 2020 oil-hedge volumes among public traded North American exploration and production companies at an effective hedge price above $50 West Texas intermediate. Their analysis estimates most oil-weighted E&P companies have hedged between 25 and 90 percent of their anticipated production for the year. They estimate the value of these financial-derivative assets exceeds 10 percent of respective enterprise values for the majority of E&P companies. Midland Reporter-Telegram
Some companies even have a portion of 2021 production hedged. This buys time for most companies to lower their spending to the point that they can be cash flow-positive at $30/bbl. If oil prices evolve along the lines of current futures contracts, the oil industry will, indeed, return to “normal.” Apparently “futurists” are clueless about what’s “normal” for the oil industry,
Day Whatever of America Held Hostage by ChiCom-19
I’ve lost track of what day of the week it is, so, keeping up with what day of the hostage crisis it is seems pointless.
Fire Marshal Gump was at it again yesterday.
“Dallas County Judge Clay Jenkins displays an improvised cloth face mask made with a bandana and hair ties as he addresses members of the media regarding the new coronavirus pandemic on Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at the Dallas County Emergency Operations Center in Dallas.(Ryan Michalesko / Staff Photographer)”
Dallas County to require people to wear masks at essential businesses, on public transportation
An upset Price says Jenkins didn’t consult fellow commissioners on the plan. Meanwhile, the county also reports seven more coronavirus-related deaths. People in Dallas County will soon be required to wear face coverings when they work or shop at essential businesses and use public transit. The mandate goes into effect at 11:59 p.m. Friday, County Judge Clay Jenkins announced Thursday. […] Dallas Morning News
Gump needs to look at his own fracking data:
4/17/2020 Dallas County CHICOM-19 Population Cases Deaths 2,637,772 2,190 55 2.5% % of population with 0.08% 0.00% % with, rounded 0.1% 0.0% % without 99.92% 100.0% % without, rounded 99.9% 100% Menodoza Line (.200) 5/31/2035 0.200
Thankfully, it appears that the Dallas County Commissioners Court has slapped Gump down again…
Dallas County commissioners vote to scale back countywide mask order, reopen craft stores
The 3-2 vote was made to give county residents access to mask-making materials. Dallas County commissioners voted Friday to reopen craft stores and partially scale back an order requiring residents to wear masks in public. County Judge Clay Jenkins issued the order Thursday that requires county residents to wear face coverings when working, riding public transit and running essential errands, effective at 11:59 p.m. Friday. […] Dallas Morning News
Just a couple of weeks ago, Gump (Jenkins) made a YUGE production of shutting down Hobby Lobby and other craft stores.
0 0 votes Article Rating
Share this: Print
Email
Facebook
Twitter
GETTR
Telegram
Like this: Like Loading...


wattsupwiththat--2020-04-17--Covid-19 Farce: Democrats Hint at New Impeachment Proceedings Over President Trump’s WHO Funding Sto

Covid-19 Farce: Democrats Hint at New Impeachment Proceedings Over President Trump’s WHO Funding Stop

US Democrats are incensed that President Trump is blocking US funds for the incompetent UN World Health Organisation .
Trump ’ s WHO funding threat echoes action that got him impeached , Democrats say President Donald Trump ’ s first step toward pulling World Health Organization funding during the coronavirus pandemic has set the stage for another legal tug of war with House Democrats wary of him treading on their power .
“ This decision is dangerous , illegal and will be swiftly challenged , ” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a statement Wednesday .
The party also raised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s decision to withhold congressionally-approved military aid to Ukraine last year as Trump urged the country to investigate his political rival , apparent Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden .
The action led to the House impeaching Trump .
The Senate acquitted him in February .
“ In a desperate attempt to deflect blame , President Trump is violating the same spending laws that brought about his impeachment , ” House Appropriations Committee spokesman Evan Hollander said in a statement .
“ The President does not have the unilateral authority to withhold the United @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Health Organization.
” Reading the Impoundment entry on Wikipedia , it seems likely President Trump can only delay funding for the WHO for 45 days – a longer delay requires approval by both houses .
Presidents used to have the power to unilaterally cancel wasteful expenditure .
The power was first used by President Thomas Jefferson to veto the expenditure of $ 50,000 on gunboats .
The Presidential power to permanently veto funding was removed under President Nixon in 1974 ; the Democrat Congress was incensed that Nixon kept using the impoundment power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and used the Watergate scandal to pressure Nixon into approving the restriction of Presidential authority to withhold funds .
A few years later US National Debt started ballooning ( see image at the top of the page ) .
President Clinton attempted to introduce a similar power , a line item veto , but quickly lost that power when the line item veto act was challenged and overturned in the courts .

US National Debt as a Percentage of GDP. Source FRED. The grey shaded areas are economic recessions. US National Debt hit a low point in the 1970s after repayment of public debts incurred in WW2
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
US Democrats are incensed that President Trump is blocking US funds for the incompetent UN World Health Organisation.
Trump’s WHO funding threat echoes action that got him impeached, Democrats say PUBLISHED WED, APR 15 20203:50 PM EDTUPDATED WED, APR 15 20204:00 PM EDT … President Donald Trump’s first step toward pulling World Health Organization funding during the coronavirus pandemic has set the stage for another legal tug of war with House Democrats wary of him treading on their power. … “This decision is dangerous, illegal and will be swiftly challenged,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a statement Wednesday. The party also raised the specter of the White House’s decision to withhold congressionally-approved military aid to Ukraine last year as Trump urged the country to investigate his political rival, apparent Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden. The action led to the House impeaching Trump. The Senate acquitted him in February. “In a desperate attempt to deflect blame, President Trump is violating the same spending laws that brought about his impeachment,” House Appropriations Committee spokesman Evan Hollander said in a statement. “The President does not have the unilateral authority to withhold the United States’ assessed contribution to the World Health Organization.” … Read more: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/15/coronavirus-democrats-warn-trump-on-world-health-organization-funding.html
Reading the Impoundment entry on Wikipedia, it seems likely President Trump can only delay funding for the WHO for 45 days – a longer delay requires approval by both houses.
Presidents used to have the power to unilaterally cancel wasteful expenditure. The power was first used by President Thomas Jefferson to veto the expenditure of $50,000 on gunboats.
The Presidential power to permanently veto funding was removed under President Nixon in 1974; the Democrat Congress was incensed that Nixon kept using the impoundment power to withdraw funding from their bills, and used the Watergate scandal to pressure Nixon into approving the restriction of Presidential authority to withhold funds.
A few years later US National Debt started ballooning (see image at the top of the page).
President Clinton attempted to introduce a similar power, a line item veto, but quickly lost that power when the line item veto act was challenged and overturned in the courts.
0 0 votes Article Rating
Share this: Print
Email
Facebook
Twitter
GETTR
Telegram
Like this: Like Loading...


wattsupwiththat--2020-04-17--More Than 400 News Outlets Partner With A Project Seeking Media To Beef Up Climate Coverage Amid Pan

More Than 400 News Outlets Partner With A Project Seeking Media To Beef Up Climate Coverage Amid Pandemic

• A project co-founded by the Columbia Journalism Review is asking hundreds of news outlets to focus their reporting on climate change on Earth Day as journalists focus primarily on coronavirus coverage .
• The journalist heading the effort believes the media should be devoting the same level of attention to global warming as they do to a virus that has killed more than 100,000 people worldwide .
• Energy analysts and critics told the Daily Caller News Foundation that the project ’ s founders are “ disconnected ” from reality and are focusing on a vague problem while Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and keep their jobs.
” Hundreds of media outlets , including Reuters , are partnering with a project seeking to devote a week of coverage to climate change amid a pandemic that has killed more than 140,00 people worldwide .
The founders behind Covering Climate Now are asking their network of more than 400 media outlets to blanket the airwaves with stories about climate change during the week of Earth Day .
Reuters , Bloomberg News , and The Daily Beast are among the biggest names listed as partners of the project .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , announced the event on Feb. 5 , before local and state governments began mitigation efforts to halt the spread of the pandemic .
One of the project ’ s founding groups , the Columbia Journalism Review , represents professional journalists and focuses primarily on journalism ethics .
Covering Climate Now ’ s partners published a deluge of climate-related news in September 2019 ahead of the U.N .
Climate Action Summit , held Sept. 15-23 .
It is now asking its media partners to renew their efforts , moving from discussing climate change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effort is slated to happen April 19-26 and is soliciting coverage addressing solutions such as putting “ a price on carbon ” and halting “ fossil fuel subsidies , as well as political actions to advance such policies , ” Covering Climate Now notes on its event page .
The project ’ s co-founder , Mark Hertsgaard , has said news outlets should be devoting the same amount of time to climate change as they do COVID-19 .
The disease , which is caused by the novel coronavirus , originated in China before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States , where it has killed more than 25,000 people .
“ Stories on other subjects have all but disappeared , and some newsrooms have halted production on non-coronavirus stories altogether , ” Hertsgaard wrote in a March 25 blog post contrasting how the news outlets cover climate change with how they treat a pandemic .
Hertsgaard goes on to lament the gap he sees between coverage of coronavirus and climate change .
( RELATED : Exclusive : Inside The Media Conspiracy To Hype Greta Thunberg ) “ While this is understandable given @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Hertsgaard notes , “ it is bizarre that the climate crisis has never been accorded comparable importance , even though it too stands to upend , impoverish , and even end the lives of countless people the world over.
” Hertsgaard has not responded to the Daily Caller News Foundation ’ s repeated requests for comment about the Covering Climate Now project .
He told CJR editor and publisher , Kyle Pope , in September 2019 that the project “ has an aroma ” of “ activism ” in the minds of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The New York Times , and The Wall Street Journal have not responded to the DCNF ’ s request for comment explaining why they are not taking part in Covering Climate Now .
( RELATED : Exclusive : Inside The Media Conspiracy To Hype Greta Thunberg ) Hertsgaard told Pope that he ’ s trying to change that perception .
There were roughly 200 outlets involved in the partnership last September when Covering Climate Now was requesting reporters blanket news coverage with climate stories .
The project has since approximately doubled .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ access to a selection of Reuters new and existing climate coverage free of charge allows other members to make the issue more accessible to their audiences , should they choose , ” Reuters spokeswoman Deepal Patadia told TheDCNF .
Patadia did not address to what degree Reuters would should be shifting their focus away from the pandemic .
Reuters joined the project in December 2019 , less than three months after Covering Climate Now ’ s initial climate coverage kicked off in September of that year .
Bloomberg News , The Daily Beast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ requests for comment .
Neither Bloomberg nor The Daily Beast have confirmed whether they will participate in the upcoming effort .
BuzzFeed participated in the project ’ s effort in September but chose not to be involved in next week ’ s climate coverage initiative , spokesman Matt Mittenthal told the DCNF without providing an explanation .
BuzzFeed is still listed among Covering Climate Now ’ s partners .
Energy analysts and other critics , meanwhile , believe Hertsgaard , Covering Climate Now , and others involved in the project , are disconnected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a disconnect with what ’ s happening in the real world .
People are doing the best to flatten the curve , and they ’ re wringing their hands over climate change , ” American Energy Alliance President Tom Pyle told the DCNF .
“ There is no satisfying these people .
It ’ s an obsession.
” “ They want to cover climate change when people are trying to stay alive during a pandemic and keep their jobs or find a new one to provide for their families , ” he added @ @ @ @ @ @ @ focus their attention on the virus rather than a vague concern about a climate crisis , Pyle noted .
Efforts to mitigate coronavirus have all but left the economy in tatters , with more than 20 million people having filed for unemployment since officials began issuing orders for citizens to shelter in place .
Media outlets are focusing the bulk of their resources on reporting out the twists and turns as the virus continues spreading .
Advocacy-style journalism is the new in-thing , according to David Blackmon , an independent consultant and analyst @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the energy industry .
“ I don ’ t think that anyone would object to any of it if they were upfront about their agenda , ” he told the DCNF in November 2019 , regarding Covering Climate Now ’ s first effort .
“ There ’ s no effort to properly identify agenda-driven pieces .
“ They are backed up with factual information , but it usually tells just half the story .
It ’ s become the norm , ” he added .
( RELATED : UN ’ s New Report @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ For A Favorite Claim Of Climate Activists ) Blackmon , a Forbes contributor , noted that much of the reporting is one-sided and focuses exclusively on one narrative : Climate change must be stopped at any cost .
Such reporting rarely gives coverage to the economic consequences of climate activists ’ preferred policies , he noted at the time .

From The Daily Caller
Chris White Tech Reporter April 16, 2020 8:41 PM ET
A project co-founded by the Columbia Journalism Review is asking hundreds of news outlets to focus their reporting on climate change on Earth Day as journalists focus primarily on coronavirus coverage.
The journalist heading the effort believes the media should be devoting the same level of attention to global warming as they do to a virus that has killed more than 100,000 people worldwide.
Energy analysts and critics told the Daily Caller News Foundation that the project’s founders are “disconnected” from reality and are focusing on a vague problem while Americans are trying to “stay alive” and keep their jobs.”
Hundreds of media outlets, including Reuters, are partnering with a project seeking to devote a week of coverage to climate change amid a pandemic that has killed more than 140,00 people worldwide.
The founders behind Covering Climate Now are asking their network of more than 400 media outlets to blanket the airwaves with stories about climate change during the week of Earth Day. Reuters, Bloomberg News, and The Daily Beast are among the biggest names listed as partners of the project.
Covering Climate Now, founded in 2019, announced the event on Feb. 5, before local and state governments began mitigation efforts to halt the spread of the pandemic. One of the project’s founding groups, the Columbia Journalism Review, represents professional journalists and focuses primarily on journalism ethics.
Covering Climate Now’s partners published a deluge of climate-related news in September 2019 ahead of the U.N. Climate Action Summit, held Sept. 15-23. It is now asking its media partners to renew their efforts, moving from discussing climate change to tackling potential solutions.
The latest effort is slated to happen April 19-26 and is soliciting coverage addressing solutions such as putting “a price on carbon” and halting “fossil fuel subsidies, as well as political actions to advance such policies,” Covering Climate Now notes on its event page.
The project’s co-founder, Mark Hertsgaard, has said news outlets should be devoting the same amount of time to climate change as they do COVID-19. The disease, which is caused by the novel coronavirus, originated in China before landing on the shores of the United States, where it has killed more than 25,000 people.
“Stories on other subjects have all but disappeared, and some newsrooms have halted production on non-coronavirus stories altogether,” Hertsgaard wrote in a March 25 blog post contrasting how the news outlets cover climate change with how they treat a pandemic.
Hertsgaard goes on to lament the gap he sees between coverage of coronavirus and climate change. (RELATED: Exclusive: Inside The Media Conspiracy To Hype Greta Thunberg)
“While this is understandable given the scope of the COVID-19 threat,” Hertsgaard notes, “it is bizarre that the climate crisis has never been accorded comparable importance, even though it too stands to upend, impoverish, and even end the lives of countless people the world over.”
Hertsgaard has not responded to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s repeated requests for comment about the Covering Climate Now project. He told CJR editor and publisher, Kyle Pope, in September 2019 that the project “has an aroma” of “activism” in the minds of many journalists.
The Washington Post, The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal have not responded to the DCNF’s request for comment explaining why they are not taking part in Covering Climate Now. (RELATED: Exclusive: Inside The Media Conspiracy To Hype Greta Thunberg)
Hertsgaard told Pope that he’s trying to change that perception. There were roughly 200 outlets involved in the partnership last September when Covering Climate Now was requesting reporters blanket news coverage with climate stories. The project has since approximately doubled.
“Partnering with Covering Climate Now to provide access to a selection of Reuters new and existing climate coverage free of charge allows other members to make the issue more accessible to their audiences, should they choose,” Reuters spokeswoman Deepal Patadia told TheDCNF.
Patadia did not address to what degree Reuters would should be shifting their focus away from the pandemic. Reuters joined the project in December 2019, less than three months after Covering Climate Now’s initial climate coverage kicked off in September of that year.
Bloomberg News, The Daily Beast, and CJR have not responded to requests for comment. Neither Bloomberg nor The Daily Beast have confirmed whether they will participate in the upcoming effort.
BuzzFeed participated in the project’s effort in September but chose not to be involved in next week’s climate coverage initiative, spokesman Matt Mittenthal told the DCNF without providing an explanation. BuzzFeed is still listed among Covering Climate Now’s partners.
Energy analysts and other critics, meanwhile, believe Hertsgaard, Covering Climate Now, and others involved in the project, are disconnected from reality.
“It’s a disconnect with what’s happening in the real world. People are doing the best to flatten the curve, and they’re wringing their hands over climate change,” American Energy Alliance President Tom Pyle told the DCNF. “There is no satisfying these people. It’s an obsession.”
“They want to cover climate change when people are trying to stay alive during a pandemic and keep their jobs or find a new one to provide for their families,” he added.
Pyle said that journalists need to focus their attention on the virus rather than a vague concern about a climate crisis, Pyle noted.
Efforts to mitigate coronavirus have all but left the economy in tatters, with more than 20 million people having filed for unemployment since officials began issuing orders for citizens to shelter in place. Media outlets are focusing the bulk of their resources on reporting out the twists and turns as the virus continues spreading.
Advocacy-style journalism is the new in-thing, according to David Blackmon, an independent consultant and analyst who has nearly 40 years experience in the energy industry.
“I don’t think that anyone would object to any of it if they were upfront about their agenda,” he told the DCNF in November 2019, regarding Covering Climate Now’s first effort. “There’s no effort to properly identify agenda-driven pieces.
“They are backed up with factual information, but it usually tells just half the story. It’s become the norm,” he added. (RELATED: UN’s New Report Shows There’s ‘Little Basis’ For A Favorite Claim Of Climate Activists)
Blackmon, a Forbes contributor, noted that much of the reporting is one-sided and focuses exclusively on one narrative: Climate change must be stopped at any cost. Such reporting rarely gives coverage to the economic consequences of climate activists’ preferred policies, he noted at the time.
0 0 votes Article Rating
Share this: Print
Email
Facebook
Twitter
GETTR
Telegram
Like this: Like Loading...


wattsupwiththat--2020-04-18--NDT, Gavin Schmidt, and more on “Star Talk”: Coronavirus and Climate Change. #coronavirus

The throbbing illogic of coronahysteria and climahypocrisy Doesn ’ t Make Sense !
As everyone knows , 300,000 people per annum are killed by climate change .
Right ?
I mean , we deny it , but deep down we all know this , right ?
The UN Global Humanitarian Forum said it back in 2009 , with a straight face , and I never heard any RealClimate-accredited scientists krush them for it , sooooo… it ’ s literally a real true fact , yeah ?
Yet nobody cares enough about that to , oh , I don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Then along comes a glorified cold that hasn ’ t even managed to kill half that many people , and NOW we finally figure that venturing out into the elements maybe isn ’ t worth the risk ?
Climate scientists must be apoplectic at all this talk of relaxing lockdown laws soon , just because the COVID-19 crisis has blown over , when you ’ re still more than twice as likely to die of climate change ( Annan , K , 2009 ) .
I for one didn ’ t really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tweet , more in anger than in political correctness , putting into words the uncharitable thought that ’ s crossed all our minds at one time or another : the sheer irresponsibility of coronavictims .
After all , every COVID admission means two people dying of climate change get kicked out of an ICU bed .
From Rome to Madrid to New York , we ’ ve already seen refrigerated dead-wagons groaning on their axles with climate casualties , lucky if they can accommodate a corona caseload on top of that .
Are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through to its trivial , terrible conclusion ?
300,000 bodies per annum have to fit somewhere .
And mortuary omnibuses aren ’ t infinitely expansible .
They have occupancy limits , for good reason .
For the safety of all on board .
I fear it may take a total cluster-frag to wake people up .
Perhaps we ’ ll finally grasp that dying of an avoidable infection is NOT a victimless crime the day an overloaded plague-cart flips and slides straight into a school-bus full of nuns on the way to wheelchair @ @ @ @ @ @ @ caked with the chilled bodies of warming victims , topped by a grisly icing of former virus patients , maybe then the public will demand tough laws against COVID19 symptoms .
In the meantime the best scientists and policymakers can do is use the same approach that ’ s been the cornerstone of climate communication : social distancing , as semioticians call it .
That means not only refusing to engage with the infected and recently disembarked ( which as Lewandowsky famously put it is not the solution but a tremendous waste of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use of ‘ othering ’ language to dehumanize and abstract them away .
Or perhaps the climate community will lead by example , refusing to leave their houses for the next few decades for any but the most unavoidable chores ( like attending tropical conferences ) .
What a powerful symbol that would be of the fact that when they make laughable claims about the dangers of AGW , they ’ re NOT , in fact , laughing on the inside like everyone assumes .

Copyright Notice
Material on this website is copyright © 2006-2022, by Anthony Watts, and may not be stored or archived separately, rebroadcast, or republished without written permission. (Miriam O’Brien aka slandering “Sou” from Hotwhopper, that means you.)
For permission, contact us. See the About>Contact menu under the header.
All rights reserved worldwide.
Some material from contributors may contain additional copyrights of their respective company or organization.


wattsupwiththat--2020-04-18--Excess costs of UK Weather Dependent Renewable Energy: 2020

These straightforward calculations are intended to answer the simple question : “ roughly how much would it cost to generate the same amount of power as is produced by the present fleet of UK Weather Dependent Renewables , using conventional generation technologies , ( Nuclear or Gas-firing ) ?
and how do those figures compare ?
” .
Accordingly the post quantifies the scale of the fiscal waste and the burdens on utility bills attributable to the use of UK Weather Dependent Renewables as in 2019 .
The approximate long-term cost commitment is ~250 £billion according to these calculations .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ UK Weather Dependent Renewables fleet amounts to about twice the annual , cost of the NHS or about 11 % of annual UK GDP .
As can be seen later these estimates show that using Weather Dependent Renewables costs about 12 times as much as using Natural Gas and about 3 times as much as Nuclear power .
The late Professor Sir David Mackay ( former chef scientific advisor of the Department of Energy and Climate Change ) in a final interview before his untimely death in 2016 said that the concept of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ UK with Weather Dependent Renewable energy was : Weather Dependent Renewable Energy depends on capturing essentially dilute and very variable sources of power .
Weather Dependent Renewables are thus both capital and maintenance expensive and inevitably unreliable .
Weather Dependent Renewables are universally more expensive than the conventional alternatives of Nuclear power or Gas-firing .
At the time he also said : “ there ’ s so much delusion , it ’ s so dangerous for humanity that people allow themselves to have such delusions , that they are willing to not think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reality of the laws of physics and the reality of engineering….humanity does need to pay attention to arithmetic and the laws of physics.
” and later in the same interview he said that : “ if it is possible to get through the winter with low CO2 Nuclear and possibly with Carbon Capture and Storage there is no point in having any Wind or Solar power in the UK generation mix ” But it seems that having bought into the assumption that Catastrophic Man-made Global Warming is an immediate and existential threat that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but devastatingly wasteful calculations assume a position of “ wilful ignorance ” , and a stance of “ don ’ t confuse me with the facts , we are saving the world “ .
There is also an irrational determination in Government that the only solution to reducing CO2 emissions is the use of Weather Dependent Renewables .
This is a fallacy : the only proven solutions to CO2 emissions reduction are the use Nuclear energy as in France and / or the use of Natural gas as in the USA , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out of hand : they do not accord with the “ Green ” religion .
Accordingly this costing model has followed through on Professor Mackay ’ s back of the envelope calculations , in the UK , showing that Weather Dependent Renewables are plainly expensive .
The excess overspend instead of using Gas-firing of the current UK generation fleet roughly amount to some 55£billion in capital costs and the long-term costs approach a further 240£billion .
In 2019 UK Weather dependent renewables generated a total of some 7.3 Gigawatts of power from an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ value of ~35 Gigawatts , thus achieving an overall productivity factor for Weather Dependent Renewables of ~20.9 % .
The graphic below shows the effect of combining the capital and long-term costs of the various generation technologies with their productivity factors as achieved in the UK in 2019 .
The model of comparative costs uses data from the US Energy Information Administration , ( EIA ) , updated 2020 and translated to GB Pounds , see later .
Productivity / Capacity percentage is the performance measure for generation technologies , it consists of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power rating .
The most useful comparison is to assess the costs in £Billion/Gigawatt of power produced accounting for Productivity , the comparison as shown below : All traditional dispatchable power generation technologies are all capable of Productivity of up to 90 % , only having to be curtailed by routine maintenance , whereas Weather Dependent Renewables when in combination over the year only return ~21 % of their Name Plate rating .
The resulting comparative costs of Weather Dependent Renewables are shown below .
According to these estimates overall the 2019 UK @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in overnight capital costs or ~8.5£billion/Gigawatt generated with a future commitment of some ~260£billion or ~35£billion/Gigawatt produced long-term .
Conventional power generation , ( Nuclear and Gas-firing ) is more than competitive with Renewable costs with capital costs of ~5.5£billion/Gigawatt for Nuclear or less than 1£billion/Gigawatt for Gas-firing , as above .
Because of the comparative costs and productivity factors Offshore wind is certainly the most expensive to install at ~33£Billion to date and likely further ongoing costs of ~150£billion or ~52£billion/Gigawatt produced .
Current Solar PV cost ~13£billion to install and a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ~42£billion/Gigawatt produced .
UK on grid solar installations virtually ceased in 2019 .
The installed UK Weather Dependent Renewables fleet of ~35Gigawatts , were it fully productive , would have often matched UK demand , however the limited average Renewables productivity factor of ~20 % means that the Renewables fleet only managed to unreliably generate about a fifth of that UK requirement , and that output was often uncoordinated with demand .
This post shows clearly the likely cost differentials and overspend over effective traditional Electricity generation technologies , ( Gas-firing and Nuclear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bound to incur .
These calculations clearly contradict the popular assertion that Weather Dependent Renewables are now price competitive with conventional power generation , Gas-firing and even Nuclear power .
Those assertions ignore : • all government subsidies and other fiscal support • the productivity of Renewables when compared to traditional generation technologies .
The real costs of supporting political “ Green Virtue Signalling ” and the Government ’ s acceptance of the urgency of the “ Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming ” hypothesis is exposed here .
At the same time , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ costs can only ever contribute to a reduction of about a quarter of the UK ’ s 1.1 % of 2018 Global CO2 emissions resulting from electricity generation .
In other words the temperature effect of these self-harming measures by the UK on Global temperature would eventually be undetectable .
These estimates count the full output productivity of Weather Dependent Renewable generation technologies .
They are thus generous assessments of the true value of the power produced by Weather Dependent Renewables .
They do not account for the timing and thus of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ produce at any one moment in time .
In addition these data do not account for the difficulty in coping with the wide variability and intermittency of the power output by Weather Dependent Renewables within a Nation ’ s supply Grid , which is tasked to provide dependable and consistent power for that Nation .
This post gives indicative , ( back of the envelope , expressed in £billions ) , estimates of the net capital and net 60 year long-term costs of Weather Dependent Renewables as compared to the use of Gas-firing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ UK .
The calculations are reasonable estimates but should be in the right ball park and not over exaggerated .
They are in line with the sort of “ back of the envelope ” calculations that could have been carried out by the late Professor Sir David Mackay .
These net calculations are free of the market distortions arising from the political support interventions that have had to have been made to support Renewables .
They are based on the 2020 cost figures produced by the US Energy Information Association , ( EIA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Foundation in the UK .
They do account for a recent reduction in the likely costs of Solar PV power generation .
The introductory table above shows that the indicative overnight capital costs of the current UK Renewable fleet is ~62£billion and the anticipated further long-term costs would be ~260£billion , were those currently installed Renewables to be maintained for the 60 year long-term , a similar service life to Nuclear power Generation .
They give an idea of the present scale of the bare costs for “ Green virtue signalling ” , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ UK .
The equivalent costs using Gas-firing to provide the same level of consistent power generation would be ~7£billion in capital costs and a further ~21£billion long-term .
At 0.34 Gigatonnes in 2018 , the UK produced ~1.1 % of the Global CO2 emissions and power generation could only have accounted for less than one quarter of those CO2 emissions , transport and space heating , etc .
accounting for the remaining CO2 emissions .
So making costly and self-harming modifications UK electrical generation technologies can only have a marginal and minor impact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ UK and Global CO2 emissions .
That impact is even less if one looks into the CO2 emission and energy requirements of Renewable technologies and from their use of fossil fuels essential for their manufacture , installation and on to their eventual demolition .
Whenever announcements are made about Weather Dependent Renewable Energy installations , they are reported as the full Name Plate rating , ( in other words the maximum potential power output the installation can produce under ideal Weather conditions ) , and often disingenuously as the number of homes that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of power output .
The question of Productivity or Load Factors is never fully explained , so such announcements are deliberately deceptive , as the average Renewable productivity only amounts to about 20 % of its full Name Plate rating .
So such promotional Renewable Energy announcements thus illogically assume that the wind blows all the time at productive speeds and that the sun shines overhead 24 hours/day and the seasons never change from a clear day in summer .
The Renewable Energy Foundation time series data for the UK 2002 – 2019 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dependent Renewables and Green energy in the UK .
It has provided the most up to date information available at the end of 2019 .
Its time series data on UK Renewable Installations runs from 2002 up to date .
This includes the Nameplate rating of installations and the annual Gigawatt Hour electrical output over the year for each generation technology .
Graphic representations of those data as time series presentations show the progress of UK Weather Dependent Renewables .
According the Renewable Energy Foundation data , 2019 was a poorer year than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Productivity expressed as a percentage load factor , ( actual power produced / nameplate value ) , is crucial to evaluating the true comparative value of the power produced .
The progress since 2002 of installation and production of Weather Dependent Renewables in the UK is shown below .
The history of Productivity figures that have been achieved in the UK are shown below .
Overall , the UK Weather Dependent Renewables performance has generally just exceeded ~20 % productivity level , but provided a poorer performance in 2019 .
Onshore Wind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ UK , has achieved productivity around ~23 % .
Offshore Wind power has been more variable but achieved a productivity figure of ~32 % in 2019 .
The productivity of Solar Power in the UK is consistently at or below ~10 % productivity level .
But of course the “ trip ” of an Offshore wind farm on a breezy summer afternoon contributed to the major UK power outage of 9/8/2019 .
An outage like that will be all the more severe and probably longer lasting one still foggy winter evening soon .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ inertia in the grid to overcome short term sudden variability nor to enable a “ Black Start ” , if needed .
The two graphs below show the progress of Renewable installations in the UK since 2002 noting : • the gross over commitment to Solar PV Power 2013-2016 • a remarkable further cut back from the previous enthusiastic Renewables installations occurred in 2019 , as it seems to be coming to be realised that they do not provide a truly viable answer to maintaining a consistent power supply .
• the very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and 2017 particularly for Offshore Wind power .
In 2017 this alone amounted a future cost of some 150£billion .
Those future costs will be incurred just from the current UK Renewables installations .
As pressure grows for further generation by nominally Renewables those future costs are bound to escalate .
The table above gave a capital valuation of the current 2020 UK Weather Dependent Renewables fleet at ~62£billion with probable ongoing costs of ~260£billion .
This is approximately twice the cost of providing the same power output with Nuclear power stations and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ using Gas-firing for equivalent power generation .
The excess capital expenditures of Renewables range from ~21£billion to ~55£billion .
The long-term excess expenditures range from 160£billion to 236£billion depending on the substituted Nuclear or Gas-fired technology respectively .
These significant excess costs represent the wastage imposed on the UK population both via direct taxation supporting subsidies to Weather Dependent Renewables and added to UK utility bills by the Government mandates imposing Renewables on the UK electricity generation .
That wastage amounts to a very regressive tax burden imposed on the poorest in UK @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Energy Poverty ” .
The following three tables show how differing existing Renewable technologies contribute to the Government mandated excess costs .
Onshore Wind power is the most competitive achieving close to cost parity with Nuclear power in capital spend but only being about 1.3 times as expensive long-term .
Onshore wind power is only about 5 – 6 times more costly than Gas-firing .
Offshore wind power is the least cost-effective being ~2.6 – 4.4 times more costly than Nuclear but in the region of 13 – 18 times more costly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cost effective than Offshore being 2-3 times more costly than Nuclear to install and 12 – 14 times more costly than Gas-firing .
They together are responsible for more than 75 % of the excess costs of the UK Renewables fleet even though they are responsible for only ~55 % of the Renewable power output produced .
Together wastage in the capital cost from Offshore wind and Solar power amounts to some 42£billion with a long-term anticipated cost of ~200billion .
The comparative costings are derived from US EIA data updated in 2020 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ignore the “ EIA Technological optimism factor ” above , which would adversely affect the comparative costs of Offshore wind , ( by about 9£billion/Gigawatt : long-term ) and to a much less extent Nuclear power .
These costs are summarised and translated into £billion in the table below , £1 ≅ US $ 1.2 : The US EIA table quotes the overnight capital costs of each technology and the above table condenses the total costs of the technology when maintained in operation for 60 years expressed as £billion/Gigawatt .
These basic data @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Government fiscal and subsidy policies supporting Renewable Energy , whereby it can be claimed that Renewables approximate to cost parity .
It is hoped therefore that these results give a valid comparative analysis of the true cost effectiveness of Weather Dependent Renewables .
These recent 2020 EIA updates fully account for any recent cost reductions or underbids for Renewable technology , particularly those for Solar panels .
The table above assumes that the purchasing power of £1 is equivalent to ~US $ 1.20 .
The service life allocated for Renewables used above may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wind and Solar Photovoltaics .
The production capability of all Renewable technologies have been shown to progressively deteriorate significantly over their service life .
Note that in addition that these comparative figures are underestimates of the true costs of using Weather Dependent Renewables .
The results above only account for the cost comparisons for the actual electrical power generated accounting for the measured productivity capability of each generating technology .
The costs projected here ignore the ancillary costs inevitably associated with Wind power and Solar Renewables resulting from : • unreliability in terms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ timing of power generation , often unlikely to be coordinated with demand • the costs of back up generation only used on occasions but wastefully running in spinning reserve nonetheless • any consideration of electrical storage using batteries , which would impose very significant additional costs , were long term , ( several days ) , battery storage even economically feasible • inability to recover from a “ black start ” , when essential after failure .
In addition these cost analyses do not account for : • The “ Carbon footprint ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ save as much CO2 during their service life as they are likely to require for their manufacture , installation and eventual demolition .
When viewed in the round , all these activities are entirely dependent on the use of substantial amounts of fossil fuels as feedstocks or fuels .
• The Energy Return on Energy Invested , Renewables may well not produce as much Energy during their service life as was needed for their original manufacture and installation .
They certainly do not provide the regular excess power sufficient to support the multiple @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the objectives of using Weather Dependent Renewables were not confused with possibly “ saving the planet ” from the output of the UK ’ s small level of CO2 emissions , ( for electricity generation , ~25 % of 1.1 % , the UK 2018 portion of Man-made Global CO2 emissions ) , their actual cost , in-effectiveness and their inherent unreliability , Weather Dependent Renewables would have always been ruled them out of any engineering consideration as means of National scale electricity generation .
The annual UK CO2 emissions output is well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CO2 emissions in China and the Developing world .
It is essential to ask the question what is the actual value of these government mandated excess expenditures to the improvement of the environment and for the possibility of perhaps preventing undetectable temperature increases by the end of the century , especially in a context where the Developing world will be increasing its CO2 emissions to attain it ’ s further enhancement of living standards over the coming decades .
Reducing CO2 emissions as a means to control a “ warming ” climate seems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ temperature trend has been downwards for last 3 millennia , as the coming end of our current warm and benign Holocene interglacial epoch approaches .
In spite of all the noisy Climate Propaganda of the past 30 years , in Spring 2020 the world is faced with a different but VERY REAL economic emergency from the COVID-19 virus pandemic .
That Emergency , with the world facing the immediate death of many citizens as well as global economic breakdown , should put the costly Government mandated attempts to control the future climate into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over “ Climate Change ” truly are , when compared to the economic effects of this pandemic .

Reposted from edmhdotme
Summary
These straightforward calculations are intended to answer the simple question:
“roughly how much would it cost to generate the same amount of power as is produced by the present fleet of UK Weather Dependent Renewables, using conventional generation technologies, (Nuclear or Gas-firing) ? and how do those figures compare ?”.
Accordingly the post quantifies the scale of the fiscal waste and the burdens on utility bills attributable to the use of UK Weather Dependent Renewables as in 2019. The approximate long-term cost commitment is ~250 £billion according to these calculations. The present long-term cost estimate for the UK Weather Dependent Renewables fleet amounts to about twice the annual, cost of the NHS or about 11% of annual UK GDP. As can be seen later these estimates show that using Weather Dependent Renewables costs about 12 times as much as using Natural Gas and about 3 times as much as Nuclear power.
An Appalling Delusion
The late Professor Sir David Mackay (former chef scientific advisor of the Department of Energy and Climate Change) in a final interview before his untimely death in 2016 said that the concept of powering a developed country such as the UK with Weather Dependent Renewable energy was:
“an appalling delusion”.
Weather Dependent Renewable Energy depends on capturing essentially dilute and very variable sources of power. Weather Dependent Renewables are thus both capital and maintenance expensive and inevitably unreliable.
Weather Dependent Renewables are universally more expensive than the conventional alternatives of Nuclear power or Gas-firing.
At the time he also said:
“there’s so much delusion, it’s so dangerous for humanity that people allow themselves to have such delusions, that they are willing to not think carefully about the numbers, and the reality of the laws of physics and the reality of engineering….humanity does need to pay attention to arithmetic and the laws of physics.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/03/idea-of-renewables-powering-uk-is-an-appalling-delusion-david-mackay
and later in the same interview he said that:
“if it is possible to get through the winter with low CO2 Nuclear and possibly with Carbon Capture and Storage there is no point in having any Wind or Solar power in the UK generation mix”
But it seems that having bought into the assumption that Catastrophic Man-made Global Warming is an immediate and existential threat that Government elites when faced with these simple but devastatingly wasteful calculations assume a position of “wilful ignorance”, and a stance of “don’t confuse me with the facts, we are saving the world“.
https://www.spiked-online.com/podcast-episode/we-need-a-democratic-revolt-against-the-climate-extremists/ minute 40 onwards
There is also an irrational determination in Government that the only solution to reducing CO2 emissions is the use of Weather Dependent Renewables.
This is a fallacy: the only proven solutions to CO2 emissions reduction are the use Nuclear energy as in France and / or the use of Natural gas as in the USA, but these real solutions are somehow always rejected out of hand: they do not accord with the “Green” religion.
Accordingly this costing model has followed through on Professor Mackay’s back of the envelope calculations, in the UK, showing that Weather Dependent Renewables are plainly expensive. The excess overspend instead of using Gas-firing of the current UK generation fleet roughly amount to some 55£billion in capital costs and the long-term costs approach a further 240£billion.
Cost comparisons
In 2019 UK Weather dependent renewables generated a total of some 7.3 Gigawatts of power from an installed fleet with an installed Name Plate value of ~35 Gigawatts, thus achieving an overall productivity factor for Weather Dependent Renewables of ~20.9%. The graphic below shows the effect of combining the capital and long-term costs of the various generation technologies with their productivity factors as achieved in the UK in 2019. The model of comparative costs uses data from the US Energy Information Administration, (EIA), updated 2020 and translated to GB Pounds, see later.
Productivity / Capacity percentage is the performance measure for generation technologies, it consists of the actual Power output / Name Plate power rating.
The most useful comparison is to assess the costs in £Billion/Gigawatt of power produced accounting for Productivity, the comparison as shown below:
All traditional dispatchable power generation technologies are all capable of Productivity of up to 90%, only having to be curtailed by routine maintenance, whereas Weather Dependent Renewables when in combination over the year only return ~21% of their Name Plate rating. The resulting comparative costs of Weather Dependent Renewables are shown below.
According to these estimates overall the 2019 UK installed Weather Dependent Renewables fleet cost ~62£billion in overnight capital costs or ~8.5£billion/Gigawatt generated with a future commitment of some ~260£billion or ~35£billion/Gigawatt produced long-term. Conventional power generation, (Nuclear and Gas-firing) is more than competitive with Renewable costs with capital costs of ~5.5£billion/Gigawatt for Nuclear or less than 1£billion/Gigawatt for Gas-firing, as above.
Because of the comparative costs and productivity factors Offshore wind is certainly the most expensive to install at ~33£Billion to date and likely further ongoing costs of ~150£billion or ~52£billion/Gigawatt produced.
Current Solar PV cost ~13£billion to install and a further future costs of about 54£billion or ~42£billion/Gigawatt produced. UK on grid solar installations virtually ceased in 2019.
The installed UK Weather Dependent Renewables fleet of ~35Gigawatts, were it fully productive, would have often matched UK demand, however the limited average Renewables productivity factor of ~20% means that the Renewables fleet only managed to unreliably generate about a fifth of that UK requirement, and that output was often uncoordinated with demand.
https://www.ref.org.uk/energy-data
This post shows clearly the likely cost differentials and overspend over effective traditional Electricity generation technologies, (Gas-firing and Nuclear), that Weather Dependent Renewables are bound to incur.
These calculations clearly contradict the popular assertion that Weather Dependent Renewables are now price competitive with conventional power generation, Gas-firing and even Nuclear power. Those assertions ignore:
all government subsidies and other fiscal support
the productivity of Renewables when compared to traditional generation technologies.
The Costs of “Green Virtue Signalling”
The real costs of supporting political “Green Virtue Signalling” and the Government’s acceptance of the urgency of the “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming” hypothesis is exposed here.
At the same time, it must be realised that these substantial excess costs can only ever contribute to a reduction of about a quarter of the UK’s 1.1% of 2018 Global CO2 emissions resulting from electricity generation. In other words the temperature effect of these self-harming measures by the UK on Global temperature would eventually be undetectable.
These estimates count the full output productivity of Weather Dependent Renewable generation technologies. They are thus generous assessments of the true value of the power produced by Weather Dependent Renewables. They do not account for the timing and thus of the usefulness of the power those Renewables may produce at any one moment in time. In addition these data do not account for the difficulty in coping with the wide variability and intermittency of the power output by Weather Dependent Renewables within a Nation’s supply Grid, which is tasked to provide dependable and consistent power for that Nation.
This post gives indicative, (back of the envelope, expressed in £billions), estimates of the net capital and net 60 year long-term costs of Weather Dependent Renewables as compared to the use of Gas-firing and Nuclear for electricity generation in the UK. The calculations are reasonable estimates but should be in the right ball park and not over exaggerated.
They are in line with the sort of “back of the envelope” calculations that could have been carried out by the late Professor Sir David Mackay. These net calculations are free of the market distortions arising from the political support interventions that have had to have been made to support Renewables. They are based on the 2020 cost figures produced by the US Energy Information Association, (EIA) and Data from the Renewable Energy Foundation in the UK. They do account for a recent reduction in the likely costs of Solar PV power generation.
The introductory table above shows that the indicative overnight capital costs of the current UK Renewable fleet is ~62£billion and the anticipated further long-term costs would be ~260£billion, were those currently installed Renewables to be maintained for the 60 year long-term, a similar service life to Nuclear power Generation.
They give an idea of the present scale of the bare costs for “Green virtue signalling”, responding to the Green agenda in the UK. The equivalent costs using Gas-firing to provide the same level of consistent power generation would be ~7£billion in capital costs and a further ~21£billion long-term.
At 0.34 Gigatonnes in 2018, the UK produced ~1.1% of the Global CO2 emissions and power generation could only have accounted for less than one quarter of those CO2 emissions, transport and space heating, etc. accounting for the remaining CO2 emissions.
So making costly and self-harming modifications UK electrical generation technologies can only have a marginal and minor impact on a very small proportion of current UK and Global CO2 emissions. That impact is even less if one looks into the CO2 emission and energy requirements of Renewable technologies and from their use of fossil fuels essential for their manufacture, installation and on to their eventual demolition.
Whenever announcements are made about Weather Dependent Renewable Energy installations, they are reported as the full Name Plate rating, (in other words the maximum potential power output the installation can produce under ideal Weather conditions), and often disingenuously as the number of homes that could be supplied at their full level of power output.
The question of Productivity or Load Factors is never fully explained, so such announcements are deliberately deceptive, as the average Renewable productivity only amounts to about 20% of its full Name Plate rating. So such promotional Renewable Energy announcements thus illogically assume that the wind blows all the time at productive speeds and that the sun shines overhead 24 hours/day and the seasons never change from a clear day in summer.
The Renewable Energy Foundation time series data for the UK 2002 – 2019
The Renewable Energy Foundation reports on Weather Dependent Renewables and Green energy in the UK. It has provided the most up to date information available at the end of 2019.
https://ref.org.uk/energy-data
Its time series data on UK Renewable Installations runs from 2002 up to date. This includes the Nameplate rating of installations and the annual Gigawatt Hour electrical output over the year for each generation technology. Graphic representations of those data as time series presentations show the progress of UK Weather Dependent Renewables.
According the Renewable Energy Foundation data, 2019 was a poorer year than previously for UK Weather Dependent Renewables productivity.
Productivity expressed as a percentage load factor, (actual power produced / nameplate value), is crucial to evaluating the true comparative value of the power produced. The progress since 2002 of installation and production of Weather Dependent Renewables in the UK is shown below.
The history of Productivity figures that have been achieved in the UK are shown below.
Overall, the UK Weather Dependent Renewables performance has generally just exceeded ~20% productivity level, but provided a poorer performance in 2019. Onshore Wind power, now substantially curtailed in the UK, has achieved productivity around ~23%. Offshore Wind power has been more variable but achieved a productivity figure of ~32% in 2019. The productivity of Solar Power in the UK is consistently at or below ~10% productivity level.
But of course the “trip” of an Offshore wind farm on a breezy summer afternoon contributed to the major UK power outage of 9/8/2019. An outage like that will be all the more severe and probably longer lasting one still foggy winter evening soon. Weather Dependent Renewables can not provide inherent inertia in the grid to overcome short term sudden variability nor to enable a “Black Start”, if needed.
The two graphs below show the progress of Renewable installations in the UK since 2002 noting:
the gross over commitment to Solar PV Power 2013-2016
a remarkable further cut back from the previous enthusiastic Renewables installations occurred in 2019, as it seems to be coming to be realised that they do not provide a truly viable answer to maintaining a consistent power supply.
https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/the-decline-of-weather-dependent-renewables-in-europe-2008-2018/
the very large future cost commitments made in 2010 and 2017 particularly for Offshore Wind power. In 2017 this alone amounted a future cost of some 150£billion. Those future costs will be incurred just from the current UK Renewables installations. As pressure grows for further generation by nominally Renewables those future costs are bound to escalate.
Comparative Generation Costings
The table above gave a capital valuation of the current 2020 UK Weather Dependent Renewables fleet at ~62£billion with probable ongoing costs of ~260£billion. This is approximately twice the cost of providing the same power output with Nuclear power stations and more than 11 times the cost of using Gas-firing for equivalent power generation.
The excess capital expenditures of Renewables range from ~21£billion to ~55£billion. The long-term excess expenditures range from 160£billion to 236£billion depending on the substituted Nuclear or Gas-fired technology respectively.
These significant excess costs represent the wastage imposed on the UK population both via direct taxation supporting subsidies to Weather Dependent Renewables and added to UK utility bills by the Government mandates imposing Renewables on the UK electricity generation. That wastage amounts to a very regressive tax burden imposed on the poorest in UK society. It leading to ever increasing “Energy Poverty”.
The following three tables show how differing existing Renewable technologies contribute to the Government mandated excess costs.
Onshore Wind power is the most competitive achieving close to cost parity with Nuclear power in capital spend but only being about 1.3 times as expensive long-term. Onshore wind power is only about 5 – 6 times more costly than Gas-firing.
Offshore wind power is the least cost-effective being ~2.6 – 4.4 times more costly than Nuclear but in the region of 13 – 18 times more costly than Gas-firing.
Solar PV is more cost effective than Offshore being 2-3 times more costly than Nuclear to install and 12 – 14 times more costly than Gas-firing.
They together are responsible for more than 75% of the excess costs of the UK Renewables fleet even though they are responsible for only ~55% of the Renewable power output produced. Together wastage in the capital cost from Offshore wind and Solar power amounts to some 42£billion with a long-term anticipated cost of ~200billion.
The Comparative Cost Model for Electricity Generation Technologies
The comparative costings are derived from US EIA data updated in 2020.
The values used in this model ignore the “EIA Technological optimism factor” above, which would adversely affect the comparative costs of Offshore wind, (by about 9£billion/Gigawatt: long-term) and to a much less extent Nuclear power. These costs are summarised and translated into £billion in the table below, £1 ≅ US$1.2:
The US EIA table quotes the overnight capital costs of each technology and the above table condenses the total costs of the technology when maintained in operation for 60 years expressed as £billion/Gigawatt. These basic data should realistically avoid the distorting effects of Government fiscal and subsidy policies supporting Renewable Energy, whereby it can be claimed that Renewables approximate to cost parity. It is hoped therefore that these results give a valid comparative analysis of the true cost effectiveness of Weather Dependent Renewables. These recent 2020 EIA updates fully account for any recent cost reductions or underbids for Renewable technology, particularly those for Solar panels.
The table above assumes that the purchasing power of £1 is equivalent to ~US$1.20. The service life allocated for Renewables used above may well be generous, particularly for Offshore Wind and Solar Photovoltaics. The production capability of all Renewable technologies have been shown to progressively deteriorate significantly over their service life.
Note that in addition that these comparative figures are underestimates of the true costs of using Weather Dependent Renewables. The results above only account for the cost comparisons for the actual electrical power generated accounting for the measured productivity capability of each generating technology.
The costs projected here ignore the ancillary costs inevitably associated with Wind power and Solar Renewables resulting from:
unreliability in terms of both intermittency and variability
poor timing of power generation, often unlikely to be coordinated with demand
long transmission lines incurring costly power losses and increased maintenance
additional infrastructure necessary for access
the costs of back up generation only used on occasions but wastefully running in spinning reserve nonetheless
any consideration of electrical storage using batteries, which would impose very significant additional costs, were long term, (several days), battery storage even economically feasible
unsynchronised generation with lack of inherent inertia.
inability to recover from a “black start”, when essential after failure.
In addition these cost analyses do not account for:
The “Carbon footprint” of Renewable technologies: they may never save as much CO2 during their service life as they are likely to require for their manufacture, installation and eventual demolition. When viewed in the round, all these activities are entirely dependent on the use of substantial amounts of fossil fuels as feedstocks or fuels.
The Energy Return on Energy Invested, Renewables may well not produce as much Energy during their service life as was needed for their original manufacture and installation. They certainly do not provide the regular excess power sufficient to support the multiple needs of a developed society.
Conclusion
If the objectives of using Weather Dependent Renewables were not confused with possibly “saving the planet” from the output of the UK’s small level of CO2 emissions, (for electricity generation, ~25% of 1.1%, the UK 2018 portion of Man-made Global CO2 emissions), their actual cost, in-effectiveness and their inherent unreliability, Weather Dependent Renewables would have always been ruled them out of any engineering consideration as means of National scale electricity generation.
The annual UK CO2 emissions output is well surpassed just by the annual growth of CO2 emissions in China and the Developing world.
https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/speculating-about-future-global-co2-emissions-quantifying-futility/
It is essential to ask the question what is the actual value of these government mandated excess expenditures to the improvement of the environment and for the possibility of perhaps preventing undetectable temperature increases by the end of the century, especially in a context where the Developing world will be increasing its CO2 emissions to attain it’s further enhancement of living standards over the coming decades.
Reducing CO2 emissions as a means to control a “warming” climate seems even less relevant when the long-term global temperature trend has been downwards for last 3 millennia, as the coming end of our current warm and benign Holocene interglacial epoch approaches.
The context in Spring 2020
In spite of all the noisy Climate Propaganda of the past 30 years, in Spring 2020 the world is faced with a different but VERY REAL economic emergency from the COVID-19 virus pandemic. That Emergency, with the world facing the immediate death of many citizens as well as global economic breakdown, should put the costly Government mandated attempts to control the future climate into stark perspective and show how irrelevant concerns over “Climate Change” truly are, when compared to the economic effects of this pandemic.
0 0 votes Article Rating
Share this: Print
Email
Facebook
Twitter
GETTR
Telegram
Like this: Like Loading...


wattsupwiththat--2020-04-18--Claim: The Current US Megadrought is Being Made Worse by Climate Change

According to New Scientist , anthropogenic CO2 is making the current drought harsher .
But they admit an even worse drought occurred in the 16th century .
US megadrought is being made more intense by effects of climate change Climate change caused by humans transformed an otherwise moderate drought in the US and Mexico into one of the driest periods in more than a millennium .
While the area was known to have suffered past extreme droughts due to natural cycles such as the La Niña climate phenomenon , A .
Park Williams at Columbia University , New York , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that potentially almost half of the current episode ’ s severity was down to human-caused global warming .
The event was second in intensity only to a megadrought at the end of the 16th century .
Williams ’ s team worked out the region ’ s soil moisture , a measure of drought , for the past 1200 years .
Calculating figures for the past century was straightforward , using temperature , rainfall and other weather records to construct soil moisture .
To go further back in time , they used data from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ give an indication of how rapidly trees grew in a given year , which is based in part on how much water there was in the soil at the time .
“ Even without climate change , we still would have had a drought , ” says Williams .
“ But this drought would have been no big deal without climate change.
” The abstract of the study ; Large contribution from anthropogenic warming to an emerging North American megadrought See all authors and affiliationsScience 17 Apr 2020 : Vol .
368 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : 10.1126/science.aaz9600 Severe and persistent 21st-century drought in southwestern North America ( SWNA ) motivates comparisons to medieval megadroughts and questions about the role of anthropogenic climate change .
We use hydrological modeling and new 1200-year tree-ring reconstructions of summer soil moisture to demonstrate that the 2000–2018 SWNA drought was the second driest 19-year period since 800 CE , exceeded only by a late-1500s megadrought .
The megadrought-like trajectory of 2000–2018 soil moisture was driven by natural variability superimposed on drying due to anthropogenic warming .
Anthropogenic trends in temperature , relative humidity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ models account for 47 % ( model interquartiles of 35 to 105 % ) of the 2000–2018 drought severity , pushing an otherwise moderate drought onto a trajectory comparable to the worst SWNA megadroughts since 800 CE .
Unfortunately the full study is paywalled .
But as the study authors admit , a worse drought occurred in the late 1500s .
Acting on climate change by eliminating CO2 emissions won ’ t stop severe droughts from occurring .
There weren ’ t many SUV ’ s being driven around in the 1500s .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ energy , which is our best tool for addressing droughts when they occur .
Affordable energy makes it possible to survive a drought and prosper , by making large scale pumping economically viable .
If groundwater runs out , there are regions of the USA with water to spare , which are currently experiencing an abundance of water .
If the situation deteriorates , if the entire USA starts to experience severe drought , affordable fossil fuel energy could be used to power monster desalination plants to make up the shortfall .

Guest essay by Eric Worrall
According to New Scientist, anthropogenic CO2 is making the current drought harsher. But they admit an even worse drought occurred in the 16th century.
US megadrought is being made more intense by effects of climate change ENVIRONMENT 16 April 2020
By Adam Vaughan Climate change caused by humans transformed an otherwise moderate drought in the US and Mexico into one of the driest periods in more than a millennium. … While the area was known to have suffered past extreme droughts due to natural cycles such as the La Niña climate phenomenon, A. Park Williams at Columbia University, New York, and his colleagues, have now revealed that potentially almost half of the current episode’s severity was down to human-caused global warming. The event was second in intensity only to a megadrought at the end of the 16th century. Williams’s team worked out the region’s soil moisture, a measure of drought, for the past 1200 years. Calculating figures for the past century was straightforward, using temperature, rainfall and other weather records to construct soil moisture. To go further back in time, they used data from more than 1500 tree-ring records. These give an indication of how rapidly trees grew in a given year, which is based in part on how much water there was in the soil at the time. … “Even without climate change, we still would have had a drought,” says Williams. “But this drought would have been no big deal without climate change.” … Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2240738-us-megadrought-is-being-made-more-intense-by-effects-of-climate-change/
The abstract of the study;
Large contribution from anthropogenic warming to an emerging North American megadrought A. Park Williams1,*, Edward R. Cook1, Jason E. Smerdon1, Benjamin I. Cook1,2, John T. Abatzoglou3,4, Kasey Bolles1, Seung H. Baek1,5, Andrew M. Badger6,7,8, Ben Livneh6,9 See all authors and affiliationsScience 17 Apr 2020:
Vol. 368, Issue 6488, pp. 314-318
DOI: 10.1126/science.aaz9600 Severe and persistent 21st-century drought in southwestern North America (SWNA) motivates comparisons to medieval megadroughts and questions about the role of anthropogenic climate change. We use hydrological modeling and new 1200-year tree-ring reconstructions of summer soil moisture to demonstrate that the 2000–2018 SWNA drought was the second driest 19-year period since 800 CE, exceeded only by a late-1500s megadrought. The megadrought-like trajectory of 2000–2018 soil moisture was driven by natural variability superimposed on drying due to anthropogenic warming. Anthropogenic trends in temperature, relative humidity, and precipitation estimated from 31 climate models account for 47% (model interquartiles of 35 to 105%) of the 2000–2018 drought severity, pushing an otherwise moderate drought onto a trajectory comparable to the worst SWNA megadroughts since 800 CE. Read more (paywalled): https://science.sciencemag.org/content/368/6488/314
Unfortunately the full study is paywalled. But as the study authors admit, a worse drought occurred in the late 1500s.
Acting on climate change by eliminating CO2 emissions won’t stop severe droughts from occurring. There weren’t many SUV’s being driven around in the 1500s. But eliminating CO2 would throw away affordable energy, which is our best tool for addressing droughts when they occur.
Affordable energy makes it possible to survive a drought and prosper, by making large scale pumping economically viable. If groundwater runs out, there are regions of the USA with water to spare, which are currently experiencing an abundance of water.
If the situation deteriorates, if the entire USA starts to experience severe drought, affordable fossil fuel energy could be used to power monster desalination plants to make up the shortfall.
0 0 votes Article Rating
Share this: Print
Email
Facebook
Twitter
GETTR
Telegram
Like this: Like Loading...


wattsupwiththat--2020-04-19--Guardian: Covid-19 is President Trump’s Fault for Failing to Protect Endangered Species in China

h/t Nick ; Orange man bad , even when the problems being discussed happen in another country outside the USA ’ s sphere of influence .
Wildlife conservation efforts are essential to preventing outbreaks , scientists and advocates say For more than five years , wildlife conservationists in the US have been clamoring for the government to provide Endangered Species Act protections to pangolins , a group of imperiled ant-eating mammals that are widely , and often illicitly , trafficked for their scales and meat .
The Trump administration , however , has refused to act and that refusal has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Earlier this year , scientists in China identified pangolins , along with bats , as one of the possible animal hosts involved in the transmission of the deadly coronavirus from wildlife to humans .
Although there is still much uncertainty about the nature of the disease ’ s emergence , the unwillingness of the Trump administration , and the Obama administration before it , to provide legal protections to pangolins , and other species , has intensified scrutiny of America ’ s faltering role in international wildlife conservation efforts .
Scientists and advocates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kind of pandemic currently sweeping the globe .
Though no pangolins live in the US , an endangered species designation could make additional funding available to preserve the species , bolster efforts to crack down on illegal trade and send a powerful signal to the international community that the animals ought to be protected .
“ It is not like any one thing would have stopped this pandemic , so you can ’ t make that generalization , ” said Brett Hartl , the government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actually a leader in international wildlife conservation like it used to be back in the day and actually took its obligations seriously and was putting real pressure on trafficking and countries like China to stop decimation of pangolins and other species , who knows where we would be today .
”

Guest essay by Eric Worrall
h/t Nick; Orange man bad, even when the problems being discussed happen in another country outside the USA’s sphere of influence.
Pandemic shines harsh light on Trump’s failure to protect pangolins
Jimmy Tobias
Wed 15 Apr 2020 20.00 AESTLast modified on Wed 15 Apr 2020 20.02 AEST
Wildlife conservation efforts are essential to preventing outbreaks, scientists and advocates say
For more than five years, wildlife conservationists in the US have been clamoring for the government to provide Endangered Species Act protections to pangolins, a group of imperiled ant-eating mammals that are widely, and often illicitly, trafficked for their scales and meat. The Trump administration, however, has refused to act and that refusal has suddenly taken on grave new implications.
Earlier this year, scientists in China identified pangolins, along with bats, as one of the possible animal hosts involved in the transmission of the deadly coronavirus from wildlife to humans.
Although there is still much uncertainty about the nature of the disease’s emergence, the unwillingness of the Trump administration, and the Obama administration before it, to provide legal protections to pangolins, and other species, has intensified scrutiny of America’s faltering role in international wildlife conservation efforts. Scientists and advocates say these are essential to preventing the kind of pandemic currently sweeping the globe.
Though no pangolins live in the US, an endangered species designation could make additional funding available to preserve the species, bolster efforts to crack down on illegal trade and send a powerful signal to the international community that the animals ought to be protected.
…
“It is not like any one thing would have stopped this pandemic, so you can’t make that generalization,” said Brett Hartl, the government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “But if the US were actually a leader in international wildlife conservation like it used to be back in the day and actually took its obligations seriously and was putting real pressure on trafficking and countries like China to stop decimation of pangolins and other species, who knows where we would be today.”
…