Tag: green energy

Wildfires Reveal the Risks of a Net Zero Electricity Grid as Climate Activists and Politicians Exploit Wildfire Tragedies says Friends of Science Society

Canada plans to spend $1 trillion on building out an east-west ‘clean energy’ power grid as part of its net zero climate plan, but Friends of Science Society says, while additional power generation is needed, net zero should not be the rationale, in this new video “Change Climate Change: Stop Net Zero Nonsense.” 

Canadian physicist, William van Wijngaarden, in a presentation for the International Climate Science Coalition shows there is no human-made climate crisis, thus no need for net zero targets. Wijngaarden says net zero goals will cause serious damage to society.

Part of that damage is the convoluted effort to “electrify everything” using so-called “clean energy.”

Footage of evacuees trying to navigate downed power lines in British Columbia show why “electrify now” and “electrify everything” to reach Net Zero climate targets is a bad idea, says Friends of Science Society. As reported by CBC on July 30, 2026, dozens of power poles, transmission lines, lines and transformers are down; large sections of British Columbia lost electrical power, as is happening in other wildfire locations. Without conventional ICE vehicles, people in a net zero EV world would be stranded.

As tragic wildfires rip through British Columbia, Ontario, Spokane, Oregon, and Europe, climate activist journos like some at Associated Press and Grist, and politicians like former Washington governor, Jay Inslee, wrongly exploit these tragedies, by conflating wildfire and human-caused climate change, says Friends of Science Society. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), as explained in plain language by Roger Pielke, Jr., “The IPCC has not detected or attributed fire occurrence or area burned to human-caused climate change.”

Keep reading

EU’s Green Deal is pushing Europe into decline

An Energy Institute report reveals a Europe clinging to the pretence of leading an “energy transition” as the continent declines under the weight of climate policies whose quixotically utopian objectives are negated elsewhere by fossil fuel-supported economic growth.

Data from the 75th edition of the annual ‘Statistical Review of World Energy‘ will surprise only those ignoring the facts: The world continues to depend massively on fossil fuels [more correctly, hydrocarbon fuels]. Solar and wind technologies, while expanding, still lag ever-rising energy demand, which last year reached a record 600 exajoules. (That’s 600 quintillion joules, where a joule is equal to the work necessary to create one watt of power for one second.)

Of total primary energy consumption, 86% came from fossil fuels – oil at 33.5%; coal, 27.6%; and natural gas, 25.1%. Accounting for just 3% were solar and wind, which are heavily promoted by the European Commission over the much-demonised hydrocarbons.

From 2015-2025, the first decade of the Paris Agreement on climate change, global energy consumption rose more than 14%, with sharply contrasting dynamics. European Union use declined about 1% annually, while consumption in the Asia-Pacific region grew 2.6%.

Europe’s decreasing energy use is no triumph of ecological heroics but rather an outcome of the assault of the EU Green Deal on competitiveness and its predictable deindustrialisation and economic decline. For example, in 2025, growth in gross domestic product for some European countries was close to zero, while the US was 2% under the hydrocarbon-friendly Trump administration. Some coal-burning Asians experienced multiples of that.

Noting this EU tragedy, the European Central Bank’s 2024  report on competitiveness blamed not climate policies directly but instead high energy prices the policies had wrought – a sleight of hand accommodating EU politics.

Meanwhile, the growth of fossil fuels outside the EU continued to outstrip significantly that of solar and wind. Contrary to the Brussels narrative that the gap between so-called renewable technologies and fossil fuels is narrowing, the reality, in absolute terms, is a widening chasm. The EU has indeed integrated renewables into its grid, doing so at the cost of affordability and reliability. However, this leadership remains purely symbolic because the rest of the world is accelerating its use of fossil fuels far faster than that of renewables.

In places like Asia, the expansion of hydrocarbon use concurrently with impressive economic growth was more than coincidental. It was necessary, and China and India led the way.

Early this century, the impetus for Chinese growth was the lesson of the Soviet Union’s collapse, a result of deplorable living standards and a dim outlook for the future. The Chinese Communist Party recognised that growth was needed to maintain its legitimacy and that abundant, cheap energy – mainly coal – would be the critical ingredient.

This prosperity is good news to everybody but those obsessed with carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, the bogeyman of the climate industrial complex. In its drive to cut emissions by 90% by 2040, the EU has reduced emissions by 554 million metric tonnes under the Paris Agreement as the rest of the world increased its own by 3 billion metric tonnes – fivefold in the opposite direction. The European effort is incinerated almost instantly by the combustion of fossil fuels elsewhere to support increased economic activity.

Most damning for 30 years of climate diplomacy is that global industrial emissions have risen by 67% since the adoption of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (“UNFCCC”) in 1992, according to the 2026 ‘Statistical Review of World Energy’. While the EU cut its emissions in that time by about 30%, the effort, achieved at enormous cost and deindustrialisation, has been erased by others’ pursuit of human flourishing.

Compared with previous editions, the language of the latest Energy Institute analysis is markedly more favourable to renewables. One explanation may be the publisher’s collaboration with Ember, a self-identified “energy think tank that aims to accelerate the clean energy transition with data and policy.” The Energy Institute itself seeks “to accelerate a just, secure, and low-carbon energy transition.”

Obviously, our scepticism about the EU’s green agenda is based on the data presented in the report, not on the publishers’ interpretation of it. We sought to contrast the pathetic product of EU energy policy with the promising economic rise of others.

Despite the omnipresent rhetoric of the energy transition, the evidence must be faced: The dominance of fossil fuels in the world energy system persists even as wind and solar, expensive and intermittent, expand. The world is undergoing an energy addition, not a transition, as new technologies supplement the growing capacity of legacy sources.

The great majority of mankind aspires to more prosperity, which requires abundant and cheap energy – what the EU employed before adopting ecological dogma. The clash between climate ambitions and economic aspirations will only intensify.

Keep reading

Renewables ‘Can’t Keep Up’ With Data Center Pace. As Usual, The Left Wants Government To Step In…

The political left is worried that the rapid expansion of data centers across the U.S. – a controversial but necessary development considering our competition with China – is increasingly accompanied by the corresponding construction of stand-alone natural gas plants to provide the power demands of the centers.

In Ohio, 10 gas-fired power plants are in the works to fuel new data centers. In West Virginia, a startup business building AI compute campuses plans to utilize hundreds of gas generators by 2028. Newly minted trillionaire Elon Musk has purchased a gas turbine company specifically to power the Tennessee-based data centers fueling Grok.

Across the nation, similar stories are playing out region by region, with dedicated gas plants often backed by tech giants who once swore off fossil fuels before reality set in.

Natural gas plants can be stood up relatively quickly and deliver the massive power required to keep the U.S. ahead of its adversaries in the AI/data center race. While data centers have resulted in controversies in some local communities – an unsurprising NIMBY reaction – other places have welcomed the developments.

As stated here before, artificial intelligence is here, like it or not. The only question is who will make the rules, the U.S. or China?

Soldiers in the anti-fossil fuel brigade are once again coming face-to-face with their biggest enemy: reality. And as usual, rather than seeking to engage fairly in the free market, backers of renewables are demanding that government write regulations requiring their use.

The Associated Press recently reported that “tech giants are demanding power at such speed and scale – some data centers consume more energy than a mid-size city – that the construction of wind and solar simply can’t keep up,” giving natural gas a substantial advantage. Most people call that the free market playing out as it naturally will. The climate change fearmongers call it foul play.

To level the field, the same old playbook is once again being deployed. For instance, in Michigan, Oregon and Minnesota, laws have been enacted in the last 18 months “designed to protect their pre-existing requirements that electric utilities use only emissions-free energy sources by 2040,” AP reported, adding that similar bills are emerging in California, Illinois, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Virginia.

New York, not surprisingly, leads the way when it comes to the heavy hand of government mandates. There, legislation would force data centers over a certain size “to meet renewable energy benchmarks starting in 2030 and, by 2040, get at least 90% of their energy from renewable energies.”

The arrogance of those demanding that alternatives be given special consideration was once more on display courtesy of a New York state lawmaker who wrote the bill in question. “We are literally talking about the wealthiest companies in the world that are looking to build in New York state,” said state Sen. Kristen Gonzalez (D), adding, “and if they have the resources to put billions of dollars into data center development, then they certainly should have the resources to build out renewable energy sources to power them.”

So there!

Keep reading

Net Zero-Obsessed Britain Faces Down Unspoken Energy Crisis Amid Accusations of Coverup

Britain’s electrical system operator has once again pleaded with generators to make extra electricity on Thursday to cover unexpectedly tight margins as it faces extraordinary allegations made in Parliament of covering up the extent of grid vulnerability to blackouts.

The UK’s National Energy Systems Operator (NESO), the 2024-founded energy grid body tasked with balancing the supply and demand of electricity in real time, has issued a margin warning for Thursday. This is the third such margin warning of the summer — and previously unheard of, as in the era before the focus on decarbonisation energy shortfalls were only ever encountered in the deep winter — and NESO stated on Wednesday its forecasts for Thursday evening had identified a shortage of 1.2 gigawatts, the equivalent to the loss of a whole Sizewell B-sized nuclear power plant.

The shortage comes as hot, calm weather across north-western Europe sees energy demand rise, but supply fall as wind turbines stand idle.

Keep reading

Wind and Solar Finally Meet the Taxpayer’s Breaking Point

A family paying the electric bill doesn’t care how noble a subsidy sounds in Washington. They care whether the lights stay on, the furnace runs, the air conditioner works, and the bill leaves enough money for groceries.

President Donald Trump’s tax law set July 4, 2026, as the deadline ending federal tax credit subsidies for new wind and solar projects not already under construction. U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright called the deadline the end of roughly 35 years of federal support for wind and solar, and he noted that in 2025 they comprised about 3% of total U.S. primary energy consumption. From Just the News:

The Working Families Tax Cuts, a signature piece of President Trump’s tax legislation signed a year ago, set Saturday as the deadline for federal tax credit subsidies on any new solar or wind projects not currently under construction.

U.S. Department of Energy Secretary Chris Wright touted the subsidy deadline and criticized solar and wind energy projects in a video posted to social media Thursday.

“The wind doesn’t always blow, and the sun doesn’t always shine,” Wright said. “They drive up the system costs and increase Americans’ electricity prices.”

From 2010 to 2023, solar and wind energy projects received more than $141 billion in government subsidies combined, according to an analysis by the Texas Public Policy Foundation. The projects received more in government subsidies than any other energy source in the United States, the group reported.

“Beyond their direct costs, subsidies are causing artificially low or negative wholesale prices, scarcity prices during periods of high demand and low wind and solar generation, inefficient use of existing assets, and increased transmission costs,” Brent Bennett, a researcher at the Texas foundation wrote.

The original argument for subsidies was patience. Give the industry help, let technology improve, then let the market decide. After decades of federal support, taxpayers were still being asked to finance energy sources that need backup, transmission buildouts, land, materials, and favorable rules to compete.

Patience became a policy shift; policy drift becomes a bill the public never really got to vote on.

The White House executive order signed July 7, 2025, said federal policy would rapidly eliminate market distortions and taxpayer costs tied to green energy subsidies. The order directed the Treasury Department to strictly enforce the termination of clean electricity production and investment tax credits under sections 45Y and 48E for wind and solar facilities. 

It also directed the Interior Department to review policies that favor wind and solar over dispatchable energy sources.

A Just the News report placed the cost in plain sight. Wind and solar subsidies were estimated at more than $141 billion from 2010 to 2023, more than any other energy source. Before the cuts, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the two programs would increase the federal deficit by $308 billion from 2026 through 2035.

Those figures should settle the basic question. Taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to bankroll electricity that still struggles when demand peaks and weather refuses to cooperate. America needs power that can run steel mills, hospitals, data centers, farms, factories, and homes without asking families to pray for sunshine or a breeze.

Wind and solar have a role where they make sense. Let them compete; let investors risk their own money; let customers decide what they want to buy.

Keep reading

“We’re Running Out of Oil”: The Lie Used to Support the Green Energy Agenda

In 1874, the state geologist of Pennsylvania, then the nation’s leading oil producer, warned that the U.S. had only four years of oil remaining. Forty years later, in 1914, when oil still hadn’t run out, the federal government said the U.S. had only a ten-year supply remaining. In 1940, the government announced that reserves would be depleted within a decade and a half.

An article published on August 3, 1966, reported that “a geologist stuck a figurative dipstick into the United States’ oil supplies Tuesday and estimated that the country may be dry in 10 years,” placing the projected date of U.S. exhaustion at 1976. The most widely cited doomsday prediction came in 1972, when the Club of Rome’s Limits to Growth report calculated that global petroleum reserves, growing at then-current consumption rates, would be exhausted within 20 years, implying oil would run out by 1992.

For the past several decades, the claim that oil will run out has been used to promote the green energy transition, framing the use of solar and wind power as necessary to preserve human life. However, the people and institutions promoting the “oil is running out” narrative are the same people and institutions advancing the climate crisis narrative. As with other forms of propaganda, new vocabulary had to be invented, including the term “peak oil.

Peak oil is the theory that global oil production rises to a maximum point and then declines irreversibly as a finite resource is depleted. Yale Environment 360 reported that Rystad Energy expects natural gas production to peak and decline as renewables take over, and that the International Energy Agency (IEA) in 2021 called on oil companies to immediately end oil prospecting and pull back on production as part of a net-zero pathway explicitly grounded in the “peak oil” framing.

The context of the Yale report, and the peak oil claim in general, is somewhat dishonest. If they really believed the world was running out of oil, they wouldn’t need to warn anyone or demand that we stop looking for or producing oil. Instead, they could simply wait ten or twenty years, or whatever the latest prediction is, until oil runs out naturally. At that point, the world would transition to green energy out of necessity, and the climate advocates would win. The fact that they continue pushing the issue suggests they don’t really believe oil is running out.

A Cambridge University Press academic text states plainly that the peak oil belief is a myth, “at least for the next decades,” and warns that peak oil framing can backfire on climate advocates because the oil industry echoes the peak oil argument to convince governments to approve, and even assist with, new fossil fuel projects whenever prices spike. Effectively, the article presents circular logic. It suggests that the peak oil argument should be abandoned to prevent the oil industry from drilling for new oil, which would prevent the world from running out of oil.

All of the peak oil predictions had a common flaw: they made straight-line mathematical projections, assuming that no alternatives or solutions would be found. Each treated known reserves and existing extraction methods as fixed, when, in practice, both variables continued to change simultaneously.

Keep reading

Hollywood Libs Pour Love on Beijing, Tout China as ‘First Petro-Zero Economy,’ But Facts Show Different Story

It’s hardly a new phenomenon, sadly, when Hollywood stars kiss up to China. Usually, they don’t even try to bother letting facts get in the way.

Ah, but that’s where Edward Norton and Ted Danson went wrong. The “Fight Club” and “Cheers” star decided to simp for Beijing’s energy policy on the latter’s podcast this week, with the two libs declaring that China was on its way to being the “first petro-zero economy.”

The problem there: Not only is China not there yet, it’s the world’s biggest carbon-emitter and its largest user of coal, and it’s only getting worse.

But, you know, other than that…

Norton, apparently not terribly bright without imaginary friend Brad Pitt along with him, was the one who made the “first petro-zero economy” quote in a condemnation of “American exceptionalism,” because apparently exceptionalism equals renewables, or something.

“They are going to be the first electro-superpower,” he said of China.

“Which we could have been,” Danson interjected. “And now we’re going to have to buy it from them when this [Donald Trump] goes away and we come to our senses. We won’t have that industry like China does.”

Norton agreed.

“And by the way, it’s both sides of the aisle,” Norton said. “In the state of California, we have now the most regressive policy toward residential solar, distributed solar collection, and storage… but even under Gavin Newsom.”

Of course, this is because you can’t build a millimeter of air in California without 62 different permits, and you basically can’t change a lightbulb without changing a law, but one digresses. When the People’s Republic of Sacramento is being brought forth as an argument as to why centrally planned Chinese energy policy is kicking our butts, it’s hard to take you seriously.

As Norton went on to point out, “This is a state that should be energy independent… This is a state that should have gigawatts of residential distributed solar.”

To be fair, he gives both Florida and Texas — under Republican governors — credit for getting stuff done. But then he says that “if you get to travel” to other places — assumedly like China — you get to see that stuff can get done on green energy.

“We have this enduring narrative of American exceptionalism, like of, America’s ‘alpha,’ of America’s cultural superiority,” a rambling Norton said.

“And the question is, and I don’t think people fully grasp the degree to which we’re going to ghettoize ourselves as an energy state, in terms of education, in terms of health. We’re not anywhere near the top of what other people are experiencing. And if we embrace this idea of pride in regression, where is that going to take us? It’s not going to take us into a place that we’re happy about for our kids.”

Keep reading

Another day, another illegal billion-dollar bribe to raise your electricity prices

The Interior Department has made another illegal agreement with a gas company to drop development of cheap and clean offshore wind and instead focus on dirty, expensive gas, giving that company the better part of a billion dollars worth of taxpayer money while starving Americans of much-needed electricity.

Wind is one of the cheaper forms of energy we have available to us, and also has the benefit of not causing pollution. Pollution from fossil fuels harms human health, causing millions of deaths and childhood asthma cases and costing trillions of dollars per year globally.

It’s also an important resource at a time when American electricity demand is increasing, leading to higher energy bills as the proliferation of data centers squeezes energy availability.

However, the Department of the Interior, the government agency responsible for usage of public lands including oceans, is currently occupied by Doug Burgum, a fossil fuel advocate who has received hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes from the fossil fuel industry.

As such, Burgum has done all he can to stop cheap and clean energy projects and to try to benefit dirty and expensive fossil fuels, to the detriment of Americans’ lungs and electricity bills.

Interior has cut off 400k homes worth of power just before Christmas, tried to pause new power generation projects and halt existing constructions, and tried to make permitting harder (while fast-tracking expensive, dirty projects with “concierge” service). His party suggested drastic new fees on wind farms, far in excess of the inspection fees on dirty oil projects.

But many of those efforts have been swiftly reversed by courts due to their illegality.

This hasn’t stopped Burgum from coming up with other illegal ideas to starve Americans of the energy they need.

The latest trend has involved a pattern of bribes given to oil companies from public coffers to convince them to stop development of offshore wind and instead refocus on gas projects.

It started with a nearly-$1B bribe from taxpayer coffers to French oil giant TotalEnergies in March, basically buying out its offshore wind lease in exchange for a commitment to put that money into fossil fuel projects.

Interior made up a fake national security reason for this agreement, even though it is clear that domestic sources of power are far more secure than the kind that start intractable global conflicts. Courts have previously ruled that there are no national security concerns around wind power and Dept. of Defense had signed off on these projects.

But it didn’t stop there. Interior has continued with similar near-billion-dollar bribes, with an $885 million deal in April, and another near-billion-dollar deal today.

Keep reading

EU Climate Scam Exposed: IPCC Admits Doomsday Scenario Was “Implausible” Garbage – But Brussels Refuses to Scrap a SINGLE Regulation Built on the Lie

The House of the Great Climate Scam is collapsing. The United Nations’ own climate priesthood has finally admitted what skeptics have screamed for years: their favorite apocalyptic scenario, RCP8.5 – the one predicting civilization-ending warming, floods, fires, and famines unless we destroy our economies with Green New Deals – is “implausible.” Fake. Junk science sold as gospel.

But here’s the real bombshell the fake news won’t touch: The European Union, that bloated bureaucratic beast strangling its citizens with Net Zero madness, hasn’t pulled even one document, “scientific” report, regulation, or taxpayer-funded scare tactic based on this now-discredited fairy tale. Not a single one. Trillions in subsidies, destroyed industries, skyrocketing energy bills, and farmers rioting in the streets – all propped up on a foundation of lies.

The Big Lie That Powered the Green Grift

For over a decade, EU apparatchiks at the European Environment Agency (EEA), Joint Research Centre (JRC), Climate-ADAPT, and even the European Central Bank leaned hard on RCP8.5 as their “high-emissions” nightmare fuel. Sea-level rise maps? RCP8.5. Extreme fire weather? RCP8.5. Heatwaves, droughts, flooding Armageddon? All RCP8.5. The PESETA projects hammering agriculture, coasts, energy, and tourism? Straight out of the RCP8.5 playbook. Bank stress tests? You guessed it.

These “experts” hyped impossible futures – all to justify the European Green Deal, Fit for 55 insanity, carbon taxes, EV mandates, heating bans, and deindustrialization that’s gutting Europe. Roger Pielke Jr. nailed it: These scenarios produced “impossible futures” that dominated policy anyway.

Now the IPCC’s scenario team is quietly retiring RCP8.5/SSP5-8.5 for the next assessment round because it’s detached from reality. Even they can’t pretend anymore.

Keep reading

Polish Minister Slams ‘Insane’ EU Climate Policies

EU’s ‘green’ agenda is a recipe for disaster.

You know the suicidal environmental policies emanating from Brussels are about to be ditched when even members of the Polish liberal government led by PM Donald Tusk are openly criticizing it.

Tusk was elected with a clear mandate to bring Poland closer to the EU after the conservatives from PiS had bucked the Globalist agenda on so many fronts.

But it turns out that the European Union has become so radicalized that even Tusk’s liberals can’t stomach it anymore.

EU cheerleaders from POLITICO hosted an Energy & Climate Forum in Brussels today, where Secretary of State Krzysztof Bolesta said the EU was ‘moving too fast’ in its emissions cut plans targeting heavy industry.

Politico reported:

“The speed at which the EU is pushing its industry to cut carbon emissions under the Emissions Trading System is ‘insane’, according to Poland’s deputy climate and environment minister [Krzysztof Bolesta].

[…] ‘This is insane. And it’s not one industry branch, it’s quite a few. So, for me, this topic is actually something that we need to change’, he said, adding the current trajectory would hand the EU ‘the moral high ground, but we’ll have no industry’.”

Keep reading