JM

GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

Recommended Posts

On 7/13/2022 at 1:42 PM, Jay McKinsey said:

From the end of the actual article which is actually about fishing:

“Look, after a bumpy start, our relationship with the oil and gas industry settled down into something that was actually quite constructive. We want to achieve the same with renewables; establish a mature dialogue where both parties do what they have to do and set up the arrangements (framework) that allow us to co-exist.” https://www.energyvoice.com/renewables-energy-transition/wind/uk-wind/390966/north-sea-offshore-wind-fishermen/

The solution is just planning.

And there is a significant difference between the offshore drilling platforms and offshore wind.  The wind turbine planning is growing into a massive area of construction and sizable foundations on ocean floors around the world.  The result is not being studied using existing data and resulting issues surrounding the extent of the negative impact on oceans wind currents, ecosystems, fishing interference, and instability of undersea cables.  In the U.S. there is one existing offshore wind farm and last year the cables came up from the seabed on 4 out of the 5 turbines.  Of course, electricity was halted and commercial fishing was banned.  Taking into account that these turbines are not that old, and the government is not reviewing the problems that the Black Island RI wind farm is having and using some of the issues that have occurred to study the consequences of the current plan around the Atlantic Ocean are unknown.  As the EU is facing its biggest energy crises in history, it is the increased use of wind turbines failing that have placed them in their current situation.  Those are facts that are currently happening and you cannot deny the biggest downfall of all and that is "if the wind doesn't blow and you are relying on it to generate power, you will be caught in an unreliable and unsustainable electricity deficit.  

From the article as well:

They fear that commercial fishing is becoming sidelined, despite its huge socio-economic value if not absolute cash value to the British economy. Put bluntly, some say the “Last of the Hunters” are themselves becoming an endangered species because of the accelerating competition for space on the UK Continental Shelf.

Oil and gas may be a pariah, but its actual footprint has always been quite small. The two industries have learned to co-exist.

But Big Wind is different. Windfarms gobble huge areas of the seabed and though symbiotic relationships with the fishing industry should be possible, research reveals frictions and fishermen are unquestionably the fall guys.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

4 hours ago, JoMack said:

And there is a significant difference between the offshore drilling platforms and offshore wind.  The wind turbine planning is growing into a massive area of construction and sizable foundations on ocean floors around the world.  The result is not being studied using existing data and resulting issues surrounding the extent of the negative impact on oceans wind currents, ecosystems, fishing interference, and instability of undersea cables.  In the U.S. there is one existing offshore wind farm and last year the cables came up from the seabed on 4 out of the 5 turbines.  Of course, electricity was halted and commercial fishing was banned.  Taking into account that these turbines are not that old, and the government is not reviewing the problems that the Black Island RI wind farm is having and using some of the issues that have occurred to study the consequences of the current plan around the Atlantic Ocean are unknown.  As the EU is facing its biggest energy crises in history, it is the increased use of wind turbines failing that have placed them in their current situation.  Those are facts that are currently happening and you cannot deny the biggest downfall of all and that is "if the wind doesn't blow and you are relying on it to generate power, you will be caught in an unreliable and unsustainable electricity deficit.  

From the article as well:

They fear that commercial fishing is becoming sidelined, despite its huge socio-economic value if not absolute cash value to the British economy. Put bluntly, some say the “Last of the Hunters” are themselves becoming an endangered species because of the accelerating competition for space on the UK Continental Shelf.

Oil and gas may be a pariah, but its actual footprint has always been quite small. The two industries have learned to co-exist.

But Big Wind is different. Windfarms gobble huge areas of the seabed and though symbiotic relationships with the fishing industry should be possible, research reveals frictions and fishermen are unquestionably the fall guys.

The UK fishing industry was sidelined long ago.

image.png.711fab35156a2c05873bd808d93af7c8.png

https://www.investmentmonitor.ai/sectors/agribusiness/who-killed-the-british-fishing-industry

Energy is far, far more important to the economy than fishing.  In the UK, the fishing industry is worth just 0.1% of the UK’s GDP, while for the EU bloc the value comes to 0.2%. https://ukcustomssolutions.co.uk/2020/12/23/fisheries-an-industry-thats-worth-0-1-of-the-uks-gdp-is-holding-up-the-talks/

UK is famously a net importer of fish, The UK is a net importer of fish, with imports exceeding exports. The UK’s trade gap in 2020 for sea fish is 248,000 tonneshttps://www.gov.uk/government/news/fishing-industry-in-2020-statistics-published.

Using wind power to store energy in batteries or green hydrogen solves the problem of wind variability. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Wind power is not the problem in Europe, it is the solution. The problem is very obviously the reliance on fossil fuels.

 

 

Edited by Jay McKinsey
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 7/15/2022 at 7:52 PM, Eyes Wide Open said:

Dim future for Chevy Bolt EV, EUV as evidence mounts GM plans to end production

The affordable EVs' factory will become an electric truck plant by 2024 with no public plans to shift the Bolts elsewhere.

https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/chevy-bolt-ev-euv-gm-end-production/

Yep, it is old tech on an old platform. They are moving to the ultium platform. Note that its factory is going to produce an electric truck. 

Edited by Jay McKinsey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Just like the hybrid-powered Prius, the all-electric Leaf is a running joke in the automotive community. The naysayers may not be aware that Nissan’s compact hatchback was a trendsetting car, a trailblazer for the zero-emission vehicles that followed suit. Introduced in 2010, the compact model sold more than 577k units during its 12-year tenure.

https://www.autoevolution.com/news/nissan-leaf-may-be-discontinued-no-replacement-planned-193600.html

Edited by Eyes Wide Open
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 7/13/2022 at 12:28 PM, Boat said:

Let the woke try one more time to bring you to environmental enlightenment. It’s the air, it’s the water. You see, if you pollute the air and water, the pollution be carried into the human body. Obviously you been sniffing some sage and rustling around the mushrooms. 

mm......... were you trying to mean that i should be  thankful to those mushrooms............ that make us look sageous...........?  '~'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Dim future for Chevy Bolt EV, EUV as evidence mounts GM plans to end production

The affordable EVs' factory will become an electric truck plant by 2024 with no public plans to shift the Bolts elsewhere.

https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/chevy-bolt-ev-euv-gm-end-production/

GM has dumped every small car leader that it ever had, at least in my memory. Not enough profit is my guess. Just not competitive with the other companies. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ron Wagner said:

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/A-New-Threat-To-The-European-Battery-Boom.html

Lithium the new poison for our ground and water? It was the first manic depressive psychoactive drug. It is known to produce birth defects in birds near lithium rich soil. It is also known to be toxic in high doses. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_toxicity

Oil and gasoline are toxic in low doses whether in original form or combusted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 7/15/2022 at 9:48 AM, Jay McKinsey said:

The UK fishing industry was sidelined long ago.

image.png.711fab35156a2c05873bd808d93af7c8.png

https://www.investmentmonitor.ai/sectors/agribusiness/who-killed-the-british-fishing-industry

Energy is far, far more important to the economy than fishing.  In the UK, the fishing industry is worth just 0.1% of the UK’s GDP, while for the EU bloc the value comes to 0.2%. https://ukcustomssolutions.co.uk/2020/12/23/fisheries-an-industry-thats-worth-0-1-of-the-uks-gdp-is-holding-up-the-talks/

UK is famously a net importer of fish, The UK is a net importer of fish, with imports exceeding exports. The UK’s trade gap in 2020 for sea fish is 248,000 tonneshttps://www.gov.uk/government/news/fishing-industry-in-2020-statistics-published.

Using wind power to store energy in batteries or green hydrogen solves the problem of wind variability. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Wind power is not the problem in Europe, it is the solution. The problem is very obviously the reliance on fossil fuels.

 

 

Hmmm, interesting that the problem is obviously reliance on fossil fuels and wind is the solution.  

“Offshore wind decommissioning is going to ramp up very quickly,” Axel Laval, Asset Manager, The Crown Estate, said, speaking at the same event. The first two UK wind turbines, at Blyth, in England, have already been removed. By 2034, close to 3GW of power will reach the end of its design life, Laval says. That amounts to 1000 turbines to be removed.

However, just as offshore oil and gas decommissioning costs have been riddled with uncertainty (although that’s now improving), offshore wind decommissioning costs currently vary hugely. The challenge for offshore wind is that this creates uncertainty around the cost of energy for ongoing and future wind farms, says Laval. “It’s difficult to lower the cost of energy if you don’t know the cost of removing it,” he says.

Estimates are about £80,000-300,000 per megawatt (MW), he says. The total liability, for the installed base as at 2017, has been estimated at £1.82 billion. Given the wide range of cost estimates per megawatt, that means – to decommission the installed base as at 2017 – the numbers could be between £1.28-£3.64 billion range, he says.

Laval says there are currently 2,225 turbines installed in the UK North Sea amounting to 9,953MW of offshore wind. If the goal to reach 30GW of offshore wind power in the UK by 2030 is met, there could be some 5,000 turbines.

 

And, Big Wind will need the engineers in the fossil fuel industry to show them how to decommission their Eco-trash.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, JoMack said:

Hmmm, interesting that the problem is obviously reliance on fossil fuels and wind is the solution.  

“Offshore wind decommissioning is going to ramp up very quickly,” Axel Laval, Asset Manager, The Crown Estate, said, speaking at the same event. The first two UK wind turbines, at Blyth, in England, have already been removed. By 2034, close to 3GW of power will reach the end of its design life, Laval says. That amounts to 1000 turbines to be removed.

However, just as offshore oil and gas decommissioning costs have been riddled with uncertainty (although that’s now improving), offshore wind decommissioning costs currently vary hugely. The challenge for offshore wind is that this creates uncertainty around the cost of energy for ongoing and future wind farms, says Laval. “It’s difficult to lower the cost of energy if you don’t know the cost of removing it,” he says.

Estimates are about £80,000-300,000 per megawatt (MW), he says. The total liability, for the installed base as at 2017, has been estimated at £1.82 billion. Given the wide range of cost estimates per megawatt, that means – to decommission the installed base as at 2017 – the numbers could be between £1.28-£3.64 billion range, he says.

Laval says there are currently 2,225 turbines installed in the UK North Sea amounting to 9,953MW of offshore wind. If the goal to reach 30GW of offshore wind power in the UK by 2030 is met, there could be some 5,000 turbines.

 

And, Big Wind will need the engineers in the fossil fuel industry to show them how to decommission their Eco-trash.

 

 

 

A UK government auction has secured a record 11 gigawatts (GW) of new renewable energy capacity that will generate electricity four times more cheaply than current gas prices.

The projects are all due to start operating within the next five years up to 2026/27 and have agreed to generate electricity for an average price of £48 per megawatt hour (MWh) in today’s money. This is four times cheaper than the £196/MWh current cost of running gas-fired power stations.

Most of the new capacity – some 7GW – will be offshore wind. Notably, for the first time, these projects were cheaper than the 1.5GW of onshore wind or 2.2GW of solar.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-record-low-price-for-uk-offshore-wind-is-four-times-cheaper-than-gas/

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 7/16/2022 at 8:57 PM, Ron Wagner said:

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/A-New-Threat-To-The-European-Battery-Boom.html

Lithium the new poison for our ground and water? It was the first manic depressive psychoactive drug. It is known to produce birth defects in birds near lithium rich soil. It is also known to be toxic in high doses. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_toxicity

The lead acid battery in your ICE is just fine... eat it.

Edited by TailingsPond

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

The last few cult members just refuse to eat crow...

Open your eyes wide and see how you are constantly being fooled - about everything... or just keep embarrassing yourselves to my entertainment. :)  You're just wrong... accept it and save more embarrassment.

"Release the Kraken!"

Edited by TailingsPond
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 7/16/2022 at 7:50 PM, Ron Wagner said:

GM has dumped every small car leader that it ever had, at least in my memory. Not enough profit is my guess. Just not competitive with the other companies. 

Competitive? The Bolt/ EV platform lost 4 billion dollars along with years of lost time..The costs may well bring GM to it's knees.

  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

7 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

The last few cult members just refuse to eat crow...

Open your eyes wide and see how you are constantly being fooled - about everything... or just keep embarrassing yourselves to my entertainment. :)  You're just wrong... accept it and save more embarrassment.

"Release the Kraken!"

https://denvergazette.com/news/nation-world/john-durham-requesting-30-subpoenas-a-serious-move-kash-patel-says/article_bec9e24b-b9a2-5a81-9ff5-a30cd1c557b2.html

John Durham requesting 30 subpoenas a serious move, Kash Patel says

  • Daniel Chaitin, Washington Examiner
  •  
    • 12 hrs ago
    •  
Edited by Eyes Wide Open
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

A UK government auction has secured a record 11 gigawatts (GW) of new renewable energy capacity that will generate electricity four times more cheaply than current gas prices.

The projects are all due to start operating within the next five years up to 2026/27 and have agreed to generate electricity for an average price of £48 per megawatt hour (MWh) in today’s money. This is four times cheaper than the £196/MWh current cost of running gas-fired power stations.

Most of the new capacity – some 7GW – will be offshore wind. Notably, for the first time, these projects were cheaper than the 1.5GW of onshore wind or 2.2GW of solar.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-record-low-price-for-uk-offshore-wind-is-four-times-cheaper-than-gas/

We'll see in the next "FIVE YEARS", since you know, the wind don't blow, lights out, and voila - energy crises!  Relying on wind and solar and transition to this hugely subsided activity that results in negative impact for reliability is the Ponzi scheme created by people who understand zero about anything remotely related to energy and power.  Around the world countries are submitting to the WEF, zero-emission insanity. However, as they are feeling the backlash, which is occurring, as they continue their quest for subsdized intermittent generation of electricity.  On another front Sri Lanka has collapsed praying at the alter of the Green New Deal and the Netherlands farmers are protesting and delivering warnings to the people of Amsterdam, who will soon have food shortages.  So wind and solar is one thing, but now they're creating more crises in the sources that keep their countries stable.

The UK has slashed coal use in the past decade as wind power has gained a massive market share in the country’s electricity generation. On Monday, no power generated in Britain came from coal, system operator National Grid ESO said.

However, the gas and energy crisis in Europe and the cost-of-living crisis in the UK with soaring energy bills may have prompted the government to not explicitly pledge again an end to coal in two years’ time.

Natural gas held the largest share of power generation on Monday, at 35.6%, more than wind with 34.0%, according to National Grid ESO.

Although the UK North Sea produces a lot of gas, Britain also relies on imports from Norway and gas imports via interconnectors from Belgium and the Netherlands during the winter months. A worsening of the current gas and energy crisis in mainland Europe would be felt throughout the UK, where customers are already grappling with a surge in the cost of living and the highest inflation in forty years.

The UK is also considering cutting off gas supply via two interconnectors to mainland Europe under an emergency plan that would be triggered in case of severe gas shortages in Britain, the Financial Times reported last week.  

Tyler Durden
Thu, 07/14/2022 – 05:00
inflation

The post Energy Crisis Could Force The UK To Keep Using Coal appeared first on NXTmine.

So, as energy costs escalate, that five year escalation of additional wind in the UK will never be brought forward as the money dries up, and their current drive in costs, doesn't only create a problem with crude, but food and distillate and the multiple amount of products derived from petroleum. These countries in the UK and EU wrap themselves in the untenable Green New Deal, but the leaders will never feel the brunt of it. Let's remember that Herr Schwab, head of the WEF congratulated Sri Lanka's President in 2019 for its experiment from chemical to organic fertilizers.  Now, Sri Lanka is in a crises of its own making and the population has revolted in the throes of a famine created by the zero emissions believers such as their President.   Of course, as all the green transitions spread, the Netherlands is following suit and the protests have begun.  There is one thing in human nature that you cannot change and that is to have stability in energy, and food. Banning fossil fuels and nuclear energy to create some vision of free power and zero emissions is just what is, a vision and a scam.   No matter how you wrap this in the great transition as described in the WEF Great Reset, it is never going to deliver the results you continue to forecast, at least not in our life times.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

A UK government auction has secured a record 11 gigawatts (GW) of new renewable energy capacity that will generate electricity four times more cheaply than current gas prices.

The projects are all due to start operating within the next five years up to 2026/27 and have agreed to generate electricity for an average price of £48 per megawatt hour (MWh) in today’s money. This is four times cheaper than the £196/MWh current cost of running gas-fired power stations.

Most of the new capacity – some 7GW – will be offshore wind. Notably, for the first time, these projects were cheaper than the 1.5GW of onshore wind or 2.2GW of solar.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-record-low-price-for-uk-offshore-wind-is-four-times-cheaper-than-gas/

Just more future forecasting, wrapped in a basket of wishful thinking

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JoMack said:

We'll see in the next "FIVE YEARS", since you know, the wind don't blow, lights out, and voila - energy crises!  Relying on wind and solar and transition to this hugely subsided activity that results in negative impact for reliability is the Ponzi scheme created by people who understand zero about anything remotely related to energy and power.  Around the world countries are submitting to the WEF, zero-emission insanity. However, as they are feeling the backlash, which is occurring, as they continue their quest for subsdized intermittent generation of electricity.  On another front Sri Lanka has collapsed praying at the alter of the Green New Deal and the Netherlands farmers are protesting and delivering warnings to the people of Amsterdam, who will soon have food shortages.  So wind and solar is one thing, but now they're creating more crises in the sources that keep their countries stable.

The UK has slashed coal use in the past decade as wind power has gained a massive market share in the country’s electricity generation. On Monday, no power generated in Britain came from coal, system operator National Grid ESO said.

However, the gas and energy crisis in Europe and the cost-of-living crisis in the UK with soaring energy bills may have prompted the government to not explicitly pledge again an end to coal in two years’ time.

Natural gas held the largest share of power generation on Monday, at 35.6%, more than wind with 34.0%, according to National Grid ESO.

Although the UK North Sea produces a lot of gas, Britain also relies on imports from Norway and gas imports via interconnectors from Belgium and the Netherlands during the winter months. A worsening of the current gas and energy crisis in mainland Europe would be felt throughout the UK, where customers are already grappling with a surge in the cost of living and the highest inflation in forty years.

The UK is also considering cutting off gas supply via two interconnectors to mainland Europe under an emergency plan that would be triggered in case of severe gas shortages in Britain, the Financial Times reported last week.  

Tyler Durden
Thu, 07/14/2022 – 05:00
inflation

The post Energy Crisis Could Force The UK To Keep Using Coal appeared first on NXTmine.

So, as energy costs escalate, that five year escalation of additional wind in the UK will never be brought forward as the money dries up, and their current drive in costs, doesn't only create a problem with crude, but food and distillate and the multiple amount of products derived from petroleum. These countries in the UK and EU wrap themselves in the untenable Green New Deal, but the leaders will never feel the brunt of it. Let's remember that Herr Schwab, head of the WEF congratulated Sri Lanka's President in 2019 for its experiment from chemical to organic fertilizers.  Now, Sri Lanka is in a crises of its own making and the population has revolted in the throes of a famine created by the zero emissions believers such as their President.   Of course, as all the green transitions spread, the Netherlands is following suit and the protests have begun.  There is one thing in human nature that you cannot change and that is to have stability in energy, and food. Banning fossil fuels and nuclear energy to create some vision of free power and zero emissions is just what is, a vision and a scam.   No matter how you wrap this in the great transition as described in the WEF Great Reset, it is never going to deliver the results you continue to forecast, at least not in our life times.

The rising cost of fossil fuels drives investment to renewables, not the other way around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

The rising cost of fossil fuels drives investment to renewables, not the other way around.

It is a huge Ponzi scheme that is bringing billions into the coffers of governments.  The EU was releasing its new CBAM carbon credit, cross border climate change costs between the EU and those low life countries not meeting their climate goals.  It's all a house of cards, and the EU will be seeing a backlash, and here, the SEC, starting their BlackRock ESG scheme will see the SCOTUS soon, as did the EPA.

THE EU EMISSIONS TRADING SYSTEM AFTER THE ENERGY PRICE SPIKE

 
 
Policy brief
  • Before Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, the EU had planned to expand its emissions trading system (EU ETS) and strengthen the carbon price it generates. The economic recovery from the pandemic has led to an energy crunch, and war in Ukraine has contributed to increasing energy prices and complicated the politics of carbon pricing. This policy brief discusses how to make a higher and more comprehensive EU carbon price both effective and politically feasible.
  • The EU’s existing ETS establishes a carbon price for heavy industry, electricity generation and intra-EU flights. However, to maintain the competitiveness of European industry, many emissions permits are handed out for free, which has so far dimmed the incentives for industries to cut CO2. Carbon emissions from road transport and building heating, so far excluded from the ETS, are priced unevenly across the EU, with energy and carbon taxes varying across countries.
  • The EU’s Fit for 55 climate policy package aims to change this, strengthening the role of carbon pricing in the transition towards carbon neutrality by 2050.
  • As part of this package, the European Commission has proposed a lower cap on emissions, to bring the ETS in line with tougher climate targets, and tighter conditions under which industrial plants can claim free permits. Free permits will be gradually phased out, while a carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) will be introduced to level the playing field between the carbon price faced by EU and foreign producers. The Commission has also proposed that all ETS revenues that member-states receive should go towards climate investment.
  • These reforms go in the right direction, but should be stricter and implemented more rapidly:
    • A gradually increasing price floor, below which the price of emissions permits cannot fall, would provide investors with certainty of the direction of carbon prices.
    • The current proposal envisions the full phase-out of free allowances in 2036, ten years after the CBAM’s full implementation. Scrapping free allowances for heavy industry by 2030 would force producers to innovate more quickly and would not make European industry less competitive. 
    • Member-states should devote ETS revenues to climate investment as planned – but more of that should go towards low-carbon innovation.
  • The European Commission wants to introduce a new ETS (ETS2) covering emissions from road transport and buildings, where decarbonisation is lagging. This would impose a larger burden on poorer households and smaller businesses who cannot easily afford to insulate their home or upgrade to more energy efficient production processes. The EU wants to use part of the ETS2 revenues to help such vulnerable energy users and has proposed a Social Climate Fund (SCF) to do so, but it could do more:
    • All revenues from the ETS2 should be devoted to the SCF.
    • The Fund should start as soon as possible: it would provide a good EU-wide response to recent energy price spikes.
    • The EU should clearly communicate that all revenues from ETS2 will be devoted to supporting citizens and businesses in the green energy transition. Without clarity on this link, popular support for carbon pricing may falter.
    • A ‘price corridor’ for ETS2 carbon prices could help avoid excessive carbon price fluctuations. Households and small businesses are not equipped to deal with large fluctuations in their energy and fuel expenses.
    • The EU should align all policies concerning road transport and buildings with climate targets: reform of the energy taxation directive is needed to remove energy subsidies (such as those for aviation) and to ensure that high energy taxes do not put electricity, which will become greener over time, at a cost disadvantage relative to fossil fuels.

In the EU, not all CO2 emissions are considered equal: heavy industry and electricity producers face an EU-wide carbon price under the EU Emissions Trading System EU (ETS), but road transport and the heating of buildings do not. All EU member-states tax fuel, but tax rates vary. And some member-states have their own national carbon taxes in addition to the ETS. This is about to change. In July 2021, the European Commission presented the ‘Fit for 55’ climate and energy package, a set of policies to cut carbon emissions by 55 per cent by 2030 relative to 1990 levels. The package proposes reforms to tighten the EU ETS cap on emissions from heavy industry and electricity generation, and to create a new scheme to put a price on carbon emissions from road transport and buildings.

Since 2005, the ETS has capped carbon emissions from over 10,500 installations in the European power sector and in energy-intensive industrial sectors such as oil refining, iron and steel, and cement. The cap covers about 36 per cent of total European emissions and is gradually tightened every year to reduce them.1 The cap is enforced via permits to emit, which are traded on carbon markets, leading to a price for carbon emissions. The problem is that, while the energy sector has cut its emissions by 15 per cent since 2005, the carbon price from the ETS has, so far, not driven down carbon emissions from heavy industry in a comparable way. 

But prices on the European carbon market reached an all-time high of €100 per tonne of CO2 in early February 2022, as Europe’s climate targets – and its policies – have become more ambitious. That is a welcome change from the first 15 years of the EU ETS, when heavy industry found that emitting carbon was so cheap that reducing emissions was not worth the hassle. A carbon price with bite is a necessary tool to reach the EU’s climate goals. But a high price poses a challenge for Europe’s heavy industry, which competes globally with producers who are not (yet) subject to comparable carbon pricing.

The proposed ETS reform lowers the cap on emissions to bring the ETS in line with tougher climate targets. It also tightens the conditions under which industrial plants can claim free permits, paving the way for their gradual phase-out. This will be paired with the phase-in of a carbon border adjustment mechanism, which will charge importers of some heavy industry outputs to the EU a fee based on the EU carbon price, effectively levelling the playing field between domestic and foreign producers. 

The other main policy change related to carbon pricing included in the Fit for 55 package is the proposal to introduce a new system to cap and trade carbon emissions from two major laggard sectors, road transport and buildings, which account for about 25 per cent and 15 per cent of EU-wide greenhouse gas emissions respectively.2 

Manufacturing and energy industries, currently covered by the EU ETS, have cut greenhouse gas emissions since 1990 by about 40 per cent, while decarbonisation in the commercial and residential building sector has not been as fast, with emissions reductions below 30 per cent. However, emissions from road transport have increased by almost 30 per cent (see Chart 1). The new ETS aims to reverse this trend in transport emissions and accelerate decarbonisation in buildings, cutting combined emissions from these sectors by 45 per cent by 2030 relative to 2005 levels. 

 

So, this should be good and today, the powers that be seem to be rethinking this great regulatory system to further reduce the reliability by installing higher fees, penalties, and business-consumer climate crunch. It may be that crazy ole heat is making their brains fry so they're getting a reality check since they don't own any AC.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, JoMack said:

It is a huge Ponzi scheme that is bringing billions into the coffers of governments.  The EU was releasing its new CBAM carbon credit, cross border climate change costs between the EU and those low life countries not meeting their climate goals.  It's all a house of cards, and the EU will be seeing a backlash, and here, the SEC, starting their BlackRock ESG scheme will see the SCOTUS soon, as did the EPA.

THE EU EMISSIONS TRADING SYSTEM AFTER THE ENERGY PRICE SPIKE

 
 
Policy brief
  • Before Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, the EU had planned to expand its emissions trading system (EU ETS) and strengthen the carbon price it generates. The economic recovery from the pandemic has led to an energy crunch, and war in Ukraine has contributed to increasing energy prices and complicated the politics of carbon pricing. This policy brief discusses how to make a higher and more comprehensive EU carbon price both effective and politically feasible.
  • The EU’s existing ETS establishes a carbon price for heavy industry, electricity generation and intra-EU flights. However, to maintain the competitiveness of European industry, many emissions permits are handed out for free, which has so far dimmed the incentives for industries to cut CO2. Carbon emissions from road transport and building heating, so far excluded from the ETS, are priced unevenly across the EU, with energy and carbon taxes varying across countries.
  • The EU’s Fit for 55 climate policy package aims to change this, strengthening the role of carbon pricing in the transition towards carbon neutrality by 2050.
  • As part of this package, the European Commission has proposed a lower cap on emissions, to bring the ETS in line with tougher climate targets, and tighter conditions under which industrial plants can claim free permits. Free permits will be gradually phased out, while a carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) will be introduced to level the playing field between the carbon price faced by EU and foreign producers. The Commission has also proposed that all ETS revenues that member-states receive should go towards climate investment.
  • These reforms go in the right direction, but should be stricter and implemented more rapidly:
    • A gradually increasing price floor, below which the price of emissions permits cannot fall, would provide investors with certainty of the direction of carbon prices.
    • The current proposal envisions the full phase-out of free allowances in 2036, ten years after the CBAM’s full implementation. Scrapping free allowances for heavy industry by 2030 would force producers to innovate more quickly and would not make European industry less competitive. 
    • Member-states should devote ETS revenues to climate investment as planned – but more of that should go towards low-carbon innovation.
  • The European Commission wants to introduce a new ETS (ETS2) covering emissions from road transport and buildings, where decarbonisation is lagging. This would impose a larger burden on poorer households and smaller businesses who cannot easily afford to insulate their home or upgrade to more energy efficient production processes. The EU wants to use part of the ETS2 revenues to help such vulnerable energy users and has proposed a Social Climate Fund (SCF) to do so, but it could do more:
    • All revenues from the ETS2 should be devoted to the SCF.
    • The Fund should start as soon as possible: it would provide a good EU-wide response to recent energy price spikes.
    • The EU should clearly communicate that all revenues from ETS2 will be devoted to supporting citizens and businesses in the green energy transition. Without clarity on this link, popular support for carbon pricing may falter.
    • A ‘price corridor’ for ETS2 carbon prices could help avoid excessive carbon price fluctuations. Households and small businesses are not equipped to deal with large fluctuations in their energy and fuel expenses.
    • The EU should align all policies concerning road transport and buildings with climate targets: reform of the energy taxation directive is needed to remove energy subsidies (such as those for aviation) and to ensure that high energy taxes do not put electricity, which will become greener over time, at a cost disadvantage relative to fossil fuels.

In the EU, not all CO2 emissions are considered equal: heavy industry and electricity producers face an EU-wide carbon price under the EU Emissions Trading System EU (ETS), but road transport and the heating of buildings do not. All EU member-states tax fuel, but tax rates vary. And some member-states have their own national carbon taxes in addition to the ETS. This is about to change. In July 2021, the European Commission presented the ‘Fit for 55’ climate and energy package, a set of policies to cut carbon emissions by 55 per cent by 2030 relative to 1990 levels. The package proposes reforms to tighten the EU ETS cap on emissions from heavy industry and electricity generation, and to create a new scheme to put a price on carbon emissions from road transport and buildings.

Since 2005, the ETS has capped carbon emissions from over 10,500 installations in the European power sector and in energy-intensive industrial sectors such as oil refining, iron and steel, and cement. The cap covers about 36 per cent of total European emissions and is gradually tightened every year to reduce them.1 The cap is enforced via permits to emit, which are traded on carbon markets, leading to a price for carbon emissions. The problem is that, while the energy sector has cut its emissions by 15 per cent since 2005, the carbon price from the ETS has, so far, not driven down carbon emissions from heavy industry in a comparable way. 

But prices on the European carbon market reached an all-time high of €100 per tonne of CO2 in early February 2022, as Europe’s climate targets – and its policies – have become more ambitious. That is a welcome change from the first 15 years of the EU ETS, when heavy industry found that emitting carbon was so cheap that reducing emissions was not worth the hassle. A carbon price with bite is a necessary tool to reach the EU’s climate goals. But a high price poses a challenge for Europe’s heavy industry, which competes globally with producers who are not (yet) subject to comparable carbon pricing.

The proposed ETS reform lowers the cap on emissions to bring the ETS in line with tougher climate targets. It also tightens the conditions under which industrial plants can claim free permits, paving the way for their gradual phase-out. This will be paired with the phase-in of a carbon border adjustment mechanism, which will charge importers of some heavy industry outputs to the EU a fee based on the EU carbon price, effectively levelling the playing field between domestic and foreign producers. 

The other main policy change related to carbon pricing included in the Fit for 55 package is the proposal to introduce a new system to cap and trade carbon emissions from two major laggard sectors, road transport and buildings, which account for about 25 per cent and 15 per cent of EU-wide greenhouse gas emissions respectively.2 

Manufacturing and energy industries, currently covered by the EU ETS, have cut greenhouse gas emissions since 1990 by about 40 per cent, while decarbonisation in the commercial and residential building sector has not been as fast, with emissions reductions below 30 per cent. However, emissions from road transport have increased by almost 30 per cent (see Chart 1). The new ETS aims to reverse this trend in transport emissions and accelerate decarbonisation in buildings, cutting combined emissions from these sectors by 45 per cent by 2030 relative to 2005 levels. 

 

So, this should be good and today, the powers that be seem to be rethinking this great regulatory system to further reduce the reliability by installing higher fees, penalties, and business-consumer climate crunch. It may be that crazy ole heat is making their brains fry so they're getting a reality check since they don't own any AC.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The European proposal looks fine to me. 

As I said about investment:

BlackRock Sees 30% Jump in Flows to Suite of Climate ETFs

The nine funds that track EU-regulated climate transition benchmarks attracted $2.7 billion this year as of mid-June. July 7, 2022

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

The European proposal looks fine to me. 

As I said about investment:

BlackRock Sees 30% Jump in Flows to Suite of Climate ETFs

The nine funds that track EU-regulated climate transition benchmarks attracted $2.7 billion this year as of mid-June. July 7, 2022

It is not surprising you believe that coercion to build your utopia is just fine while spreading hundreds of thousands of wind turbines on land and sea, hundreds of thousands of solar panels just shining brightly when the sun is out, while some sort of storage will be just around the corner.  Please continue since it is interesting to watch and read about how all is well in the land of green energy transition.  You know, like Sri Lanka. A prime example of coercion and the utopian dream by the WEF that toppled a government.  Just an example of coercion without knowing the consequences.

 So, this carbon credit scheme is great so that billions are paid by industries, especially oil, gas, coal, airlines, transportation, and passed to the consumer, and end up in the governments coffers but hey, it's good for the planet.  Creating some measurements for emissions by a bunch of bureaucrats who give forms for carbon emissions that industry pays into is a sophisticated form of corruption to strip  business of profits as they pay to offset some random emissions with zero impact on any emission decline itself.   Let's remember, the largest reduction of emissions in the US. was a transition from coal to natural gas.  

As far as investment is concerned, BlackRock is a trillion dollar firm with a narcissist at the helm.  As BlackRock's Larry Fink joins the board of the WEF, ESG becomes a storm trooper to force companies to comply with BlackRock demands for climate change.  It seems that Larry isn't doing too well on that front since his threats are hitting the bottom line of Big Oil and the investors who were thrilled to vote in Larry's environmental activists are witnessing the major downturn of their dividends.  So, with BlackRocks power on Wall Street and Larry's minions in the Obama and Biden Administrations the ESG dream seems to be floundering, except in BlackRock, as you point out.  So, Larry is about to pack his bags and take billions of his bucks to China, but it will not be to coerce Mr Xi, since ESG for China is not on the table yet it is a pollution Godzilla.  

Funny how that works, but BlackRock still has Biden being handled by Brian Deese, Fink's former right hand man who is Biden's Chief Economic Advisor who tells us we have to suffer since we are entering the liberal world order.  Oops.  And, I'm sure you love John Kerry, the U.S. Climate Czar, zipping around the world in his private jet polluting everywhere he goes, but hey, he pays for carbon credits so that money is well spent by going into his foundation for climate change.  But, he is still making progress to get Iran's nuclear deal done soon and Russia and China are in Tehran today getting ready for Iran to join in their own new world order so glad we haven't banned our nuclear subs and fuel for the military.

But there is still hope since the SEC is stepping on to the  ESG bandwagon, but the lawsuits have started, since it is arguably not what is required by SEC standards, so again, Mr. Deese and Mr. Fink may be playing hardball, but they can't overcome the wrath of the shareholders and the smackdown of the SEC.  So,  although they're all trying hard to impose BlackRock's ESG mandates for his green new deal,  reality is in play and the charge into the renewable world is seems to not only be faulty on its face, but is also failing across the world.

 

  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, JoMack said:

It is not surprising you believe that coercion to build your utopia is just fine while spreading hundreds of thousands of wind turbines on land and sea, hundreds of thousands of solar panels just shining brightly when the sun is out, while some sort of storage will be just around the corner.  Please continue since it is interesting to watch and read about how all is well in the land of green energy transition.  You know, like Sri Lanka. A prime example of coercion and the utopian dream by the WEF that toppled a government.  Just an example of coercion without knowing the consequences.

 So, this carbon credit scheme is great so that billions are paid by industries, especially oil, gas, coal, airlines, transportation, and passed to the consumer, and end up in the governments coffers but hey, it's good for the planet.  Creating some measurements for emissions by a bunch of bureaucrats who give forms for carbon emissions that industry pays into is a sophisticated form of corruption to strip  business of profits as they pay to offset some random emissions with zero impact on any emission decline itself.   Let's remember, the largest reduction of emissions in the US. was a transition from coal to natural gas.  

As far as investment is concerned, BlackRock is a trillion dollar firm with a narcissist at the helm.  As BlackRock's Larry Fink joins the board of the WEF, ESG becomes a storm trooper to force companies to comply with BlackRock demands for climate change.  It seems that Larry isn't doing too well on that front since his threats are hitting the bottom line of Big Oil and the investors who were thrilled to vote in Larry's environmental activists are witnessing the major downturn of their dividends.  So, with BlackRocks power on Wall Street and Larry's minions in the Obama and Biden Administrations the ESG dream seems to be floundering, except in BlackRock, as you point out.  So, Larry is about to pack his bags and take billions of his bucks to China, but it will not be to coerce Mr Xi, since ESG for China is not on the table yet it is a pollution Godzilla.  

Funny how that works, but BlackRock still has Biden being handled by Brian Deese, Fink's former right hand man who is Biden's Chief Economic Advisor who tells us we have to suffer since we are entering the liberal world order.  Oops.  And, I'm sure you love John Kerry, the U.S. Climate Czar, zipping around the world in his private jet polluting everywhere he goes, but hey, he pays for carbon credits so that money is well spent by going into his foundation for climate change.  But, he is still making progress to get Iran's nuclear deal done soon and Russia and China are in Tehran today getting ready for Iran to join in their own new world order so glad we haven't banned our nuclear subs and fuel for the military.

But there is still hope since the SEC is stepping on to the  ESG bandwagon, but the lawsuits have started, since it is arguably not what is required by SEC standards, so again, Mr. Deese and Mr. Fink may be playing hardball, but they can't overcome the wrath of the shareholders and the smackdown of the SEC.  So,  although they're all trying hard to impose BlackRock's ESG mandates for his green new deal,  reality is in play and the charge into the renewable world is seems to not only be faulty on its face, but is also failing across the world.

 

It is not surprising you believe that coercion to build your utopia is just fine

You know, like Sri Lanka. A prime example of coercion and the utopian dream

BlackRock is a trillion dollar firm with a narcissist at the helm

the renewable world is seems to not only be faulty on its face, but is also failing across the world.???

 

boy you sure do babble BS a lot these days....go buy yourself a coal mine if you think renewables are failing, you will make a fortune, ha ha ha

PS coal consumption in the US is down again this year by 3 percent from 2021.........

 

 

  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JoMack said:

It is not surprising you believe that coercion to build your utopia is just fine while spreading hundreds of thousands of wind turbines on land and sea, hundreds of thousands of solar panels just shining brightly when the sun is out, while some sort of storage will be just around the corner.  Please continue since it is interesting to watch and read about how all is well in the land of green energy transition.  You know, like Sri Lanka. A prime example of coercion and the utopian dream by the WEF that toppled a government.  Just an example of coercion without knowing the consequences.

 So, this carbon credit scheme is great so that billions are paid by industries, especially oil, gas, coal, airlines, transportation, and passed to the consumer, and end up in the governments coffers but hey, it's good for the planet.  Creating some measurements for emissions by a bunch of bureaucrats who give forms for carbon emissions that industry pays into is a sophisticated form of corruption to strip  business of profits as they pay to offset some random emissions with zero impact on any emission decline itself.   Let's remember, the largest reduction of emissions in the US. was a transition from coal to natural gas.  

As far as investment is concerned, BlackRock is a trillion dollar firm with a narcissist at the helm.  As BlackRock's Larry Fink joins the board of the WEF, ESG becomes a storm trooper to force companies to comply with BlackRock demands for climate change.  It seems that Larry isn't doing too well on that front since his threats are hitting the bottom line of Big Oil and the investors who were thrilled to vote in Larry's environmental activists are witnessing the major downturn of their dividends.  So, with BlackRocks power on Wall Street and Larry's minions in the Obama and Biden Administrations the ESG dream seems to be floundering, except in BlackRock, as you point out.  So, Larry is about to pack his bags and take billions of his bucks to China, but it will not be to coerce Mr Xi, since ESG for China is not on the table yet it is a pollution Godzilla.  

Funny how that works, but BlackRock still has Biden being handled by Brian Deese, Fink's former right hand man who is Biden's Chief Economic Advisor who tells us we have to suffer since we are entering the liberal world order.  Oops.  And, I'm sure you love John Kerry, the U.S. Climate Czar, zipping around the world in his private jet polluting everywhere he goes, but hey, he pays for carbon credits so that money is well spent by going into his foundation for climate change.  But, he is still making progress to get Iran's nuclear deal done soon and Russia and China are in Tehran today getting ready for Iran to join in their own new world order so glad we haven't banned our nuclear subs and fuel for the military.

But there is still hope since the SEC is stepping on to the  ESG bandwagon, but the lawsuits have started, since it is arguably not what is required by SEC standards, so again, Mr. Deese and Mr. Fink may be playing hardball, but they can't overcome the wrath of the shareholders and the smackdown of the SEC.  So,  although they're all trying hard to impose BlackRock's ESG mandates for his green new deal,  reality is in play and the charge into the renewable world is seems to not only be faulty on its face, but is also failing across the world.

 

Some type of storage isn't around the corner it is here. Grid batteries are skyrocketing and they will handle the greatest part of storage needs.. Long term reserve storage is around the corner in green hydrogen. 

You don't understand how carbon credits work. They don't put money in the govt's coffers they put money into companies who go green and are given credits to sell to polluters.

A carbon credit is created when 1 metric ton of carbon dioxide is removed from, or prevented from entering, the atmosphere through an emission reduction program. Project developers can then sell carbon credits to fund current or future carbon offset projects. 

The projects that create carbon credits are greenhouse gas reduction programs that work to achieve energy efficiency, develop renewable energy solutions, capture methane, and reduce waste. Any project that accomplishes these goals, and reduces the equivalent of 1 ton of carbon emissions, can begin creating and selling carbon credits. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 7/18/2022 at 8:20 AM, Eyes Wide Open said:

Competitive? The Bolt/ EV platform lost 4 billion dollars along with years of lost time..The costs may well bring GM to it's knees.

They sold their soul to the U.S. government when they were "saved" financially. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, notsonice said:

It is not surprising you believe that coercion to build your utopia is just fine

You know, like Sri Lanka. A prime example of coercion and the utopian dream

BlackRock is a trillion dollar firm with a narcissist at the helm

the renewable world is seems to not only be faulty on its face, but is also failing across the world.???

 

boy you sure do babble BS a lot these days....go buy yourself a coal mine if you think renewables are failing, you will make a fortune, ha ha ha

PS coal consumption in the US is down again this year by 3 percent from 2021.........

 

 

You totally miss the point. Whatever the West does is with coal is nothing compared to what Asia is doing and will do in the future. You never admit that simple fact. Why? I am sure you understand that, and that the West will soon be done with coal due to natural gas and renewables. Meanwhile we must use "all of the above", as the European Union has decided by calling natural gas and nuclear  renewable or clean sources of energy. Are you working for renewables, selling them, invested? That would explain it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.