GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[Ecocharger + 1,398]

8 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Yes "a group of car dealers" which represented 24% I believe Jay proved in an earlier post. Wow they managed to get nearly 1/4 of car dealers to agree so I guess 3/4 of them didnt!

"The group of 3,700 dealers spread across all 50 states and covering all major car brands stated that electric vehicle inventories on car dealership lots are growing as deliveries outpace demand. 

“The reality is that electric vehicle demand today is not keeping up with the large influx of BEVs arriving at our dealerships prompted by the current regulations. BEVs are stacking up on our lots,” the letter read in part."

Sounds like a large sample size.

[Ecocharger + 1,398]

9 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

No you didnt, you stated the "new" Chinese coal plants were a lot "cleaner" than the USA ones!

Now you are saying that the USA are building new coal plants with improved emissions with this new tech (gasification that is 50 years old), show us examples of where this is happening in America, that was my question which you dismally failed to answer.

Where did I say that, Rob? The new coal plants are in China, and are already cleaner than the best American plants.

I already quoted the newest American clean coal technology above , which is inferior to the recent Chinese clean coal technology, even without using gasification.

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/everything-think-know-coal-china-wrong/

"China’s new coal-fired power plants are cleaner than anything operating in the United States.

China’s emissions standards for conventional air pollutants from coal-fired power plants are stricter than the comparable U.S. standards."

Edited December 1, 2023 by Ecocharger

[turbguy + 1,491]

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

 

 

Coal isn't so cheap anymore. It is double its historic average. And for a couple years it suffered huge shortages.

V

 

Power Plants don't pay spot market prices (at least it's very rare). 

There's these things called "negotiation"  and "contracts" and "hedges" involved, including "specifications" and "penalties" (and some Jack Daniels consumption between parties as well).  Wall Street takes their cut, too.

That said, nat gas has been very competitive with coal.  And nat gas plants don't pay spot market prices either, using the same "things" (including Jack Daniels).

[turbguy + 1,491]

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

 

 

Coal isn't so cheap anymore. It is double its historic average. And for a couple years it suffered huge shortages.

V

 

Power Plants don't pay spot market prices (at least it's very rare). 

There's these things called "negotiation"  and "contracts" and "hedges" involved, including "specifications" and "penalties" (and some Jack Daniels consumption between parties as well).  Wall Street takes their cut, too.

That said, nat gas has been very competitive with coal.  And nat gas plants don't pay spot market prices either, using the same "things" (including Jack Daniels).

[turbguy + 1,491]

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

 

 

Coal isn't so cheap anymore. It is double its historic average. And for a couple years it suffered huge shortages.

V

 

Power Plants don't pay spot market prices (at least it's very rare). 

There's these things called "negotiation"  and "contracts" and "hedges" involved, including "specifications" and "penalties" (and some Jack Daniels consumption between parties as well).  Wall Street takes their cut, too.

That said, nat gas has been very competitive with coal.  And nat gas plants don't pay spot market prices either, using the same "things" (including Jack Daniels).

[turbguy + 1,491]

1 hour ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Why LIE?  Clearly you do NOT think for yourself nor do you believe anyone else can. 

If you DID, then you would not be posting that pure BS about news sources.  The only reason you would post this is for those people who you think MIGHT start to think for themselves and to chivvy them back into "line" for your point of view. 

Huh?

 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/reuters/

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/bbc/

or:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fox-news-bias/

Edited December 1, 2023 by turbguy

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

1 hour ago, turbguy said:

Power Plants don't pay spot market prices (at least it's very rare). 

There's these things called "negotiation"  and "contracts" and "hedges" involved, including "specifications" and "penalties" (and some Jack Daniels consumption between parties as well).  Wall Street takes their cut, too.

That said, nat gas has been very competitive with coal.  And nat gas plants don't pay spot market prices either, using the same "things" (including Jack Daniels).

They may not pay spot but contracts don't last forever. Newly negotiated prices went up as well by about the same relative margin. And due to the shortages many coal plants were forced into the spot market.

The tumultuous conditions in the coal spot market during 2021 and 2022 also influenced forward prices. Whilst exhibiting strong backwardation (when spot prices are higher than futures) from mid-2021 to the end of 2022, market expectations on futures markets varied broadly.

During the peak price of USD 254/t in October 2022, the market initially expected long-term prices to return to just below USD 100/t by 2024. However, the sanctions imposed on Russa following its invasion of Ukraine fundamentally altered market expectations. By mid-2022, forward prices anticipated coal prices to remain above USD 200/t until mid-2025.

Following the sharp decline in spot prices at the end of 2022 and their stabilisation in the first half of 2023, the forward price curve for API2 (a price index for coal deliveries to Europe, CIF) adopted a flat trend. It is worth noticing that the current flat forward curve is about USD 65/t higher than the last flat curve in March 2021. Among other factors, the inflation of supply costs play an important role in this.

Edited December 1, 2023 by Jay McKinsey

[Ecocharger + 1,398]

10 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

They may not pay spot but contracts don't last forever. Newly negotiated prices went up as well by about the same margin. And due to the shortages many coal plants were forced into the spot market.

The tumultuous conditions in the coal spot market during 2021 and 2022 also influenced forward prices. Whilst exhibiting strong backwardation (when spot prices are higher than futures) from mid-2021 to the end of 2022, market expectations on futures markets varied broadly.

During the peak price of USD 254/t in October 2022, the market initially expected long-term prices to return to just below USD 100/t by 2024. However, the sanctions imposed on Russa following its invasion of Ukraine fundamentally altered market expectations. By mid-2022, forward prices anticipated coal prices to remain above USD 200/t until mid-2025.

Following the sharp decline in spot prices at the end of 2022 and their stabilisation in the first half of 2023, the forward price curve for API2 (a price index for coal deliveries to Europe, CIF) adopted a flat trend. It is worth noticing that the current flat forward curve is about USD 65/t higher than the last flat curve in March 2021. Among other factors, the inflation of supply costs play an important role in this.

China has made it clear that the future of energy sources includes coal due to the unreliability of hydro/wind/solar. Coal demand is up and staying up in China.

Supply and demand always fluctuate, as do prices. High prices stimulate higher production.

[notsonice + 1,166]

4 hours ago, turbguy said:

Power Plants don't pay spot market prices (at least it's very rare). 

There's these things called "negotiation"  and "contracts" and "hedges" involved, including "specifications" and "penalties" (and some Jack Daniels consumption between parties as well).  Wall Street takes their cut, too.

That said, nat gas has been very competitive with coal.  And nat gas plants don't pay spot market prices either, using the same "things" (including Jack Daniels).

Power Plants don't pay spot market prices??????

And nat gas plants don't pay spot market prices either?????????

 

they both do all the time.......

 

estimate today of US Coal sales  spot tonnages (including exports)............my guess today 20 to 30 percent of all production

Usually, for Coal, will enter into long term contracts, for old school power companies (Old School is  still 80 percent of the Coal fired business/ 20 percent is independent producers selling into the spot electricity  market) . Old School Companies will not enter into long term (More than 1 year contracts) when the prices shot through the roof in 2022)  So the market has shifted. You can see this on your electric bill in the form of the cost adjustments....that cover the spot market purchases overpricing) . 2022 is a bloodbath for consumers because of both Coal and Nat Gas spot prices.... You can also see that Coal fired stockpiles at power plants are at  4 month plus supply right now.......Power producers with long term contracts have no where to pile their contractual tonnages and are dumping into the spot market coal right now........which is decimated the spot price these days....

So the market is in a giant flux right now, with a drop this year of 20 percent plus in US Coal consumption

Nat gas is in much better shape however, Old school companies will only buy long term at low prices and again 2022 upset the cart ......so a lot of gas is now bought on the spot market

Gas however is a much different animal than coal ....as you also have to tie into long term pipeline commitments for capacity IE you pay for the pipeline even if you do not take the gas

 

Power producers in the US , all of the time are in the spot market, and it is not rare

Edited December 1, 2023 by notsonice

[notsonice + 1,166]

14 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

China has made it clear that the future of energy sources includes coal due to the unreliability of hydro/wind/solar. Coal demand is up and staying up in China.

Supply and demand always fluctuate, as do prices. High prices stimulate higher production.

back up power is coals future in China.............

right now all the coal power plants in China are losing money.........because the Cost of electricity is set by the CCP for everyone...and the cost of coal makes them uneconomical

Solar and Wind is cheaper and makes money.....

 

Solar alone is now meeting the new power needs in China.....Peak Coal in China is here now......the use for the new power plants

Standby......Gov subsidies well keep their lights on

Enjoy the transition......

the future....expect many State owned coal power plants to go bankrupt in the next 5 years.........

 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

54 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

China has made it clear that the future of energy sources includes coal due to the unreliability of hydro/wind/solar. Coal demand is up and staying up in China.

Supply and demand always fluctuate, as do prices. High prices stimulate higher production.

Higher prices also stimulate substitution.

[turbguy + 1,491]

9 hours ago, notsonice said: Power Plants don't pay spot market prices?????? And nat gas plants don't pay spot market prices either?????????   they both do all the time.......   estimate today of US Coal sales  spot tonnages (including exports)............my guess today 20 to 30 percent of all production Usually, for Coal, will enter into long term contracts, for old school power companies (Old School is  still 80 percent of the Coal fired business/ 20 percent is independent producers selling into the spot electricity  market) . Old School Companies will not enter into long term (More than 1 year contracts) when the prices shot through the roof in 2022)  So the market has shifted. You can see this on your electric bill in the form of the cost adjustments....that cover the spot market purchases overpricing) . 2022 is a bloodbath for consumers because of both Coal and Nat Gas spot prices.... You can also see that Coal fired stockpiles at power plants are at  4 month plus supply right now.......Power producers with long term contracts have no where to pile their contractual tonnages and are dumping into the spot market coal right now........which is decimated the spot price these days.... So the market is in a giant flux right now, with a drop this year of 20 percent plus in US Coal consumption Nat gas is in much better shape however, Old school companies will only buy long term at low prices and again 2022 upset the cart ......so a lot of gas is now bought on the spot market Gas however is a much different animal than coal ....as you also have to tie into long term pipeline commitments for capacity IE you pay for the pipeline even if you do not take the gas   Power producers in the US , all of the time are in the spot market, and it is not rare Type of coal                          Typical contract length Metallurgical coal                  5 to 10 years Steam coal                              3 to 10 years Powder River Basin coal      10 to 20 years Now, transportation contracts for non-minemouth plants can be an issue, similar to that pipeline contract.

Edited December 2, 2023 by turbguy

[TailingsPond + 552]

Around here the power plants also owned the coal mines so the price of coal didn't mater much.

Now most of the power plants have been retrofitted to natural gas.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

12 hours ago, turbguy said:

Type of coal                          Typical contract length Metallurgical coal                  5 to 10 years Steam coal                              3 to 10 years Powder River Basin coal      10 to 20 years Now, transportation contracts for non-minemouth plants can be an issue, similar to that pipeline contract.

I think you are a little out of date. By far the majority of steam contracts are less than 3 years or spot. Tbe Powder River Basin number is completely whacked.

• 29 Jun, 2020

Long-term contracts still eluding coal sector as short-term deals dominate

• While longer-term deals still form a smaller share of coal deliveries to U.S. power plants, companies recently delivered a higher share of coal on medium-term contracts with terms of two to four years remaining, according to a recent snapshot of the market analyzed by S&P Global Market Intelligence.

About 17.2% of coal delivered to U.S. power plants in December 2019 had two to four years remaining on the contract, up from 13.0% in December 2010. Producers delivered 14.8% of the coal sold in the country under agreements with more than five years left on the contract, down from 19.1% in December 2010. At the same time, coal volumes sold on spot contracts rose from 6.6% in December 2010 to 13.9% in 2019.

In Central Appalachia, where producers increasingly focus on export markets and metallurgical coal production, long-term contracts are quickly going by the wayside. According to the analysis, which is based on federal fuel contract data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, coal delivered to U.S. utilities on contracts of a known length in December 2019 all had less than three years remaining on their term. The bulk of coal delivered to U.S. power plants from the region were sold on spot markets or under contracts with terms lasting less than a year.

In the Powder River Basin, the total volume of coal delivered under a contract in December 2019 decreased in every contract length category except for spot sales and deliveries made based on contracts that had already expired. Deals with less than a year remaining on their term made up 38.9% of the coal delivered from the basin in December 2019.

https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/long-term-contracts-still-eluding-coal-sector-as-short-term-deals-dominate-59240348

 

Edited December 2, 2023 by Jay McKinsey

[Ron Wagner + 668]

On 11/30/2023 at 12:35 PM, turbguy said:

I believe that everyone "thinks for themselves".

We just have conflicting thoughts about "truth".

Did you ever notice that when there is a large amount of agreement on a subject, that seems to become "truth", even though is may not actually be the truth?

Such as a jury finding one guilty, even though actually innocent.

Then why do you believe those telling you what to believe?

[Ron Wagner + 668]

Whatever happened to thin solar technology to replace cells, with paints, coatings, roof coatings etc? I never hear about it anymore?

[Ron Wagner + 668]

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2405859-cop28-energy-transition-may-cut-oil-producing-states-revenue-by-60/?utm_source=onesignal&utm_medium=push&utm_campaign=2023-12-01-Revenue-cuts-fo

It will be several decades before anything can replace fossil fuels, if then. We should also focus on cleaner processes and ICE engines. Smaller, more efficient engines and transmissions, heat scavenging, etc. RCW

 

 

COP28: Energy transition may cut oil-producing states’ revenue by 60%

Without more international support, the transition away from fossil fuels could have disastrous effects for low-income countries reliant on their oil and gas industries

By James Dinneen

1 December 2023

 

 

 

An oil pumpjack in Venezuela

Gaby Oraa/Bloomberg via Getty Images

 

More than 20 countries dependent on oil and gas revenues could see these sources of funds cut in half by the transition to clean energy. Such an outcome could have disastrous consequences for workers and governments in these “petrostates” without international support to help manage the transition away from fossil fuels.

 

Read more

COP28: How this year shattered nearly every modern climate record

 

“Many of these states are quite fragile,” says Guy Prince at Carbon Tracker, a think tank in the UK. “To lose such a core source of their revenue would have quite dangerous implications for them domestically.”

Advertisement

Prince and his colleagues looked at how the energy transition would affect 40 petrostates that rely on oil and gas revenues to balance their budgets. In nearly half of these countries, oil and gas make up over 40 per cent of government revenue, and several are even more dependent. In Venezuela, Iraq and Turkmenistan, oil and gas make up nearly 100 per cent of federal revenue.

Under a moderately fast transition to clean energy based on existing pledges made by countries attending COP28, the researchers found 28 of the petrostates would lose more than half of their oil and gas revenue by 2040, leading to a collective shortfall of $8 trillion. A more rapid transition would have an even greater effect.

Nine of these countries are exceptionally vulnerable, standing to lose over 60 per cent of their total revenue – not just oil and gas dollars – by 2040. Of those countries, five are in Africa – including Nigeria, which has a population of more than 200 million people.

Sign up to our Fix the Planet newsletter

Get a dose of climate optimism delivered straight to your inbox every month.

Sign up to newsletter

The researchers also identified six African countries – including Uganda, Senegal and Mozambique – as “emerging petrostates”, which risk losing money on fossil fuel infrastructure they are just beginning to build.

“That’s a huge investment to be putting down at a time when the International Energy Agency is projecting a peak in demand for fossil fuels,” says Prince. “The payback period is really, really long.”

The loss of that revenue and growing debt could destabilise governments and leave communities and workers in the fossil fuel industry without livelihoods, says Natalie Jones at the International Institute for Sustainable Development, a think tank headquartered in Canada. “That could lead to some really dire consequences for people,” she says, comparing it to the economic devastation after the closure of coal mines in the UK.

This dynamic is already shaping negotiations at the COP28 climate summit currently underway in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. The host country is itself at risk of losing over half its oil and gas revenue. The future of fossil fuels is a central focus of the talks, with some countries pushing for a “phase-out” of oil, gas and coal to meet climate targets and others favouring weaker language.

During the first day of talks on 30 November, the African Group of countries called strongly for more support. The group said its backing for any language on a fossil fuel phase-out was contingent on the proposal being “just, equitable and taking a differentiated approach”, says Jones, who attended the meeting.

 

Read more

COP28: These are the key clean energy targets the world must agree on

 

“While we are aware of the urgent need to mitigate fossil fuel use, there must be an equitable solution to the problem of phasing out fossil fuel production and consumption globally,” the African Group said in an earlier statement.

Jones says support for vulnerable petrostates could resemble programmes launched at COP26 in Glasgow that encouraged high-income countries to aid countries dependent on coal. Those programmes aimed to help the coal-dependent countries invest in clean energy, diversify their economies and retrain workers who lose jobs. “We have yet to see how well they will succeed, but they could become a model for countries transitioning off oil and gas,” she says.

Fossil fuels are likely to play an even bigger and more tumultuous role at COP28 given an early agreement among countries on the contentious issue of loss and damage funding. “I’m absolutely certain the drama will continue to the last possible second,” says Jones.

Topics:

• Climate Change/
• Africa/
• Fossil Fuels/
• COP28

Advertisement

 

 

Edited December 2, 2023 by Ron Wagner

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

9 minutes ago, Ron Wagner said:

 

It will be several decades before anything can replace fossil fuels, if then. We should also focus on cleaner processes and ICE engines. Smaller, more efficient engines and transmissions, heat scavenging, etc. RCW

 

 

 

Exactly what conservatives and the fossil fuel industry tell you to believe. Oh and your article states the opposite of your claim.

Edited December 2, 2023 by Jay McKinsey

[Ecocharger + 1,398]

On 12/1/2023 at 4:14 PM, Jay McKinsey said:

Higher prices also stimulate substitution.

Nope. The need for reliable energy sources means that the "climate" goals of the Green revolution are ridiculous and should not be used as policy targets. Pushing the limits of transformation requires a better rationale from the science community.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/COP28-Policymakers-Should-Focus-on-Energy-Tech.html

"In strictly numerical terms therefore, Cop28 will be a failure, like all the climate summits that came before it.

Governments across the world are stepping back from their net zero promises because inflation, the cost of living, Ukraine, Gaza and other issues make it appear too costly politically.

Politicians should acknowledge that the current level of technology is insufficient to deliver enough carbon abatement in a way that enables an energy system that is affordable, secure and reliable."

Edited December 2, 2023 by Ecocharger

[Ron Wagner + 668]

The UK will be reliant on gas for up to two-thirds of its electricity this weekend as global policymakers at COP28 are reminded of the importance of fossil fuels. Freezing temperatures, resulting in a cold snap across the country, has seen demand soar, while outputs from windfarms have plunged. https://www.agcc.co.uk/news-article/uk...

Translate post

English

 

Posted on 5:58 AM · Dec 2nd, 2023

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

41 minutes ago, Ron Wagner said:

The UK will be reliant on gas for up to two-thirds of its electricity this weekend as global policymakers at COP28 are reminded of the importance of fossil fuels. Freezing temperatures, resulting in a cold snap across the country, has seen demand soar, while outputs from windfarms have plunged. https://www.agcc.co.uk/news-article/uk...

Translate post

English

 

Posted on 5:58 AM · Dec 2nd, 2023

No, what the people in the UK will be reminded of is how expensive gas is.

gas predominant

renewables predominant

And over the course of a year, which is what matters, production of renewables and gas are the same:

Edited December 2, 2023 by Jay McKinsey

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

Nope. The need for reliable energy sources means that the "climate" goals of the Green revolution are ridiculous and should not be used as policy targets. Pushing the limits of transformation requires a better rationale from the science community.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/COP28-Policymakers-Should-Focus-on-Energy-Tech.html

"In strictly numerical terms therefore, Cop28 will be a failure, like all the climate summits that came before it.

Governments across the world are stepping back from their net zero promises because inflation, the cost of living, Ukraine, Gaza and other issues make it appear too costly politically.

Politicians should acknowledge that the current level of technology is insufficient to deliver enough carbon abatement in a way that enables an energy system that is affordable, secure and reliable."

Once again you demonstrate that you are not an economist. The definition of the substitution effect:

Cop28 has already had some big wins that directly contradict your vapid claims from oilprice:

118 countries say they aren't backing down:

 

Countries promise clean energy boost at COP28 to push out fossil fuels

• 118 countries back pledge to triple world's clean power
• Goal would slash fossil fuel use this decade
• Smaller club of countries plan to scale up nuclear energy

DUBAI, Dec 2 (Reuters) - Governments launched new initiatives on Saturday to bolster clean energy and to wean themselves off fossil fuels at the U.N. climate summit in Dubai, where countries are grappling with how to halt the non-stop rise in planet-warming emissions.

In one of the most widely supported initiatives, 118 governments pledged to triple the world's renewable energy capacity by 2030 at the U.N.'s COP28 climate summit on Saturday, as a route to cut the share of fossil fuels in the world's energy production.

The pledge was among a slew of COP28 announcements on Saturday aimed at decarbonising the energy sector - source of around three-quarters of global greenhouse gas emissions - that included expanding nuclear power, cutting methane emissions and choking off private finance for coal power.

"This can and will help transition the world away from unabated coal," said Sultan al-Jaber, the United Arab Emirates' COP28 summit President.

Led by the European Union, United States and UAE, the pledge also said tripling renewable energy would help remove CO2-emitting fossil fuels from the world's energy system by 2050 at the latest.

Backers on Saturday included Brazil, Nigeria, Australia, Japan, Canada, Chile and Barbados.

While China and India have signalled support for tripling renewable energy by 2030, neither backed the overall pledge on Saturday - which pairs the ramp-up in clean power with a reduction in fossil fuel use

Backers including the EU and UAE want the renewable energy pledge included in the final U.N. climate summit decision, to make it a global goal. That would require consensus among the nearly 200 countries present.

The pledge, a draft of which was first reported by Reuters last month, also called for "the phase down of unabated coal power" and an end to the financing of new coal-fired power plants. It also included a target to double the global rate of energy efficiency by 2030.

 

Climate vulnerable countries insisted that the goals must be paired with a deal among countries at COP28 to phase out the world's use of fossil fuels.

"It is only half the solution. The pledge can't greenwash countries that are simultaneously expanding fossil fuel production," said Tina Stege, Climate Envoy for the Marshall Islands.

While deployment of renewables like solar and wind has been surging globally for years, rising costs, labour constraints and supply chain issues have forced project delays and cancellations in recent months, costing developers like Orsted (ORSTED.CO) and BP (BP.L) billions of dollars in writedowns.

Hitting the target for 10,000 gigawatts of global installed renewable energy by 2030 will also require governments and financial institutions to hike investments and address the high cost of capital that has stymied renewable energy projects in developing nations.

"The mismatch still exists between our potentiality and our limitations to attract investment," said Najib Ahmed, a consultant at Somalia's climate ministry.

Africa has received just 2% of global investments in renewable energy over the last two decades, the International Renewable Energy Agency said.

[Ron Wagner + 668]

On 12/1/2023 at 2:33 PM, notsonice said:

back up power is coals future in China.............

right now all the coal power plants in China are losing money.........because the Cost of electricity is set by the CCP for everyone...and the cost of coal makes them uneconomical

Solar and Wind is cheaper and makes money.....

 

Solar alone is now meeting the new power needs in China.....Peak Coal in China is here now......the use for the new power plants

Standby......Gov subsidies well keep their lights on

Enjoy the transition......

the future....expect many State owned coal power plants to go bankrupt in the next 5 years.........

 

China can't really afford to subsidize much, neither can we!

https://www.usdebtclock.org/world-debt-clock.htmlhttps://www.usdebtclock.org/

Edited December 2, 2023 by Ron Wagner

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

40 minutes ago, Ron Wagner said:

China can't really afford to subsidize much, neither can we!

https://www.usdebtclock.org/world-debt-clock.htmlhttps://www.usdebtclock.org/

Funny thing is that almost all of our subsidies are done through tax cuts. But your crew love cutting taxes on the wealthy. 

[Ecocharger + 1,398]

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Once again you demonstrate that you are not an economist. The definition of the substitution effect:

Cop28 has already had some big wins that directly contradict your vapid claims from oilprice:

118 countries say they aren't backing down:

 

Countries promise clean energy boost at COP28 to push out fossil fuels

• 118 countries back pledge to triple world's clean power
• Goal would slash fossil fuel use this decade
• Smaller club of countries plan to scale up nuclear energy

DUBAI, Dec 2 (Reuters) - Governments launched new initiatives on Saturday to bolster clean energy and to wean themselves off fossil fuels at the U.N. climate summit in Dubai, where countries are grappling with how to halt the non-stop rise in planet-warming emissions.

In one of the most widely supported initiatives, 118 governments pledged to triple the world's renewable energy capacity by 2030 at the U.N.'s COP28 climate summit on Saturday, as a route to cut the share of fossil fuels in the world's energy production.

The pledge was among a slew of COP28 announcements on Saturday aimed at decarbonising the energy sector - source of around three-quarters of global greenhouse gas emissions - that included expanding nuclear power, cutting methane emissions and choking off private finance for coal power.

"This can and will help transition the world away from unabated coal," said Sultan al-Jaber, the United Arab Emirates' COP28 summit President.

Led by the European Union, United States and UAE, the pledge also said tripling renewable energy would help remove CO2-emitting fossil fuels from the world's energy system by 2050 at the latest.

Backers on Saturday included Brazil, Nigeria, Australia, Japan, Canada, Chile and Barbados.

While China and India have signalled support for tripling renewable energy by 2030, neither backed the overall pledge on Saturday - which pairs the ramp-up in clean power with a reduction in fossil fuel use

Backers including the EU and UAE want the renewable energy pledge included in the final U.N. climate summit decision, to make it a global goal. That would require consensus among the nearly 200 countries present.

The pledge, a draft of which was first reported by Reuters last month, also called for "the phase down of unabated coal power" and an end to the financing of new coal-fired power plants. It also included a target to double the global rate of energy efficiency by 2030.

 

Climate vulnerable countries insisted that the goals must be paired with a deal among countries at COP28 to phase out the world's use of fossil fuels.

"It is only half the solution. The pledge can't greenwash countries that are simultaneously expanding fossil fuel production," said Tina Stege, Climate Envoy for the Marshall Islands.

While deployment of renewables like solar and wind has been surging globally for years, rising costs, labour constraints and supply chain issues have forced project delays and cancellations in recent months, costing developers like Orsted (ORSTED.CO) and BP (BP.L) billions of dollars in writedowns.

Hitting the target for 10,000 gigawatts of global installed renewable energy by 2030 will also require governments and financial institutions to hike investments and address the high cost of capital that has stymied renewable energy projects in developing nations.

"The mismatch still exists between our potentiality and our limitations to attract investment," said Najib Ahmed, a consultant at Somalia's climate ministry.

Africa has received just 2% of global investments in renewable energy over the last two decades, the International Renewable Energy Agency said.

Here is the ONLY key sentence in this entire "pledge" mishmash,

"While China and India have signalled support for tripling renewable energy by 2030, neither backed the overall pledge on Saturday - which pairs the ramp-up in clean power with a reduction in fossil fuel use"

In other words, nada, nothing, just the usual nonsense.