Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

Net Zero has cost over $16 trillion. That figure include direct spending ONLY: renewables, electric vehicles, heat pumps, carbon capture and power grids. They do not include higher electricity prices and lost industry or de-industrialization. The real cost is far higher. And after all that spending, global fossil CO2... show more

Electroverse

43,048 subscribers

41,090 views • 5 months ago •via X (Twitter)

News & Politics Health & Wellness Science & Technology

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

We're told the green transition is cheap. It most certainly is not. Global spending has exceeded $14 trillion with annual investment now standing at over $2 trillion (or roughly 2% of global GDP). That is more than 100 times what's spent tackling world hunger. And we're getting nothing for that money. Global CO2 emissions hit another record high last year (largely thanks to China). There is no green energy "transition" underway - just an expensive "layering" on top of an expanding fossil fuel base. We are being lied to.

We're told the green transition is cheap. It most certainly is not. Global spending has exceeded $14 trillion with annual investment now standing at over $2 trillion (or roughly 2% of global GDP). That is more than 100 times what's spent tackling world hunger. And we're getting nothing for that money. Global CO2 emissions hit another record high last year (largely thanks to China). There is no green energy "transition" underway - just an expensive "layering" on top of an expanding fossil fuel base. We are being lied to.

Electroverse

10,711 views • 3 months ago

A Labor minister has just admitted that Australia achieving net zero alone will do NOTHING for the global climate! We are sacrificing our family's budgets, our industries, our regions and our environment for absolutely NO reason? What is all of this for?

A Labor minister has just admitted that Australia achieving net zero alone will do NOTHING for the global climate! We are sacrificing our family's budgets, our industries, our regions and our environment for absolutely NO reason? What is all of this for?

Senator Matt Canavan

33,033 views • 7 months ago

.Zack Polanski is right about Farage - he’s in this for himself, power at all costs. He’s the bloke more than any other that brought us Brexit and all the lies that came with - we’re still counting that cost now. His next trick is Nexit…..our exit from Net Zero. The negative impact of that would be far bigger. I disagree though on what a populist is, all too often they are people like Farage, in it for themselves and a minority - defo not the 99%. Trump is another great example. They tend to be liars.

.Zack Polanski is right about Farage - he’s in this for himself, power at all costs. He’s the bloke more than any other that brought us Brexit and all the lies that came with - we’re still counting that cost now. His next trick is Nexit…..our exit from Net Zero. The negative impact of that would be far bigger. I disagree though on what a populist is, all too often they are people like Farage, in it for themselves and a minority - defo not the 99%. Trump is another great example. They tend to be liars.

Dale Vince

72,426 views • 9 months ago

Keir Starmer, Ed Miliband and the Labour government are indulging in crazy net zero policies that are putting our economic and energy security at risk with enormous cost to the taxpayer. Plastering solar panels on prime farmland while reportedly spending £50m on sun dimming experiments is a prime example of this juxtaposition stupidity. Spending £billions on importing oil and gas from Norway while blocking new UK oil and gas exploration in the North Sea is another example of this ridiculousness. And spending £30bn on carbon capture machines while winter fuel payments are cut from pensioners and welfare benefits are cut from the disabled simply highlights a Labour government that is drunk on power but without any credible understanding of how to govern effectively by spending our tax revenues in the most effective and efficient way. It’s a total shambles and ultimately it’s the public that will pay the heaviest price for this net zero nonsense. As I discussed with Alex Phillips | Talk.

Keir Starmer, Ed Miliband and the Labour government are indulging in crazy net zero policies that are putting our economic and energy security at risk with enormous cost to the taxpayer. Plastering solar panels on prime farmland while reportedly spending £50m on sun dimming experiments is a prime example of this juxtaposition stupidity. Spending £billions on importing oil and gas from Norway while blocking new UK oil and gas exploration in the North Sea is another example of this ridiculousness. And spending £30bn on carbon capture machines while winter fuel payments are cut from pensioners and welfare benefits are cut from the disabled simply highlights a Labour government that is drunk on power but without any credible understanding of how to govern effectively by spending our tax revenues in the most effective and efficient way. It’s a total shambles and ultimately it’s the public that will pay the heaviest price for this net zero nonsense. As I discussed with Alex Phillips | Talk.

James Melville 🚜

72,379 views • 1 year ago

Destructive woke mayor Sadiq Khan says we should prioritise net zero over the cost of living crisis. Asked by Cathy Newman if he’d back Andy Burnham in prioritising the cost of living crisis over the insane rush to net zero, Khan doubled down: “The costs of inaction far outweigh the costs of action.” Of course he did! Straight into his usual script about renewables, sh!tty heat pumps, and climate change 🥱 It’s ok for the rich and powerful to virtue-signal and feel good about themselves while all the peasants suffer. None of this affects them, so they simply don’t care. Classic elite hypocrisy. Ordinary Brits get crushed with sky-high bills, freezing homes and green taxes so Khan and his mates can preach about saving the planet. F*ck off!

Destructive woke mayor Sadiq Khan says we should prioritise net zero over the cost of living crisis. Asked by Cathy Newman if he’d back Andy Burnham in prioritising the cost of living crisis over the insane rush to net zero, Khan doubled down: “The costs of inaction far outweigh the costs of action.” Of course he did! Straight into his usual script about renewables, sh!tty heat pumps, and climate change 🥱 It’s ok for the rich and powerful to virtue-signal and feel good about themselves while all the peasants suffer. None of this affects them, so they simply don’t care. Classic elite hypocrisy. Ordinary Brits get crushed with sky-high bills, freezing homes and green taxes so Khan and his mates can preach about saving the planet. F*ck off!

J Stewart

51,294 views • 1 month ago

Wind and solar look cheap on paper, but only because their true costs are hidden. Power grids must balance supply and demand every second. Wind and solar cannot do that. Their output follows the weather, which is variable. So every megawatt of wind or solar requires a matching megawatt of reliable backup. A 100 MW wind farm does not replace a 100 MW gas plant. The gas plant still has to be built, staffed, fueled and kept ready at all times. Consumers are effectively paying for two systems, but only one is accounted for. Think of it like hiring a worker who only shows up 30% of the time. The hourly wage looks cheap, but you still need a fully trained backup worker available 24-7 to fill in for the other 70%. That backup is required and still costs money even when sitting idle. But the extra cost is ignored. This accounting trick explains why renewables look inexpensive in charts, while electricity prices soar in grids that rely heavily on them. Globally, the renewable failure is clear. In 2024, solar supplied just 1.4% of global primary energy. Wind supplied about 1.5%. Fossil fuels still provided around 87%. This is not a global energy transition. It is a costly experiment played by a handful of Western economies.

Wind and solar look cheap on paper, but only because their true costs are hidden. Power grids must balance supply and demand every second. Wind and solar cannot do that. Their output follows the weather, which is variable. So every megawatt of wind or solar requires a matching megawatt of reliable backup. A 100 MW wind farm does not replace a 100 MW gas plant. The gas plant still has to be built, staffed, fueled and kept ready at all times. Consumers are effectively paying for two systems, but only one is accounted for. Think of it like hiring a worker who only shows up 30% of the time. The hourly wage looks cheap, but you still need a fully trained backup worker available 24-7 to fill in for the other 70%. That backup is required and still costs money even when sitting idle. But the extra cost is ignored. This accounting trick explains why renewables look inexpensive in charts, while electricity prices soar in grids that rely heavily on them. Globally, the renewable failure is clear. In 2024, solar supplied just 1.4% of global primary energy. Wind supplied about 1.5%. Fossil fuels still provided around 87%. This is not a global energy transition. It is a costly experiment played by a handful of Western economies.

Electroverse

20,529 views • 2 months ago

🚨 BLAIR BOMBSHELL: SCRAP NET ZERO NOW! “THERE’S NO LOGIC TO IT!” 🔥 Tony Blair Demands Starmer Scrap Milibands Mad Expensive Green Agenda Immediately‼️ Blair has just shredded mad Miliband and the entire net zero agenda. There’s zero logic to it! Asked directly for total clarity: “For total clarity, are you advising Keir Starmer to rip up Ed Milibands green energy targets?” Blair bluntly replied: “Yes I am!” He explained that the 3 biggest emitters in the world today are China, America and India. Together they “account for just over 50% of global emissions.” All are pursuing cheap energy. They still do renewable energy. “China for example builds more renewable energy than the rest of the world put together.” “It just means that the lens from which they judge policy is cheap energy.” He rightly points out Britain’s emissions are “under 1% of global emissions” so we can’t solve climate change. And says he “doesnt understand the logic behind” imposing costs on businesses and consumers to pursue net zero when the rest of the world is not doing so. He says again he doesnt understand why we’re shutting down North Sea oil and gas industry in circumstances where no other country in the world is doing that if “they’ve still got a requirement to import energy from oil and gas”. It costs way too much and “is not the right priority!” Net zero is not saving the planet. It is economic self-harm. Blair has just blown the entire agenda apart.

🚨 BLAIR BOMBSHELL: SCRAP NET ZERO NOW! “THERE’S NO LOGIC TO IT!” 🔥 Tony Blair Demands Starmer Scrap Milibands Mad Expensive Green Agenda Immediately‼️ Blair has just shredded mad Miliband and the entire net zero agenda. There’s zero logic to it! Asked directly for total clarity: “For total clarity, are you advising Keir Starmer to rip up Ed Milibands green energy targets?” Blair bluntly replied: “Yes I am!” He explained that the 3 biggest emitters in the world today are China, America and India. Together they “account for just over 50% of global emissions.” All are pursuing cheap energy. They still do renewable energy. “China for example builds more renewable energy than the rest of the world put together.” “It just means that the lens from which they judge policy is cheap energy.” He rightly points out Britain’s emissions are “under 1% of global emissions” so we can’t solve climate change. And says he “doesnt understand the logic behind” imposing costs on businesses and consumers to pursue net zero when the rest of the world is not doing so. He says again he doesnt understand why we’re shutting down North Sea oil and gas industry in circumstances where no other country in the world is doing that if “they’ve still got a requirement to import energy from oil and gas”. It costs way too much and “is not the right priority!” Net zero is not saving the planet. It is economic self-harm. Blair has just blown the entire agenda apart.

J Stewart

370,123 views • 2 months ago

Carney spent a decade trying to defund and destroy the oil and gas industry in the name of net-zero Yesterday he was asked both in English and French if he will lift the emission cap... in English "And with respect to conventional energy projects, including pipelines, it is absolutely clear all our discussions with proponents, all our discussions with the Province of Alberta, for example, include material carbon capture and storage alongside conventional energy projects." In French "And in this context, we want to lower greenhouse gases and those emissions in the context of a convention, in the conventional energy project and in the manufacturing sectors or all sectors of the economy, because carbon emissions are one part of our competitiveness." Why doesn't he just say "if a pipeline is paired with the Pathways carbon capture project we will lift the emissions cap and tanker ban"? Because he wants to play all sides, but fewer and and fewer sides are buying his babble Mark Carney

Carney spent a decade trying to defund and destroy the oil and gas industry in the name of net-zero Yesterday he was asked both in English and French if he will lift the emission cap... in English "And with respect to conventional energy projects, including pipelines, it is absolutely clear all our discussions with proponents, all our discussions with the Province of Alberta, for example, include material carbon capture and storage alongside conventional energy projects." In French "And in this context, we want to lower greenhouse gases and those emissions in the context of a convention, in the conventional energy project and in the manufacturing sectors or all sectors of the economy, because carbon emissions are one part of our competitiveness." Why doesn't he just say "if a pipeline is paired with the Pathways carbon capture project we will lift the emissions cap and tanker ban"? Because he wants to play all sides, but fewer and and fewer sides are buying his babble Mark Carney

cbcwatcher

136,554 views • 9 months ago

We’re the world’s most energy rich country yet we have some of the highest electricity prices. We export our energy resources while skyrocketing power bills and taxes ensure the flow of money from everyday Australians' pockets to the carpet-bagging predatory billionaires behind the net-zero fraud. Climate scammers fear the net-zero tide is turning. The public is waking up to this economic suicide and seeing the climate agenda for what it is - a corrupt globalist ideology and wealth transfer scheme. The latest unhinged meltdown from the Greens has nothing at all to do with rising temperatures. It has everything to do with fear of political irrelevancy. I was pleased to hear the Liberals and Nationals speak supportively three times on our motion, but disappointed that not one member of those parties were in the senate chamber for the vote. The message is clear and the backlash globally is now growing: Australia must cancel net-zero or the cost will be ruinous. #NetZero #ClimateBoiling #ClimateScam

We’re the world’s most energy rich country yet we have some of the highest electricity prices. We export our energy resources while skyrocketing power bills and taxes ensure the flow of money from everyday Australians' pockets to the carpet-bagging predatory billionaires behind the net-zero fraud. Climate scammers fear the net-zero tide is turning. The public is waking up to this economic suicide and seeing the climate agenda for what it is - a corrupt globalist ideology and wealth transfer scheme. The latest unhinged meltdown from the Greens has nothing at all to do with rising temperatures. It has everything to do with fear of political irrelevancy. I was pleased to hear the Liberals and Nationals speak supportively three times on our motion, but disappointed that not one member of those parties were in the senate chamber for the vote. The message is clear and the backlash globally is now growing: Australia must cancel net-zero or the cost will be ruinous. #NetZero #ClimateBoiling #ClimateScam

Malcolm Roberts 🇦🇺

45,634 views • 3 years ago

The experiment is over – we know what does and doesn’t work to address climate If we look at what has been proposed to address global warming, air pollution, and energy security during the past 25 years, only one solution – electrification of all energy sectors and generation of the electricity with wind, solar, geothermal, and hydro sources -- has made an impact. This solution has reduced enough world emissions and technology costs for the IPCC, to eliminate its worst-case climate scenario. What are the proposed climate solutions that never worked? (1) Fossil gas replacing coal, (2) ethanol replacing gasoline, (3) carbon capture, (4) direct removal of CO2 from the air by equipment, (5) blue hydrogen, 6) nuclear, and (7) geoengineering. We knew these were poor solutions back in 2009, when they were first evaluated. But, it has taken 17 years to overcome lobbyists pushing these techs. On the other hand, electrification of world transport, buildings, and industry and using clean renewables to provide the electricity while growing energy efficiency, also proposed in 2009, has worked, as evidenced by the world growth in electric vehicles, heat pumps, electric furnaces, and clean, renewable electricity generators. All-of-the-above policies, or let’s try everything and hope something works policies, have failed. Given the short time we have, we should never see another IPCC scenario that includes biofuels, carbon capture, direct air capture, nuclear, geoengineering or their derivatives, blue hydrogen, electo-fuels, or sustainable aviation fuels. We know what works. Let's focus on that going forward. References Elimination of most extreme IPCC scenario Components of a WindWaterSolar system 2009 paper evaluating energy technologies 2009 paper proposing to transition the world to 100% WWS More details here: "Still No Miracles Needed" Video

The experiment is over – we know what does and doesn’t work to address climate If we look at what has been proposed to address global warming, air pollution, and energy security during the past 25 years, only one solution – electrification of all energy sectors and generation of the electricity with wind, solar, geothermal, and hydro sources -- has made an impact. This solution has reduced enough world emissions and technology costs for the IPCC, to eliminate its worst-case climate scenario. What are the proposed climate solutions that never worked? (1) Fossil gas replacing coal, (2) ethanol replacing gasoline, (3) carbon capture, (4) direct removal of CO2 from the air by equipment, (5) blue hydrogen, 6) nuclear, and (7) geoengineering. We knew these were poor solutions back in 2009, when they were first evaluated. But, it has taken 17 years to overcome lobbyists pushing these techs. On the other hand, electrification of world transport, buildings, and industry and using clean renewables to provide the electricity while growing energy efficiency, also proposed in 2009, has worked, as evidenced by the world growth in electric vehicles, heat pumps, electric furnaces, and clean, renewable electricity generators. All-of-the-above policies, or let’s try everything and hope something works policies, have failed. Given the short time we have, we should never see another IPCC scenario that includes biofuels, carbon capture, direct air capture, nuclear, geoengineering or their derivatives, blue hydrogen, electo-fuels, or sustainable aviation fuels. We know what works. Let's focus on that going forward. References Elimination of most extreme IPCC scenario Components of a WindWaterSolar system 2009 paper evaluating energy technologies 2009 paper proposing to transition the world to 100% WWS More details here: "Still No Miracles Needed" Video

Mark Z. Jacobson

12,206 views • 1 month ago

"This is an absolute con." Geologist, Prof. Ian Plimer, on Net Zero: "We have a grossly mismanaged electricity system, and that system is based on a fallacy. And the fallacy is that we are reducing carbon dioxide emissions by having solar power." "To build a solar power plant, you actually create more emissions than you would save. The same with a wind power plant, the same with batteries... If you want to drive an electric car, it's not an electric car, it's a coal car." "We are having a perversion of the language to be able to try to persuade people that they are doing something morally good by sending this nation bankrupt."

"This is an absolute con." Geologist, Prof. Ian Plimer, on Net Zero: "We have a grossly mismanaged electricity system, and that system is based on a fallacy. And the fallacy is that we are reducing carbon dioxide emissions by having solar power." "To build a solar power plant, you actually create more emissions than you would save. The same with a wind power plant, the same with batteries... If you want to drive an electric car, it's not an electric car, it's a coal car." "We are having a perversion of the language to be able to try to persuade people that they are doing something morally good by sending this nation bankrupt."

Wide Awake Media

159,454 views • 2 years ago

🚨 Australia’s fuel crisis isn’t “just bad luck, or “due to the Iran conflict”, it’s the direct result of net zero climate policies. The media in Australia are quick to blame the Iran war for empty diesel pumps and soaring prices. But that’s only the spark. The real fire was lit years ago by climate policies that made domestic refining unviable. Australia once had 8 oil refineries. Thanks to the Paris Agreement, net zero targets, the Safeguard Mechanism (their carbon tax/credit system), and tightening emissions rules, most shut down. Now they have just 2 left — both needing subsidies to survive. Australia imports ~90% of its fuel and sits on only ~39 days of petrol, ~29-31 days of diesel, and ~30 days of jet fuel. A huge, car-and-truck-dependent country with fragile supply chains. The same mechanism is at work here in Britain. Our North Sea oil and gas producers face 78% effective taxation through the windfall/energy profits levy , explicitly designed to disincentivise carbon-intensive activity. Investment has collapsed, companies have left, and we’re more exposed than ever. We still need diesel for tractors, trucks, mining, and freight. Without it, food doesn’t get to shelves, supermarkets empty, and economies grind to a halt. This isn’t abstract “climate action”, it’s self-inflicted vulnerability in energy security and food security. Australia is the warning light flashing for the UK and Europe. The war made it urgent, but the weakness was baked in by net zero ideology that prioritises carbon credits and emissions targets over keeping the lights on and the wheels turning. The smart move? REPEAL the damaging targets. EXIT or renegotiate the Paris Agreement. Prioritise domestic energy production and realistic reserves. Put affordability and security first, before shortages become the new normal here too. Australia is living the future net zero is building for all of us. We should be paying attention, not just blaming foreign conflicts. What do you think? Is it time to put reality before ideology? #NetZeroReality #EnergySecurity #AustraliaWarning #UKFuelCrisis

🚨 Australia’s fuel crisis isn’t “just bad luck, or “due to the Iran conflict”, it’s the direct result of net zero climate policies. The media in Australia are quick to blame the Iran war for empty diesel pumps and soaring prices. But that’s only the spark. The real fire was lit years ago by climate policies that made domestic refining unviable. Australia once had 8 oil refineries. Thanks to the Paris Agreement, net zero targets, the Safeguard Mechanism (their carbon tax/credit system), and tightening emissions rules, most shut down. Now they have just 2 left — both needing subsidies to survive. Australia imports ~90% of its fuel and sits on only ~39 days of petrol, ~29-31 days of diesel, and ~30 days of jet fuel. A huge, car-and-truck-dependent country with fragile supply chains. The same mechanism is at work here in Britain. Our North Sea oil and gas producers face 78% effective taxation through the windfall/energy profits levy , explicitly designed to disincentivise carbon-intensive activity. Investment has collapsed, companies have left, and we’re more exposed than ever. We still need diesel for tractors, trucks, mining, and freight. Without it, food doesn’t get to shelves, supermarkets empty, and economies grind to a halt. This isn’t abstract “climate action”, it’s self-inflicted vulnerability in energy security and food security. Australia is the warning light flashing for the UK and Europe. The war made it urgent, but the weakness was baked in by net zero ideology that prioritises carbon credits and emissions targets over keeping the lights on and the wheels turning. The smart move? REPEAL the damaging targets. EXIT or renegotiate the Paris Agreement. Prioritise domestic energy production and realistic reserves. Put affordability and security first, before shortages become the new normal here too. Australia is living the future net zero is building for all of us. We should be paying attention, not just blaming foreign conflicts. What do you think? Is it time to put reality before ideology? #NetZeroReality #EnergySecurity #AustraliaWarning #UKFuelCrisis

Anika

41,363 views • 3 months ago

A recent paper by USC's Harry D'Angelo and climatologist Judith Curry calls Net Zero "a harmful and unnecessary goal," writing, "There is no credible evidence of an existential threat from global warming." They point out that Earth has warmed about 1.3C since the 1800s, and during that warming humanity has grown healthier, wealthier and more productive than ever. The authors warn that abandoning fossil fuels would cripple food, steel, cement, plastics and global supply chains, producing huge costs and no measurable benefit. They point out that even if the US cut emissions to zero today, the temperature effect by 2100 would be less than 0.2C - statistically undetectable. The real threat isn't climate. It's reckless energy policy.

A recent paper by USC's Harry D'Angelo and climatologist Judith Curry calls Net Zero "a harmful and unnecessary goal," writing, "There is no credible evidence of an existential threat from global warming." They point out that Earth has warmed about 1.3C since the 1800s, and during that warming humanity has grown healthier, wealthier and more productive than ever. The authors warn that abandoning fossil fuels would cripple food, steel, cement, plastics and global supply chains, producing huge costs and no measurable benefit. They point out that even if the US cut emissions to zero today, the temperature effect by 2100 would be less than 0.2C - statistically undetectable. The real threat isn't climate. It's reckless energy policy.

Electroverse

40,589 views • 3 months ago

Australian senator Matt Canavan explains why Net Zero is "a massive socialist plan". "Net zero emissions by 2050 means that the government has to direct how you drive, what you can eat, how we make power... They're planning the whole economy." Whenever the exact same policies are being rolled out in lockstep across the entire Western world—using the exact same talking points and excuses—you can be 100% CERTAIN that it's all being co-ordinated at the supranational level by unelected technocrats whose goal is to destroy the Western world in order to establish global technocratic governance, administered by them.

Australian senator Matt Canavan explains why Net Zero is "a massive socialist plan". "Net zero emissions by 2050 means that the government has to direct how you drive, what you can eat, how we make power... They're planning the whole economy." Whenever the exact same policies are being rolled out in lockstep across the entire Western world—using the exact same talking points and excuses—you can be 100% CERTAIN that it's all being co-ordinated at the supranational level by unelected technocrats whose goal is to destroy the Western world in order to establish global technocratic governance, administered by them.

Wide Awake Media

91,554 views • 10 months ago

If One Nation doesn't have any policies, then how do Liberal and Labor keep on copying all of them? With just 2 out of the 227 politicians in Canberra before the last election, One Nation has led the national debate on the issues that are important to Australians. Whether it's the cost of living, mass migration, net-zero, Government spending, NDIS rorts or Islamic extremism - only One Nation is trusted to stick to what we believe in. We're not destroying the major parties - they've done that to themselves.

If One Nation doesn't have any policies, then how do Liberal and Labor keep on copying all of them? With just 2 out of the 227 politicians in Canberra before the last election, One Nation has led the national debate on the issues that are important to Australians. Whether it's the cost of living, mass migration, net-zero, Government spending, NDIS rorts or Islamic extremism - only One Nation is trusted to stick to what we believe in. We're not destroying the major parties - they've done that to themselves.

Pauline Hanson 🇦🇺

60,469 views • 4 months ago

Mark Carney spent the better part of his career to reorganize the global financial system and trade to be carbon tax based. He set up funds for his company and insiders to benefit from it in tax havens, and wants to set up CBAM system in Canada just like he pushed for in Europe. The MOU with Alberta gives him that. "We are going to get to our greenhouse gas objectives, our climate objectives, only through massive investment and so we need agreements like this in order to drive that massive investment." Alberta agreed to: Net zero electricity. Net zero oil&gas. Net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 in Alberta. All of it is backed and subsidized by taxpayer dollars. All of it is subsidized by Albertans. All of it makes our industries less competitive unless taxpayers subsidize uneconomical - unviable otherwise projects for the industries.

Mark Carney spent the better part of his career to reorganize the global financial system and trade to be carbon tax based. He set up funds for his company and insiders to benefit from it in tax havens, and wants to set up CBAM system in Canada just like he pushed for in Europe. The MOU with Alberta gives him that. "We are going to get to our greenhouse gas objectives, our climate objectives, only through massive investment and so we need agreements like this in order to drive that massive investment." Alberta agreed to: Net zero electricity. Net zero oil&gas. Net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 in Alberta. All of it is backed and subsidized by taxpayer dollars. All of it is subsidized by Albertans. All of it makes our industries less competitive unless taxpayers subsidize uneconomical - unviable otherwise projects for the industries.

Kirk Lubimov

18,602 views • 8 months ago

"There is no climate emergency." That's the message from over 2,000 scientists and professionals worldwide, including Nobel laureate John Clauser, MIT's Richard Lindzen and Emeritus Professor at the University of Melbourne Ian Plimer. They all say climate science has become too political, and that the models behind global policy are flawed. Warming is far slower than predicted, they assert. CO2 is not pollution, it's plant food, the basis of all life on earth. And there's zero evidence that hurricanes, floods or droughts are worsening. The World Climate Declaration calls for science over panic and prosperity through reliable, affordable energy. "There is no climate emergency," say more than 2,000 scientists.

"There is no climate emergency." That's the message from over 2,000 scientists and professionals worldwide, including Nobel laureate John Clauser, MIT's Richard Lindzen and Emeritus Professor at the University of Melbourne Ian Plimer. They all say climate science has become too political, and that the models behind global policy are flawed. Warming is far slower than predicted, they assert. CO2 is not pollution, it's plant food, the basis of all life on earth. And there's zero evidence that hurricanes, floods or droughts are worsening. The World Climate Declaration calls for science over panic and prosperity through reliable, affordable energy. "There is no climate emergency," say more than 2,000 scientists.

Electroverse

34,724 views • 3 months ago

AEMO has just blown out the cost of Australia's Net Zero grid to $128 billion and now says coal must run until 2049 to keep the lights on. Wind forecasts for 2030 have been slashed from 42.6 GW to 26 GW, with offshore wind now admitted to cost 40% more and deliver far less power. Transmission, the backbone of Net Zero, has been slashed from 10,000 km to 6,000 km after cancellations and cost blowouts of up to 100%. Coal remains indispensable, says AEMO, and the country's fleet must run 11 years longer than previously promised to stop blackouts and cover stalled renewable build-out. Reliability risks are also rising. Aging coal is being driven past design limits and a failure at any major plant could destabilize the grid. Gas becomes the strategic backup when solar collapses at dusk and during multi-day wind lulls - the exact conditions that already triggered emergency warnings this year. Every pillar of the plan: wind, transmission, timelines, costs, has been revised, delayed or downsized. Net Zero didn't replace coal. It extended it to 2049 (and likely far beyond).

AEMO has just blown out the cost of Australia's Net Zero grid to $128 billion and now says coal must run until 2049 to keep the lights on. Wind forecasts for 2030 have been slashed from 42.6 GW to 26 GW, with offshore wind now admitted to cost 40% more and deliver far less power. Transmission, the backbone of Net Zero, has been slashed from 10,000 km to 6,000 km after cancellations and cost blowouts of up to 100%. Coal remains indispensable, says AEMO, and the country's fleet must run 11 years longer than previously promised to stop blackouts and cover stalled renewable build-out. Reliability risks are also rising. Aging coal is being driven past design limits and a failure at any major plant could destabilize the grid. Gas becomes the strategic backup when solar collapses at dusk and during multi-day wind lulls - the exact conditions that already triggered emergency warnings this year. Every pillar of the plan: wind, transmission, timelines, costs, has been revised, delayed or downsized. Net Zero didn't replace coal. It extended it to 2049 (and likely far beyond).

Electroverse

26,977 views • 2 months ago