Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

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" Videoshow more

Mark Z. Jacobson

47,091 subscribers

12,285 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

33 Kommentare

Profilbild von Dr Paul Dorfman

Dr Paul Dorfmanvor 3 Monaten

Each year nuclear adds only as much net global power capacity as renewables add every two days.

Profilbild von Eddie dragon

Eddie dragonvor 3 Monaten

Wow even for a doomsday cult extremist thats some grade A bullshit you spouting.

Profilbild von Mark Boscawen 💧🐀🌻🌎🌡🚴🏼‍♂️🤿🔊💉💉💉💉💉💉😷

Mark Boscawen 💧🐀🌻🌎🌡🚴🏼‍♂️🤿🔊💉💉💉💉💉💉😷vor 3 Monaten

Agree with the exception of nuclear electricity generation. Some countries, because of population size, available land, topography, geology, location, geopolitical considerations, prevailing &/or seasonal weather conditions, may require nuclear power as part or all of energy mix

Profilbild von Craig

Craigvor 3 Monaten

Any solutions that do not include LESS (less energy, stuff and stimulation) cannot be taken seriously. Climate change, while important, is only one "mole" in our global whack-a-mole problem. Ecological overshoot is the fundamental problem. #degrowth

Profilbild von Paul Renken

Paul Renkenvor 3 Monaten

If we had believed the forecasts in 2009 for such innovations as AI, robotics, EV market share, PV cell efficiency, etc., we would not have these solutions now. Your dismissal points around topics such as nuclear, carbon capture & storage, etc.- premature-- persevere-it's needed.

Profilbild von Dan Miller

Dan Millervor 3 Monaten

While I 100% support electrification, it does not lower temperatures, it will only slow the rise (& FF emissions are at a record high now). It can't prevent us from going over 2ºC at this point, which is catastrophic. So like it or not, we will need SRM.

Profilbild von Vladimir Nikolić

Vladimir Nikolićvor 3 Monaten

Just because RCP8.5 wasn't taken into account in new IPCC report, doesn't mean it has disappeared. Unfortunately, it is still very much present, as three times more is still being invested in fossil fuels than in any other form of energy. And the idea that new technologies will be invented tomorrow to save us all is a very risky bet... in Serbia, we say 'a sparrow in the hand is worth two in the bush'.

Profilbild von Stefan

Stefanvor 3 Monaten

Yes, we know exactly what does and doesn’t work to address climate, because climate is under human control and we've learned so much of how to address it, and in the future we will address it in exactly the right direction, because we control the climate and know how it should be

Profilbild von Charles Elliott

Charles Elliottvor 3 Monaten

We have absolutely no idea whether electrification will make a difference to anything. For one thing climate takes place over much longer periods than our lifetimes. Secondly there is zero evidence that anything we are doing is improving matters, it could be making it worse.

Profilbild von Ely Rabani #GazaTruceNow

Ely Rabani #GazaTruceNowvor 3 Monaten

Since an edit seems to have orphaned my earlier reply:

Profilbild von tom

tomvor 3 Monaten

What lies, feel good policies are just that - feel good. Let's try this, everybody move to Iceland and we'll tip earth orbit a bit due to the weight shift. Ready, go!

Profilbild von 🌞 ΞNΞRGY 🇺🇸 | 🇬🇧

🌞 ΞNΞRGY 🇺🇸 | 🇬🇧vor 3 Monaten

- Precisely correct. The solution presented in 500 words ☝️☝️☝️ -

Profilbild von CommunityOrganizer1

CommunityOrganizer1vor 3 Monaten

Word.

Profilbild von Old Power Plant Guy

Old Power Plant Guyvor 3 Monaten

More grifter con men. No climate predictions have come true in 50 years

Profilbild von Darrel Murphy

Darrel Murphyvor 3 Monaten

Isn't it amazing these "we need to save them planet from CO₂!" pundits almost universally quip, "Nuclear BAD! No more nukes!" and want to exclusively rely on intermittent sources or sources with highly limited availability? No desert nowhere near a fault is using geo OR hydro.

Profilbild von Glenn Shadrake

Glenn Shadrakevor 3 Monaten

Anyone who proposes electrification of all energy is amazingly ignorant of how utterly reliant the global economy is on many byproducts of the refining process. Never heard of organic chemistry & the chemical sector? Plastics? Fertilizers? Asphalt? Lubricants? Jet fuel?

Profilbild von Understanding

Understandingvor 3 Monaten

Excellent. Thank you

Profilbild von Ricardo 48

Ricardo 48vor 3 Monaten

You would say that wouldn't you.Its your job and fat pay cheque. Electrification of an entire economy is not going to happen this century. So far renewables are a marginal addition to national grids at an humongous investment cost and enormous bills for consumers.

Profilbild von mine

minevor 3 Monaten

You're wrong so very wrong renewables will not work they are intermittent and how are they going g to replace the other 80% of electricity produced by fossi fuels that is currently supplying our grid

Profilbild von Christopher Wilson

Christopher Wilsonvor 3 Monaten

You forgot the most important solution: Set a deadline to end the extraction, use and export of fossil fuels, with legal penalties for non compliance. A deadline like Dec 31, 2029. As long as we permit fossil fuel usage there will be no solution.

Profilbild von Donna McKenzie

Donna McKenzievor 3 Monaten

@sustainablock Bollocks are you!

Profilbild von Social-Identity-Thief

Social-Identity-Thiefvor 3 Monaten

When where and how was option #6 (nuclear) tested -- let alone proven a failure?

Profilbild von Mark Z. Jacobson

Mark Z. Jacobsonvor 3 Monaten

There was less nuclear output worldwide and 20 fewer nuclear reactors in 2024 than in 2006 whereas IPCC and nuclear proponents were pushing scenarios of huge nuclear output increases each year. Some scenarios called for 100% nuclear. Total failure.

Profilbild von Social-Identity-Thief

Social-Identity-Thiefvor 3 Monaten

And why was that?

Profilbild von Social-Identity-Thief

Social-Identity-Thiefvor 3 Monaten

Your citations seem to cluster around 2009. Your comparisons start before that. It's not as if there was an experiment started with either new OR existing nuke-tech, beginning in 2010 and allowed to run until 2025, which showed itself a failure. Or do I mistake your claim?

Profilbild von Mark Z. Jacobson

Mark Z. Jacobsonvor 3 Monaten

I don't need to do your homework. IPCC has been pushing nuclear in numerous scenarios for a long time. Many scientists have also been pushing nuclear, including 100% nuclear scenarios Governments and advocates have also been pushing nuclear.

Profilbild von Social-Identity-Thief

Social-Identity-Thiefvor 3 Monaten

There are advocates for nuclear power, yes. But there were adversaries. And governments forced closures of plants rather than building new ones. You like decade-old Guardian articles? Cool. What do you think about Harry Potter author JK Rowling donating to Labour Party candidate Tom Watson's campaign?

Profilbild von Alex Vicintin

Alex Vicintinvor 3 Monaten

@PCarterClimate What about nuclear energy?

Profilbild von David Pusey #restore

David Pusey #restorevor 3 Monaten

And increase bills even more, gotcha

Profilbild von Sir Jack 🇬🇧 #NetZeroScam

Sir Jack 🇬🇧 #NetZeroScamvor 3 Monaten

Please reduce my energy bill by removing the "green" levy.🥺

Profilbild von Uranium_Enthusiast

Uranium_Enthusiastvor 3 Monaten

I work with German grid data. 200+ GW wind/solar serves 40-60 GW demand, yet we import. Which CMIP7 low-emission scenario models the TWh storage Jacobson's WWS future needs to survive Dunkelflaute?

Profilbild von Uncommon Commoner

Uncommon Commonervor 3 Monaten

Thank goodness that the majority of hydrogen used in transportation is renewable hydrogen.

Profilbild von Cooker Inc.

Cooker Inc.vor 3 Monaten

49 IPCC scientists have quit due to the dooms day scenario RCP.8 to be Implausible.

Ähnliche Videos

Replacing gas with renewables for California’s electricity has reduced twice the carbon as all the world’s carbon capture projects Just to give an idea of how insanely useless carbon capture and direct air capture are, consider the following. All 77 of the world’s carbon-capture facilities capture about 64 million tonnes of CO2 per year. But a quarter of that CO2 is added back to the air from the energy needed to capture and pipe the CO2 and more is added back because 82 percent of all CO2 captured is used to dig more oil out of the ground, a process that releases 85 percent of the captured CO2 back to the air. Accounting for both leaves a net of only 19 million tonnes of CO2 per year captured. Yet from 2023 to 2026, California’s main electricity grid replaced 61 percent of its fossil gas with wind-water-solar electricity plus imports, which themselves are 57 percent wind-water-solar. This replacement of gas has eliminated 38 million tonnes of CO2-equivalent per year, or twice the current world net carbon capture rate. What is more, replacing the gas has also eliminated the mining and processing of the gas, the health costs of the air pollution from mining and burning the gas, and the need for and cost of capture equipment and carbon dioxide pipelines. Carbon capture and direct air capture only increase air pollution health damage, mining, pipelines, and costs. Plus, a single dollar spent on carbon capture simply increases carbon dioxide relative to spending the same dollar on renewables replacing a fossil source. The bottom line is that we should invest in electrification and replacing fossil fuels with clean, renewable energy instead of subsidizing carbon capture, direct air capture, and related gimmicks. CCUS projects Energy, health, and climate costs of carbon capture and direct air capture versus 100%-wind-water-solar climate policies in 149 countries The health and climate impacts of carbon capture and direct air capture Fossil gas use down 61% in California YouTube

Replacing gas with renewables for California’s electricity has reduced twice the carbon as all the world’s carbon capture projects Just to give an idea of how insanely useless carbon capture and direct air capture are, consider the following. All 77 of the world’s carbon-capture facilities capture about 64 million tonnes of CO2 per year. But a quarter of that CO2 is added back to the air from the energy needed to capture and pipe the CO2 and more is added back because 82 percent of all CO2 captured is used to dig more oil out of the ground, a process that releases 85 percent of the captured CO2 back to the air. Accounting for both leaves a net of only 19 million tonnes of CO2 per year captured. Yet from 2023 to 2026, California’s main electricity grid replaced 61 percent of its fossil gas with wind-water-solar electricity plus imports, which themselves are 57 percent wind-water-solar. This replacement of gas has eliminated 38 million tonnes of CO2-equivalent per year, or twice the current world net carbon capture rate. What is more, replacing the gas has also eliminated the mining and processing of the gas, the health costs of the air pollution from mining and burning the gas, and the need for and cost of capture equipment and carbon dioxide pipelines. Carbon capture and direct air capture only increase air pollution health damage, mining, pipelines, and costs. Plus, a single dollar spent on carbon capture simply increases carbon dioxide relative to spending the same dollar on renewables replacing a fossil source. The bottom line is that we should invest in electrification and replacing fossil fuels with clean, renewable energy instead of subsidizing carbon capture, direct air capture, and related gimmicks. CCUS projects Energy, health, and climate costs of carbon capture and direct air capture versus 100%-wind-water-solar climate policies in 149 countries The health and climate impacts of carbon capture and direct air capture Fossil gas use down 61% in California YouTube

Mark Z. Jacobson

10,636 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Pallone: Trump keeps saying, “Well, I don’t like the way solar panels look. I don’t like the way windmills look.” What the hell does that have to do with what we need to do in an energy crisis? The price of electricity keeps going up. And so they’ve taken the position—because of Trump—that they’re either going to eliminate renewables like solar or wind altogether, or they’re going to make them not a priority. That’s not based on what’s important for the American people—keeping energy affordable. If you don’t have an all-of-the-above energy policy that says, “Look, we need more energy, and we’re going to use nuclear, we’re going to use renewables, we’re going to use fossil fuels,” then you’re cutting off major sources of new energy generation, and prices are going to go through the roof. And then there’s the environmental aspect, because renewables don’t create the kinds of environmental problems that burning oil, gas, or coal does. I mean, one of the bills yesterday was to try to bring back coal in all its glory. Well, the price of coal is already so high that it would send electricity bills through the roof if you had to buy and burn it—not to mention the environmental damage.

Pallone: Trump keeps saying, “Well, I don’t like the way solar panels look. I don’t like the way windmills look.” What the hell does that have to do with what we need to do in an energy crisis? The price of electricity keeps going up. And so they’ve taken the position—because of Trump—that they’re either going to eliminate renewables like solar or wind altogether, or they’re going to make them not a priority. That’s not based on what’s important for the American people—keeping energy affordable. If you don’t have an all-of-the-above energy policy that says, “Look, we need more energy, and we’re going to use nuclear, we’re going to use renewables, we’re going to use fossil fuels,” then you’re cutting off major sources of new energy generation, and prices are going to go through the roof. And then there’s the environmental aspect, because renewables don’t create the kinds of environmental problems that burning oil, gas, or coal does. I mean, one of the bills yesterday was to try to bring back coal in all its glory. Well, the price of coal is already so high that it would send electricity bills through the roof if you had to buy and burn it—not to mention the environmental damage.

Acyn

128,648 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Governments, banks, and corporations across the developed world have for nearly four decades treated the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as the final word on the science of climate change. The Obama and Biden administrations regulated carbon dioxide as a pollutant on the strength of IPCC findings. The European Union built its emissions trading system around IPCC scenarios. The United Kingdom anchored its 2008 Climate Change Act in projections drawn from the panel’s reports. Central banks established a Network for Greening the Financial System that now requires more than 140 supervisors to stress-test banks against IPCC-derived futures. Asset managers wrote trillions of dollars in environmental, social, and governance funds on the assumption that the panel’s high-end scenario described the world’s likely path. Local governments along American and European coastlines planned seawalls and zoning rules around IPCC sea level numbers. Insurance companies repriced risk on the same models. That assumption has now collapsed. In April 2026, the scenario committee that supplies the IPCC’s Seventh Assessment Report, known as ScenarioMIP, published a paper that concluded that “on the high-end of the range, the CMIP6 high emission levels (quantified by SSP5-8.5) have become implausible…” In other words, the worst-case future that has anchored climate science for fifteen years describes a world that cannot exist. Scenario “RCP 8.5,” and its successor SSP5-8.5, generated more than half of the references in the 2018 U.S. Fourth National Climate Assessment. They accounted for nearly 60% of the references in the IPCC’s Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere. Thirty new studies per day are published based on RCP 8.5. The IPCC’s defenders insist that the world dodged the apocalypse because of climate policy. A modeler told Carbon Brief that RCP 8.5 had “become implausible, based on trends in the costs of renewables, the emergence of climate policy and recent emission trends.” Berkeley Earth’s Zeke Hausfather argued that “it is incontrovertible that rapid cost declines, investment in, and deployment of clean energy technologies in the past 15 years have changed the plausible scenarios for fossil fuel use later in this century. These new scenarios reflect this success.” Robert Vautard, co-chair of the IPCC’s Working Group I for the upcoming Seventh Assessment Report, said that the previous high scenarios “started in 2015 and assumed no climate policies, but there ARE now many climate policies in many countries, developed in particular with the Paris Agreement,” and the retirement of RCP 8.5 “shows that climate mitigation policies do consistently reduce global warming.” Michael Mann of the University of Pennsylvania said on X, “The good news is emissions are now tracking below older ‘business-as-usual’ pathways because of climate policy in spite of Trump.” But that story is false. RCP 8.5 was never plausible, and the people who built it either knew or should have known. A 2017 paper by Justin Ritchie and Hadi Dowlatabadi in the journal Energy showed that the scenario assumed roughly an eightfold expansion of global coal consumption by 2100, far exceeding five times proven coal reserves, based on extrapolating early-2000s Chinese coal growth rates indefinitely into the future. Coal’s share of the global energy mix peaked around 2013 and has fallen since, the opposite of the RCP 8.5 trajectory. The scenario also assumed a dramatic expansion of coal-to-liquids technology to replace petroleum, a technology that the United States and other industrialized economies abandoned in the 1980s when the collapse in oil prices killed off the Carter-era Synthetic Fuels Corporation. None of those assumptions reflected what serious energy analysts were saying in 2011, when the scenario was finalized. The American shale gas revolution had already been underway for half a decade. Between 2005 and 2022, U.S. carbon emissions from electricity generation fell by roughly 35%, with more than 60% of that decline driven by switching from coal to natural gas. In 2021, Roger Pielke Jr. and his coauthors found that observed emissions had been running below the RCP and SSP baseline scenarios for two decades, primarily because of slower-than-projected carbon intensity growth, not climate policy. As Pielke put it recently, “RCP8.5 is not simply ‘highly unlikely,’ it is falsified, meaning that its emissions trajectory is already well out of step with reality. We knew that in 2020.” IPCC’s scenario builders thus broke their own definition of a scenario, which the IPCC’s 2000 Special Report on Emissions Scenarios defined as is “a coherent, internally consistent, and plausible description of a possible future state of the world,” and RCP 8.5 was none of those things.... Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning investigative journalism, read the rest of the article, and watch the full video!

Governments, banks, and corporations across the developed world have for nearly four decades treated the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as the final word on the science of climate change. The Obama and Biden administrations regulated carbon dioxide as a pollutant on the strength of IPCC findings. The European Union built its emissions trading system around IPCC scenarios. The United Kingdom anchored its 2008 Climate Change Act in projections drawn from the panel’s reports. Central banks established a Network for Greening the Financial System that now requires more than 140 supervisors to stress-test banks against IPCC-derived futures. Asset managers wrote trillions of dollars in environmental, social, and governance funds on the assumption that the panel’s high-end scenario described the world’s likely path. Local governments along American and European coastlines planned seawalls and zoning rules around IPCC sea level numbers. Insurance companies repriced risk on the same models. That assumption has now collapsed. In April 2026, the scenario committee that supplies the IPCC’s Seventh Assessment Report, known as ScenarioMIP, published a paper that concluded that “on the high-end of the range, the CMIP6 high emission levels (quantified by SSP5-8.5) have become implausible…” In other words, the worst-case future that has anchored climate science for fifteen years describes a world that cannot exist. Scenario “RCP 8.5,” and its successor SSP5-8.5, generated more than half of the references in the 2018 U.S. Fourth National Climate Assessment. They accounted for nearly 60% of the references in the IPCC’s Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere. Thirty new studies per day are published based on RCP 8.5. The IPCC’s defenders insist that the world dodged the apocalypse because of climate policy. A modeler told Carbon Brief that RCP 8.5 had “become implausible, based on trends in the costs of renewables, the emergence of climate policy and recent emission trends.” Berkeley Earth’s Zeke Hausfather argued that “it is incontrovertible that rapid cost declines, investment in, and deployment of clean energy technologies in the past 15 years have changed the plausible scenarios for fossil fuel use later in this century. These new scenarios reflect this success.” Robert Vautard, co-chair of the IPCC’s Working Group I for the upcoming Seventh Assessment Report, said that the previous high scenarios “started in 2015 and assumed no climate policies, but there ARE now many climate policies in many countries, developed in particular with the Paris Agreement,” and the retirement of RCP 8.5 “shows that climate mitigation policies do consistently reduce global warming.” Michael Mann of the University of Pennsylvania said on X, “The good news is emissions are now tracking below older ‘business-as-usual’ pathways because of climate policy in spite of Trump.” But that story is false. RCP 8.5 was never plausible, and the people who built it either knew or should have known. A 2017 paper by Justin Ritchie and Hadi Dowlatabadi in the journal Energy showed that the scenario assumed roughly an eightfold expansion of global coal consumption by 2100, far exceeding five times proven coal reserves, based on extrapolating early-2000s Chinese coal growth rates indefinitely into the future. Coal’s share of the global energy mix peaked around 2013 and has fallen since, the opposite of the RCP 8.5 trajectory. The scenario also assumed a dramatic expansion of coal-to-liquids technology to replace petroleum, a technology that the United States and other industrialized economies abandoned in the 1980s when the collapse in oil prices killed off the Carter-era Synthetic Fuels Corporation. None of those assumptions reflected what serious energy analysts were saying in 2011, when the scenario was finalized. The American shale gas revolution had already been underway for half a decade. Between 2005 and 2022, U.S. carbon emissions from electricity generation fell by roughly 35%, with more than 60% of that decline driven by switching from coal to natural gas. In 2021, Roger Pielke Jr. and his coauthors found that observed emissions had been running below the RCP and SSP baseline scenarios for two decades, primarily because of slower-than-projected carbon intensity growth, not climate policy. As Pielke put it recently, “RCP8.5 is not simply ‘highly unlikely,’ it is falsified, meaning that its emissions trajectory is already well out of step with reality. We knew that in 2020.” IPCC’s scenario builders thus broke their own definition of a scenario, which the IPCC’s 2000 Special Report on Emissions Scenarios defined as is “a coherent, internally consistent, and plausible description of a possible future state of the world,” and RCP 8.5 was none of those things.... Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning investigative journalism, read the rest of the article, and watch the full video!

Michael Shellenberger

54,805 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

#WATCH | Delhi: On nuclear energy production and India's energy requirements, BJP MP Naveen Jindal says, "...India is a very strong economy and India has its own destiny. I can speak for steel. The US has had very high tariffs on Indian steel for more than a decade now. We make steel to consume domestically and also to export to other countries. I am sure something will work out... Regarding the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), it is going to happen, so we are all prepared for it. We feel that nuclear energy is the future because nuclear energy is clean energy; it is safe, creates no pollution, and generates no carbon dioxide emissions. So, when we talk about climate change and protecting the environment, nuclear energy is the best solution. That is why the Government of India, through the SHANTI Act, is encouraging the private sector to participate in nuclear power generation. I am sure a lot of large corporates will come forward. We at Jindal Steel are very interested in participating and contributing to India's nuclear energy sector."

#WATCH | Delhi: On nuclear energy production and India's energy requirements, BJP MP Naveen Jindal says, "...India is a very strong economy and India has its own destiny. I can speak for steel. The US has had very high tariffs on Indian steel for more than a decade now. We make steel to consume domestically and also to export to other countries. I am sure something will work out... Regarding the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), it is going to happen, so we are all prepared for it. We feel that nuclear energy is the future because nuclear energy is clean energy; it is safe, creates no pollution, and generates no carbon dioxide emissions. So, when we talk about climate change and protecting the environment, nuclear energy is the best solution. That is why the Government of India, through the SHANTI Act, is encouraging the private sector to participate in nuclear power generation. I am sure a lot of large corporates will come forward. We at Jindal Steel are very interested in participating and contributing to India's nuclear energy sector."

ANI

35,687 Aufrufe • vor 12 Tagen

We believe that there’s no future without nuclear energy. We support the goal of tripling nuclear energy capacity by 2050 to get to net-zero emissions. However, we can’t achieve this goal without addressing these two things: 1 - 𝗔𝗻 𝗲𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗽𝗵𝗮𝘀𝗲-𝗼𝘂𝘁𝘀: Over and over again we’ve witnessed a troubling pattern: when nuclear power plants are shut down, they’re replaced by fossil fuels. This transition not only makes governments more reliant on polluting energy imports, but also makes it lot harder to reduce our greenhouse gas emission. Given the urgency of the climate and energy crisis we face today, both of these outcomes are unacceptable. For these reasons we strongly condemn nuclear energy phase-outs and instead advocate for countries to extend the life of their existing nuclear reactors. By doing so, nations can decrease their dependence on fossil fuels, maintain a more sustainable energy mix, and make substantial progress towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 2 - 𝗪𝗼𝗿𝗹𝗱 𝗕𝗮𝗻𝗸 𝗦𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁: The WorldBank extends grants for low and middle-income countries to fund various initiatives, including clean energy projects. The last time it approved a nuclear energy project was six decades ago. Since then, the World Bank and other multilateral development banks have completely stopped supporting nuclear power. Not only do they refuse to provide financial support, they also refrain from offering any strategic planning guidance to countries looking to build nuclear power plants. It’s a de facto ban on nuclear energy, since these projects tend to be expensive and beyond the means of low to middle-income countries. We urge the World Bank and other similar financing institutions to update their stance on this matter and hire the necessary staff to assess nuclear energy projects. Me, Stand Up for Nuclear and WePlanet joined forces ahead of the first every nuclear energy summit held in Brussels, to make our voices heard through art. We’re ready to turn the world Inside Out and step into our clean energy future! Let’s go ⚡️ Learn more at:

We believe that there’s no future without nuclear energy. We support the goal of tripling nuclear energy capacity by 2050 to get to net-zero emissions. However, we can’t achieve this goal without addressing these two things: 1 - 𝗔𝗻 𝗲𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗽𝗵𝗮𝘀𝗲-𝗼𝘂𝘁𝘀: Over and over again we’ve witnessed a troubling pattern: when nuclear power plants are shut down, they’re replaced by fossil fuels. This transition not only makes governments more reliant on polluting energy imports, but also makes it lot harder to reduce our greenhouse gas emission. Given the urgency of the climate and energy crisis we face today, both of these outcomes are unacceptable. For these reasons we strongly condemn nuclear energy phase-outs and instead advocate for countries to extend the life of their existing nuclear reactors. By doing so, nations can decrease their dependence on fossil fuels, maintain a more sustainable energy mix, and make substantial progress towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 2 - 𝗪𝗼𝗿𝗹𝗱 𝗕𝗮𝗻𝗸 𝗦𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁: The WorldBank extends grants for low and middle-income countries to fund various initiatives, including clean energy projects. The last time it approved a nuclear energy project was six decades ago. Since then, the World Bank and other multilateral development banks have completely stopped supporting nuclear power. Not only do they refuse to provide financial support, they also refrain from offering any strategic planning guidance to countries looking to build nuclear power plants. It’s a de facto ban on nuclear energy, since these projects tend to be expensive and beyond the means of low to middle-income countries. We urge the World Bank and other similar financing institutions to update their stance on this matter and hire the necessary staff to assess nuclear energy projects. Me, Stand Up for Nuclear and WePlanet joined forces ahead of the first every nuclear energy summit held in Brussels, to make our voices heard through art. We’re ready to turn the world Inside Out and step into our clean energy future! Let’s go ⚡️ Learn more at:

isabelle 🪐

109,459 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

It is now the seventh day – something that has never happened before – of an emergency situation at the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant. Because of Russian shelling, the plant has been cut off from power, disconnected from the electrical grid, and is being supplied with electricity by diesel generators. This is extraordinary. The generators and the plant were not designed for this, have never operated in this mode for long, and we already have information that one generator has failed. It is Russian shelling that prevents repair of the power lines to the plant and the restoration of basic safety. This is a threat to everyone – no terrorist in the world has ever dared to do to a nuclear plant what Russia is doing. And it is right that the world does not stay silent.

It is now the seventh day – something that has never happened before – of an emergency situation at the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant. Because of Russian shelling, the plant has been cut off from power, disconnected from the electrical grid, and is being supplied with electricity by diesel generators. This is extraordinary. The generators and the plant were not designed for this, have never operated in this mode for long, and we already have information that one generator has failed. It is Russian shelling that prevents repair of the power lines to the plant and the restoration of basic safety. This is a threat to everyone – no terrorist in the world has ever dared to do to a nuclear plant what Russia is doing. And it is right that the world does not stay silent.

Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський

971,715 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

WATCH: Secretary of Energy Chris Wright calls out the IEA to their face for having "massively gotten off track by a misunderstanding of climate change and the world energy system. I spent my entire life in the world energy system and over 20 years on climate change. But this belief that climate change is urgent, is causing catastrophic damage today, and we have to drop everything and focus everything on that, I can tell you nothing, nothing in the climate data supports that." Wright: "When the IEA was founded 50 years ago, a little over 80% of global energy came from hydrocarbons. 50 years later... No change even in the market share of where the world gets energy." Wright then calls out the Executive Director of the International Energy Agency Fatih Birol: "If Director Birol is gonna drive an organization to make the world a better place, to have accurate data on energy, at communication among the country's storage, coordinating policies, we need to stay focused on that."

WATCH: Secretary of Energy Chris Wright calls out the IEA to their face for having "massively gotten off track by a misunderstanding of climate change and the world energy system. I spent my entire life in the world energy system and over 20 years on climate change. But this belief that climate change is urgent, is causing catastrophic damage today, and we have to drop everything and focus everything on that, I can tell you nothing, nothing in the climate data supports that." Wright: "When the IEA was founded 50 years ago, a little over 80% of global energy came from hydrocarbons. 50 years later... No change even in the market share of where the world gets energy." Wright then calls out the Executive Director of the International Energy Agency Fatih Birol: "If Director Birol is gonna drive an organization to make the world a better place, to have accurate data on energy, at communication among the country's storage, coordinating policies, we need to stay focused on that."

Steve Guest

150,965 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

"If you can control energy, you can control human beings." A flawless one minute summary of the underlying agenda beneath the climate scam. "Back in 1993, we identified [global warming] as the mother of all environmental scare tactics... Groups on the left understood that if you can control energy, you can control human beings." "If, in fact, the combustion of fossil fuels is having a dangerous impact on climate, you have a recipe for controlling all use of fossil fuels—that's 80-90% of all the energy. If you can control that and shut it down, you can shut down the engines of the world." "And that is no less than what the environmental movement wants to do, and has been trying to do now going on 30 years [with] the global warming debate." – Joseph Bast, former president and CEO of The Heartland Institute.

"If you can control energy, you can control human beings." A flawless one minute summary of the underlying agenda beneath the climate scam. "Back in 1993, we identified [global warming] as the mother of all environmental scare tactics... Groups on the left understood that if you can control energy, you can control human beings." "If, in fact, the combustion of fossil fuels is having a dangerous impact on climate, you have a recipe for controlling all use of fossil fuels—that's 80-90% of all the energy. If you can control that and shut it down, you can shut down the engines of the world." "And that is no less than what the environmental movement wants to do, and has been trying to do now going on 30 years [with] the global warming debate." – Joseph Bast, former president and CEO of The Heartland Institute.

Wide Awake Media

213,176 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

"Climate always changes. What would concern me is if climate didn't change. Then we would have a climate catastrophe." Geologist Prof. Ian Plimer: "Climates are cyclical... When we're closer to the Sun, we happen to be a bit warmer, and when we're further away, we happen to be a bit cooler... The Sun puts out variable amounts of energy... And these are the two drivers of climate: the amount of energy that's put out by the Sun, and how close we are to the Sun." "For more than 80% of time, the planet has been warmer and wetter than now. For more than 80% of time, sea levels have been higher than now." "We've had eight major ice ages, and each one of these ice ages started when we had more carbon dioxide in the air than now. So how could carbon dioxide drive warming?" "So as soon as this idea of human-induced climate change appeared, we geologists thought: No, that doesn't fit in with hundreds of years of data. This sounds like a con."

"Climate always changes. What would concern me is if climate didn't change. Then we would have a climate catastrophe." Geologist Prof. Ian Plimer: "Climates are cyclical... When we're closer to the Sun, we happen to be a bit warmer, and when we're further away, we happen to be a bit cooler... The Sun puts out variable amounts of energy... And these are the two drivers of climate: the amount of energy that's put out by the Sun, and how close we are to the Sun." "For more than 80% of time, the planet has been warmer and wetter than now. For more than 80% of time, sea levels have been higher than now." "We've had eight major ice ages, and each one of these ice ages started when we had more carbon dioxide in the air than now. So how could carbon dioxide drive warming?" "So as soon as this idea of human-induced climate change appeared, we geologists thought: No, that doesn't fit in with hundreds of years of data. This sounds like a con."

Wide Awake Media

191,053 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Must watch explanation on clean energy by Greg Jackson on #BBCQT - also watch Tim Stanley squirm repeatedly when Jackson gives answers Greg Jackson, "We've crossed the rubicon.. Clean energy is now cheaper than fossil fuels" "Power from wind and solar is cheaper than power from fossil fuels" "Consumers don't see the benefits because our markets are run in the old traditional way" "We need market reform so when we build wind farms, people get cheaper energy" "It doesn't help that we are paying wind farms to turn off when it's windy, instead of giving people cheap power at those times" "59% of all of the renewable energy has been built in China" Fiona Bruce, "They're also building huge coal plants" Greg Jackson, "The majority will never be used, they'll be mothballed" "Why are they building green energy? It's not because they're nice people. Now they recognise clean energy is cheaper, and energy is the engine of growth for their industry, they're investing in it" "Six or seven years ago if you went to Chinese cities people wore face mask because of air pollution.. That's gone" Tim Stanley, "If you have a period where the wind dies and the sun doesn't shine, what happens, you have to rely on back up.. Rely on gas.. Import the power from overseas" Greg Jackson, "Allow me to help you with this answer.. As somebody who buys more power than anybody in the UK.. I can give you an authoritative answer on what to do" "An electric car holds enough power in its battery for a typical house in the best part of the week" "As more and more electric cars hit our roads, we have distributed storage of electricity, days on end, without wind" "It's not the whole solution but it's a big part of it.. And it helps us reduce our reliance on things like those fossil fuel backups" "It's always windy somewhere, it's always sunny somewhere.. As we connect our country to others.. When they're windy we get their power, when we're windy we sell ours to them" "By the way, we are one of the windiest places in the world.. This is a huge export opportunity for the UK"

Must watch explanation on clean energy by Greg Jackson on #BBCQT - also watch Tim Stanley squirm repeatedly when Jackson gives answers Greg Jackson, "We've crossed the rubicon.. Clean energy is now cheaper than fossil fuels" "Power from wind and solar is cheaper than power from fossil fuels" "Consumers don't see the benefits because our markets are run in the old traditional way" "We need market reform so when we build wind farms, people get cheaper energy" "It doesn't help that we are paying wind farms to turn off when it's windy, instead of giving people cheap power at those times" "59% of all of the renewable energy has been built in China" Fiona Bruce, "They're also building huge coal plants" Greg Jackson, "The majority will never be used, they'll be mothballed" "Why are they building green energy? It's not because they're nice people. Now they recognise clean energy is cheaper, and energy is the engine of growth for their industry, they're investing in it" "Six or seven years ago if you went to Chinese cities people wore face mask because of air pollution.. That's gone" Tim Stanley, "If you have a period where the wind dies and the sun doesn't shine, what happens, you have to rely on back up.. Rely on gas.. Import the power from overseas" Greg Jackson, "Allow me to help you with this answer.. As somebody who buys more power than anybody in the UK.. I can give you an authoritative answer on what to do" "An electric car holds enough power in its battery for a typical house in the best part of the week" "As more and more electric cars hit our roads, we have distributed storage of electricity, days on end, without wind" "It's not the whole solution but it's a big part of it.. And it helps us reduce our reliance on things like those fossil fuel backups" "It's always windy somewhere, it's always sunny somewhere.. As we connect our country to others.. When they're windy we get their power, when we're windy we sell ours to them" "By the way, we are one of the windiest places in the world.. This is a huge export opportunity for the UK"

Farrukh

523,285 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

“We are an energy powerhouse. We are. It has brought us tremendous problems because, as you know, the energy voracity of the North wants our country's resources. And we had denounced all the falsehoods that drug trafficking, democracy, and human rights were not the issue. They were excuses. Because throughout it all, they always wanted Venezuela's oil to be delivered to the global North. And we here have taken a very clear stance that Venezuela is open to energy relations where all parties benefit, where economic cooperation is clearly defined in commercial contracts. That is our position. And the diversity of our energy relations. Venezuela has one of the largest oil reserves on the planet. It also has one of the largest gas reserves. These resources must be at the service of national development and must also be at the service of the development of other countries around the world. That is how our oil industry was born, with an export vocation.”

“We are an energy powerhouse. We are. It has brought us tremendous problems because, as you know, the energy voracity of the North wants our country's resources. And we had denounced all the falsehoods that drug trafficking, democracy, and human rights were not the issue. They were excuses. Because throughout it all, they always wanted Venezuela's oil to be delivered to the global North. And we here have taken a very clear stance that Venezuela is open to energy relations where all parties benefit, where economic cooperation is clearly defined in commercial contracts. That is our position. And the diversity of our energy relations. Venezuela has one of the largest oil reserves on the planet. It also has one of the largest gas reserves. These resources must be at the service of national development and must also be at the service of the development of other countries around the world. That is how our oil industry was born, with an export vocation.”

Camila

47,376 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

WATCH: Secretary of Energy Chris Wright calls out the International Energy Agency for focusing on Net Zero 2050: "We need to have the IEA focused on energy data and bettering lives. Every report has a Net Zero 2050 case in it. There is a 0.0 chance of the world hitting Net Zero 2050, 0.0%. Wright also says: "This organization has been pushed off course, and for 5 years, published energy scenarios going forward, none of which had any relevance to reality. They were all just based on climate ambitions, politics, local domestic politics." "If the European industrial powers want to continue to become forward industrial powers, that's your choice. I don't think it's a great choice, but that is your choice, but that is politics. If the European industrial powers want to continue to become forward industrial powers, that's your choice. I don't think it's a great choice, but that is your choice, but that is politics. That's not relevant to the global energy system, or to better people's lives. We need to have the IEA focused on energy data and bettering lives." Wright: "We need to have the IEA focused on energy data and bettering lives. Every report has a Net Zero 2050 case in it. There is a 0.0 chance of the world hitting Net Zero 2050, 0.0%. .... The attempt to do it has only had one impact. It's we've spent over $10 trillion to add 2.6% of global energy from wind, solar batteries, and all the extra transmission infrastructure combined. And everywhere it's deployed, in reasonable penetration rates, it's developed higher electricity prices. We've seen in the U.S. Every state within a renewable portfolio standard, on average, 50% higher electricity prices then the other states that didn't adopt that. We don't want to move industries out of Europe. We don't want to make life more expensive and impoverish people. We don't want to have 2 million people still dying because they don't have clean cooking fuel. We want to better energize the world. That's what IEA was founded for. That's what we want the IEA to do going forward. And I want to get the other support of all the nations in this noble organization to work with us to push the IEA to drop the climate, hat's political stuff. Let that be done at the government level. This organization should be about energy, energy security, and improving lives." Wright: "Together, we could move the organization and must move the organization back to what energy should always be about, which is humans and math. We only produce energy to better people's lives. The United States is all in on this trajectory."

WATCH: Secretary of Energy Chris Wright calls out the International Energy Agency for focusing on Net Zero 2050: "We need to have the IEA focused on energy data and bettering lives. Every report has a Net Zero 2050 case in it. There is a 0.0 chance of the world hitting Net Zero 2050, 0.0%. Wright also says: "This organization has been pushed off course, and for 5 years, published energy scenarios going forward, none of which had any relevance to reality. They were all just based on climate ambitions, politics, local domestic politics." "If the European industrial powers want to continue to become forward industrial powers, that's your choice. I don't think it's a great choice, but that is your choice, but that is politics. If the European industrial powers want to continue to become forward industrial powers, that's your choice. I don't think it's a great choice, but that is your choice, but that is politics. That's not relevant to the global energy system, or to better people's lives. We need to have the IEA focused on energy data and bettering lives." Wright: "We need to have the IEA focused on energy data and bettering lives. Every report has a Net Zero 2050 case in it. There is a 0.0 chance of the world hitting Net Zero 2050, 0.0%. .... The attempt to do it has only had one impact. It's we've spent over $10 trillion to add 2.6% of global energy from wind, solar batteries, and all the extra transmission infrastructure combined. And everywhere it's deployed, in reasonable penetration rates, it's developed higher electricity prices. We've seen in the U.S. Every state within a renewable portfolio standard, on average, 50% higher electricity prices then the other states that didn't adopt that. We don't want to move industries out of Europe. We don't want to make life more expensive and impoverish people. We don't want to have 2 million people still dying because they don't have clean cooking fuel. We want to better energize the world. That's what IEA was founded for. That's what we want the IEA to do going forward. And I want to get the other support of all the nations in this noble organization to work with us to push the IEA to drop the climate, hat's political stuff. Let that be done at the government level. This organization should be about energy, energy security, and improving lives." Wright: "Together, we could move the organization and must move the organization back to what energy should always be about, which is humans and math. We only produce energy to better people's lives. The United States is all in on this trajectory."

Steve Guest

16,860 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

Joseph Bast, former president and CEO of The Heartland Institute, perfectly summarises the underlying agenda of the #ClimateScam: "Back in 1993, we identified [global warming] as the mother of all environmental scare tactics… Groups on the left understood that if you can control energy, you can control human beings." "If, in fact, the combustion of fossil fuels is having a dangerous impact on climate, you have a recipe for controlling all use of fossil fuels—that’s 80-90% of all the energy. If you can control that and shut it down, you can shut down the engines of the world." "And that is no less than what the environmental movement wants to do, and has been trying to do now going on 30 years [with] the global warming debate." Source: For more content like this, visit: #ClimateCult #NetZero

Joseph Bast, former president and CEO of The Heartland Institute, perfectly summarises the underlying agenda of the #ClimateScam: "Back in 1993, we identified [global warming] as the mother of all environmental scare tactics… Groups on the left understood that if you can control energy, you can control human beings." "If, in fact, the combustion of fossil fuels is having a dangerous impact on climate, you have a recipe for controlling all use of fossil fuels—that’s 80-90% of all the energy. If you can control that and shut it down, you can shut down the engines of the world." "And that is no less than what the environmental movement wants to do, and has been trying to do now going on 30 years [with] the global warming debate." Source: For more content like this, visit: #ClimateCult #NetZero

Wide Awake Media

514,361 Aufrufe • vor 3 Jahren

Gavin Newsom, "Donald Trump is doubling down on stupid" "California has been a leader in climate policy going back to Reagan" "In 1967 Reagan established the first tail pipe emissions in the USA, created the California Air Resources Board" "Three years later, Nixon codified California's leadership in the Clean Air Act" "Never before in the history of the US has there been a more destructive President than the current occupant in the White House" "Trump is trying to recreate the 19th century" "He's a wholly owned subsidiary of oil, gas and coal" "He's re-opening coal plants in the USA" "He's received half a billion in campaign contributions" "It is code red for American leadership in this space" "I run the 4th largest economy in terms of GDP, in the world" "We ran the 4th largest economy, 9 out of 10 days, on clean energy" "2/3 renewable energy" "We have 7x more clean energy jobs than fossil fuel jobs" "We're proving at scale that we can implement, we can compete, we can dominate" "But Donald Trump is trying to turn back the clock" "Donald Trump is temporary, he'll be gone in three years" "California is a stable and reliable partner in this clean energy space" "It's important for folks to understand this temporary nature of this current administration in relation to this issue of climate change and climate policy"

Gavin Newsom, "Donald Trump is doubling down on stupid" "California has been a leader in climate policy going back to Reagan" "In 1967 Reagan established the first tail pipe emissions in the USA, created the California Air Resources Board" "Three years later, Nixon codified California's leadership in the Clean Air Act" "Never before in the history of the US has there been a more destructive President than the current occupant in the White House" "Trump is trying to recreate the 19th century" "He's a wholly owned subsidiary of oil, gas and coal" "He's re-opening coal plants in the USA" "He's received half a billion in campaign contributions" "It is code red for American leadership in this space" "I run the 4th largest economy in terms of GDP, in the world" "We ran the 4th largest economy, 9 out of 10 days, on clean energy" "2/3 renewable energy" "We have 7x more clean energy jobs than fossil fuel jobs" "We're proving at scale that we can implement, we can compete, we can dominate" "But Donald Trump is trying to turn back the clock" "Donald Trump is temporary, he'll be gone in three years" "California is a stable and reliable partner in this clean energy space" "It's important for folks to understand this temporary nature of this current administration in relation to this issue of climate change and climate policy"

Farrukh

42,697 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

The Australian Energy Regulator (AER) has announced another electricity price hike - between 2.5% and 8.9%. For 20 years, we've been told wind and solar are the cheapest forms of energy, yet prices keep going up! I questioned the AER about when Australians might see relief from these crushing power bills. Their response? No clear path to returning to the affordable prices we had just 5 years ago. Even more concerning - they recently added "emissions reduction" to the national electricity objectives alongside price, quality, safety, reliability and security of supply. When I asked for examples of projects that were approved because of this new emissions target that wouldn't have been approved before - they couldn't name a single one! The truth is clear: We've gone from having the cheapest electricity in the world to being among the most expensive. These price increases aren't accidents - they're the direct result of failed green energy policies. Australians deserve affordable, reliable power. Not expensive virtue signaling that drives up costs for families and businesses. #Electricity #CostOfLiving #MalcolmRoberts #OneNation

The Australian Energy Regulator (AER) has announced another electricity price hike - between 2.5% and 8.9%. For 20 years, we've been told wind and solar are the cheapest forms of energy, yet prices keep going up! I questioned the AER about when Australians might see relief from these crushing power bills. Their response? No clear path to returning to the affordable prices we had just 5 years ago. Even more concerning - they recently added "emissions reduction" to the national electricity objectives alongside price, quality, safety, reliability and security of supply. When I asked for examples of projects that were approved because of this new emissions target that wouldn't have been approved before - they couldn't name a single one! The truth is clear: We've gone from having the cheapest electricity in the world to being among the most expensive. These price increases aren't accidents - they're the direct result of failed green energy policies. Australians deserve affordable, reliable power. Not expensive virtue signaling that drives up costs for families and businesses. #Electricity #CostOfLiving #MalcolmRoberts #OneNation

Malcolm Roberts 🇦🇺

30,224 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Breaking News🇬🇧⚡️: "Labour will create jobs in wind turbine production for my area and the rest of the UK". Watch the incredulous Labour MP Mel Ward tell Camilla Tominey that Red Ed Miliband is 'Pro-Oil and North Sea gas' as a fossil fuel resource and that thousands of 'clean energy jobs' will be invented when done are available after 20 years of the climate scam. Point of order - wind turbines are not 'clean', they are either made by fossil fuels or rely 100% on coke. The 'net-zero' lunatics will argue that Electric Arc Furnace While Electric Arc Furnaces (EAFs) primarily run on electricity, the national grid that powers them often relies on fossil fuels unless utilizing renewable energy sources. Furthermore, EAF operations directly consume supplementary fossil fuels, such as natural gas for preheating and coal or coke as carbon sources According to a report from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory - depending on make and model wind turbines are predominantly made of steel (66-79% of total turbine mass); fiberglass, resin or plastic (11-16%); iron or cast iron (5-17%); copper (1%); and aluminum (0-2%). There are currently zero major Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) producing full offshore wind turbines directly based in the UK. The global offshore turbine market is heavily consolidated, and the UK relies on a few major international manufacturers to supply its offshore wind farms. Spinning their way out of the 'climate scam' - not on our watch.

Breaking News🇬🇧⚡️: "Labour will create jobs in wind turbine production for my area and the rest of the UK". Watch the incredulous Labour MP Mel Ward tell Camilla Tominey that Red Ed Miliband is 'Pro-Oil and North Sea gas' as a fossil fuel resource and that thousands of 'clean energy jobs' will be invented when done are available after 20 years of the climate scam. Point of order - wind turbines are not 'clean', they are either made by fossil fuels or rely 100% on coke. The 'net-zero' lunatics will argue that Electric Arc Furnace While Electric Arc Furnaces (EAFs) primarily run on electricity, the national grid that powers them often relies on fossil fuels unless utilizing renewable energy sources. Furthermore, EAF operations directly consume supplementary fossil fuels, such as natural gas for preheating and coal or coke as carbon sources According to a report from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory - depending on make and model wind turbines are predominantly made of steel (66-79% of total turbine mass); fiberglass, resin or plastic (11-16%); iron or cast iron (5-17%); copper (1%); and aluminum (0-2%). There are currently zero major Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) producing full offshore wind turbines directly based in the UK. The global offshore turbine market is heavily consolidated, and the UK relies on a few major international manufacturers to supply its offshore wind farms. Spinning their way out of the 'climate scam' - not on our watch.

HIN News🇬🇧🇺🇸

81,943 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Zack Polanski, "Why is what's happening in Iran, affecting our energy bills?" Tessa Khan, "This is the second time it's happened in four years, we've been at the mercy of the oil and gas markets because of a dictator somewhere, or an autocrat that has decided to go to war" "The UK is dependent on oil and gas, but the price we pay are set by international markets" "While we produce our own gas in the North Sea, we don't make enough of it to influence ho wmuch we end up paying for it" "What happened in 2022, and what we're seeing happening now, is a squeeze on gas, and now gas and oil" "The Strait of Hormuz has shut down, major LNG facilities have been destroyed in the Gulf, so there's a spike" "We're in unchartered territory because there is no pretext for the war beyond whatever the Trump administration and the Israeli government decide on the day" "But also, if you listen to the experts, such as the head of the international energy agency, they say this could be worse than the two 1970s oil crisis in terms of its impact on energy markets" Zack Polanski, "What do we do about being in unchartered territory?" Tessa Khan, "Look after people. People are still reeling with prices going through the roof in 2022" "In the UK we have millions of households in energy debt, that can't afford to pay their energy bills" "Fuel poverty has increased significantly. From kids not being able to do their homework, to people with health conditions suffering even worse circumstances" "Priority is looking after people and making sure that support goes to them" "And then we have to address the root cause of this" "Half of the recessions the UK has faced since the 1970s has been because of fossil fuel price shocks, we've got to get off of fossil fuels" "We have transition to the technologies we have in the UK that will protect us from this insane fossil fuel rollercoaster and also help the climate crisis"

Zack Polanski, "Why is what's happening in Iran, affecting our energy bills?" Tessa Khan, "This is the second time it's happened in four years, we've been at the mercy of the oil and gas markets because of a dictator somewhere, or an autocrat that has decided to go to war" "The UK is dependent on oil and gas, but the price we pay are set by international markets" "While we produce our own gas in the North Sea, we don't make enough of it to influence ho wmuch we end up paying for it" "What happened in 2022, and what we're seeing happening now, is a squeeze on gas, and now gas and oil" "The Strait of Hormuz has shut down, major LNG facilities have been destroyed in the Gulf, so there's a spike" "We're in unchartered territory because there is no pretext for the war beyond whatever the Trump administration and the Israeli government decide on the day" "But also, if you listen to the experts, such as the head of the international energy agency, they say this could be worse than the two 1970s oil crisis in terms of its impact on energy markets" Zack Polanski, "What do we do about being in unchartered territory?" Tessa Khan, "Look after people. People are still reeling with prices going through the roof in 2022" "In the UK we have millions of households in energy debt, that can't afford to pay their energy bills" "Fuel poverty has increased significantly. From kids not being able to do their homework, to people with health conditions suffering even worse circumstances" "Priority is looking after people and making sure that support goes to them" "And then we have to address the root cause of this" "Half of the recessions the UK has faced since the 1970s has been because of fossil fuel price shocks, we've got to get off of fossil fuels" "We have transition to the technologies we have in the UK that will protect us from this insane fossil fuel rollercoaster and also help the climate crisis"

Farrukh

50,167 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

VIDEO | May-Elin Stener (Ambassador May-Elin Stener), the Ambassador of Norway to India says, "Well, in Norway, we are quite a small country, but we are energy superpower, we've had oil and gas since early 70's, we've had the hydropower for about 100 years, and Norway electricity is almost based on hydropower, and the oil and gas adventure has also made us look at what could be the new solutions for the energy transition, and for the future, so this means we have companies which provide hi-tech and very good solutions, that they are looking to scale up here in India, and they are looking for partners to scale up with." #Norway

VIDEO | May-Elin Stener (Ambassador May-Elin Stener), the Ambassador of Norway to India says, "Well, in Norway, we are quite a small country, but we are energy superpower, we've had oil and gas since early 70's, we've had the hydropower for about 100 years, and Norway electricity is almost based on hydropower, and the oil and gas adventure has also made us look at what could be the new solutions for the energy transition, and for the future, so this means we have companies which provide hi-tech and very good solutions, that they are looking to scale up here in India, and they are looking for partners to scale up with." #Norway

Press Trust of India

68,489 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

🚨 WATCH: Energy Secretary Chris Wright tells the International Energy Agency gathering: IEA Must Focus on #Energy, not impossible net-zero goals. Some highlights: ⚡️ Speaking before a scowling IEA Chief Fatih Birol, Secretary Chris Wright called out the organization to its face at its annual gathering on Wednesday, saying "we need to have the IEA focused on energy data and bettering lives" instead of pushing an energy transition that is not happening. ⚡️ "I commend Director Birol, after five years of not having a single scenario in the IEA World Energy Report connected to reality, to re-insert the current policy scenario in last year's report. That is a step in the right direction. That's just an approach towards reality again," Wright said. ⚡️ In an interview with Bloomberg prior to the event, Wright said the IEA will either continue to reform itself in the right direction, or the US will end its membership. That repeated a threat he made last summer, after which Birol and his team moved to reform its modeling process. ⚡️ Wright also laid out a firm warning to leaders of European nations, saying, "If the European industrial powers want to continue to become former industrial powers, that's your choice. I don't think it's a great choice, but that is your choice. But that is politics. That's not relevant to the global energy system or to better people's lives." This is what firm leadership looks like. Here's the full text of Wright's remarks in the video clip below: This organization has been pushed off course, and for five years published energy scenarios going forward, none of which had any relevance to reality. They were all just based on climate ambitions, politics, local domestic politics, do whatever you want. If the European industrial powers want to continue to become former industrial powers, that's your choice. I don't think it's a great choice, but that is your choice. But that is politics. That's not relevant to the global energy system or to better people's lives. We need to have the IEA focused on energy data and bettering lives. Every report has a net zero 2050 case in it. There is a 0.0 chance of the world hitting net zero 2050. 0.00%, and the attempt to do it, so we shouldn't worry about it, it's not going to happen. The attempt to do it has only had one impact. It's we've spent over $10 trillion to add 2.6% of global energy from wind, solar, batteries, and all the extra transmission infrastructure combined. And everywhere it's deployed in reasonable penetration rates is developed higher electricity prices. We've seen in the US, every state within the renewable portfolio standard, on average, 50% higher electricity price than the other states that didn't adopt that. We don't want to move industries out of Europe. We don't want to make life more expensive and impoverish our people. We don't want to have two million people still dying because they don't have clean cooking fuel. We want to better energize the world. That's what IEA was founded for. That's we want the IE to do going forward. And I want to get the other support of all the nations in this noble organization to work with us to push the IEA to drop the climate. That's political stuff. Let that be done at the government level. This organization should be about energy, energy security, and improving lives. I commend Director Birol after five years of not having a single scenario in the IEA World Energy Report connected to reality to re-insert the current policy scenario in last year's report. That is a step in the right direction. That's just an approach towards reality again. But together, we can move the organization and must move the organizations back to what energy should always be about, which is humans and math. We only produce energy to better people's lives. The United States is all in on this trajectory. We are driving the growth of every affordable, reliable, secure energy source we can. For ourselves, for our allies, for friends, we want to partner with you to do all the same. Greatness. Watch:

🚨 WATCH: Energy Secretary Chris Wright tells the International Energy Agency gathering: IEA Must Focus on #Energy, not impossible net-zero goals. Some highlights: ⚡️ Speaking before a scowling IEA Chief Fatih Birol, Secretary Chris Wright called out the organization to its face at its annual gathering on Wednesday, saying "we need to have the IEA focused on energy data and bettering lives" instead of pushing an energy transition that is not happening. ⚡️ "I commend Director Birol, after five years of not having a single scenario in the IEA World Energy Report connected to reality, to re-insert the current policy scenario in last year's report. That is a step in the right direction. That's just an approach towards reality again," Wright said. ⚡️ In an interview with Bloomberg prior to the event, Wright said the IEA will either continue to reform itself in the right direction, or the US will end its membership. That repeated a threat he made last summer, after which Birol and his team moved to reform its modeling process. ⚡️ Wright also laid out a firm warning to leaders of European nations, saying, "If the European industrial powers want to continue to become former industrial powers, that's your choice. I don't think it's a great choice, but that is your choice. But that is politics. That's not relevant to the global energy system or to better people's lives." This is what firm leadership looks like. Here's the full text of Wright's remarks in the video clip below: This organization has been pushed off course, and for five years published energy scenarios going forward, none of which had any relevance to reality. They were all just based on climate ambitions, politics, local domestic politics, do whatever you want. If the European industrial powers want to continue to become former industrial powers, that's your choice. I don't think it's a great choice, but that is your choice. But that is politics. That's not relevant to the global energy system or to better people's lives. We need to have the IEA focused on energy data and bettering lives. Every report has a net zero 2050 case in it. There is a 0.0 chance of the world hitting net zero 2050. 0.00%, and the attempt to do it, so we shouldn't worry about it, it's not going to happen. The attempt to do it has only had one impact. It's we've spent over $10 trillion to add 2.6% of global energy from wind, solar, batteries, and all the extra transmission infrastructure combined. And everywhere it's deployed in reasonable penetration rates is developed higher electricity prices. We've seen in the US, every state within the renewable portfolio standard, on average, 50% higher electricity price than the other states that didn't adopt that. We don't want to move industries out of Europe. We don't want to make life more expensive and impoverish our people. We don't want to have two million people still dying because they don't have clean cooking fuel. We want to better energize the world. That's what IEA was founded for. That's we want the IE to do going forward. And I want to get the other support of all the nations in this noble organization to work with us to push the IEA to drop the climate. That's political stuff. Let that be done at the government level. This organization should be about energy, energy security, and improving lives. I commend Director Birol after five years of not having a single scenario in the IEA World Energy Report connected to reality to re-insert the current policy scenario in last year's report. That is a step in the right direction. That's just an approach towards reality again. But together, we can move the organization and must move the organizations back to what energy should always be about, which is humans and math. We only produce energy to better people's lives. The United States is all in on this trajectory. We are driving the growth of every affordable, reliable, secure energy source we can. For ourselves, for our allies, for friends, we want to partner with you to do all the same. Greatness. Watch:

⚡️David Blackmon⚡️

27,322 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten