The EU spent more on anti-carbon lunacy in 2024 than on defense

... the EU is now promising to cut carbon emissions by 90% in just 15 years. This goes even further than its already foolhardy promise of a 55% cut by 2030. ...

The EU splurged $381 billion just in 2024 on solar panels, wind turbines, electric cars and the like — more than its entire spending on defense. This is delivering skyrocketing electricity bills — last year they were two times higher than in the US. ...

... the climate impact from the EU’s policies will be next-to-nothing. Run the promised 90% by 2040 and net-zero by 2050 in the United Nations’ own climate model and compare the temperature outcome with the current policy. Because the EU matters little in global emissions and because it has already cut emissions significantly, it will only reduce global emissions through the 21^st century by a small 3%. The temperature difference in 2050 is a vanishing 0.02°F and even by 2100 the impact will be impossible to measure at 0.07°F.

All while models show that the cost for the EU by mid-century could be more than $3 trillion every year — more than all current public spending in the EU. ...

More. 

Low-inertia renewable energy systems are prone to blackouts such as in Spain in April because they cannot maintain stable frequencies in the absence of high-inertia fossil fuel, hydro, and nuclear energy systems

 The Physics Behind the Spanish Blackout: Madrid knew solar and wind power were unreliable but pressed ahead anyway.

When a grid failure plunged 55 million people in Spain and Portugal into darkness at the end of April, it should have been a wake-up call on green energy. Climate activists promised that solar and wind power were the future of cheap, dependable electricity. The massive half-day blackout shows otherwise. The nature of solar and wind generation makes grids that rely on them more prone to collapse—an issue that’s particularly expensive to ameliorate. ...

Grids need to stay on a very stable frequency—generally 50 Hertz in Europe—or else you get blackouts. Fossil-fuel, hydro and nuclear generation all solve this problem naturally because they generate energy by powering massive spinning turbines. The inertia of these heavy rotating masses resists changes in speed and hence frequency, so that when sudden demand swings would otherwise drop or hike grid frequency, the turbines work as immense buffers. But wind and solar don’t power such heavy turbines to generate energy. It’s possible to make up for this with cutting-edge technology such as advanced inverters or synthetic inertia. But many solar and wind farms haven’t undergone these expensive upgrades. If a grid dominated by those two power sources gets off frequency, a blackout is more likely than in a system that relies on other energy sources. ...

Just a week prior to the blackout, Spain bragged that for the first time, renewables delivered 100% of its electricity, though only for a period of minutes around 11:15 a.m. When it collapsed, the Iberian grid was powered by 74% renewable energy, with 55% coming from solar. It went down under the bright noon sun. When the Iberian grid frequency started faltering on April 28, the grid’s high proportion of solar and wind generation couldn’t stabilize it. This isn’t speculation; it’s physics. As the electricity supply across Spain collapsed, Portugal was pulled along, because the two countries are tightly interconnected through the Iberian electricity network. ...

Kamala Harris is keeping quiet about climate change because the so-called Inflation Reduction Act's climate provisions are going to screw America good and hard for decades, to the tune of $3 trillion

 The climate policies she would offer promise huge costs for negligible benefits. It’d be one thing to ask for sacrifices that could save the planet. But even at a whopping official price tag of $369 billion over 10 years, the Inflation Reduction Act’s climate measures as written were likely to lower the projected global temperature in 2100 by less than 0.03 degree Fahrenheit. In reality, the IRA has turned out to be an even rawer deal. The cost has rapidly ballooned to somewhere north of $3 trillion over 30 to 40 years, even as emission cuts have been slower and smaller than predicted. No wonder Ms. Harris isn’t trumpeting it.

-- Bjorn Lomborg, here 

 

Kamala Harris was the tie-breaking vote in the US Senate twice to advance the bill into law.