The main political issue for the 2024 elections must be about reliable and cheap energy. If not, impoverishment is a matter of (little) time.
Both the Netherlands and Belgium are preparing for the upcoming elections. Besides the differences, we have some major challenges in common. One of them is cheap and RELIABLE energy, impoverishment is inevitable!
We are making an effort to make it clear that a new political analysis is necessary for this:
"Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures."
It's the sun, smartass!
The IPCC, in its recent 2023 Synthesis Report on the State of the Earth's Climate, stated that from 2011 to 2020, the global surface temperature of our planet was 1.09°C higher than in the 1850-1900 period. The increase is observed mostly over land and is less pronounced over the oceans and seas.
Furthermore, the IPCC states that the likely human-caused temperature increase over the same period should be estimated at 1.07°. And, the IPCC adds, "For this period, it is likely that human-generated greenhouse gases caused a warming of 1 to 2° and that other human factors caused a decrease of 0 to 0.8°." Natural factors, namely volcanism and the sun would affect surface temperatures from +0.1 to -0.1°. Moreover, the IPCC further explains, the temperature increase is accelerating.
You will not hear or read more than confirmation of these "likely" statements in the traditional media. The public deprived of critical information has no choice but to believe the media. Or won't want to do otherwise, because too tiresome.
We regularly read, including in Knack and on VRTNWS, "factchecks" whose main purpose is to expunge unwanted reactions to the prevailing climate ideology. Therefore, you will never find critical factchecks on IPCC publications. However, there is one extremely important reason to do so:
After all, the IPCC's sole mission is to study the impact of human contribution to warming (via CO2 emissions) and build models to predict the future.
How could such a limited study that pays no or insufficient attention to the natural causes of climate change be scientifically correct? How can one predict the complex climate system (IPCC scientists even call it chaotic and thus by definition unpredictable) when one ignores (or argues away) the natural influences?
Everyone with a modicum of common sense knows that the sun plays a major role in our climate and that solar activity fluctuates. Also other changing natural phenomena are ignored (or explained away), such as: The eccentricity of the earth's orbit; the angle between the earth's axis of rotation and the ecliptic; volcanism and tectonic movements; variations in the sun's emission; cosmic rays; the earth's magnetic field; the albedo (reflectivity) of the land surface.
In short, one must already be very strongly indoctrinated to unquestioningly accept as true the misleading "politically-ideologically inspired information" that the IPCC sends into the world.
A contrary fact check
A new study has just been released showing that warming is primarily an urban phenomenon. We have long known that it is considerably warmer in cities than in the countryside or over a large body of water. But now observations have clearly shown that this fact does indeed exist. And now let it be that very many monitoring stations are in urban areas, creating a distorted picture and unfairly being minimized by the IPCC. "In their latest report, the IPCC estimated that urban warming accounted for less than 10% of global warming. However, this new study suggests that urban warming might account for up to 40% of the warming since 1850.
There is more. According to the authors of this study, the role of the sun in warming was not sufficiently taken into account. In fact, they found that most warming and cooling trends in rural areas could actually be explained in terms of changing solar activity.
That the sun may be a much bigger game changer than any human-made greenhouse gas is suggested by yet another recent study.
It is known that the planet Neptune, the seventh planet of solar system, sometimes has large "spots" on its surface. Amateur astronomers make it a sport to photograph those spots. Those spots are truly of an enormous size, even the size of the Pacific Ocean. That shouldn't be surprising, since Neptune is 17 times larger than Earth.
Well: recently it turned out that those spots suddenly "disappeared. The only way the researchers could think of to explain that surprising phenomenon was fluctuating solar energy.
Now one should know that Neptune is about 4.5 billion kilometers from the sun. Thirty times farther than Earth. Despite that enormous distance and despite the enormous forces of its own of that large planet, the sun "manages" to noticeably change the surface of that planet.
And while we're at it, another study came out very recently. One began to examine the trends in natural disasters on Earth to see if they are related to warming and may even be partially anthropogenic. Well: according to this study, there is no reason to believe that the number of natural disasters, such as volcanic eruptions, has increased significantly since the end of the last century. The authors find no connection to global warming, which is often read or heard. However, the authors do explain that reporting has improved sharply since the first half of last century, which explains why events on our planet seem to have worsened.
Of course, none of this is a reason to say that there is no warming. There most certainly is. The opposite would be highly surprising, since the second half of the 20th century is still counted as the Little Ice Age. The IPCC's choice of comparing "favorable periods" (1850 - 1900 and 2011 - 2020) is not accidental and not the first deception!
No one is currently in a position to predict the future.
Meanwhile, one thing does become clear: when we think about climate change, we should always also think, "It's the sun, smarty pants"!
Impoverished we will be!
Everyone must realize that expensive energy inevitably leads to loss of wealth and that means poverty for many people!
With numerous politicians and the media following the climate alarmists like lemmings, poverty is no longer a distant reality. The consequences of the politics followed were evident during the energy debate. The government found no better option than to impose lavish temporary support measures that increased the collective debt.
But not only all fossil energy sources have to go, also the most efficient and reliable energy source with no CO2 emissions, nuclear energy, has to go. So it is no longer about ecology but about a compulsory reduction of our prosperity, and for many people that means poverty. In De Zondag (03/09) about the increasing debt rate of the population, we read that because of increased energy prices, the average debt due to unpaid bills rose from 500 euros in 2021 to 900 euros in 2021 and is now about 1,200 euros.
What we fortunately have not yet faced with us is energy poverty. That too comes at the cost of even more expensive energy imports. Those who think this is not possible are mistaken.
Australia
In Australia, energy poverty is already a reality. There is an alarming study by AEMO (energy regulator) (not accessible without authorization) indicating that power outages are now inevitable, and even worse than in the past as even more coal-fired power plants are closing. The (political) fallout is being passed around. This is not politically understood as bad policy but a reason to accelerate "renewable energy" even more. For citizens this is not a solution, and even more citizens want to buy a generator. The problem is not new. Back in 2017, Musk was allowed to supply a battery (which burned out partially) and emergency generator/turbines were purchased. But the situation is getting worse, as evidenced by the chart below.
Moreover, this graph is exceptional: After all, we have never seen a graph (from a government agency!) where one closes off the upper limit, hiding the real effect. Apparently there is a lot to hide.
South Africa
Eight to 11 hours of no power has become commonplace
A thoughtful reader and well-placed source in the energy sector sent us this message:
My sister in South Africa (Natal) is now commonly without power for 8 to 11 hours a day. She has had to install solar panels and a home battery to keep the fridge/freezer cool, because the bridging periods between power on and off have become too long to keep food fresh.
Politically correct (you know), but corrupt state-imposed management at Escom has neglected mass maintenance work on the power plants for years.
And the president himself now owns, among other things, a company with trucks that today by the hundreds a day (not trains, no way, just private trucks) are making the roads unsafe to bring coal from the mines to power plants.
Occasionally these days, such coal shipments are plundered by desperate people looking for some basic energy to heat their cooking stoves. That is why they travel in large convoys.
South Africa, a country with one of the greatest mineral resources in the world is on its way to begging. Soon Russian BRICS grain will have to be brought in.
One does not imagine it all. It is already a fact there.
Only one political conclusion is possible for every party and every voter:
The main political issue for the 2024 elections must be about reliable and cheap energy. If not, impoverishment is a matter of (little) time.
