This week’s ESG blog slices through the warming fog with three scalpels: urban heat, molecular physics, and economic common sense. A new analysis shows that a large portion of measured U.S. warming may be due to urbanization—not greenhouse gases. Meanwhile, two rigorous papers lay bare the scientific hollowness of CO₂’s role in climate catastrophe, challenging the greenhouse orthodoxy from both quantum and energy-balance perspectives. On the energy economics front, the “fat tail” problem of renewables is unwrapped, showing how intermittent power inflates real-world costs—despite claims of being “cheaper.” And as net-zero delusions collapse under financial strain and grid instability, the absurdities continue: from reverse energy tariffs in Ontario to Chinese kill switches in Western solar panels. If climate policy were a movie, this week’s blog would be the red pill.
CHART OF THE WEEK
SCIENCE
IPCC misrepresentations: comments made by former IPCC contributors after cutting ties with the politicized body — so scientists no longer subject to professional repercussions.
IPCC scientist #28 - Dr Philip Lloyd: “I am doing a detailed assessment of the IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science. I have found examples of a summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said.”
A novel method is described for quantifying average urban heat island (UHI) warming since 1895 in contiguous U.S. (CONUS) summer air temperature data. The method quantifies the sensitivity of Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) station raw temperature to station-centered population density (PD). Specifically, closely spaced station pair differences in monthly raw (non-homogenized) TAVG (the average of daily maximum and minimum temperature) and PD are sorted by station pair average PD into six PD classes, and linear regression estimates of the temperature sensitivity to population density change (dTAVG/dPD) are made for each class for historical periods ranging from 1 to 21 years in length. Every one of the resulting six sensitivity relationships in each of 22 historical periods from 1880 to 2020 are found to be positive, and their magnitudes allow construction of station-average urban heat island temperature (TUHI) curves as a function of population density. When applied to the history of population changes at each CONUS station location (1895-2023) and grouped into four categories of station population density, the resulting TUHI warming trends range from 8% of observed TAVG warming for the most rural category of stations to about 65% of observed warming for suburban and urban categories. Across all stations the UHI warming amounts to 22% of the observed raw GHCN warming trend, (+0.016 versus +0.072 °C decade-1). The method provides an independent way to quantify station-average UHI warming over time.
Our take: an innovative was to demonstrate how the urban heat island effect, not man-made global warming, has a significant effect on the temperature measurement records.
This document analyzes the contribution of carbon dioxide (CO₂) to the greenhouse effect through molecular calculations based on fundamental physical principles. Using data on atmospheric CO₂ concentration (0.04% by volume, 420 ppm), absorption cross-section (σ = 10⁻²⁰ m²), molecular density (N = 1 × 10²² molecules/m³), and average infrared photon energy (E_photon = 2 × 10⁻²⁰ J), it was determined that CO₂ absorbs an extremely low fraction of the infrared radiation emitted by Earth: 6.0 × 10⁻¹⁰ % (7.8 × 10⁻¹⁸ J/m³ of absorbed energy compared to 1.3 × 10⁻⁶ J/m³ of incident energy). Additionally, the radiative forcing associated with the increase in CO₂ from 280 ppm (preindustrial era) to 420 ppm (current level) was calculated using a molecular approach. The result was ΔF = 2.27 × 10⁻¹⁴ W/m², 17 orders of magnitude smaller than the value accepted by the IPCC (2.2 W/m²). These findings suggest that the capacity of CO₂ to absorb infrared energy and contribute to global warming is negligible at the molecular level, questioning its central role in anthropogenic greenhouse effect theory. The results highlight the discrepancy between simplified molecular models and global climate estimates, proposing the need to revise the underlying physical mechanisms of atmospheric energy balance.
Conclusion: The calculations presented in this document reveal that the molecular contribution of carbon dioxide (CO₂) to infrared radiation absorption is extremely low, estimated at 6.0 × 10⁻¹⁰% (7.8 × 10⁻¹⁸ J/m³ of absorbed energy versus 1.3 × 10⁻⁶ J/m³ of incident energy). This result, along with the calculation of radiative forcing associated with the increase of CO₂ from 280 ppm to 420 ppm (ΔF = 2.27 × 10⁻¹⁴ W/m²), highlights a discrepancy of 17 orders of magnitude compared to values accepted by the IPCC (2.2 W/m²).
These findings suggest that, from a molecular and statistical perspective, CO₂’s capacity to absorb infrared energy and generate significant warming is practically negligible. The absorbed proportion (0.000000000006%) reflects an extremely low efficiency, raising doubts about its central role in anthropogenic greenhouse theory. Additionally, the absolute difference between absorbed and total incident energy confirms that CO₂’s interaction with infrared radiation does not significantly alter the overall energy balance.
Although the document focuses on simplified physical and molecular data, its results question the methodology used in global climate models to quantify CO₂'s impact. This underscores the need to review underlying physical mechanisms and explore other potential climatic factors, such as ultraviolet radiation absorption by atmospheric oxygen, to gain a more accurate understanding of processes governing global warming.
In summary, the calculations presented here suggest that CO₂, although recognized as a greenhouse gas, has a molecularly negligible contribution to global warming, inviting broader scientific debate on the causes and mechanisms of climate change.
Our take: This article provides a valuable molecular-level challenge to the prevailing narrative on CO₂-driven global warming. By analyzing the quantum mechanics of infrared absorption, it reinforces what empirical saturation models and field observations have long suggested: the greenhouse effect of CO₂ is logarithmic and heavily saturated at current atmospheric levels. This supports the conclusions of Lindzen, Happer, and van Wijngaarden — that additional CO₂ contributes negligibly to further warming. Yet trillions are being mobilized politically and economically based on the opposite assumption. It's a timely reminder that climate policy should be grounded in physical reality.
Examination of the radiation budget at the surface of the Earth shows that there are five primary factors affecting the surface temperature; the amount of solar radiation absorbed by the atmosphere and by the surface respectively, the amount of heat emitted from the surface in the form of thermals and evaporation, and the proportion of infrared radiation emitted from the surface directly into space. The Greenhouse Effect equations are solved by calculating the downwelling flux from the atmosphere and substituting this in the equation for the radiative balance at Earth’s surface. If there were no leakage, the upwelling infrared radiation from the Earth’s surface would be equal to the incoming solar radiation absorbed by the atmosphere plus twice the solar radiation absorbed by the surface. At current levels of solar absorption, this would result in total upwelling radiation of approximately 398.6 W/m2 , or a maximum surface temperature of 16.4°C. Allowing for leakage of infrared radiation through the atmospheric window, the resulting emission from the Earth’s surface due to the Greenhouse Effect is reduced to 372.5 or 388.6 W/m2, depending on the treatment of thermals, corresponding to surface temperature of 11.6 or 14.6°C. Absorption of infrared radiation by greenhouse gases is determined by the absorption bands for the respective gases and their concentrations. Examination of the absorption of the black body spectrum of terrestrial infrared radiation after passing through the atmosphere indicates that all emitted radiation that can be absorbed by greenhouse gases, primarily water vapor, with a small contribution from carbon dioxide and ozone, is already fully absorbed, and the leakage of around 5.5 percent corresponds to the part of the infrared red spectrum that is not absorbed by greenhouse gases. Emissions in the carbon dioxide absorption bands are most likely fully absorbed. In these circumstances, increased concentrations of greenhouse gases, and carbon dioxide in particular, will have no further effect. The surface temperature is probably at the thermodynamic limit for the current luminosity of the sun. Satellite based measurements since 1979 suggest that any recent increase in the surface temperature may be due to an increase in total solar irradiance, which we are still a decade or two from being able to confirm.
Our take: This paper delivers a mathematically rigorous challenge to the core greenhouse theory by directly solving the greenhouse effect equations — and finding no significant increase in Earth’s surface temperature from rising CO₂. By focusing on energy conservation and radiative transfer mechanics, the author exposes a fundamental inconsistency in the assumption that more CO₂ linearly drives warming. The analysis echoes the findings of Lindzen, Happer, and others: the climate system is far less sensitive to CO₂ than mainstream models assert. It’s a technical but critical contribution to dismantling the oversimplified narrative that carbon dioxide is the planet’s thermostat.
Just as rare but massive losses in trading can wipe out gains, peak demand periods in power systems drive costs that overshadow renewables’ savings during easy times. Electricity demand fluctuates, and supplying power is far more challenging—and expensive—during certain periods. At the end of this post, I have provided a more detailed and quantitative discussion as to how and why the fat tail becomes a major factor impacting energy costs. So as not to lose many readers, I will proceed with a more generalized description here.
Typically, the most difficult times are peak demand periods in winter and summer, which account for less than 5% of the year. During a single hour of peak demand, electricity costs can spike orders of magnitude higher than the typical average cost, forcing utilities to rely on expensive backup plants that sit idle most of the year. For example, during the January 2014 Polar Vortex, a massive cold snap gripped the eastern U.S., driving electricity demand for heating across the PJM Interconnection to record levels. With no spare power to share among states, wholesale prices soared to $2,000 per megawatt-hour, over 60 times the typical $30/MWH average. Smaller localized events are more common with less drastic price fluctuations, but they contribute as well to the fat tail problem.
Wind and solar often shine during easy times, producing electricity at a lower marginal cost than traditional sources like natural gas or nuclear. However, their output is intermittent and less reliable during peak periods, when weather conditions may not align with demand. Relying heavily on renewables requires backup systems—often expensive fossil fuel or nuclear plants—to ensure reliability during these critical fat tail events. The cost of maintaining these backup systems, combined with the infrastructure needed to integrate intermittent renewables, can greatly outweigh the savings from cheap renewable energy during easy times.
A Car Analogy: Efficiency/Marginal Costs Aren’t Everything
Consider a practical example. Imagine you’re choosing between two cars. Car A is fuel-efficient and meets your needs 90% of the time, but 10% of the time, you need Car B, which has more power and extra seating. Car B is less efficient, but it’s essential for those critical moments. Would you also buy Car A just because it’s cheaper to operate 90% of the time? Probably not—owning two cars would likely cost more than paying the extra fuel costs for Car B alone.
Similarly, building wind and solar farms to supply cheap energy during easy times doesn’t eliminate the need for reliable resources like natural gas or nuclear during peak periods. The added costs of constructing, maintaining, and integrating renewables—while still paying for backup systems—often make the overall system more expensive. Detailed power system modeling and real-world experience confirm this, yet the misconception persists that renewables’ low marginal costs guarantee economic benefits.
Our take: the article draws an elegant and underappreciated parallel between fat tail risks in investment portfolios and the reliability risks in electricity systems burdened by intermittent renewables. Clear framing helps energy policy stakeholders grasp why, as with financial markets, rare but extreme outcomes (like prolonged low wind or solar output) carry disproportionate system-wide costs—an analysis both timely and valuable in today’s energy debate. If only more investment managers were aware of this parallel.
One of the primary tasks assigned to the IPCC is to issue periodic “assessment reports” about the state of global climate change. These reports are hundreds of pages long and can be extremely technical. For attention-deficit-challenged politicians and journalists, these reports are issued with an accompanying summary. As a matter of routine, this summary mischaracterizes the substance and even the conclusions of the actual report. It is also regularly subjected to political meddling; for instance, when the IPCC issued its fifth assessment report in 2014, the German delegate to the IPCC insisted that language related to a pause or hiatus in the rise of global temperature be removed because “it would confuse German voters.”
Moreover, the leaders of the environmentalist movement have historically been wrong on just about everything. For laughs:
1989—the UN predicted that entire nations would be “wiped off the face of the Earth” by rising sea levels by 2000.
2006—Al Gore said humans may have only ten years to save the planet from “turning into a total frying pan.”
2018—Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez declared that the “world is going to end in twelve years if we don’t address climate change.”
Despite all this, the emotional pull of “save the world” propaganda remains powerful, and the environmentalist agenda marches on.
Despite massive growth in the generating capacity of wind and solar farms, fossil-fuel-powered electric plants remain an irreplaceable component of reliable electrical grids. Wind and solar power, as technology currently stands, cannot adequately substitute for power from fossil fuels. This is because wind and solar power suffer from the insurmountable problem of intermittency—wind turbines don’t work when it’s not windy, and solar panels don’t work when the sun’s not shining.
Some have suggested that we could build large-scale battery storage facilities that, on sunny or windy days, could be used to bank excess electricity for later use and thus overcome this problem. Elon Musk recently even floated the idea of building a large-scale battery storage facility powered by wind and solar farms. It was going to cost $5 billion, require more lithium batteries than currently exist in the world, and be capable of storing about five minutes of United States’ electricity demand. Large-scale battery storage is simply not yet viable.
Another fun fact about wind and solar power and battery storage is that storing electricity in batteries is ten thousand times more expensive than storing oil in tanks or coal in piles.
Wind and solar farms have clearly added nothing of value. But it’s worse than that—they actively work to our detriment. For an electrical grid to work reliably, the supply of electricity must be constantly equalized with demand. If power plants are generating more electricity than is demanded by consumers, the electrical grid can be overloaded, and critical infrastructure can be catastrophically damaged.
Our take: The article does an excellent job exposing the harsh and often overlooked truth that global energy policies prioritizing renewables at all costs are driving up prices and undermining grid reliability. Its clear explanation of how market distortions and regulatory interference worsen the situation provides valuable insight for anyone serious about understanding why affordable, dependable energy remains the cornerstone of human prosperity.
As noted in a recent post up to April 25th and the first 10 hours of the 26th Ontario ratepayers had their pockets picked for $101.8 million of our after-tax dollars. The foregoing was noted in a prior posted article! The pain has continued for the rest of the month!
The rest of the April 26th hours plus the remaining four days of the month resulted in a continuation of us ratepayers unwillingly seeing many more of our dollars wasted due to the intermittent and unreliable nature of wind and solar generation! The following chart highlights that both the IWT (industrial wind turbines) and the grid connected solar generation represented over 73% of our sales of electricity to our intertie connected neighbours of Michigan, Quebec, New York, Manitoba and Minnesota in those four days coupled with the last 14 hours of April 26th!
*The last 14 hours of April 26th generation from wind and solar!
What is easily discernible about the above is the fact we didn’t need any of the IWT or solar power generation as our Spring and Fall peak demand only reaches a peak hourly level in the 15/17K range and for most hours can be supplied with our emissions free, nuclear and hydro baseload generation. Our low emission natural gas generation could easily fill in our needs during higher demand hours at much lower costs.
What the above tells us is April 2025 extracted $138 million dollars from our pockets with absolutely NO BENEFIT! It should make one wonder did the bureaucrats at IESO or the OEB ever consider doing a “cost benefit analysis” before contracting wind and solar generation or did they simply do what they were told by the politicians?
Our take: well, this one speaks so well for itself: “$138 million dollars from our pockets with absolutely NO BENEFIT!”
Climate research provider and environmental disclosure platform CDP announced a strategic restructuring which may result in a reduction of around 20% of its workforce, as the organization embarks on a new strategy, including focusing on reducing the reporting burden for companies.
Founded in 2000, CDP runs a global environmental disclosure system, enabling investors and other stakeholders to measure and track organization’s performance in key environmental sustainability areas including climate, forests, and water security. In 2024, a record of more than 22,700 companies disclosed through CDP, up 8% over the prior year.
Our take: It’s telling that CDP must now “reduce the reporting burden” of a system it helped inflate in the first place. The irrationality of drowning companies in endless ESG metrics—many subjective, redundant, or irrelevant—was baked into the model from the start.
The Carney government has inherited a long list of climate policies (over 140 at last count) aimed at virtually eliminating Canadians’ emissions of GHGs by 2050 through the use of taxes, regulations, subsidies, codes and other means. Carney himself is a strong proponent of “Net-Zero” nationally and globally; the Canada Strong platform that he ran on included over a dozen new and costly emissions-reduction measures. Eliminating the most high-profile regulations would still leave a backstop of other measures that, if the federal government so chose, could have the same effects.
A motivated Carney government could offer changes in policy and taxes that would go some way to reducing Alberta’s grievances. Rarely have considerations of fiscal restraint limited the options Liberal governments are prepared to consider. However, based on the layers of complexity I describe here, it seems unlikely that any of the federal offers likely to be made would go far enough to allow an agreement that would satisfy Premier Smith’s demands and to free up market access.
Our take: A clear-eyed analysis of the regulatory entanglements strangling Alberta’s energy economy under Ottawa’s sprawling “Net Zero” agenda. This pragmatic assessment cuts through the illusion of easy federal-provincial compromise, exposing the deeply irrational burden created by overlapping, redundant, and self-defeating policies masquerading as climate action.
On April 28, while we were in Senegal investigating efforts by rich Western technologically-advanced countries to force poor non-Western countries to forgo reliable, affordable hydrocarbon energy at the risk of going or staying dark, Spain and Portugal went dark. The usual suspects were mystified; the New York Times rushed to print with “The cause of the outage was unclear.” But it is reasonable to treat it as a demonstration project (and Net Zero Watch duly warned Britons that they might be next) since, Heatmap noted, “Portugal has in the past gone several days in a row generating 100% of its power from renewables; Spain, meanwhile, was boasting of its 100% renewable generation just weeks before the blackout.” And if it can happen even in fairly wealthy countries, those struggling to escape poverty would surely be well-advised to avoid it. As Tony Heller posted acerbically, next to a satellite image of Spain in North Korean/rural African darkness, “Spain achieves #NetZero ahead of schedule.” And it’s not a good look.
In reporting the event, Euronews quoted Spain’s prime minister that such a thing was “unthinkable”. Yes, and their inability to think it would happen seems to be the problem. In the real world it wasn’t just thinkable, it really happened.
Financial institutions face mounting challenges in reconciling their lending practices with environmental, social and governance (ESG) requirements in ship recycling, delegates at the Responsible Ship Recycling Forum 2025 heard.
The ship recycling sector presents particularly complex challenges for lenders, with ABN AMRO sustainability expert Ann-Christin Stucke identifying several dilemmas that affect how banks implement ESG policies. Key among these is the verification of yard quality and compliance, where banks struggle to confirm certified facilities genuinely maintain their advertised standards.
The debate over acceptable recycling methods presents another challenge, particularly regarding beaching practices. "Our stakeholders might say we should not include any yards that are still doing beaching because it has an impact on the environment. But can we ask our clients to only use certain recycling methods? Is that within our scope as a lender?" Ms Stucke asked.
Our take: The idea that global lenders should micro-manage ship recyclers' practices, down to paint and pipeline disposal, reveals the absurdity of ESG overreach: financiers acting as environmental compliance officers in industries they may scarcely understand.
Advocates are slamming Canada’s largest pension fund for abandoning its net-zero commitment three years after it announced the target, while Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB) said the move doesn’t change its approach to sustainability.
CPPIB, which manages $714.4 billion on behalf of roughly 22 million Canadians, first announced in 2022 a commitment to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
On Wednesday, it scrapped that target, which applied to its portfolio and operations, citing legal developments as one of the drivers behind the decision.
“There is increasing pressure to adopt interim targets, many of which don’t reflect the complexity of global investment portfolios like ours or differentiate between the control that an operating company has over its assets and the limited influence that investors have over the strategy of their investees.”
Asked which legal developments CPPIB was referring to, another spokesperson said “rules are evolving in many jurisdictions in which we operate.”
Our take: The critics lambasting the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB) for dropping its Net Zero target are defending a goal that is neither scientific nor moral. Net Zero is a political construct, not a thermodynamic necessity. As shown in the research by Lindzen, Happer, and van Wijngaarden, even full global Net Zero by 2050 would avert just 0.07°C of warming — an amount well below the threshold of practical detectability. Yet critics speak as though abandoning it is a crime against the planet.
What’s truly irrational is treating a near-religious carbon target as a compass for fiduciary responsibility. Fossil Future makes the moral case that the use of fossil fuels has overwhelmingly improved human life — from longevity and nutrition to safety and opportunity — and that continued energy growth is essential to further human flourishing. Net Zero, by contrast, is an anti-energy policy masquerading as climate virtue. Its economic impacts are not hypothetical: they are measurable in rising energy costs, industrial decline, and restricted development opportunities — especially for the world’s poorest.
CPPIB’s move to refocus on its mandate, securing returns for retirees, should be seen not as climate neglect, but as a welcome step away from ideological conformity. The real failure is not in walking away from Net Zero, but in ever pretending that such a target was compatible with reasoned, long-term investing in the first place. Unfortunately the CPPIB maintains that its approach to “climate” hasn’t changed, as we have seen with many institutions announcing termination of their Net Zero targets. Well, a first step is better than no step. You can be sure the CPPIB never conducted a human-centric, unbiased, full-context, due diligence on the Net Zero idea in the first place.
Former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s carbon taxes, electric vehicle subsidies and net-zero mandates became a key factor in Canada’s anemic GDP growth over its “lost decade” and contributed materially to the doubling of our national debt. Restoring Canada’s economy following the dismal Trudeau era would have been challenge enough for a Conservative successor. But now we have a new Liberal prime minister who is also ardently pro-net-zero, but more cunning and even better-connected to the global eco-zealotry establishment than his predecessor. The April 28 election outcome thus severely complicates the job of reviving economic growth in our country – the genuine kind, where productivity grows on a per capita basis and not just due to increasing population – and, from there, restoring the Canadian economy.
Mark Carney has served as co-chair of the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ), an organization he co-founded in 2021. GFANZ was dedicated in part to pressuring financial institutions to stop supporting carbon-intensive industries – foremost among them oil and natural gas projects. He was also the UN’s Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance, an assignment which had similar goals. Carney’s ostentatious removal in March of Trudeau’s despised consumer carbon taxes markedly reduced gasoline prices and helped get him elected. But Canadians shouldn’t be fooled; I don’t believe for a moment that Carney’s worship at the net zero altar has changed.
Instead, Carney simply moved Canada’s carbon taxes “upstream”, i.e., entirely onto manufacturers and producers, where they can’t be seen by voters. Those taxes will, of course, be largely passed back onto consumers in the form of higher prices for virtually everything. Many consumers will blame “greedy” businesses rather than the real villain, even as more and more Canadian companies and projects are rendered uncompetitive, leading to further reductions in capital investment, closing of beleaguered factories and facilities, and lost jobs.
What about Carney’s plan to make Canada a “clean energy superpower”? Like other green zealots, he intends to achieve this by forcibly decarbonizing our energy usage and generating ever-more electricity from costly and unreliable wind turbines and solar panels backed up by massive battery arrays. But by any rational standard, Canada already is a clean energy superpower. As the Canadian Centre for Energy Information’s website states, “In 2022, 82% of electricity in Canada came from non-[greenhouse gas] emitting sources. Hydro made up 62%, nuclear was 13%, and other renewables were the remaining 8%.” This makes Canada a world leader in zero-emission electricity generation. Carney should be ecstatic about that, and taxpayers should be relieved. But to the zealots, nuclear and even hydro are the “wrong kind” of non-emitting power.
Engineers have discovered 'kill switches' embedded within Chinese-manufactured parts in American solar farms, raising fears that Beijing could manipulate power supplies or even 'physically destroy' grids across the US, UK and Europe. Energy officials are now assessing the risks posed by small communication devices discovered inside power inverters - an integral component of renewable energy systems that connects them to the power grid. While inverters are built to allow remote access for updates and maintenance, the utility companies that use them typically install firewalls to prevent direct communication back to China.
Our take: can you imagine the gullibility of politicians who push for the dependence of their grid on products from a country that has declared its intent to dominate the world by 2050, and is actively trying to build the world’s largest military force? Imagine how much easier it would be to destroy another country when you could disable its power systems (that you sold to them) using a hidden kill switch.7
