Spain keeps claiming that solar and wind didn't cause the blackout (lack of spinning momentum to ensure power stability)
but they've increased their gas power use by 41% to "stabilize the country’s power network"
using gas "as a reinforcement of electricity supply security"
Threads&refs: https://t.co/7M2sZACyxM
Spain blackout: Government desperately trying to shift blame away from renewables
Government is faulting conventional plants because they weren’t sufficiently able to control voltage and frequency disturbances
—conveniently ignoring that renewables likely caused these grid disturbances
It’s like blaming the police for not sufficiently controlling a riot, instead of the crowd that started it
https://t.co/o4QzE2c3uh, https://t.co/NobWgRfPm4, https://t.co/MYQ6jiCvnz, https://t.co/yss0IgRblm, https://t.co/rqbwJ45LAg
Awful misappropriation of public funds:
The EU Commission secretly paid green NGOs vast amounts to turn public opinion against coal, pesticides and free trade.
Instead of fostering democratic debate, Brussels funds activism to push its green agenda.
https://t.co/CKe1kWQbAX
Tuberculosis kills 1.4m/year. Yet, we can almost end TB by 2030 by investing an additional $6.2bn/year. Saves 27 million lives by 2050! Each dollar delivers $46 of social good.
Peer-reviewed SDGs research published by Cambridge University Press
https://t.co/BgXIvpGqg5
Solar and wind drive up electricity prices
Here is one more reason they forgot to tell us about:
Europe needs to spend "trillions of dollars to cope with rising green energy to avoid blackouts."
https://t.co/G344u6TMtV
https://t.co/Q71hEB9FkB
Climate policy should be about minimizing the loss of welfare from climate and climate policy.
Read more on climate policy in my peer-reviewed article: https://t.co/CC0h7JKIKv
How did we end up with activist researchers writing such drivel?
Their paper basically says that because climate-related worry drives climate activism, we need to make people more climate-worried, not less
https://t.co/bAtyjbFuxX
The money the EU spends on things like solar panels, wind turbines, transmission lines, electric cars and chargers alone could fund Europe’s need for defense spending.
From my latest newsletter: https://t.co/vHTX8dCZcW
Sign up: https://t.co/T4VWf5E1pO
The era of climate hysteria is rapidly coming to an end
It's going to fade from the center of public view like overpopulation did
Lack of protests over Trump’s action on energy shows how little anyone ever really cared about global warming
Roger: “The ‘climate first’ voter is a tiny slice of the political landscape, even though they occupy a lot of attention and time on social media, in universities, and until recently, in the global financial sector. They made a lot of noise, but there weren't a lot of them around to begin with. The climate is just not that important to very many people around the world. People will say it's important. But give them a list of topics and it routinely comes in 17th, 18th, 19th, out of 20.”
@RogerPielkeJr@shellenberger
https://t.co/2SyF7eBkBN
There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about SNAP benefits.
It is designed as a crucial safety net that helps needy families put food on their tables and avoid hunger and food insecurity
When someone is on SNAP, they need access to food. No one needs soda and candy to survive. In fac,t they will survive (and thrive) without it.
Almost every other government food program—from school lunches to military food programs to WIC (the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children)—have at least some nutrition standards. But SNAP has none.
SNAP is undeniably a vital anti-hunger and anti-poverty tool, but it’s also a system in desperate need of reform.
While it has succeeded in addressing calorie deficiencies for over 40 million Americans, it has utterly failed to solve the deeper problem of nutritional poverty. The reality is that America’s poorest households aren’t struggling with a lack of calories—they’re drowning in cheap, empty, disease-causing ones.
In fact, $7 billion worth of food stamps are spent on sugary beverages every year. That’s 20 to 30 billion servings of soda a year that we give to the poor.
And 75% of the foods purchased with SNAP are ultraprocessed junk food: Oreo cookies, Lay’s potato chips, ice cream, and more.
Meanwhile, did you know that SNAP covers unlimited ultraprocessed junk (Frankenfoods) but not a sigle healthy hot meal?
The current system is actually anti-“food choice”.
It’s no surprise that studies show that people who use SNAP have high rates of heart disease, diabetes, and death compared to the rest of the population.
This is not sound policy—it’s a broken system. Instead, it perpetuates the cycle of poor nutrition among our most vulnerable populations.
ALL Americans deserve healthy food, not government and lobbyist-selected liquid poison.
Terminating benefits to soda (and ideally, all junk food) isn’t government overreach. It’s common sense. Congress must reform SNAP to prioritize real nutrition and stop subsidizing the very foods making Americans sick.
So while Uncle Sam can’t force anyone to eat fruits and veggies, the government can at least make sure that taxpayer dollars aren’t used to subsidize the Frankenfoods that are driving the belt-popping rates of obesity and chronic disease.
And let’s be clear: this isn’t about restricting personal freedom—people can still buy what they want with their own money. It’s about ensuring our public dollars support health, not harm.
An optimal climate policy takes into account 1) the cost of climate change as well as 2) the cost of climate policy
Read more on climate policy in my peer-reviewed article: https://t.co/CC0h7JLgA3
Electricity prices in the UK tripled mostly because of climate policies
But sure, be proud that "energy transitions are possible"
With enough of other people's money, anything is possible
https://t.co/V6N2n9Nx6D
Nearly half of young Canadians believe we're doomed because of climate change. No wonder. They've grown up bombarded both by footage of natural disasters, and by activists’ claims that climate change is making the planet unliveable. But that’s just wrong.
https://t.co/reXdtZ31jA
The Paris Agreement is often lauded as the solution to climate change. Yet, it will barely cut 1% of what’s needed to get to 1.5°C.
Read more on Paris in my peer-reviewed article: https://t.co/CC0h7JKIKv