Climate News Round-Up
The latest science-driven news and analysis to counter the cult of climate catastrophe
“Blue states join lawsuit against Trump’s wind energy freeze” – Oregon and Washington have joined a legal challenge to the Trump administration’s freeze on wind energy development, reports the Daily Caller.
“Soros-funded group E3G crows over dystopian ‘climate security’ subterfuge it helped build” – The Soros-funded eco-extremist group E3G is boasting about its role in reshaping the global regulatory framework around so-called climate security, writes Joseph Vazquez at Newsbusters.
“New Energy Secretary opposed Rosebank oil field in previous job” – Miatta Fahnbulleh, who previously led the New Economics Foundation, attacked new fossil fuel projects as “irresponsible and shortsighted” before taking charge of the nation’s energy policy, says GB News.
“Heatwaves caused by fall in pollution” – Met Office and Spanish researchers have concluded that Britain’s scorching heatwaves are being driven by cleaner skies after pollution was stripped from the atmosphere, according to the Telegraph.
“The European Climate Foundation: the dark green lobby shaping EU climate policy” – In Clintel, Marcel Crok examines how the European Climate Foundation has become one of Europe’s most powerful climate lobbying organisations.
“Want a free $20,000 luxury holiday in Fiji or Turkey? You also have to show your face at a climate conference” – Australian taxpayers are funding luxury $20,000 trips to Fiji and Turkey for representatives of “underrepresented groups” – provided they agree to attend a climate conference while there, writes Eric Worrall in Watts Up With That?
“Energy security and climate realism usher in coal’s rise” – Global energy realism is driving a resurgence in coal demand as the limitations of solar and wind power continue to undermine claims that fossil fuels are on their way out, says Vijay Jayaraj for CO2 Coalition.
From the Climate Skeptic today:
“BBC claims the World Cup took place in ‘dangerous extreme heat’. No, it didn’t” – “Extreme heat in the US could make World Cup matches unsafe,” declared the BBC amid claims of record temperatures. In fact, says Paul Homewood, there was nothing unusual about the weather in America this summer.
The link to the WUWT article "Want a free luxury $20,000...." does not seem to be working. Correct one is
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/07/22/want-a-free-20000-luxury-holiday-in-fiji-you-also-have-to-show-your-face-at-a-climate-conference/
As the GB News article notes, Miatta Fahnbulleh was formerly head of the New Economics Foundation, which, amongst other things, opposed the still-to-be-approved Rosebank oil field.
Opposition to this based on economic grounds demonstrates a lack of understanding of economics. Or at least economics post the marginalist revolution of the 1870s. To understand the marginal climate impact (and thus any economic impact), we need some figures.
In a climate impact assessment, it is estimated that the oil from the Rosebank oil field could emit 250 million tonnes of CO2. That is 0.25 GtCO2. What is the impact on global emissions?
2021 IPCC AR6 WG3 SPM tells us
"Historical cumulative net CO2 emissions from 1850 to 2019 were 2400 ± 240 GtCO2" at the 68% confidence interval. The Rosebank emissions would at most increase cumulative emissions by 0.01%.
But how much would Rosebank affect global average temperatures? Figure SPM.2 from AR6 WG1 SPM gives an indication. Those 2400 GTCO2 of CO2 emissions accounted for, at most half, of the 1C of warming from 1850 to 2019, if the negative impact of aerosols (mostly from the burning of fossil fuels) is taken into account. The marginal economic "climate" benefit of stopping Rosebank is zero, unless you deal with numbers much less than 1% of any statistical significance levels.
On the other hand, the economic benefits of approving Rosebank are highly significant to the people of the Shetland Islands. More generally, UK production of oil and gas mostly benefits the UK economy. But the benefits of costly UK climate policies on climate are global.
Looking at climate policy costs alone, failing to allow new oil and gas production is an opportunity cost borne by the UK as a whole. The marginal climate benefits of such policies are highly insignificant. The British share of such benefits is likely much less than 1% of this highly insignificant amount.
Economic theory has yet to work through this logic. It means that even the most rigorous analysis of the economics of climate change (such as that of 2018 Nobel Laureate William Nordhaus) is rendered useless. Cutting emissions by the UK will always impose costs greatly in excess of any benefits.
https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/pol.20170046