CLINTEL FOUNDATION @ClintelOrg

Energy policy needs room for competing arguments—and scrutiny of the assumptions behind them. For more analyses, reviews and debate on energy, climate science and policy, subscribe to the Clintel newsletter: clintel.org/newsletter/

Does declining cheap oil mean an unavoidable energy squeeze—or does that conclusion underestimate what technology and markets can deliver? Tilak Doshi examines Richard Lyon’s case, from the fossil inputs needed to build wind and solar to the economics of shale oil and the promise of nuclear power. Read his review, “Peak Oil By Any Other Name”: clintel.org/peak-oil-theor…

Building a replacement for fossil fuels still requires fossil fuels. What if that effort consumes the very resources needed to keep civilisation running? That is the dilemma Richard Lyon explores in The Energy Trap. Wind turbines, solar panels and batteries require mining, refining, manufacturing and transport—all heavily dependent on fossil energy. Lyon argues that wind and solar cannot replace hydrocarbons at industrial scale and that building them accelerates the depletion of the fossil resources on which society still relies. With cheap conventional oil declining, he sees an “energy trap”: spending a dwindling inheritance on a replacement that cannot sustain modern industrial civilisation. His proposed escape is a major expansion of nuclear power, accompanied by a planned reduction in total energy use. Energy economist @tilakdoshi shares much of Lyon’s criticism of the renewable energy transition. But he challenges the leap from resource depletion to unavoidable economic contraction. Oil resources, Doshi argues, are not a fixed economic quantity. Technology, investment and prices change what can be recovered profitably. Horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing opened up resources previously considered uneconomic. Nor does a lower energy return automatically mean that an oil project cannot make money. Their disagreement matters. Both recognise the essential role of fossil fuels and the limitations of wind and solar. But Lyon sees a future that requires managing scarcity; Doshi argues that this outlook underestimates the capacity of markets, innovation and human ingenuity to overcome constraints.

Een kostbare Belgenmop. Eerst je betrouwbare kernreactoren sluiten, terwijl de beoogde vervanging op zee nog jaren op zich laat wachten. Vervolgens meer stroom importeren, onder meer uit nucleair Frankrijk. In 2025 liep de Belgische netto-stroomimport op tot circa 14 terawattuur. Eigen productie afbouwen, afhankelijkheid van de buren vergroten. En ook als de windparken er straks staan, blijft hun productie afhankelijk van het weer. Tekenend voor veel ‘groen’ ideologisch beleid in Europa: eerst afbreken, daarna uitzoeken hoe de energievoorziening overeind blijft. 🎥 Video: @Electroversenet

This Greenpeace UK clip is pure propaganda. A crying scientist, dramatic music, and flood footage are all combined to make you feel and think a certain way: "The planet is melting because of climate change!" But even the IPCC has “low confidence” that human-caused climate change has changed global flood trends. What has changed? Well, deaths from weather disasters are down 97.5% since 1920 thanks to prosperity. Cheap, abundant, and reliable energy has made people safer than ever. This system needs to be protected in order to save lives.

Independent science needs room for critical questions. Clintel regularly publishes articles, analyses and lectures on climate, energy and the relationship between science and politics. Stay informed through the newsletter: clintel.org/newsletter/

Watch the full presentation for the Omniwar Symposium, in which Nordangård explains the historical connections, funding flows and institutional networks underpinning his analysis. ‘The Capture of Academia – The Case of Climate Change’: dhughes.substack.com/p/jacob-nordan…

A powerful funder declaring that climate science is settled and the debate can be closed. That strikes at the heart of scientific independence. In his presentation ‘The Capture of Academia – The Case of Climate Change’ for the Omniwar Symposium, Swedish researcher Jacob Nordangård describes the enormous influence of philanthropic foundations and political networks on climate science. His perspective draws on years of research. He has written several books examining the ties between philanthropy, science and political power. One revealing example: according to Nordangård, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund declared in 2006 that the science behind global warming was settled and no longer needed to be debated. He describes how the Rockefeller network helped shape research priorities by funding universities, research institutes and conferences. Research into human-caused warming gained prominence, while natural explanations and dissenting voices were increasingly marginalised, he argues. Those who fund research AND declare the debate closed wield considerable power over what counts as ‘the science’. Scientific consensus must withstand scrutiny. Money and influence must never determine when the questions stop.

An open climate debate needs room for critical questions and different perspectives. Keep up with Clintel’s articles, videos and events on climate and energy. Subscribe to the newsletter: clintel.org/newsletter/

From open discussions at Clintel to a technical exchange on climate scenarios at PBL, Roger Pielke Jr. reflects on his visit to the Netherlands. On disagreement, shared energy interests and the value of dialogue. Republished from his Substack, The Honest Broker: clintel.org/roger-pielke-c…

During his visit to Clintel, @RogerPielkeJr experienced something too often missing from the climate debate: open disagreement without insults or exclusion. Pielke faces criticism for engaging with climate sceptics. According to him, even prominent climate scientists suggest that talking to sceptics makes him one himself. He refuses to retreat into an echo chamber. On October 11, he spoke to more than 200 people in Driebergen, the Netherlands. His position: climate change is real and serious, human emissions play an important role, and further decarbonisation is desirable. At the same time, he sees no basis in the IPCC reports for claims of a climate emergency or impending apocalypse. Clintel’s core position: there is no climate emergency. Climate science and policy deserve critical scrutiny, with attention to uncertainties, feasibility and affordability. That does not mean agreement on everything. Several audience members challenged Pielke’s starting points. People questioned, disagreed and debated. The atmosphere remained friendly. Pielke describes the exchange as refreshing — and entirely normal. Energy offers important common ground. People do not need identical views on climate science to work together towards affordable, reliable, accessible and clean energy. Pielke argues that it is time to shift the focus from debating a climate emergency to practical energy policy. The following day, he presented a more technical version of his climate scenarios lecture at the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL). There, too, he encountered respectful discussion and, in his assessment, far more agreement than disagreement. From Clintel to PBL, engaging in conversation helps clarify where differences actually lie and where cooperation is possible. Pielke recounts his experiences on his Substack, The Honest Broker. Clintel has republished his account.

Hoeveel CO2 kost een kWh stroom? Ik heb het voor 84 landen uitgezet, met de laatste 12 maanden per land. Hoe lees je de grafiek:
↔ Horizontaal: hoeveel stroom een land gemiddeld per uur opwekt (log-schaal, anders verdwijnt Europa naast China)
↕ Verticaal: hoeveel gram CO2 er per kWh vrijkomt
 Elk klein puntje is een maand, het omcirkelde punt het jaargemiddelde. Onderin, onder de 40 gram, staan maar een paar landen:
🇮🇸 IJsland 17
🇸🇪 Zweden 26
🇳🇴 Noorwegen 28
🇫🇷 Frankrijk 34 IJsland, Zweden en Noorwegen hebben het voordeel van waterkracht en geothermie, en dat is geografie en geen beleid. Frankrijk is de uitzondering. Het wekt 536 TWh per jaar op, bijna 4 keer zoveel als Nederland, en stoot daarbij de helft uit. Dat komt grotendeels door kernenergie, en dat is al decennia zo. Nederland zit op 267 gram per kWh. Dat is een halvering sinds 2016 (toen 540), vooral door minder kolen en meer wind en zon. Toch is het nog steeds bijna 8 keer zo veel als Frankrijk. 🇩🇪 Duitsland: 341
🇵🇱 Polen: 646
🇺🇸 VS: 373
🇨🇳 China: 554
🇮🇳 India: 634 Wat de grafiek ook laat zien: de maandpunten van Nederland en Duitsland liggen ver uit elkaar, omdat de uitstoot meebeweegt met wind en zon. Bij Frankrijk liggen ze in een strakke band onderin. Wie snel en voorspelbaar CO2-arme stroom wil, kan NIET om kernenergie heen. Bron: Ember, maanddata elektriciteit. CO2-intensiteit op levenscyclusbasis.

keyboard_arrow_left Previous keyboard_arrow_right Next

.@marcelcrok schreef hierover: ‘Schaamteloze klimaatpropaganda van de WHO en The Lancet’. Hij bespreekt Lomborgs kritiek op de hittecijfers, het ontbreken van koudesterfte in het WHO-verhaal en het belang van welvaart en aanpassing om mensen te beschermen. Lees het artikel: clintel.nl/schaamteloze-k…

Hittedoden halen het nieuws. De sterke daling van koudesterfte krijgt nauwelijks aandacht. In deze video bespreekt Electroverse de analyse van Bjørn Lomborg. Zijn berekening op basis van leeftijdsgecorrigeerde GBD-cijfers komt voor Europa uit op een stijging van het hittesterfterisico die overeenkomt met 666 extra sterfgevallen, tegenover een daling van het koudesterfterisico die overeenkomt met 165.000 minder sterfgevallen. Lomborg wijst bovendien op vergrijzing: meer ouderen betekent meer mensen die kwetsbaar zijn voor hitte. Een stijgend aantal hittedoden kun je dus niet zomaar volledig aan opwarming toeschrijven. Wie de gezondheidseffecten van klimaatverandering bespreekt, moet het hele beeld laten zien: hitte én koude, vergrijzing én aanpassing. 🎥 Video: @Electroversenet | Analyse: Bjørn Lomborg

Stay informed with articles by Chris Morrison and other authors on climate, energy and science. Subscribe to the Clintel newsletter: clintel.org/newsletter/

Want to read more? IMPLAUSIBLE by Chris Morrison, with a foreword by Toby Young, is available on Amazon: amazon.co.uk/IMPLAUSIBLE-Ch…

Climate models, doom-laden headlines and the bill for households and businesses. In his new book IMPLAUSIBLE, @CMorrisonEsq takes aim at the case for Net Zero. The Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor describes how an extreme emissions scenario came to be presented as our default future, how media coverage fuels climate alarm and how critical voices are excluded from the debate. He also highlights the importance of fossil fuels for affordable energy, food production and prosperity. A sharp, polemical challenge to the relationship between science, politics and journalism. For readers who want to look beyond the climate headlines and examine the policies they are used to justify. Clintel has published an extensive selection of extracts. Links to the article and book below. 👇

A Report from the Netherlands Why engagement matters to me rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/a-report-fro… @ClintelOrg @nlenvironagency