Lord Christopher Monckton | The Economics Behind Windmills

Summary

Christopher Monton presents a critical view on the effectiveness of wind energy in combating global warming, arguing that windmills are costly, inefficient, and environmentally harmful. He claims wind farms have negligible impact on reducing global CO2 emissions, costing far more than adapting to climate change. Monton challenges the consensus on global warming, citing scientific data, and suggests that focusing on clean fossil fuel technologies, particularly for underserved regions like rural Africa, may be a more practical and cost-effective approach to addressing energy needs and mitigating global warming.

Takeaways

• 😀 Windmills are expensive, intermittent, and inefficient in reducing CO2 emissions compared to other alternatives like fossil fuels.
• 😀 The claimed benefits of windmills in reducing global CO2 emissions are minimal, with the Navitus wind farm projected to abate less than 0.3% of global CO2 emissions over its 20-year lifetime.
• 😀 The economic cost of using windmills to combat global warming is significantly higher than simply adapting to the warming or using fossil fuels, with a cost 50 times higher than doing nothing.
• 😀 The global warming trend, as measured in the ocean and atmosphere, is much slower than alarmist predictions, with only a 1°C increase over the past 430 years.
• 😀 There is no consensus among scientists regarding the extent to which human activity is responsible for global warming, with 99.7% of peer-reviewed studies not attributing the majority of recent warming to human influence.
• 😀 Windmills require spinning reserves from fossil fuel plants to maintain continuous power supply, which negates their supposed CO2 savings and increases overall emissions.
• 😀 The construction and operation of windmills lead to significant environmental damage, including habitat destruction and harm to wildlife, especially birds and bats.
• 😀 The cost of windmills also includes the environmental degradation they cause, such as the visual impact on scenic landscapes, like the Jurassic Coast, and the lack of provisions for decommissioning.
• 😀 The economic cost of creating 'green jobs' through windmill projects is extremely high, with some projects costing over $100 million per job created.
• 😀 A more practical solution to addressing global energy needs would be providing coal-fired electricity to rural areas of Africa, which would help stabilize populations and reduce overall environmental footprints.
• 😀 Current climate change mitigation policies, such as carbon trading and taxes, are criticized for being both ineffective and unaffordable, with adaptation strategies being a better option in many cases.

Q & A

What is the speaker's primary argument against wind turbines?

The speaker argues that wind turbines are expensive, inefficient, and ineffective in reducing global CO2 emissions. He claims that wind power is more costly than doing nothing and that the environmental and economic costs outweigh any benefits.

How does the speaker compare the cost of wind power with the cost of allowing global warming to occur?

The speaker asserts that the cost of using wind turbines to mitigate global warming is 50 times more expensive than simply adapting to the effects of a moderate rate of global warming, which would cost about 1% of global GDP over the next 20 years.

What is the projected global CO2 reduction from the proposed wind farm?

The proposed wind farm would reduce global CO2 emissions by less than 0.3% over its 20-year lifetime, which the speaker claims is a negligible impact.

Why does the speaker claim that wind turbines do not significantly reduce CO2 concentrations?

The speaker claims that wind turbines only produce intermittent power, requiring backup fossil fuel power stations, which emit more CO2 than if wind turbines were not used. He further argues that the reduction in CO2 concentration over the 20-year life of these turbines is minimal.

What are some of the environmental harms associated with wind turbines, according to the speaker?

The speaker highlights several environmental harms, including bird and bat deaths caused by the turbines, as well as the visual pollution and loss of natural beauty, especially in areas like the Jurassic Coast in Dorset. He also points out the lack of provisions for decommissioning costs.

What does the speaker say about the effectiveness of climate change mitigation through wind power?

The speaker argues that climate change mitigation through wind power is ineffective and inefficient. He claims that the welfare benefits from such mitigation strategies are not cost-effective, and that policies focusing on adaptation would be better, as they are cheaper and more practical.

How does the speaker suggest addressing the issue of global warming instead of using wind power?

The speaker suggests that rather than focusing on expensive and ineffective climate change mitigation strategies like wind power, resources should be directed towards adaptation measures and providing coal-fired electricity to areas of the world that lack basic energy access, particularly rural Africa.

What are the economic costs of wind power that the speaker points out?

The speaker mentions the high costs of job creation (e.g., $100 million per job), inefficiencies in the design and operation of wind turbines, and the economic burden of the environmental damage caused by wind turbines, such as bird and bat fatalities and decommissioning costs.

What is the speaker’s opinion on the consensus regarding global warming and its causes?

The speaker challenges the consensus that human activity is the primary cause of global warming. He cites a paper he co-authored, which states that 99.7% of scientific papers published from 1991 to 2011 did not claim that most global warming since 1950 was caused by human activity.

What does the speaker say about the size of the turbines being built off the Jurassic Coast?

The speaker criticizes the size of the turbines being built off the Jurassic Coast, stating that they will be 600 feet tall (about 55 stories high), and that their actual size is far larger than what developers present to the public. He argues that these massive turbines will significantly damage the aesthetic and environmental value of the area.