Lufthansa announces 100+ route cuts
RT | October 20, 2025
Rising German aviation taxes and fees will force national flag carrier Lufthansa to cut about 100 domestic flights from its forthcoming summer schedule, the company’s chief executive, Carsten Spohr has said.
Government-imposed costs for airlines in Germany have roughly doubled over the past six years, he explained.
“Without a reduction in location costs, further cuts will be unavoidable,” Spohr said. “This involves around 100 domestic flights per week, which could be eliminated again next summer.”
Higher taxes and fees on economy ticket costs are accelerating a shift in the airline’s passenger mix towards first, business, and premium economy cabins.
The complaints from Lufthansa echo long-standing grievances from airline executives about Germany’s aviation cost base, which they argue hinders competitiveness.
Last month Lufthansa also announced plans to cut 4,000 administrative jobs by 2030, with the majority of the cuts taking place in Germany.
In the face of strikes, delayed aircraft deliveries, and underperformance at its mainline business, Lufthansa has been forced to slash its financial guidance twice in the last year and has missed medium-term margin targets set in 2021.
The German aviation industry association (BDL) has warned that the country’s viability as a global hub is in crisis, citing state-imposed costs since 2019. Airlines are now avoiding Germany, BDL Chairman Jens Bischof stated in August, with the number of aircraft stationed in the country by European point-to-point carriers falling from 190 to 130.
BDL estimates that the financial burden on the industry will rise by €1.1 billion ($1.2 billion) in 2025 to €4.4 billion, which will result in the loss of 10,000 jobs and €4 billion ($4.3 billion) in annual economic value.
Does conventional climate science threaten civilization?
By Vijay Jayaraj | American Thinker | October 14, 2025
Practitioners of rigorous scientific methodology — from the 17th century’s Galileo to 1965’s winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics, Richard Feynman — would consider today’s climate research an embarrassment, shaped by uncritical orthodoxy and zealotry rather than genuine testing of hypotheses.
Classical science welcomes skepticism. It thrives in an environment where debate and revision are encouraged. Today’s climate conformists declare the debate “settled” and label those with questions as deniers, effectively outlawing the skepticism that drives scientific progress.
Plenty of 21st-century scientists have objected to this travesty. Dr. Matthew Wielicki, formerly of the University of Alabama, put it bluntly: “Science should be self-correcting. Climate science isn’t. It’s self-preserving.”
Dr. Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology notes that climate dogma has little to do with evidence: “The narrative is a quasi-religious movement predicated on an absurd scientific narrative.”
In essence, modern climate science has been transformed into a political apparatus dominated by campaign-style advocacy, subverting the foundational principles of evidence-based inquiry.
Climate cultists treat every warming or cooling event as anthropogenic by default, ignoring millennia of natural variation. “While substantial concern has been expressed that emissions may cause significant climate change, measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th- and 21st-century climate changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today,” say scientists writing to the American Physics Society.
Gregory Wrightstone, geologist and best-selling author of A Very Convenient Warming, says that the longer geological record reveals numerous epochs with much higher temperatures and levels of atmospheric CO₂, all predating the influence of modern human activity.
Wrightstone rejects descriptions of current conditions as dangerous, saying that “Earth is growing greener, and temperature-related deaths are declining.” The evidence indicates the planet is not imperiled but flourishing.
Deaths from natural disasters are at historic lows, life expectancy continues to climb, and global crop yields in both advanced and developing economies are at record highs. Rising atmospheric CO2 is associated with improved plant growth, not planetary degradation.
The much-hyped “disappearing islands” of the Pacific continue to exist. Many atolls have grown in size due to coral and sediment accumulation. Arctic sea ice, too, has refused to vanish; the 2025 minimum extent is nearly half a million square kilometers larger than 2007.
Yet none of these realities make it into school textbooks or U.N. briefings. The crisis narrative is perpetuated to sustain a trillion-dollar “green” industry dependent on fear, political support and publicly financed subsidies.
Error-riddled computer models that back doomsday predictions violate core tenets of scientific methodology. When tested against known outcomes, they routinely fail.
In 2014, Dr. Roy Spencer compared real-world satellite data with over 90 climate models. Nearly all the models exaggerated warming. Spencer summarized the absurdity: “If 95% of your models disagree with observations, the models are wrong — not reality.”
Dr. William Happer, a physicist at Princeton University and former scientific advisor to the U.S. government, notes: “Observations anchor our understanding and weed out the theories that do not work. This has been the scientific method for more than 300 years… computer models are not meant to replace theory and observation and to serve as an authority of their own.”
Yet these models drive the global policy agenda. The insistence on short time frames and cherry-picked data appear to support catastrophic scenarios; long-term geological records contradict them. Steve Milloy, author of JunkScience.com, described the phenomenon perfectly: “Climate science has become a political enterprise. The conclusion comes first; the data are adjusted later.”
Science belongs to critical thinkers, not to committees. The climate establishment will collapse as its funding dries up or the public stops believing its prophets. Reality will win — as it always does — but the longer the struggle, the higher the human cost of irrational policies.
Reason, empirical investigation and intellectual freedom have been undermined by a politically charged climate movement, which is a threat to science and civilization itself.
Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Fairfax, Virginia. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India.
Qatar warns EU sustainability law could end its LNG exports to Europe
The Cradle | October 17, 2025
Qatar’s Minister of Energy, Saad al-Kaabi, said on 16 October that Doha would be unable to continue supplying liquefied natural gas (LNG) to Europe if the EU fails to revise its corporate sustainability rules.
In an interview with Reuters, Kaabi warned that the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), adopted in 2024, poses a “significant risk” to state-owned QatarEnergy – one of the world’s largest LNG exporters.
The regulation requires major companies operating within the bloc to identify and address human rights and environmental violations in their supply chains or face fines.
Kaabi, who also serves as QatarEnergy’s chief executive, said his concern centers on potential penalties of up to five percent of a company’s total global revenue for failing to meet the EU’s climate-transition requirements under the Paris Agreement.
He said such exposure could make it impossible for QatarEnergy to justify doing business in Europe.
“QatarEnergy will not be able to justify doing business in the EU, be it in LNG or other products, due to the significant risk it would be exposed to due to the overreaching nature of the proposed regulations, which will ultimately harm the European end consumers,” Kaabi told Reuters.
Qatar currently supplies between 12 and 14 percent of Europe’s LNG needs under long-term contracts, including with Shell in the UK.
Kaabi said Doha has been attempting for nearly a year to “constructively engage with the key players at both the European Commission and every EU Member State” on the directive, but has received no reply.
Reuters confirmed that the European Commission did not immediately respond to its request for comment.
Earlier this week, the European Parliament’s legal committee supported efforts to soften the law following pushback from corporations, but Kaabi said the amendments “did not address key concerns.”
He urged Brussels to make further changes or risk discouraging investment and weakening the bloc’s competitiveness.
“Europe must decide if it wants to continue to attract investment into the bloc by further changing CSDDD, or risk undermining efforts to strengthen its competitiveness and prevent economic deterioration,” he said.
World Bank Reduces Emissions, Not Poverty
By Brenda Shaffer | RealClear Energy | October 9, 2025
The World Bank Group and the International Monetary Fund will hold their annual meetings next week in Washington, DC. It is time for Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent to give direct guidance to the World Bank to renew funding and loans for fossil fuels for the world’s poorest. The World Bank should return to its mandate of poverty reduction, instead of climate emissions reduction.
The World Bank has banned fossil fuel finance and loan guarantees since 2019. The idea behind denying investments and funding for fossil fuels was that it would force people to adopt renewable energy. However, with no modern energy option, people turn to burning of dung, wood and other biomass for cooking and other basic functions. The result of this policy is increased emissions, pollution and health endangerment.
The World Bank describes its mission as “To create a world free of poverty — on a livable planet.” However, in reality, the World Bank promotes policies that increase energy poverty and thus overall poverty among the world’s poorest, especially in Africa. Instead of focusing on poverty elimination, the World Bank has committed to allocating 45% of its funds in 2025 to climate finance and announced its intention to increase climate finance over the next five years.
In another blatant example of its choosing to reduce carbon emissions over poverty, the World Bank promotes imposing carbon taxes in Africa on imported fossil fuels. If implemented, these taxes would lead to higher prices for electricity and transportation, which would further increase energy poverty on the continent. It is difficult to understand how raising energy costs in Africa is part of the World Bank’s poverty reduction mandate.
The lack of public funding for fossil fuels particularly hurt Africa. For the first time in decades, electricity access declined in Africa in 2022 and 2023. The halting of foreign investments and loans meant that Africans could not develop their local oil and natural gas resources. While in the West the private market provides investments for energy production, Africa is dependent on public finance to develop energy and on World Bank loan guarantees to create conditions to attract foreign investors.
In prioritizing of emissions reductions over poverty reduction, the World Bank promotes relatively expensive electricity systems, which deliver less energy access to Africa than fossil fuel based systems. Unreliable renewable electricity, especially off-grid solar, does not provide sufficient power for Africans to lift themselves out of poverty. Partial electricity can power a lamp or charge a phone, but not industry, water pumps and refrigeration, which are necessary for poverty reduction and modern medicine access.
Thus, due to the policy of promoting solar over fossil fuel derived power, many of the world’s new electricity users do not have full electricity access. The US and other World Bank funders should not allow the World Bank to count partial electricity provision as access to power.
In Africa, the World Bank no longer promotes policies for provision of baseload power in electricity supply, in order to avoid admitting that Africa needs fossil fuels. There is no large-scale stable electricity without baseload power.
The World Bank also regularly lists climate change as a main factor affecting Africa’s economy and development while not mentioning the continent’s lack of energy, which of course is a much more significant factor affecting its prosperity.
The World Bank and other Western institutions retreat from fossil fuel finance has created a significant geopolitical opportunity for China. China is willing to finance fossil fuel projects in Africa and the developing world and reap the strategic benefit of control of energy infrastructure in many countries.
Bessent’s predecessor at Treasury, Secretary Janet Yellen issued guidance to the World Bank and associate multilateral banks to stop funding for fossil fuels projects in 2021. It is time for Secretary Bessent to reverse this policy and lead the World Bank back to its mission of poverty alleviation.
Prof. Brenda Shaffer is an energy expert at the U.S. Naval Post-graduate School. @ProfBShaffer
Japan’s Green Energy Failures Serve as a Warning to the US
By Yoshihiro Muronaka | The Western Journal | October 6, 2025
In August 2025, Japanese media revealed that Mitsubishi Corporation was preparing to withdraw from three offshore wind projects off the coasts of Chiba and Akita prefectures.
In 2021, Mitsubishi had won these sites with remarkably low bids of 8 to 11 cents/kilowatt-hour (kWh), hailed as proof of Japan’s corporate strength and renewable ambition.
But reality was harsh. Costs for steel, turbines, and logistics surged. The yen weakened, interest rates rose, and certification processes faced delays. By 2025, Mitsubishi had already booked over $350 million in impairment losses, with more likely if the projects continued. The retreat is not just a corporate failure; it exposes apparent self-contradictions in Japan’s energy policy.
Across the Atlantic, offshore facilities have faced similar headwinds. On the U.S. East Coast, Ørsted cancelled two large projects in New Jersey, absorbing billions in losses. BP and Equinor abandoned contracts in New York after costs rose by 40 percent beyond estimates. In some cases, companies chose to pay hefty penalties rather than commit to losing ventures.
Europe, the pioneer of offshore wind, has also stumbled. In the U.K., Vattenfall halted its Norfolk Boreas project, citing a 40 percent cost increase. Even Denmark, often celebrated as a leader, has delayed new tenders.
Market signals in these regions were clear: When economics fail, projects are scaled back or canceled. Japan, however, continues to treat offshore wind as a central pillar of its 2040 roadmap, aiming for 45 gigawatts of capacity. Why the difference?
Once designated a national project, policies in Japan are difficult to reverse. Offshore wind has been tied to three goals at once: decarbonization, energy security, and industrial revitalization. Billions in subsidies through the Green Innovation Fund are already committed, while local governments and industries expect contracts and jobs.
In effect, offshore wind has become a new type of public works project. Ports, construction companies, heavy industry, and trading houses all benefit from government support. For politicians, it delivers regional development; for bureaucrats, it provides visible progress. Under these conditions, corporate withdrawal is treated as a temporary setback and prompts no policy review.
The debate over energy costs often centers on the Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE), which narrowly focuses on the cost of generating a kilowatt-hour of electricity. However, this metric fails to capture the broader economic realities encapsulated by the Full Cost of Electricity (FCOE).
FCOE provides a more comprehensive assessment by incorporating additional factors such as the expense of backup power from fossil or nuclear plants to address the intermittency of renewable sources, the costs associated with grid expansion and balancing services to maintain stability, as well as subsidies, premiums, and public support schemes that often prop up certain energy technologies. Furthermore, FCOE accounts for the long-term costs of decommissioning, recycling, and environmental restoration, ensuring a more accurate reflection of the true economic and environmental impact of electricity production.
When these are included, offshore wind’s cost can be double or triple its LCOE.
Offshore wind’s LCOE is around 12 to 16 cents/kWh, but when the full cost of electricity (FCOE) is considered, it rises to 20 to 30 cents/kWh. Nuclear and gas remain much lower, at roughly 12 to 14 cents/kWh and 10 to 12 cents/kWh, respectively.
OECD studies confirm that as “renewables” such as wind and solar rise from 10 percent to 30 percent of the grid, FCOE escalates sharply. Yet Japan highlights falling LCOE while downplaying FCOE, creating an illusion of competitiveness.
Because fixed-bottom projects face difficulties, Japanese policymakers increasingly promote floating offshore wind as a unique advantage. Japan’s deep coastal waters, they argue, make floating turbines more suitable.
Globally, however, floating wind remains at the developmental stage. Norway’s Hywind Scotland and France’s Provence Grand Large provide valuable data, but their costs remain far higher than fixed-bottom projects. Commercial viability has not yet been proven. Betting on floating wind as a “game-changer” risks repeating the same error: political enthusiasm without economic grounding.
Japan’s offshore wind experience is not just about Japan. It illustrates how energy policy everywhere can drift into policy inertia, selective cost reporting, technological optimism, and entrenched interests.
The lesson is clear. Policymakers should always assess the full costs, not just partial figures. They should heed market signals and adjust policy accordingly. Most importantly, they should avoid turning energy policy reliant on unproven technology into political patronage.
Mitsubishi’s retreat shows that even giants cannot overcome flawed policy frameworks. If Japan, with its formidable industrial base, struggles to make offshore wind viable, others should pay attention.
Japan’s offshore wind setback is more than a domestic issue. It is a global reminder of the dangers of ignoring full costs and clinging to illusions. Ambitious targets and political inertia can mask reality, but economics will always reassert itself.
For policymakers worldwide, Japan’s case should not be seen as an embarrassment, but as a warning and an opportunity: Energy transitions must be guided by facts, not hopes, if they are to be sustainable.
Pro-EU Czech PM concedes election defeat
RT | October 4, 2025
The right-wing party of agricultural tycoon Andrej Babis, branded the ‘Czech Trump’ by local media, has come out ahead in the Czech general election with 97% of the vote counted, according to official results.
The ANO movement is now set to replace the current center-right cabinet led by Prime Minister Petr Fiala. He has already congratulated Babis, conceding defeat and stating the outcome of the vote must be respected.
Speaking to reporters after his victory became evident, Babis once again rejected longstanding accusations of being anti-EU and insisted he merely wants to “save” the bloc.
“We want to save Europe… and we are clearly pro-European and pro-NATO,” Babis told Reuters.
ANO will seek a one-party cabinet but will have to enter talks with two minor parties to secure an outright majority, Babis said. One of the parties is believed to be the far-right SPD, which has long been considered a potential coalition partner.
“We went into the election with the aim of ending the government of Petr Fiala and support even for a minority cabinet of ANO is important for us and it would meet the target we had for this election,” SPD deputy chairman Radim Fiala said in a televised speech. In contrast to ANO, his party maintains an explicit anti-EU and anti-NATO stance.
Another potential coalition partner is the Motorists, who strongly oppose the EU’s environmental policies. They and the SPD received nearly 7% and 8% of the vote respectively, and joining forces with ANO would be sufficient to secure a majority.
During his campaign, Babis repeatedly criticized the EU’s handling of immigration and the Green Deal, as well as opposing EU membership for Ukraine. He also pledged to drastically cut aid for Kiev, promising more domestic spending instead. Babis signaled he would end the so-called ‘Czech initiative’ project, dedicated to supplying ammunition to Ukraine, calling the scheme overpriced.
Minister Bowen says costs of inaction definitely higher even though we don’t know the cost of doing something
It’s a Pantomine from beginning to end — the fakery never ends
By Jo Nova | September 16, 2025
Australia’s National Climate Risk Assessment has dropped on us yesterday like a mass-produced propaganda-bomb. Life and death depends upon “the science”, but the intense, dire and secret climate modeling was mysteriously delayed last month for no reason (except to get some spooky headlines), whereupon the Greens jumped up and down to get it released, and then patted themselves on the back saying Labor caved in. Yes, indeedy, the Government put out the report with perfect PR timing a few days before they plan to tell us how they are raising our emissions target from impossible to astronomical. If they released the “science” a month ago, people would have more time to pick apart the 274 pages of propaganda (or even read it).
Science is just a marketing tool for Big Government now, and the document is a fishing mission for catastrophe.
We know it’s not science because everything is 100% bad. It’s the purity that gives it away. In the real world, there are always trade-offs.
It’s all cost and no benefit
The document is a risk assessment which calculates the cost of inaction, but not the cost of action. Not surprisingly, the cost of inaction is always going to be “higher” (higher than nothing). It was apparently, exactly what the Minister wanted:
“One thing that is very clear from this climate assessment is that our whole country has a lot at stake,” Bowen said. “The cost of inaction will always outweigh the cost of action.” — The BBC
Nobody knows what the cost is, not the Minister of the Department of Better Weather and Energy. Though one guesstimate from a group called Net Zero Australia in 2023 tossed out numbers like $1.5 trillion by 2030 and $7-$9 trillion by 2050. That’s a lot of cost savings we need to make to make action make sense. Grown ups would like to discuss this, perhaps?
It’s all deaths and no lives saved
Heat waves will kill more people, but somehow warmer winters won’t reduce any deaths, even though moderate winter cold kills 6 times as many people as summer heat does.

Attributable fraction of deaths: Heat, cold and temperature variability together resulted in 42,414 deaths during the study period, accounting for about 6.0% of all deaths. Most of attributable deaths were due to cold (61.4%), and noticeably, contribution from temperature variability (28.0%) was greater than that from heat (10.6%). (Cheng et al)
Heatwave mortality will increase by 444% in Sydney if the world warms by 3°C the report tells us, with no mention of the word “air-conditioning”.
If reckless spending to stop-storms-in-2100 makes energy unaffordable, heatwave mortality will increase even if the world doesn’t warm at all. No one will be able to afford air-conditioning.
The only mention of “benefits” in the whole document is that a few areas might benefit from reduced frosts — not that our expert modelers can say which areas, or which seasons that will happen in.
Like advertising, “everyone” will be better off if they just buy this weather controlling widget.
The 72-page report – released days before the government announces its emissions reduction targets for 2035 – found that no Australian community will be immune from climate risks that will be “cascading, compounding and concurrent”. — The BBC
The 274 page blockbuster has a nifty 74 page overview for anyone who only has a day or two to devote to the combinations and variations of modeled imaginary catastrophe. There’s nothing there that we haven’t seen a million times before.
Germany’s Machinery Industry Faces Catastrophic Collapse
By Thomas Kolbe | Zero Hedge | September 21, 2025
The collapse of the German economy continues unabated. The German Engineering Federation (VDMA) now expects a dramatic decline in production this year and lashes out at the federal government.
A rebound in the German economy this autumn has failed to materialize. Just a week ago, the Federal Statistical Office revised the country’s GDP decline for Q2 2025 from –0.1% to –0.3%. Now, the German machinery association follows suit with its forecast for the full year, confirming the ongoing downward trend in production: “We had previously expected a decline of 2 percent, now we anticipate minus 5 percent for 2025,”says VDMA President Bertram Kawlath, who expects production to grow by just 1 percent in 2026. Was 2025 really the trough?
Kawlath Goes Political
Kawlath warns that the industry is facing a critical moment – both economically and socially. He describes the situation as a “tipping point,” where the economy is faltering and the political center continues to erode. “If action is not taken now, voters will be pushed into the arms of the political extremes,” he cautions.
Without explicitly naming them, the VDMA chief pointed to the AfD, which recently climbed to 27 percent nationwide in Sunday polls. Remarkably, even at this stage of the crisis, where the structural damage caused by ideology-driven policies is obvious, Kawlath speaks out politically for the first time yet still refrains from naming the culprit: the Green Deal’s ecological transformation is left untouched by his critique.
Meanwhile, the “silent cartel” of business elites continues to call for cosmetic deregulation and subsidies, rather than tackling the root of the problem.
Problems Are Now Impossible to Ignore
The issues are glaring: weak orders, crushing bureaucracy, lengthy approval processes, excessive taxes and labor costs, as well as severe location disadvantages in Germany. Add to that the massive burden of U.S. tariffs: roughly 40 percent of EU machinery exports to the United States are currently hit with a 50 percent duty on the metal content. Unstable, unpredictable rules, Kawlath says, force many companies to halt exports entirely.
He calls for lower taxes and levies, reduced bureaucracy, faster approvals – and above all, a stronger defense of German industry against Chinese competition. China, he points out, has not only caught up but also heavily subsidizes its industry, distorting global competition.
Industry Collapse
The situation continues to worsen. The VDMA’s optimistic forecast for next year is likely to be revised downward as no structural improvements are in sight. Meanwhile, policymakers remain in summit mode, with reforms nowhere in evidence.
If the predicted 5 percent decline in production for 2025 materializes, it would mark the peak of a catastrophic trend. Since 2018, machinery production – and roughly speaking, the entire German industrial sector – has fallen by about 20 percent. This has consequences for employment: over 200,000 industrial jobs have been lost since 2020, 68,000 of them just last year. And this may only be the beginning of a devastating employment crisis.
These figures no longer describe an ordinary recession but the onset of an economic depression. The core of the German economy, industry, has been severely damaged by the self-inflicted energy crisis and grotesque regulatory excesses under the Green Deal. It should not be forgotten that countless service sectors, supply chains, and value chains depend directly on industry. German prosperity fundamentally derives from this sector – the very source that supports social programs and helps maintain social stability amid a worsening environment.
Machinery accounts for roughly 3 percent of Germany’s GDP. With a 27 percent share of the global market, it ranks among the heavyweights of European industry. About one million highly skilled workers earn their livelihoods here – jobs once considered secure now caught in the storm.
Production fell by 7 percent in 2024, and a further steep decline looms for 2025. Orders dropped 8 percent year-on-year, and revenue forecasts continue their downward slide.
Germany’s Industrial Base Systematically Devalued
Under these conditions, industrial production in Germany is effectively impossible. Industrial electricity prices are roughly three times higher than in the U.S., a country actively promoting its manufacturing base, cutting red tape, and selectively supporting industry.
When Lower Saxony’s SPD economy minister Olaf Lies calls for subsidized industrial electricity amid the steel crisis and complains about cheap Chinese steel, it is little more than whistling in the wind. The exodus from Germany is already underway – and it is irreversible: once companies leave, they rarely return.
The steel sector is suffering particularly badly. It ranks among the most energy-intensive branches of German industry, and its subsidized dream of “green steel” has been buried after multiple bankruptcies. From machinery to chemicals, construction to steel, the same picture emerges: Germany’s industrial decline is accelerating unchecked.
What we are witnessing is an ideology-driven, systemic failure. Even U.S. tariffs cannot fix it: the problems have accumulated over years and are homegrown. Yet Brussels and Berlin stubbornly cling to climate fanaticism, dreaming their way through the crisis.
Britain’s industrial disaster
By John Redwood | The Global Warming Policy Foundation | September 19, 2025
High energy prices, bans on making and extracting things, changed UK tariff policies and high taxes are a toxic mix. The factory and company closures are coming thick and fast, doing grave damage to the UK industrial base and losing us many jobs.
There are the pending closures of most of the bioethanol industry. It makes fuel from grains. Both the large Redcar and Hull works are at risk, and closure has begun. Bioethanol was meant to be one of the bright spots for green growth, offering a fuel that is to be gradually introduced into petrol and into aviation spirit to cut their fossil fuel dependence. E10 petrol is 10% ethanol with more to come. Sustainable aviation fuel is promised and that could also require bioethanol. The abolition of the 19% tariff on US imports has been the final blow to an industry hit by higher energy and employment costs.
These closures put at risk domestic CO2 supply as this is also produced at one of the plants. It will cut demand for wheat and grains from UK farms damaged by government tax changes. It is another set of policies undermining UK economic security and forcing us to find the money to import more. Imports mean paying the wages and taxes of overseas countries, not our own. How do we earn our living?
We have just seen the closure of two large refineries at Grangemouth and Lindsey, making us more dependent on imported fuels and oil products. The damage at Grangemouth is not over yet, with the threat that the large olefins and polymers petrochemical plant will also have to close, driven out by high energy costs. Sabic has announced its closure of another olefins plant at Wilton with the possible loss of 330 jobs.
An industrial nation needs to produce more of its own fuel and chemicals if it is to retain the businesses dependent on these basics. The UK was an important exporter of refined oil products to the EU as well as meeting more domestic demand. Taken together with closing down of our own oil and gas production which could have fed these works, we are witnessing an industrial disaster.
The ceramics industry has been in full retreat for some time. This has also been badly hit by dear energy which it needs for its kilns. This year Royal Staffordshire and Moorcroft have closed, following on from Johnson Tiles last year. Great names of a once flourishing industry are now available for foreign producers if they want to buy or licence the brands. Most of the jobs and tax revenues pass elsewhere. Wedgwood has announced this week a 90-day manufacturing pause as it has too much product for current sales levels. High costs of energy are a problem.
Nippon Electric has decided to close its large glass fibre facility in Wigan with another 250 jobs to go. Dunbar Cement says it will stop producing 700,000 tonnes a year that is needed by the construction industry owing to cost pressures. The UK is moving over to more imports of cement, just in time for the CBAM high tariff to deter imported CO2 heavy products being introduced. This will add to UK construction costs. At Birtley the aluminium extrusion plant is being shut. Three aluminium door and window manufacturers are cutting capacity. The government wants construction-led growth, but it is casually allowing the production of building materials to pass abroad, diluting the beneficial jobs effect of more building.
Jaguar Land Rover’s car output is currently halted owing to a cyber-attack. It is also the case that the car industry is struggling to sell its new emphasis on electric cars to the non-fleet buyer, and is actively closing its substantial capacity to make petrol and diesel cars ahead of the 2030 ban.
The Government needs to wake up to the reality. This is not a series of one-offs. It is not a chain of bad luck from different sources. It is the direct result of very expensive and unreliable energy, of bans on activities and of tax changes that make it dearer and less attractive to make things in the UK.
The collapse proceeds outwards from the bad decision to wind down the UK oil and gas industry prematurely and abruptly with bans and early closures, leading to the closure of petrochemicals and other feedstock dependent businesses. Dear energy lies behind the collapse of our blast furnace steel making, our glass industry, and all other energy-intensive industrial activities.
We choose instead to buy from a China that uses masses of cheap coal, and from an EU that still uses plenty of coal and gas, with some of that gas still bought from Russia. Why is the government so mad keen on imports, and so negative about UK industry? Why the bans on making petrol cars here from 2030 when elsewhere they will still be made? Why agree to the closure of the Gryphon platform in the North Sea which could still be used to bring more oil and gas ashore? Another bizarre tragedy. Can we end this self-harm? Can we go for cheaper energy and understand that using our own gas would be so much better for jobs and taxes than turning to imports? Policy is even boosting world CO2 output at the same time. We need to make more things to help pay for the NHS and get more people back to work.
Nine out of ten patients who die as a result of surgery didn’t need their operation
By Vernon Coleman | September 18, 2025
Surgical deaths in the U.K. number around 30,000 a year. In bigger countries the number is obviously higher. Some patients die because surgeons make mistakes but anaesthetic problems are a major cause of death. Changes in medical practices because of global warming (traditional anaesthetic drugs are being abandoned in a bizarre attempt by doctors to save the planet from a none existent threat) will mean the number dying on the operating table, or immediately afterwards, will go up.
The risks of surgery are dramatically underestimated and vary, of course, according to the age and general health of the patient and the difficulty of the operation. On the whole longer ops mean more risk.
All this is important because nine out ten operations are done to improve life rather than to save it.
This means that 90% of the people who die as a result of surgery didn’t need their operation.
Little research has been done to find out if those optional operations actually do improve patients’ lives.
All this may be worth considering if you’re contemplating surgery which isn’t necessary to save your life.
Brussels bureaucrats are running around like panicked chickens – Orban
RT | September 21, 2025
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has slammed Brussels, accusing the EU leadership of mismanaging key areas such as the economy, immigration, and security.
In a critical speech at Digital Civic Circles, a network of digital groups promoting conservative values in Hungary, he claimed the bloc was on the brink of collapse due to the failures of its current leaders.
The prime minister painted a stark picture of “mountains of debt, crowds of migrants, street violence, the increasingly dark shadow of war, mass layoffs, skyrocketing utility costs, impoverished households, and Brussels bureaucrats running around like panicked chickens,” on Saturday while describing the EU’s troubles.
According to Orban, the EU has fallen short of establishing itself as a credible global power. Instead of rising to meet these challenges, the bloc has become a symbol of weakness, indecision, and internal chaos, he said.
He criticized what he called the “tragic” trade deal with the US signed by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, adding that the EU’s green policies are “killing European industry.” Energy prices, Orban noted, are “three to four times higher” than in the US, while countries like France are edging toward unsustainable debt levels.
“Europe, as we knew and loved it, is over,” Orban warned. “If we deny this, we lose time. If we say it out loud, we gain time.”
The politician contrasted Budapest’s own approach with that of Brussels, pointing to stricter migration controls, a family policy tied to employment, and a tax system that, he said, supports jobseekers.
Orban’s criticism, while sharply worded, taps into broader concerns which have been echoed by economists and analysts. Experts from the International Monetary Fund and other institutions have warned that the EU risks long-term stagnation.
The IMF projects euro-area growth at just 0.8% in 2025 and 1.2% in 2026, while public debt remains near 90% of GDP and deficits continue to exceed 3%, well above pre-pandemic levels.
Germany Faces Challenging Winter Of Power Outages As Energy Supply Struggles
By P Gosselin | No Tricks Zone | September 17, 2025
The head of transmission system operator Amprion, Christoph Müller, warns that Germany’s energy supply is facing a challenging winter due to a lack of power plant capacity as the nuclear and planned coal continue to get phased out. This could lead to targeted power outages and soaring electricity prices, he warns.
Müller paints a serious picture: in a scenario where energy demand outstrips supply, pre-defined groups could experience power cuts lasting around 90 minutes. This is not only a concern for the industrial sector; but it would mean hospitals relying on emergency generators, supermarkets closing their doors, and homes going without power. This is the stage that Germany’s energy supply has deteriorated to.
The crisis highlights a significant gap in Germany’s energy strategy. Müller argues that new, flexible gas-fired power plants are essential to maintain grid stability and prevent a supply shortfall. He expresses serious doubts about the feasibility of the coal phase-out by its 2028 deadline, citing the lack of viable alternatives.
While he dismisses nuclear power as a solution due to its long construction timeline, the overall message is clear: without immediate and massive investment in new power sources, Germany’s energy transition is at risk.
Grid under immense strain
Müller’s assessment is grim and unfortunately realistic. While he doesn’t anticipate a nationwide blackout, he warns that the grid is under immense pressure. The next two winters may be manageable, but the long-term outlook is one where blackouts, rising electricity prices, and a stalled energy transition could become the new reality.
Hat-tip: Blackout News here.
