All Electric Car Scam thumbnail

All Electric Car Scam

/in , , , , , /by

By Royal A. Brown III

The government drive to force auto manufacturers to produce uneconomical and unreliable as well as totally inefficient electronic cars is a scam. It’s not an error, however, it is their intent.

The analyses in the column are spot on, but the author refuses to look the issue square in the actual intent.

The public at large will be denied any “right” to private transportation.

A public at large and free to roam the country is anathema to the Bolshevik ideal. The public is to be wired into high density dwellings (not privately owned individual homes) and will either bike to work or take public transportation. Privately owned vehicles will be a thing of the past, and electric vehicles will be doled out on a parity basis for members of the party in good standing, and the models according to position. Gasoline vehicles will exist at the party’s permission to do essential work for farms, factories, aircraft, and train locomotives.

George Orwell knew whereof he wrote.

The book 1984 was supposed to be a warning (like Mein Kampf) but the people read it and said, that’s preposterous, never happen to a modern, civilized people.

And yet, here we are.

Dr. Jay Lehr and Tom Harris | Mar 15, 2022

The utility companies have thus far had little to say about the alarming cost projections to operate electric vehicles (EVs) or the increased rates that they will be required to charge their customers. It is not just the total amount of electricity required, but the transmission lines and fast charging capacity that must be built at existing filling stations. Neither wind nor solar can support any of it. Electric vehicles will never become the mainstream of transportation!

The problems with electric vehicles (EVs), we showed that they were too expensive, too unreliable, rely on materials mined in China and other unfriendly countries, and require more electricity than the nation can afford. In this second part, we address other factors that will make any sensible reader avoid EVs like the plague.

EV Charging Insanity

In order to match the 2,000 cars that a typical filling station can service in a busy 12 hours, an EV charging station would require 600, 50-watt chargers at an estimated cost of $24 million and a supply of 30 megawatts of power from the grid. That is enough to power 20,000 homes. No one likely thinks about the fact that it can take 30 minutes to 8 hours to recharge a vehicle between empty or just topping off. What are the drivers doing during that time?

ICSC-Canada board member New Zealand-based consulting engineer Bryan Leyland describes why installing electric car charging stations in a city is impractical:

“If you’ve got cars coming into a petrol station, they would stay for an average of five minutes. If you’ve got cars coming into an electric charging station, they would be at least 30 minutes, possibly an hour, but let’s say its 30 minutes. So that’s six times the surface area to park the cars while they’re being charged. So, multiply every petrol station in a city by six. Where are you going to find the place to put them?”

The government of the United Kingdom is already starting to plan for power shortages caused by the charging of thousands of EVs. Starting in June 2022, the government will restrict the time of day you can charge your EV battery. To do this, they will employ smart meters that are programmed to automatically switch off EV charging in peak times to avoid potential blackouts.

In particular, the latest UK chargers will be pre-set to not function during 9-hours of peak loads, from 8 am to 11 am (3-hours), and 4 pm to 10 pm (6-hours). Unbelievably, the UK technology decides when and if an EV can be charged, and even allows EV batteries to be drained into the UK grid if required. Imagine charging your car all night only to discover in the morning that your battery is flat since the state took the power back. Better keep your gas-powered car as a reliable and immediately available backup! While EV charging will be an attractive source of revenue generation for the government, American citizens will be up in arms.

Used Car Market

The average used EV will need a new battery before an owner can sell it, pricing them well above used internal combustion cars. The average age of an American car on the road is 12 years. A 12-year-old EV will be on its third battery. A Tesla battery typically costs $10,000 so there will not be many 12-year-old EVs on the road. Good luck trying to sell your used green fairy tale electric car!

Tuomas Katainen, an enterprising Finish Tesla owner, had an imaginative solution to the battery replacement problem—he blew up his car! New York City-based Insider magazine reported (December 27, 2021 ):

“The shop told him the faulty battery needed to be replaced, at a cost of about $22,000. In addition to the hefty fee, the work would need to be authorized by Tesla…Rather than shell out half the cost of a new Tesla to fix an old one, Katainen decided to do something different… The demolition experts from the YouTube channel Pommijätkät (Bomb Dudes) strapped 66 pounds of high explosives to the car and surrounded the area with slow-motion cameras…the 14 hotdog-shaped charges erupt into a blinding ball of fire, sending a massive shock wave rippling out from the car…The videos of the explosion have a combined 5 million views.”

We understand that the standard Tesla warranty does not cover “damage resulting from intentional actions,” like blowing the car up for a YouTube video.

EVs Per Block In Your Neighborhood

A home charging system for a Tesla requires a 75-amp service. The average house is equipped with 100-amp service. On most suburban streets the electrical infrastructure would be unable to carry more than three houses with a single Tesla. For half the homes on your block to have electric vehicles, the system would be wildly overloaded.

Batteries.

Although the modern lithium-ion battery is four times better than the old lead-acid battery, gasoline holds 80 times the energy density. The great lithium battery in your cell phone weighs less than an ounce while the Tesla battery weighs 1,000 pounds. And what do we get for this huge cost and weight? We get a car that is far less convenient and less useful than cars powered by internal combustion engines.

Bryan Leyland explained why: “When the Model T came out, it was a dramatic improvement on the horse and cart. The electric car is a step backward into the equivalence of an ordinary car with a tiny petrol tank that takes half an hour to fill It offers nothing in the way of convenience or extra facilities.”

Our Conclusion

The electric automobile will always be around in a niche market likely never exceeding 10% of the cars on the road. All automobile manufacturers are investing in their output and all will be disappointed in their sales. Perhaps they know this and will manufacture just what they know they can sell. This is certainly not what President Biden or California Governor Newsom are planning for. However, for as long as the present government is in power, they will be pushing the electric car as another means to run our lives.

Dr. Jay Lehr is a Senior Policy Analyst with the International Climate Science Coalition and former Science Director of The Heartland Institute. He is an internationally renowned scientist, author, and speaker.

Tom Harris is Executive Director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition, and a policy advisor to The Heartland Institute.

You do not need to have an advanced degree in mathematics to understand the term “Overload”! The average person, no matter where you live, can quickly identify the political feel-good sensation that is being attempted by those short-sighted individuals who are promoting the EV revolution….Vehicle manufacturers, Charging station builders, Transmission Line contractors, Battery producers….etc. i.e. Everyone that has their hands out for a government subsidy (i.e. your tax money).

“It’s Magic”….and you are saving the planet by creating less pollution as you get rid of your gas burning vehicle and take out a five-year loan to pay for the shiny new $60,000 electric car. No more fill-ups at the service station and the global warming is solved. You can now sit back and imagine the new polar ice formations that are providing a safe environment for the Polar Bears, Seals, Penguins that we all adore. We have done our part saving humanity…..and you can see the smile on little Greta Thunberg’s face!

BUT WAIT….why are we losing power at our house?

Well the short answer is….We failed to understand that our electrical grid reached max capacity and was overloaded when all of the EV’s were plugged in tonight at the same time. The next short answer is…..where do you think the energy came from to supply the grid in the first place? It sure was not from Wind or Solar….nor from any other alternate energy source we use which, when all combined, only provides 7% of today’s use demand. It was from the traditional combustible resource called Hydrocarbons!

Until we discover a non-hydrocarbon energy source that is efficient and safe, GET OVER IT …. Like it or not, we are committed to Oil & Gas!

©Royal A. Brown, III. All rights reserved.

Why Are Gas Prices Falling? thumbnail

Why Are Gas Prices Falling?

/in , , , , , , /by

By Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

Does Biden deserve credit or does the second law of demand explain our less painful trips to the pump?

Anyone who has a car is breathing a sigh of relief this last week. After two years of increasing gas prices, we’ve finally had a significant fall in gas prices.

Gas prices are still high at $4.33/gallon (nearly double the $2.18 they were in July of 2020), but there appears to be light at the end of the tunnel.

Since the current administration has taken a great deal of heat over high fuel prices, perhaps it’s no surprise to see the White House taking credit for the lower prices. Earlier this month, President Biden noted that gasoline prices had fallen for 30 consecutive days.

“Our actions are working, and prices are coming down,” Biden said days later.

However, there is little evidence to indicate the majority of the price drop is due to any particular policy change.

This leaves us with an important question. Why exactly are prices falling?

Several outlets have undertaken the task of explaining this price decrease. Some seem to have arrived at an answer that is in the right direction.

An article on MarketWatch pinpoints the ultimate cause as falling demand. “Gasoline demand weakness against historical seasonal strength is pressing retail prices lower,” MarketWatch reported analyst Brian Milne saying.

The New York Times reported a similar explanation:

A report by ESAI Energy, an analytics firm, said on Wednesday that the firm expected a global surplus of four million barrels a day in the roughly 100-million-barrel-a-day market in the second quarter. “This is a significant drop in demand,” said Sarah Emerson, ESAI president.

In other words, the oil purchasing decisions are falling below what the oil industry expected. Four million less barrels a day are being utilized than industry experts had anticipated. The Times continues:

An Energy Department report released Wednesday showed that gasoline demand in recent weeks had dropped by 1.35 million barrels a day, or more than 10 percent. A recent survey from AAA seems to back this up, highlighting that two thirds of Americans have claimed to have changed their driving habits since the price increases.

So there’s our answer, right? Falling demand means lower prices.

There are several problems with this explanation, but the problems manifest in one particular issue. Neither of these articles gives a satisfactory answer for why demand would be falling.

In order to understand why demand is changing we first need to eliminate a fallacious reason. It might be tempting to say demand is falling because the price is high. In fact, the MarketWatch article seems to suggest this explanation. But this claim is wrong.

It’s true that when the price of gas (or any good or service for that matter) rises, people will purchase a smaller quantity of that good or service. Economists call this the first law of demand.

But the key part of that statement is when the price rises. Higher prices have existed for a while and cannot explain suddenly lower quantity demanded. Why didn’t the higher prices lead to a lower quantity demanded earlier?

In fact, committing to this explanation that higher price leads to lower demand is contradictory because it would be akin to saying “higher prices cause lower demand which causes lower prices.” This circular reasoning is confusing and incomplete at best.

MarketWatch and The New York Times missed it by that much.

I believe the outlets are right to pinpoint changing demand as the relevant factor for falling prices, and they’re right that higher prices are part of the story, but the explanation is missing the most important part.

To see what’s really going on, consider an example.

Imagine you’ve booked your vacation for the summer and you’ve decided to do a cross-country trip in an RV. The RV is rented, you’ve put in for vacation days at work, the insurance is covered, you’ve paid for tickets for sights and attractions, and your family is packed and ready.

You go to bed and gas prices are $2/gallon. The next morning you pull into a gas station with the RV and the price has skyrocketed to $4/gallon. The cost of your travel has doubled.

Do you cancel? In some cases the answer could be yes, but for many people the higher cost of gas is less than the cost of planning an entirely new vacation and executing the plan within a day. The cost of doing the logistics of canceling bookings and organizing something to do with your vacation days is high on short notice.

Now imagine a different scenario. You’re six months out from your trip and gas prices skyrocket to $4. You haven’t rented an RV or put in for vacation days. You assume gas prices will stay high until your vacation. Do you change your vacation plans? It seems likely.

The answer isn’t certain, but what we can say with certainty is that it’s more likely that someone will change vacation plans in the second scenario with six months notice relative to the first scenario with no notice.

Why? Simply put, it’s more costly to find substitutes in the short run than in the long run.

This illustrates a principle called the second law of demand which states that people are relatively more responsive to price changes in the long run than in the short run. Economists call this responsiveness “elasticity”.

Or, as the late and great economist Walter Williams put it, “demand curves are relatively more elastic in the long run than in the short-run.”

With this insight in hand, we are now equipped to give a more robust explanation for falling gas prices.

To begin, gas prices increase substantially. It’s too costly for people to substitute their gas usage in the short run. You still need to drive to your vacation, work, or church the next day if gas prices go up. But, as more time passes, there is more ability to cheaply discover alternatives like bus routes, carpool situations, financing for electric cars, or telework options.

In the case of vacations you could substitute your RV trip with the “staycation” option, which is growing in popularity, given you have time to plan.

Then, as more people substitute these options for gas, gas stations face a new lower demand. Again, this doesn’t occur immediately because it’s costly to make these substitutions in the short run.

Admittedly, confirming this theory as the number-one cause of falling gas prices would require significant statistical work, but the theory is consistent with the basic facts of lower demand and the time that’s passed since gas prices have risen.

Is it possible that releases of supply from the government’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve have had some impact? It certainly should make some difference, but as the articles above indicate, the basic evidence seems to show demand changes are the driver here—not supply changes.

Even Biden’s own Treasury Department estimates the US strategic reserve release to have impacted prices from 13 cents to 33 cents with a little more potentially due to international releases. This upper estimate, based on very generous assumptions, still leaves about half of the price drop unexplained.

And even without statistical testing, the second law of demand is an economic law which means it certainly plays some role in the more responsive demand, everything else held constant.

It’s not clear that we’re out of the woods on inflation yet. However, I remain confident that consumer-side substitutions and supplier-side innovations will continue to work to make gas prices more affordable—so long as meddlesome regulators stay out of the way.

AUTHOR

Peter Jacobsen

Peter Jacobsen teaches economics at Ottawa University where he holds the positions of Assistant Professor and Gwartney Professor of Economic Education and Research at the Gwartney Institute. He received his graduate education George Mason University and received his undergraduate education Southeast Missouri State University. His research interest is at the intersection of political economy, development economics, and population economics. His website can be found here.

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

STUDY: Human ‘Pee a Problem Pollutant’ You are pollution! thumbnail

STUDY: Human ‘Pee a Problem Pollutant’ You are pollution!

/in , , , , /by

By Marc Morano

1) You are the pollution they want to eliminate! Study: Human ‘Pee a Problem Pollutant in the U.S.’ – ‘Can contribute to warming’

Scientific American: “In the U.S., people eat more protein than they need to. And though it might not be bad for human health, this excess does pose a problem for the country’s waterways. The nation’s wastewater is laden with the leftovers from protein digestion: nitrogen compounds that can feed toxic algal blooms and pollute the air and drinking water. …

Once it enters the environment, the nitrogen in urea can trigger a spectrum of ecological impacts known as the “nitrogen cascade.” Under certain chemical conditions, and in the presence of particular microbes, urea can break down to form gases of oxidized nitrogen. These gases reach the atmosphere, where nitrous oxide (N2O) can contribute to warming via the greenhouse effect and nitrogen oxides (NOx) can cause acid rain.” … Patricia Glibert, an oceanographer at the University of Maryland, suggests consumers could switch to a “demitarian” diet—an approach that focuses on reducing the consumption of meat and dairy..”

[ … ]

Climate Depot’s Morano: “They will not give up. They will continue to scare you about climate change in every, and any conceivable way. Now when you pee, you are allegedly a human pollution machine that is heating up the planet. The voiding of your bladder must be curtailed for the sake of the planet! So says ‘The Science’!”

Read more.

WATCH: Your pee is pollution.

2) World Economic Forum calls to reduce private vehicles by eliminating ‘ownership’

WEF: “More sharing can reduce ownership of idle equipment and thus material usage,” the group argued, pointing to statistics that show the average vehicle in England is driven “just 4% of the time.”

Calls for ending private car ownership are growing:

Owning a car is outdated ’20th-century thinking’ & we must move to ‘shared mobility’ to cut carbon emissions, UK transport minister says

Irish Times: Future of people driving around country in private cars is ‘fantasy built on cheap oil’

‘Climate Emergency’: Ireland Set to Ban Private Cars

Climate lockdown: ‘It’s Time To Ban The Sale Of Pickup Trucks’ – ‘Shift away from relying on private vehicles entirely’

Business Insider mag: ‘Electric vehicles won’t save us — we need to get rid of cars completely’

2021: Climate lockdowns!? New International Energy Agency’s ‘Net-Zero’ report urges A shift away from private car use’

Climate Lockdowns: British Medical Journal Study Calls For ‘Substantially fewer journeys by car

Gates, Soros funded Professor: Prepare for the Coming ‘Climate Lockdowns’ – ‘Govts would limit private-vehicle use’–

Flashback: Dem presidential candidate Andrew Yang: Climate Change May Require Elimination of Car Ownership – Suggests ‘constant roving fleet of electric cars’– “We might not own our own cars.”

3) Al Gore touts climate pork-barrel spending bill as ‘single largest investment in climate solutions & environmental justice in U.S. history’

Climate Depot’s Marc Morano:  “Sen. Manchin caved to utter climate nitwittery that has real consequences for the U.S. economy currently being starved of energy by a wacko ideology that is dominant within the Democratic Party. Now Al Gore is claiming that this bill, which is just a much larger rehash of Obama’s green stimulus, will somehow save us from a pending climate ’emergency.’  Meanwhile, in the real world, this new Orwellian named ‘Inflation Reduction Act’ will have no impact on global emissions — let alone the climate. Even fellow climate activists and democrats are admitting this, calling the deal ‘a baby step‘ and a ‘minimum’ impact on climate change. Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. analyzed the climate bill’s impacts and found that Biden’s 50% emissions-reduction target for 2030 would have an undetectable impact on overall global emissions.

Morano: “But never fret, the bill will have massive impacts on American energy, the economy, and inflation and it may solve racism.” See: ‘$60 billion in climate reparations’ – Dems’ New Spending Bill Imposes Methane Tax To Fund ‘Environmental Justice’ Programs – Morano: “Somehow the ‘solutions’ to climate change have morphed into including $60 billion in climate reparations in the name of ‘equity.’ Anyone who drinks milk or eats meat will now be paying reparations. Will the $60 billion actually help solve racism? Anyone who thinks this climate bill has anything to with the climate has not been paying attention.”

Sen. Manchin caves to climate agenda – Agrees to ‘abrupt deal’ deal w/ Sen. Schumer – Will raise $739 billion in taxes, spend $369 billion on ‘climate initiatives’

4) Analysis: Biden’s 50% emissions reduction target for 2030 (if achieved) would have a ‘nearly unmeasurable’ impact on overall global CO2 emissions

“Dr. Roger Pielke ran the numbers and found that, even if it achieved Biden’s 50% emissions-reduction target for 2030, which it almost certainly won’t, the impact on overall global emissions would be nearly unmeasurable.”

5) You Will Own No Land & Be Happy?! UN, World Economic Forum Behind ‘War On Farmers’ & Ending Private Land Ownership

Alex Newman: Even private land ownership is in the crosshairs, as global food production and the world economy are transformed to meet the global sustainability goals, U.N. documents reviewed by The Epoch Times show.

One of the earliest meetings defining the “sustainability” agenda was the U.N. Conference on Human Settlements known as Habitat I, which adopted the Vancouver Declaration. The agreement stated that “land cannot be treated as an ordinary asset controlled by individuals” and that private land ownership is “a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, therefore contributes to social injustice.”

“Public control of land use is therefore indispensable,” the U.N. declaration said, a prelude to the World Economic Forum’s now infamous “prediction” that by 2030, “you’ll own nothing.”

6) Watch: Morano on Newsmax TV on pending ‘climate emergency’ declaration: ‘Biden will have literally 130 new executive powers’ & ‘This is a COVID-like power grab for the climate’

7) Watch: Morano on Jesse Watters Primetime on Fox News: Gore is ‘absurd’ to compare ‘climate deniers’ to do nothing Uvalde cops – There has been a ‘99% drop in climate-related deaths

Morano: “Gore is trying desperately to say something provocative to make himself relevant which is how he came up with the Uvalde school shooting analogy which is absurd.” See: Watch: Gore claims ‘climate deniers are really in some ways similar’ to cops at Uvalde shooting who sat idle – ‘They heard the screams, they heard the gunshots, & nobody stepped forward’

Morano: “Due to fossil fuels, due to our energy that Gore has been fighting for decades, there has been a 99% drop in climate-related deaths since 1920. It is a success story and mostly credited to fossil fuels which fuel development, which fuel economic growth, which fuels safety from extreme weather events. So Gore has it wrong. The people blocking him (the ‘climate deniers’) are the ones saving lives.”

After 100 years of climate change, ‘climate-related deaths’ approach zero – Dropped by over 99% since 1920

8) ‘$60 billion in climate reparations’ – Dems’ New Spending Bill Imposes Methane Tax To Fund ‘Environmental Justice’ Programs

Morano: “Somehow the ‘solutions’ to climate change have morphed into including $60 billion in climate reparations in the name of ‘equity.’ “Anyone who drinks milk or eats meat will now be paying reparations. Will the $60 billion actually help solve racism? Anyone who thinks this climate bill has anything to with the climate has not been paying attention.”

©Marc Morano, Climate Depot. All rights reserved.

Trudeau Sparks Backlash from Farmers and Provinces over Fertilizer Emissions Green Plan thumbnail

Trudeau Sparks Backlash from Farmers and Provinces over Fertilizer Emissions Green Plan

/in , , , , , , , /by

By Jihad Watch

Canada has its own farmers’ problem, resembling that of the Netherlands. The Trudeau government is set to impose a 30% reduction in fertilizer emissions (nitrous oxide) across the country as a part of his environmental emissions reduction strategy. Trudeau’s aim is to reach  net-zero carbon emissions by 2030.

The fertilizer industry association, Fertilizer Canada, commissioned a damning report warning that such reductions would lead to a $48 billion loss in farm incomes over the next eight years leading up to 2030. In the end, analysts say, the reasoning is flawed and will backfire.

Simultaneously, the Trudeau government has imposed a tariff on Russian-imported nitrogen fertilizer, which will hike up production costs for farmers, since Eastern Canada doesn’t produce nitrogen. Canada is the only G-7 country to impose such a tariff.

Farmers in Canada have faced on ongoing onslaught by the Trudeau government. In 2020, Trudeau infuriated the farming industry when he imposed an increase in the carbon tax. He called his plan “A Healthy Environment and a Healthy Economy” from Environment and Climate Change Canada,” but it served as nothing but a provocation to the farming industry:

Groups such as the Grain Farmers of Ontario (GFO), Grain Growers of Canada (GGC), Canadian Federation of Agriculture (CFA) and Western Canadian Wheat Growers (WCWG) have all come up with shock, anger, and strong criticism of the plan.

Dutch political commentator Eva Vlaardingerbroek recently summed up the situation in the Netherlands and Canada. She stated that Dutch farmers were really “protesting a Communist agenda.” She added that countries such as Canada and the Netherlands are being used as “staging grounds for the World Economic Forum (WEF) and other globalist elites to pursue their radical schemes to transform society.”

Last weekend, a “slow roll” convoy began to move into Ottawa to show support for Dutch farmers. And in Saskatchewan, hundreds of protesters in dozens of vehicles showed up to stage a “slow roll” protest.

Frustration and alarm are building all across Canada, prompting the question of whether Canadian farmers will protest in large numbers.

Trudeau fertilizer emissions plan sparks backlash from farmers and provinces

by Breanne Deppisch, Washington Examiner, July 26, 2022:

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is slated to impose a 30% reduction in fertilizer emissions in the country, sparking intense backlash from farmers and provincial agriculture ministers, who argue the target will decrease crop output, increase prices, and cost farmers billions in lost revenue.

The new target, which seeks to “reduce absolute levels of GHG emissions arising from fertilizer application,” is part of the Trudeau government’s goal of reaching net-zero carbon emissions by 2030.

But the news has been met with disdain by farm and agriculture groups in the country that argue imposing such restrictions will shift production to higher-cost, less efficient countries.

“The world is looking for Canada to increase production and be a solution to global food shortages. The federal government needs to display that they understand this,” Alberta Minister of Agriculture Nate Horner said last week in response to the news.

Farming is a major sector of the Canadian economy. In 2021, the country exported nearly $82.2 billion in agriculture and food products, and the agriculture and agrifood sector accounts for roughly 6.8% of its annual gross domestic product.

“Farmers don’t need the government to tell them how to properly use fertilizer. We engage crop consultants, soil tests and use the latest technology available to us,” Gunter Jochum, president of the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association, said in a statement. “Our government should be strongly supporting the agronomic techniques that we have put into practice.”

A recent study commissioned by the association found that the new targets would cost Canada’s so-called “prairie provinces” billions in lost grain revenue by 2030— including $2.95 billion from Alberta, $4.61 billion from Saskatchewan, and $1.58 billion from Manitoba.

“We’re really concerned with this arbitrary goal,” Saskatchewan Minister of Agriculture David Marit said in a statement.

The new reductions target comes just weeks after the Netherlands introduced a similar proposal — touching off a wave of protests and angry crowds that shut down bridges, food distribution centers, and other export hubs across the country.

Analysts say that by reducing output from countries such as Canada and the Netherlands, each among the world’s most sustainable and environmentally efficient producers, leaders risk redistributing global production to countries that require more land and more fertilizer, likely resulting in higher nitrogen pollution overall….

AUTHOR

CHRISTINE DOUGLASS-WILLIAMS

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Environmentalism is an Environmental Hazard thumbnail

Environmentalism is an Environmental Hazard

/in , , , , , , /by

By Jihad Watch

Solar panel lead in the groundwater and wind turbine fiberglass in your lungs. 

20 years after voters rejected ‘toilet-to-tap’ water, Los Angeles Democrats brag that they will be the first city in the state to pipe toilet water to faucets for the sake of the environment.

As part of the city’s version of the Green New Deal, a majority of Los Angeles water will be ‘toilet-to-tap’. California Democrats, who refuse to build new dams or do anything to expand water resources, are set to spend at least $12 billion on what they describe as “locally sourced” water which certainly sounds nicer than toilet water. The environmentalist elites will go on drinking bottled water and it will be the city’s poor drinking out of the toilet.

Environmentalists insist that nothing can go wrong even though a 2019 NIH hosted survey noted that “there have been relatively few health-based studies evaluating the microbial risks associated with potable reuse” and that California wants to achieve “a benchmark level of public health protection of 1 infection in 10,000 people per year.” That’s 1,000 people in Los Angeles County. The risks include “pathogenic bacteria, viruses, and protozoa” transmitted via a fecal-oral route” including Hepatitis A. A new reservoir might cost $4 billion, but environmentalists would rather spend three times as much on their toilet-to-tap plan.

‘Toilet-to-tap’ is just one of the multitude of ways that environmentalism creates an environmental hazard, threatening public health and undermining life in California.

No state has been as in love with solar power. With over 700 solar power plants and hundreds of thousands of residential solar panels, Californians enjoy an expensive and unreliable energy supply that leads to regular brown-outs. Solar panels generate their energy during the day, when most people aren’t home so that it goes to waste while being useless at night.

But in Hotel California, you can’t check out of subsidizing China’s exported solar industry.

As of 2020, California Democrats imposed a solar mandate requiring all new homes to have solar panels which added over $10,000 to the cost of a new home putting home ownership even further out of the reach of most people and making a mockery of talk of “affordable housing”.

The California Public Utilities Commission has admitted that the state has far more solar panels than it needs, but has argued that it should “dramatically overbuild solar” and then let it go to waste. Wasting a lot of energy has become the best way to stop waste and save the planet.

But that’s not all that’s going to waste.

With a lifespan of 25 years, the early generations of solar panels have begun to clutter up the state’s landfills. Ironically, only about 10% of the solar “green energy” solution are recycled and the rest represent a serious toxic waste hazard. Behind the illusion of clean energy is the grimy reality that solar panels break down and just turn into poisonous and dangerous trash.

Recycling, itself a scam, often just sends our waste abroad to poor countries. A New York Times article described how in Africa, laborers “break them open with machetes and drain the acid into the ground by hand” which “pollutes the soil and water with lead, which can lead to brain damage.” Actual recycling of solar panels is unworkable because it costs more to recycle them than it does to make them. So it’s just more economical to bury solar panels in landfills.

Faced with a growing toxic solar panel problem, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control reclassified them. In a press release typical of the state’s environmentalist puffery which always boast about being the first to pursue some disastrous policy, DTSC boasted that it was the “first in the nation” to “add hazardous waste solar panels to its universal waste program.”

Meredith Williams, DTSC’s director, claimed that lowering hazardous waste restrictions on solar panels was “another great step forward in our state’s efforts to put environmental protection first – both for the health and safety of our people and natural resources.”

California Democrats were boasting of being the first in the nation to ignore the environmental risks of an environmental policy in the name of the environment. The planet was being destroyed to save the planet. And people were being exposed to toxic chemicals to prop up the solar panel industry, its woke investors who finance the Democrats, and Chinese manufacturers.

California solar has become too big to fail. With billions in state subsidies and massive amounts of money seized from homeowners to fund the solar scam, the threat of lead and cadmium leaching into groundwater can’t be permitted to stop the environmentalist solar disaster.

As each generation of solar panels ages into oblivion, the solar trash problem will boom. And it’s just getting started. The hundreds of thousands of rooftop solar panels will either end up in the trash or will require spending twice as much up front to subsidize their eventual disposal.

At least.

While California Democrats fight to shut down the state’s nuclear power, they double down on solar which as Michael Shellenberger has argued, “produced 300 times more toxic waste than high-level nuclear waste.”

California’s solar subsidies will not only put homeownership further out of reach but are set to cover the state in toxic trash. Solar panels are worthless as energy and they’re worthless as trash. Governments have to mandate and subsidize their installation and then their disposal.

The situation isn’t much better with the ubiquitous wind turbines whose blades can’t be recycled.

Much as solar panels are filling up landfills, so are wind turbine blades. And those blades which “can be longer than a Boeing 747 wing” will first have to be cut up with a “diamond-encrusted industrial saw” and then hauled away on tractor trailers to massive landfills.

Fiberglass blades aren’t biodegradable and burning or crushing them releases toxic fibers that have been linked to everything from skin reactions to lung disease.

Inhaling fiberglass dust is potentially dangerous. Especially from something the size of a jet wing. That just leaves one option. The same option as for nuclear power. Bury them.

Wind turbines, which were supposed to save the environment, are piling up in rural areas in Wyoming, Iowa and South Dakota.

“The wind turbine blade will be there, ultimately, forever,” an energy company executive admitted.

So much for clean energy saving the planet.

Environmentalists agonize over the 85,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel in the United States when a single wind turbine blade can weigh 12 tons. It’s estimated that by 2020, wind turbine blade waste will amount to over 2 million tons or 1% of landfill capacity.

The green agenda isn’t saving the planet, it’s destroying it and harming people.

Environmentalism is an environmental hazard that threatens both the ecosystem and public health. From the solar panel lead in the groundwater to the wind turbine fiberglass in your lungs to the toilet water in your sink, there’s nothing ‘clean’ about the environmental agenda.

AUTHOR

DANIEL GREENFIELD

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Al Gore’s Climate Hypocrisy — How Gore Cashes in on Going Green thumbnail

VIDEO: Al Gore’s Climate Hypocrisy — How Gore Cashes in on Going Green

/in , , , /by

By Marc Morano

“Toxic? If by ‘divisive and toxic’ you mean Climate Depot is serving to derail the man-made global warming agenda and its sub-prime science and politics, I happily plead guilty!” — Marc Morano

Gore is trying desperately to say something provocative to make himself relevant which is how he came up with the Uvalde school shooting analogy which is absurd… Due to fossil fuels, due to our energy that Gore has been fighting for decades, there has been a 99% drop in climate-related deaths since 1920. It is a success story and mostly credited to fossil fuels which fuel development, which fuel economic growth, which fuels safety from extreme weather events. So Gore has it wrong. The people blocking him (the ‘climate deniers’) are the ones saving lives.

TRANSCRIPT:

Jesse Watters: Marc Morano is the publisher of Climate Depot and author of the Green Fraud. So Marc, you heard this same gore song and dance before you heard hear it about every 5-to-10 years when he has a new investment fund and documentary. Has anything changed?

Marc Morano: No. Nothing has changed for Al Gore’s world. Unfortunately, he has been replaced by Leonardo DiCaprio and Greta Thunberg (& AOC) and now he has been replaced by random activists stopping cars on the highways in major cities trying to get Biden to declare a climate emergency.

Gore is trying desperately to say something provocative to make himself relevant which is how he came up with the Uvalde school shooting analogy which is absurd. Due to fossil fuels, due to our energy that Gore has been fighting for decades, there has been a 99% drop in climate-related deaths since 1920. It is a success story and mostly credited to fossil fuels which fuel development, which fuel economic growth, which fuels safety from extreme weather events. So Gore has it wrong. The people blocking him (the ‘climate deniers’) are the ones saving lives.

Jesse Watters: If we had listened to all these Gore predictions, people wouldn’t have air conditioning couldn’t heat homes in winter time he would actually be killing people, wouldn’t he?

Marc Morano: There is a war on air conditioning. There is a war on, gasoline power there is a war on your thermostat, they want to have governments with smart meters. They have done everything. The debate has changed though. Gore actually did talk about sea level and temperature. Now we have NASA scientists claiming White supremacists are causing global warming. Professors at Rhode Island saying the data is racist and you can’t trust data anymore. Science has been turned on its head. If you go back and look at Gore’s first film it’s kind of quaint considering how crazy the climate movement. We have reached peak climate insanity.

When you have Sen. Joe Manchin vote against a pork barrel spending bill last week or say he wouldn’t support it, you have climate activists like Bill McKibben, Gore’s friend, claim a no vote will create a new geologic era in the earth named after Manchin. Voting ‘No’ on a a pork barrel bill will alter the geologic history of the Earth. This is  Madness Jesse, it’s madness. And Gore is responsible for birthing this madness.

Jesse Watters: Gore he has gotten rich. $300 million man now? How does he make all this money?

Marc Morano: It’s amazing. When Gore left the vice presidency in 2001, it was estimated by Fast Company magazine he was worth about 1 or $2 million. Fast forward, about a decade, and he is worth at least 100 million and then he went on a quest to be the world’s first carbon billionaire. How? He had a Powerpoint that was reported on in the “the Washington Post” and other major publications that listed all the companies you should be investing in. Guess what? When Obama became president and did his big green stimulus, Al Gore was funded lavishly by federal dollars, and as you mentioned he sold al Jazeera. That wasn’t enough. He went on a quest to be the world’s first fake meat billionaire. They are shutting down modern farming in Sri Lanka and the Netherlands and replacing it with lab-grown meat. Guess who the pioneers pushing it are? Bill  Gates and of course Al Gore is standing to profit hugely off of our lack of lab grown meat, profiting off the fake meat business now.

Jesse Watters: I don’t think fake meat looks very good for you because al is not looking very trim to be generous. Marc, thank you so much for your analysis.

Marc Morano: Thank you, Jesse. Appreciate it.

©Marc Morano, Climate Depot. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

After 100 years of climate change, ‘climate-related deaths’ approach zero – Dropped by over 99% since 1920

Watch: Gore claims ‘climate deniers are really in some ways similar’ to cops at Uvalde shooting who sat idle – ‘They heard the screams, they heard the gunshots, & nobody stepped forward’

‘Greenhouse Gas Effect Does Not Exist,’ a Swiss Physicist Challenges Global Warming Climate Orthodoxy

Watch: Morano on Tucker Carlson on energy & food chaos: ‘This is a war against modern civilization’ – World Economic Forum & UN seek ‘controlling humans’

Which Burns Faster, Wind Turbines or EVs? thumbnail

Which Burns Faster, Wind Turbines or EVs?

/in , , , , , /by

By The Daily Skirmish – Liberato.US

It’s been a rough couple of weeks for climate true-believers.  If you’re one of them, buckle up, you’re about to get red-pilled:

A wind turbine in Texas caught fire and was destroyed after being hit by lightning.  The 800 pounds of oil in the gear box produced a column of thick black smoke.  Firefighters are not prepared to handle that kind of blaze.  Before you dismiss this as a one-off, you should also know Mother Nature can destroy wind turbines with 200 mile-per-hour wind gusts in hurricanes.  Wind turbines are only designed to handle 160 mile an hour winds.  The flexible blades can bend, curve backwards, hit the tower, and destroy the whole thing.  And you want to put more turbines in the Atlantic Ocean, smack dab in the middle of Hurricane Alley?

So much for romancing the turbines. But there’s always electric vehicles, right?  A new electric bus caught fire and was destroyed in a bus parking lot in Connecticut.  Those fires are hard to handle, too. Fire officials said, “Lithium-ion battery fires are difficult to extinguish due to the thermal chemical process that produces great heat and continually reignites….”  This happened one day after the Governor celebrated a new law phasing in electric vehicles for the state fleet.    Fires aren’t the only problem. If you buy a used EV and the battery quits, you will find a replacement battery will cost you more than the used EV did in the first place.  And you won’t be able to get a replacement without condoning forced labor in China.  You’re not in favor of slavery, are you?  But don’t let me spoil the party. I’ll leave that to the countries having second thoughts about EV mandates because of the cost, the hit to living standards, the lack of infrastructure, and the wishful thinking behind them.

Oh well, there’s always solar panels, right?   Never mind that their output can decrease 25 percent if it gets too hot outside.  Worn-out panels end up “in landfills, where in some cases, they could potentially contaminate groundwater with toxic heavy metals such as lead, selenium and cadmium.”  That’s according to the left-wing Los Angeles Times, by the way.

Oh well, at least we’re getting rid of coal, right?  Hate to break it to you, but China is building coal-fired power plants like there is no tomorrow, more than the rest of the world combined.  Germany is turning back to coal after its disastrous green energy policies which shut down 14 nuclear power plants produced the highest household electricity bills in the world, and resulted in over-dependence on Russian gas.  World coal-usage continues to go up, not down.  So you can super-glue yourself to the Mona Lisa all you want, but the fact of the matter is whatever we do here in the West isn’t going to make any difference to climate change, not one bit.

Gee, all these problems nobody ever talks about.  Oh well, at least our leaders have their hearts in the right place, right?   Actually, no.   Biden’s green energy transition is being led by green energy investors who are dictating government policy to enrich themselves.  For example, Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm was on the board of an electric car company and, in May, pocketed a cool $1.6 million from exercising stock options in the company.  John Kerry – Saint John Kerry – has green energy investments in China.   Hunter Biden owns a stake in a Chinese company that assisted in the purchase of a cobalt mine, cobalt being necessary for electric car batteries.  Did the ‘Big Guy’ Joe Biden get 10 percent of this deal, too?  Green-friendly ESG funds are moving into fossil fuel investments, profiting from the mayhem green energy policies have produced.

And you thought these people were environmentalists and true believers. Joke’s on you. You’ve been played.

Visit The Daily Skirmish and Watch Eagle Headline News – 7:30am ET Weekdays

©Christopher Wright. All rights reserved.

RELATED TWEET:

Incendie de la #Tesla lundi 15 août 2016 à #Bayonne. Avant l’arrivée des pompiers. Voiture complètement détruite. pic.twitter.com/qT8h6ccFoP

— Cédric Faiche (@cedricfaiche) August 15, 2016

If Consumers, Businesses Cared About ‘Climate’, The Last Cars They’d Buy Are Hot-Selling Electric Vehicles thumbnail

If Consumers, Businesses Cared About ‘Climate’, The Last Cars They’d Buy Are Hot-Selling Electric Vehicles

/in , , , , , , /by

By The Geller Report

Governments are forcing the public to buy EVs even if they don’t want the WOKE nonsense.

Holman W. Jenkins, Jr., Wall Street Journal, “A zombie business or industry, in today’s parlance, is one sustained less by creative destruction than by a combination of government bailout, regulation and hidden subsidies. This is what the global auto sector is becoming.”

The Upside-Down Logic of Electric SUVs

The auto industry gambles its finances on big electric vehicles for the rich, like Ford’s Mustang Mach-E and GM’s Hummer EV, and second-rate cars for everybody else.

By Holman W. Jenkins, Jr., Wall Street Journal, July 25, 2022:

If consumers and businesses cared about the CO2 they emit, the last cars they might buy are hot-selling EVs like Ford’s Mustang Mach-E or GM’s Hummer EV.

These large-battery, long-range vehicles would have to be driven many tens of thousands of miles before they rack up enough mileage and save enough gasoline to compensate for the emissions created to produce their batteries. And that’s according to their fans, whose calculations often smell of friendly assumptions about the source of the electricity consumed, whether gasoline driving is really being displaced mile for mile, and a presumed lack of progress in the meantime in reducing the carbon intensity of conventional motor fuels. Most problematic of all is the assumption that EV use causes oil to stay in the ground.

If a real incentive to reduce CO2 were in place, namely a carbon tax, buyers would gravitate to the smallest-battery vehicles and hybrids, suitable for running about town but not highway trips. These cars stand a better chance of offsetting their lifecycle emissions.

OK. Buyers aren’t drawn to the electric Mustang or Ford’s new F-150 Lightning pickup to solve climate change. These are exciting, high-tech gadgets in their own right. And that’s fine. Even so, customers’ appetite might slacken if they were told the truth. Ford leaked this week for the benefit of the investment community plans to lay off thousands of workers to fatten the profits of its conventional vehicles. This extra cash is needed to support electric vehicles that lose money despite taxpayer rebates plus hidden subsidies via our convoluted fuel-economy and trade regulations.

This trade-off could actually lead to worse emissions than otherwise (though still a rounding error in total global emissions) considering that most nonrich consumers will likely opt for gasoline-powered cars for decades to come. It also represents a gamble with the industry’s finances, which depend on large, government-protected profits from standard SUVs and pickups. If these vehicles start looking shabby and out of date due to lack of investment, the industry is in deep straits. As Ford CEO Jim Farley said in March, “we need them to be more profitable to fund” Ford’s $50 billion in spending on mostly high-end EVs, which have the least chance of being net reducers of CO2.

These outcomes make no sense in climate terms, naturally. Nissan is giving up its pioneering electric Leaf in favor of a big electric SUV aimed at affluent shoppers. One manufacturer that speaks confidently of profits in the near term from electric vehicles is Porsche—whose cars don’t rack up Camry-like mileages, don’t displace gasoline-powered trips to the Shop-Rite, and don’t stand a snowball’s chance of offsetting the emissions involved in producing their powerful batteries.

Keep reading……

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLE: Charging an All Electric Car Uses 4 Times the Electricity of a Home Air Conditioner

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Gore: Eliminate Democracy to Save Planet thumbnail

Gore: Eliminate Democracy to Save Planet

/in , , , , , , , /by

By Jihad Watch

A guy who lost a presidential election but made a fortune has some thoughts on the political system.

Gore, in an interview with Meet the Press’ Chuck Todd that will air Sunday, said that public sentiment is changing in regards to climate change but that “democracy is broken,”

The only people who think “democracy is broken” want to eliminate it.

Much like “the Supreme Court is broken” or “the Constitution is broken.”

The former vice president also called for the filibuster to be eliminated, saying that “we have a minority government….we have big money playing much too large a role in our politics.”

Gore, who went from an estimated $1.7 million to over $200 million knows all about “big money” and where to get it.

The environmentalist scam has been adopted by green investors who want to hijack our entire economy, as they have already hijacked the economies of entire states, like California, and countries, like those of much of Europe, and they insist on destroying anyone who stands in their way.

AUTHOR

DANIEL GREENFIELD

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Fossil Fuels: Essential to Human Flourishing thumbnail

Fossil Fuels: Essential to Human Flourishing

/in , , , , , , /by

By MercatorNet – Navigating Modern Complexities

Despite the prevailing narrative, there are compelling arguments for the continued use of fossil fuels.

Fossil Future: Why Global Human Flourishing Requires More Oil, Coal and Natural Gas — Not Less By Alex Epstein | Portfolio, USA | 2022, 480 pages

Alex Epstein first shot to fame in 2014 with his counter-cultural bestseller, The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels.

In it, he provided an assertive defence of fuels which enable so many aspects of modern life, but which many suggest threaten our survival in the long-term.

His new work, Fossil Future: Why Global Human Flourishing Requires More Oil, Coal and Natural Gas — Not Less, continues in the same vein.

In the decade since Epstein’s emergence on the fringes of the climate debate, concerns about rising temperatures have grown with the effect that governments have committed themselves to ever-more radical decarbonisation policies, in particular the increased use of renewable energy sources like wind and solar.

Epstein accepts the scientific evidence that the increases in greenhouse gas emissions in recent centuries due to human activity have increased the Earth’s temperatures. At the same time, he rejects the central premise of the modern environmental movement by maintaining that this does not threaten the survival of our species.

Instead, he convincingly argues that the widespread availability of fossil fuels has been crucial in leading to an unprecedented improvement in living standards in the developed world.

Counterintuitive

Not only do fossil fuels allow us to do more things and enjoy a more comfortable existence, Epstein also writes that they help humanity to guard against natural disasters and the negative impact of a gradually changing climate. For this reason, we need more fossil fuel use, not less. He writes:

“[M]ore fossil fuel use will actually make the world a far better place, a place where billions more people will have the opportunity to flourish, including: to pull themselves out of poverty, to have a chance to pursue their dreams, and — this will likely seem craziest of all — to experience higher environmental quality and less danger from climate.”

Epstein maintains that it is especially vital that the billions of people in what he calls the “unempowered world”, who currently use almost no energy, can enjoy the benefits which so many of us take for granted.

One example of the suffering which energy poverty imposes is the fact that almost 800 million people have no access to electricity, while around 2.4 billion people still rely on wood and animal dung to cook and heat their homes.

Without easy access to oil, gas and coal, people living in these environments will never escape an existence which involves so much daily hardship.

Energy use is clearly correlated with various measurements of human progress (such as increased life expectancy), and the author cites the examples of China and India whose economic rise has largely been fuelled by coal and other fossil fuels.

Their rise forms part of an often unheralded advance in living standards which has occurred in recent decades, in which the extreme poverty rate worldwide has decreased from 35% in 1990 to less than 10% today.

Epstein insists that this transformation could not have happened without fossil fuels, and he maintains that they enjoy a range of advantages including greater affordability, reliability, versatility and scalability.

Valid arguments

When it comes to the statistics he cites, again it is difficult to argue with Epstein’s stance.

Fossil fuels provide 80% of the world’s energy, whereas solar and wind power provide just 3%. Crucially, unlike wind and solar, fossil fuels are not an intermittent source of energy. They can be more easily stored and transported, and far more energy is concentrated within them.

Contrary to the claims of some commentators, they are also not running out: proven oil and gas reserves have increased in recent decades, thanks in part due to new technologies being used to extract them like fracking, which the green movement continues to fight against tenaciously.

In the area of mobile energy, oil is especially important, and is responsible for meeting virtually all humanity’s needs in the areas of shipping, aviation and heavy-duty trucking, without which the global economy would come to a shuddering halt.

Throughout the book, Epstein describes the multitude of other ways in which fossil fuels make life possible, including the powering of agricultural and industrial equipment and the use of fossil fuel materials in a wide variety of synthetic materials.

Perception

There is something more at the core of Epstein’s argument other than the evidence attesting to the importance of high-quality energy sources.

He is a philosopher by training, and he believes that the refusal of many to acknowledge the aforementioned facts stems from the popularity of an anti-impact worldview. Those who hold this viewpoint tend to seek to minimise if not eliminate the impact which humans have on a world they consider naturally safe and untainted. This also helps to explain why green activists have long opposed the use of nuclear or even hydroelectric power, neither of which contribute to emissions significantly.

Rejecting this view outright, Epstein proposes an alternative framework based around “human flourishing”, one which considers the negative impacts of carbon dioxide emissions in the context of the “climate mastery” benefits which come from having abundant supplies of energy available and being more prosperous.

This ability to cope with the vagaries of the world around us has resulted in climate-related deaths falling by 98% over the last century, even while carbon dioxide levels increased. In a similar way, technological improvements in the area of flood protection — many of which are made possible by the availability of fossil fuels — means that over 100 million now live below the level of high tide in their home area.

Epstein does not deny that the increased use of fossil fuels which he seeks will likely accelerate the pace of global warming. Instead, he simply maintains that the benefits of expanding access to energy greatly outweigh the drawbacks, while also elaborating upon the reasons why he believes many people exaggerate the risks which climate change poses.

There are many things to admire about Epstein’s central argument — in particular the insistence on recognising the importance of affordable energy to continued human prosperity and progress.

At a time when increasingly alarmist rhetoric is accelerating unwise policies, his calm and reasoned take (along with that of others like the author of False Alarm, Bjorn Lomborg) is more needed now than ever.

Quibbles

That being said, Fossil Future does not represent a major advance on Epstein’s earlier book. It covers much of the same ground and at times his analysis is too simplistic.

There are significant differences between different fossil fuels, for example, with natural gas producing only half the emissions produced by coal. Indeed, the shift from coal to gas in electricity generation in the United States has been the cause of major emissions reductions there.

Yet though he compares different energy sources, Epstein does not devote enough attention to the question of whether some fossil fuels should be favoured over others.

Even those inclined to agree with his arguments may also be perturbed by the lack of concern which Epstein has about the risks posed by climate change, compared to the attitude of Lomborg — who likens the process to having “a long-term chronic condition like diabetes — a problem that needs attention and focus, but one that we can live with.”

Epstein’s lack of scientific qualifications is another drawback, and even though he presents a cogent explanation for why the media may be overestimating the problem of climate change, many people will not take this argument seriously until it is made more firmly by specialists in the area of climate science.

In spite of this, Epstein has once again succeeded in focusing attention on facts which cannot be avoided.

“The fossil fuel elimination movement is powerful only because it has a moral monopoly, meaning that it is widely considered the only moral position,” he tells us. This is true, and by presenting readers with an alternative moral and philosophical framework with which we can examine these issues, Alex Epstein has again made a valuable contribution.

Environmentalists Promising to Save Planet by Planting Trees Keep Starting Forest Fires thumbnail

Environmentalists Promising to Save Planet by Planting Trees Keep Starting Forest Fires

/in , , , , /by

By Jihad Watch

We had to burn the trees to save the trees… from us.

On Monday, Dutch reforestation company Land Life started what has become a 35,000 acre forest fire in Spain.

These things happen. And happen.

This is the second forest fire started by Land Life in a month.

I’m starting to think that environmentalists and the rest of us have very different definitions of saving the planet.

Here’s what Land Life claims that it does.

Land Life is a tech-driven reforestation company planting trees at scale. We use a holistic approach and all of the wonderful minds of our employees, partners, and customers to create projects that remove CO2 from the atmosphere, rebuild ecosystems and work in collaboration with local communities.

Here’s what it does

“The fire started while one of our contractors was using a retro-spider excavator to prepare the soil to plant trees later this winter,” Land Life said in a statement on Thursday. “The operators alerted the emergency services. The emergency teams are working non-stop to control the fire and have fortunately established the fire perimeter. Nonetheless, we are devastated by the latest estimate that the damage will be around 14,000 hectares,” or roughly 35,000 acres.”

How many acres of trees did Land Life even plant?

 It’s not clear how many acres Land Life has actually planted trees in—one blog post suggested the company aimed to plant around 20,000 acres between 2020-2021.

This is like the time that Bernie Sanders got kicked out of the Kibbutz.

The fire has forced authorities to order the evacuation of five neighboring towns, as well as a nursing home. In total, around 2,000 people had to be evacuated. Javier Lambán, the president of Aragon, said the incident is “serious and concerning,” according to local media.

Sometimes you have to break a lot of eggs to make an omelet. Or burn a lot of trees to make a forest. Or crash a lot of computers to make an OS.

As of January 1, 2021 Ernst-Jan Stigter, general manager of Microsoft in the Netherlands, will join Land Life Company as the new CEO.

This explains too much.

I’m in favor of planting trees. Personally. We just probably shouldn’t let environmentalists do it. Or much of anything else. Like at the end of Rainbow Six, take everything, leave them in the jungle knowing that while they might all get eaten by anacondas and fire ants, at least that will remove their carbon emissions from the planet.

AUTHOR

DANIEL GREENFIELD

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Charging an All Electric Car Uses 4 Times the Electricity of a Home Air Conditioner thumbnail

Charging an All Electric Car Uses 4 Times the Electricity of a Home Air Conditioner

/in , , , , , /by

By Dr. Rich Swier

Watch as Congressman Thomas Massie (R-KY) puts Biden’s Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg on the spot during a hearing on the cost to charge all electric vehicles on Tuesday, July 18th, 2022.

Congressman Massie states, “Numbers are important. It would take four times as much electricity to charge the average household’s cars as the average household uses on air conditioning. Do you think that could be — so, if we reach the goal by 2030 that Biden has of — of 50 percent adoption instead of 100 percent adoption, that means the average household would use twice as much electricity charging one of their cars as they would use for all of the air conditioning that they use for the entire year.”

In a December 21st, 2021 column titled Electric Cars vs. Gas Cars: Is the Conventional Wisdom Wrong? Bill Wirtz reported,

Electric vehicle batteries need a multitude of resources to be manufactured. In the case of cobalt, the World Economic Forum has called out the extraction conditions in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where more than half of the world’s cobalt comes from. Miners as young as seven years are suffering from chronic lung disease from exposure to cobalt dust. Not only does battery manufacturing account for 60 percent of the world’s cobalt use, but there are also no good solutions to replace it, which is something Elon Musk is struggling with.

This does not even address the extraction procedures, complications, ethical conditions, and emissions produced by the need for aluminum, manganese, nickel, graphite, and lithium carbonate.

With a European market estimated to reach a total of 1,200 gigawatt-hours per year, which is enough for 80 gigafactories with an average capacity of 15 gigawatt-hours per year, that need is set to increase exponentially.

The renowned German research institute IFO declared the eco-balance of diesel-powered vehicles to be superior to electric vehicles in a study released in April.

In an April 7th, 2022 column titled The Environmental Downside of Electric Vehicles Michael Heberling reported,

An electric vehicle requires six times the mineral inputs of a comparable internal combustion engine vehicle, according to the International Energy Agency.

At one time, “Saving the Environment” and “Fighting Climate Change” were synonymous. That is no longer true. The quest for Clean Energy through electric vehicles (EVs) epitomizes “the end justifies the means.”

According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), an electric vehicle requires six times the mineral inputs of a comparable internal combustion engine vehicle (ICE). EV batteries are very heavy and are made with some exotic, expensive, toxic, and flammable materials.

The primary metals in EV batteries include Nickel, Lithium, Cobalt, Copper and Rare Earth metals (Neodymium and Dysprosium). The mining of these materials, their use in manufacturing and their ultimate disposal all present significant environmental challenges. Ninety percent of the ICE lead-acid batteries are recycled while only five percent of the EV lithium-ion batteries are.

The Bottom Line

All electric vehicles (EVs) are costly to manufacture, use exotic, expensive, toxic, and flammable materials, harm the environment and harm those children working in the mines in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where more than half of the world’s cobalt comes from.

Now we learn that Biden’s Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg has not idea what it costs the ordinary American family to own, charge and maintain EVs. If you purchase a Tesla is will cost $45 for their outlet, and an estimated  installation cost of between $750-$1500.

You see it’s not about the environment, saving the planet from climate change or what is best for the American family.

It’s all about their green agenda and its ideology. The ends justifying their nefarious means!

The American consumer be damned.

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

TEAM ENERGY: 10 Steps to Unlock American Energy, Fuel Economic Recovery, & Strengthen National Security. thumbnail

TEAM ENERGY: 10 Steps to Unlock American Energy, Fuel Economic Recovery, & Strengthen National Security.

/in , , , , /by

By Dr. Rich Swier

We recently received a text message from Team Energy—Energy Citizens on their efforts to make American energy independent again. The text message stated, “Did you see that recently we unveiled a 10 in 2022 Plan to restore US energy leadership & fuel economic recovery? It’s no secret that energy and fuel prices are rising & with this plan policymakers can help unlock American energy, fuel economic recovery, & strengthen national security. Read the plan & sign your name: text.energycitizens.org/10in22.”

CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE TEAM ENERGY—ENERGY CITIZENS 10 STEP PLAN TO RESTORE U.S. ENERGY LEADERSHIP

According to the Team Energy—Energy Citizens website:

We live in very uncertain times. Inflation is at historic levels. The cost of fuel is soaring.

Global and domestic supply chains are in disarray. Vladimir Putin’s brutal war in Ukraine has brought suffering and instability to Europe not seen since World War II.

Each of these challenges has a direct tie to energy, and each can be improved with assertive American energy leadership. Unfortunately, the federal government is not doing everything it can to unleash American energy potential. In some cases, policymakers in Washington are standing firmly in the way of strengthening our domestic energy sector.

That’s why we are calling on Congress and the administration to enact 10 simple – but significant – policy reforms that will boost American energy potential, ease inflation and supply chain woes, and bolster our allies in Europe that are most impacted by the war in Ukraine.

Washington policymakers must support policies that encourage energy investment, create new access, improve our supply chains, and keep unnecessary regulation from restricting energy growth. 10 in 2022 will take major steps to achieve these vital goals.

The world is calling out for energy leadership. America can and should step up fast.

ABOUT TEAM ENERGY

Our Mission

We are passionate and determined to see our nation develop balanced energy policies that strengthen our communities, support our families and make our nation more secure. We encourage discussion about our nation’s energy issues.

Energy Citizens is a movement focused on keeping America #1 in energy production and putting America’s national security first. We are a diverse community of Americans who strongly believe that, in order to have a better future, we need affordable, reliable, and safe energy.

©Team Energy—Energy Citizens. All rights reserved.

If Climate Change Is a Dire Threat, Why Is No One Talking about Nuclear Power? thumbnail

If Climate Change Is a Dire Threat, Why Is No One Talking about Nuclear Power?

/in , , , /by

By Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

A common (legitimate) concern with nuclear is unhealthy radiation, its usage actually emits less radiation than the burning of coal.

There is a deafening silence surrounding nuclear energy. Yet, if you are to believe the current climate alarmism on display, the world’s future is hanging by a thread. Indeed, the forceful climate marches in London last week, the Greta Thunberg-ization of the world’s youth, and David Attenborough’s new Netflix documentary are all symptoms of a growing call to arms. According to them, climate change is real and impending, and, in young Greta’s words, they “want you to panic.”

The situation appears dire. Yet, assuming it is, there seems to be a gap in reasoning. Politicians like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are calling for a “Green New Deal,” which would seek to remove America’s carbon footprint by 2030 by “upgrading” every single one of the 136 million houses in America, completely overhauling the nation’s transport infrastructure (both public and private), and somehow simultaneously guaranteeing universal health care, access to healthy food, and economic security—without any consideration of cost. In other words, a complete pie-in-the-sky scheme that is more concerned with virtue-signaling than with pragmatic reality.

But if these people truly care about the environment and the damage being caused by climate change, why is no one talking about nuclear?

Nuclear is fully carbon-free and therefore a “clean” energy source in carbon terms. This is crucial considering the primary villain of climate change is CO2; switching to nuclear would directly cut out carbon emissions and thus represent a significant step forward, except for the construction phase (which would create a one-off nominal carbon debt about equal to that of solar farms). It has successfully contributed to decarbonizing public transport in countries such as Japan, France, and Sweden.

It is also often overlooked that nuclear is the safest way to generate reliable electricity (and far safer than coal or gas) despite Frankenstein-esque visions of nuclear meltdowns à la Chernobyl, which are ridiculously exaggerated and exceedingly rare.

Nuclear is also incredibly reliable, with an average capacity of 92.3 percent, meaning it is fully operational more than 330 days a year, which is drastically more reliable than both wind and solar—combined.

Finally, whereas a common (legitimate) concern with nuclear is that it creates unhealthy radiation, its usage actually emits less radiation than, for example, the burning of coal. Moreover, the problem posed by waste is more psychological and political nowadays than it is technological. Despite the Simpsons-inspired image of green, murky water, nuclear waste is, in fact, merely a collection of old steel rods; the nuclear waste produced in America over the last 60 years could all fit into a single medium-sized Walmart. Furthermore, it is not only securely stored in concrete-and-steel casks in the middle of deserts, but it also loses radiation over time and can actually be recycled to extend the life of nuclear production by centuries.

There are explicit success stories that attest to the power of nuclear. France and Sweden, which have some of the lowest per capita carbon emissions in the developed world, both rely heavily on nuclear (72 percent and 42 percent, respectively) rather than on wind or solar power. France generated 88 percent of its electricity total from zero-carbon sources, and Sweden got an even more impressive 95 percent. At the same time, these countries have some of the lowest energy prices in Europe, whereas renewable-heavy countries such as Germany and Denmark have the two highest energy prices on the continent—without much carbon reduction to show for it relative to France and Sweden.

So why, if people such as Ms. Ocasio-Cortez care as much about the climate as they claim to, are they seemingly so blindly attracted to over-ambitious, unrealistic proposals? Indeed, a near-utopiazation of renewables fails to take into account many of the issues associated with these while neglecting the advantages of nuclear.

Renewable energy isn’t always reliable, as mentioned (which makes sense when you consider the fact that the sun doesn’t always shine, and the wind doesn’t always blow). When the reliability of these renewables falters (wind turbines only provide energy 34.5 percent of the time, and solar panels an even lower 25.1 percent), expensive and carbon-heavy stop-gap measures act as backup.

There are also ecological problems. Wind and solar farms require tremendous amounts of wildlife-cleared land and are often protested by local conservationists. Electricity from solar panels on individual homes, on the other hand, a plan AOC apparently endorses, is twice as expensive, thus making it unaffordable for many American households. Though the debate rages, there is also a case to be made for the fact that wind turbines represent serious hazards to rare and threatened birds such as eagles and other birds of prey. They also threaten marine wildlife such as porpoises and coral reefs.

When compared more directly with various forms of renewable energy, the narrative also skews in nuclear’s favor. Solar farms require 450 times more land than do nuclear power plants; nuclear plants require far fewer materials for production than solar, wind, hydro, or geothermal; and solar produces up to 300 times more hazardous waste per terawatt-hour of energy than nuclear.

Yet the issues aren’t merely technological and ecological. Indeed, there is an argument that renewables such as solar and wind will become more and more efficient and cheaper over time, which is certainly true (though some experts dispute the net validity of this claim). A different problem, however, is that the context within which they are promoted, such as the “Green New Deal,” often translates into economic madness (the GND would cost up to $90 trillion according to some). It is striking how the Green New Deal encapsulates not only climate change but also health care, jobs, and housing.

Indeed, it goes much further than simply combating the issues facing our environment, incorporating a much wider agenda of socio-economic transformation. And this is why some, such as Michael Shellenberger (president of Environmental Progress—a pro-nuclear, climate change NGO), argue that left-wing politicians in the mold of Ms. Ocasio-Cortez idealize renewables: they provide an environmentalist façade for increased government intervention in areas far beyond the climate.

Of course, nuclear isn’t perfect; it is still very expensive (though this is increasingly solvable through more standardization and long-termism), the risk of Fukushima-like disasters will probably always exist, and the localized environmental impacts are concerns to be addressed. Most importantly, the political will is still lacking.

Despite the fact that the public and private sectors spent a combined $2 trillion between 2007 and 2016 on solar and wind power, solar energy still only accounted for 1.3 percent, and wind power 3.9 percent, of the world’s electricity generation in 2016. Operating at a scale of 94 times more in federal subsidies in America for renewables than for nuclear, this looks like an unsustainable trend. Imagine if it had been invested in nuclear instead.

Rather, the Ocasio-Cortezes of the world, who are by far the most vociferous when it comes to climate change, should put money where their mouths are. Though this article is far from exhaustive and was unable to account for all the nuances and intricacies of environmental and energy policy, it seems that, at the very least, nuclear deserves a spot at the table if we are serious about saving our planet.

AUTHOR

Christopher Barnard

Christopher Barnard is the Head of Campaigning & Events for Students For Liberty UK, as well as a final-year Politics & International Relations student at the University of Kent. He tweets at @ChrisBarnardDL.

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

REPORT: Biden Poised To Declare Climate Emergency To Ram Through Green Agenda thumbnail

REPORT: Biden Poised To Declare Climate Emergency To Ram Through Green Agenda

/in , , , , , , /by

By The Daily Caller

President Joe Biden could declare a climate emergency as soon as this week, according to The Washington Post, in a bid to implement elements of his environmental agenda as climate legislation has stalled in Congress.

Leading Biden administration officials are debating ways to advance the president’s agenda, and the president is prepared to announce a number of new initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, reported the Post, citing three people familiar with the matter. The internal discussions come after Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia told party leaders last week that he opposes the plans to advance this month’s significant economic package that includes billions of dollars toward slashing carbon emissions and promoting green energy.

White House Economic Adviser Jared Bernstein told reporters at a press briefing Monday that Biden would work “aggressively to attack climate change.”

“Realistically there is a lot he can do and there is a lot he will do,” Bernstein stated.

“Unilaterally declaring a climate emergency will not reduce emissions by one molecule,” American Exploration & Production Council CEO, Anne Bradbury said on Twitter Tuesday. “In fact, many of the policies that could follow from declaring a climate emergency would increase emissions while driving up costs for American families.”

Democratic lawmakers are also calling on Biden to use his powers to enact further climate policies amid failed legislative action and the Supreme Court’s recent decision to limit the regulatory abilities of the Environmental Protection Agency.

On Monday, Democratic Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon said it was time for Biden to take massive, unilateral executive actions on climate change, even if the Supreme Court rules them unconstitutional.

“There is probably nothing more important for our nation and our world than for the United States to drive a bold, energetic transition in its energy economy from fossil fuels to renewable energy,” Merkley told reporters on Monday, according to the Post.

“This also unchains the president from waiting for Congress to act,” Merkley said, referencing the recent legislative impasse.

Meanwhile, Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, who chairs the Senate Finance Committee, said that lawmakers should continue to pursue legislation in a statement on Monday.

“While I strongly support additional executive action by President Biden, we know a flood of Republican lawsuits will follow,” Wyden said, according to the Post.

“Legislation continues to be the best option here,” he added.

AUTHOR

JACK MCEVOY

Contributor.

RELATED TWEET:

WH’s @PressSec: Warm summer weather forcing POTUS to take exec action aimed at stopping the climate from changing pic.twitter.com/X95Zfr8FcT

— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) July 19, 2022

RELATED ARTICLE: Joe Manchin Drives A Stake Through Democrats’ Economic Package

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

The Author Who Warned Us Against Blindly Trusting ‘The Science’ thumbnail

The Author Who Warned Us Against Blindly Trusting ‘The Science’

/in , , , , /by

By Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

Thomas Kuhn’s 1962 work “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” revealed why we should not confuse scientists with science.

“Attacks on me are, quite frankly, attacks on science,” said Anthony Fauci to widespread ridicule or approval, depending upon which side you are on. If you doubt his judgment personally, you must not believe in “the science.” Fauci went on to claim that all of the “things he’s talked about” were “fundamentally based on science.”

Let’s put the weasel words aside and recognize that what he wants you to believe – that all his official policy recommendations (“all the things I’ve talked about”) were firmly proven effective through application of the scientific method – is demonstrably false. The most rigorous, most scientific studies show precisely the opposite.

Fauci was a proponent of what has become to be known as “lockdowns,” the widespread closure of businesses and/or stay-at-home orders for the general population. Dozens of studies show this had no demonstrable effect on the spread of Covid-19. As one after another came out, Fauci went on talking about lockdowns as if this evidence did not exist.

Now, there are studies being conducted every day on this or that aspect of Covid-19 and I’m sure Fauci and his supporters can produce links to some that support lockdowns. While there are no absolutes, here is a general observation: the most scientific studies – the randomized controlled trial studies with large sample sizes measuring results in the real world – tend to point towards the inefficacy of nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs). NPIs include (anti)social distancing, masks, and lockdowns.

Less scientific studies – those with small sample sizes or based on laboratory experiments rather than experience in the real world – tend to point towards efficacy. Remember the experiment on mannequins wearing masks? You get the picture.

Let’s not forget that early in 2020 Fauci said a study based on a single case of asymptomatic spread of Covid-19 “lays the question to rest.” And guess what? It turned out the patient documented in the case had never been asked if she had symptoms. When it turned out she was symptomatic at the time of transmission, the study was unpublished. Subsequent studies failed to prove asymptomatic spread was significant. A December 2020 study looking at secondary attack rates within the same household – published right on the NIH (Fauci’s agency) website – says it’s miniscule if it exists at all.

Yet, Fauci goes on talking as if this study doesn’t exist. He has no choice. Without asymptomatic spread, there is no justification for lockdowns or mandating masks for asymptomatic people.

On a rare occasion where the largely useless national media confronted Fauci with a question about how Texas could be doing so well four weeks after abandoning all Covid restrictions, he had no answer. “Maybe they’re doing more outside,” he mused. Then, he went on recommending the same policies as if the question had never been posed.

Fauci wasn’t alone. When White House coronavirus advisor Anthony Slavitt was asked why locked down and masked California and restriction-free Florida were having similar results in terms of Covid spread, he began his answer with perhaps the only honest words that have escaped a public health official’s mouth: “There is so much of this virus that we think we understand, that we think we can predict, that is just a little bit beyond our explanation.” But then, in literally the same breath, he said we do know masking and social distancing work.

Now, you don’t have to be a trained journalist for the obvious follow-up question to occur to you: “No, Mr. Slavitt, the question I just posed to you suggests we don’t know masking and social distancing work because we are seeing equivalent results in states that are and are not following those policies.”

Of course, that follow-up was not put to Slavitt. And you really have to ask yourself why.

The failure of scientists to be scientific is not a new phenomenon. Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) dealt directly with the tendency of scientists to reject evidence that contradicts the prevailing theory or “paradigm.”

“Part of the answer, as obvious as it is important,” wrote Kuhn, a Harvard educated philosopher of science, “can be discovered by noting first what scientists never do when confronted by even severe and prolonged anomalies. Though they may begin to lose faith and then to consider alternatives, they do not renounce the paradigm that has led them into crisis.”

Kuhn’s overall thesis challenged the prevailing understanding at the time that science proceeds in a linear fashion, with new discoveries incrementally adding to the accumulated knowledge that preceded them. Instead, argued Kuhn, science throughout history has featured a series of revolutions, where paradigms like the geocentric theory of the solar system or Newtonian physics collapsed under the weight of “anomalies” (evidence which contradicted the theory) and made way for new paradigms like the heliocentric theory of the solar system and Einsteinian physics.

There is much nuance in Kuhn’s argument which his critics have tended to ignore, but one takeaway that we’re seeing proved in real time is that these scientific revolutions are only revolutionary because of the tendency for scientists to cling to a theory regardless of evidence that refutes it. Kuhn argues that scientists will not abandon a disproven theory until a new theory is presented that they are convinced explains the evidence better than the old.

What makes the New Normal so strange is that a scientific revolution occurred with no anomalies. It was firmly established by a century of scientific research that suggested nonpharmaceutical interventions weren’t effective in combating respiratory viruses. Indeed, Fauci himself initially repeated the established scientific consensus that lockdowns and mask mandates were not effective policy responses. He even discouraged people from voluntarily wearing masks.

Then, he and the rest of the government scientists did a complete about face. There was no new evidence that motivated this. They simply abandoned the prevailing scientific consensus based on a desire to do something – even though the scientific evidence before, during, and after the outbreak of Covid-19 said what they wanted to do wouldn’t work. As a result, there is now a New Normal paradigm based on…nothing.

It should be noted that there were plenty of non-government scientists protesting vehemently right from the beginning. The authors of the Great Barrington Declaration were already loudly protesting lockdowns as early as April 2020. Others contested asymptomatic spread, the mortality rate initially reported (they were right), and the efficacy of masks.

Here is the problem. This New Normal paradigm can’t collapse in the face of anomalies, no matter how numerous they are, because the anomalies are now simply ignored. Anyone who calls attention to them, no matter how credentialed or qualified, is systematically discredited.

In such an environment, unsubstantiated assertions like “Covid-19 spreads asymptomatically” and “lockdowns and mask mandates work” continue to form the basis of policy. The same goes for vaccine mandates.

It’s not that evidence against New Normal science can no longer be found. Much of it is available right on the websites of the government agencies denying it. It is simply a matter of saying “no” when governments and media demand you refuse to believe your lying eyes and obey.

Obedience has a price. We will be feeling the economic effects of lockdowns for many years. An entire generation of children will suffer psychological damage from being forced to wear masks during their most formative years. The damage to society as a whole from lockdowns, mask mandates, and (anti)social distancing policies may be immeasurable.

Neither can you simply go along to get along until things “get back to normal.” If and when the COVID Crisis finally ends, there is a Climate Crisis already teed up to begin as surely as night follows day. It will feature the same breathless media propaganda and ignoring of contrary evidence as did the COVID Crisis. The cost this time will be a significantly and permanently lower standard of living for you and your children.

That’s the price of obedience. Are you willing to pay it?

This article was reprinted with permission from tommullen.net.

AUTHOR

Tom Mullen

Tom Mullen hosts the Tom Mullen Talks Freedom podcast and is the author of Where Do Conservatives and Liberals Come From? And What Ever Happened to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness? and A Return to Common  Sense: Reawakening Liberty in the Inhabitants of America. His podcast episodes and writing can be found at www.tommullentalksfreedom.com.

RELATED ARTICLE: Biden Poised To Declare Climate Emergency To Ram Through Green Agenda: REPORT

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

‘Peak climate insanity’ — Manchin Rejects $2 Trillion Pork Barrel Climate Spending Bill thumbnail

‘Peak climate insanity’ — Manchin Rejects $2 Trillion Pork Barrel Climate Spending Bill

/in , , , , , , /by

By Marc Morano

Morano: “I liken it to they compare the climate crisis to having cancer and the green energy transition, the Green New Deal is their version of chemotherapy. Yeah, you’re gonna be sick, you’re gonna be vomiting, you’re gonna be laid up, but just when you get to the other side of that, you’re gonna be cancer free or in this case, climate crisis-free. So in their minds, this is the necessary bitter medicine that we have to go through — that the Netherlands is going through. What Sri Lanka is going through. What Germany and England are going through, as they’re facing blackouts and energy shortages and economic devastation and inflation.”

Morano on Fox & Friends:

‘We’ve reached peak climate insanity’ as Sen. Manchin kills Biden’s bill – ‘Completely unhinged’ activists claim a pork barrel fed spending bill will alter Earth’s geologic history!

Climate activists are ‘completely unhinged’ after Manchin decision: Climate publisher | https://t.co/ARJXEte1L1

— Dr. Rich Swier (@drrichswier) July 19, 2022

Broadcast July 16, 2022 – Fox News Channel

Morano: “The New York Times quoted a University of California professor who said she was ‘sobbing’ at this news.  (Dr. Leah C. Stokes on Twitter: “Manchin says he won’t support the climate bill. I’m holding my children and sobbing.”

Morano: Sen. Chuck Schumer is ‘shell-shocked’. The House Budget Committee Chairman said ‘we’re all going to die’. We have a climate activist Bill McKibben actually saying that Joe Manchin’s name is going to be a geologic era in the Earth —  that Manchin is altering the geologic history of the earth. They are completely unhinged because one politician is not going to support a pork barrel spending bill, which they somehow think is going to save the planet. Just another pork barrel spending bill in Washington somehow has this power. We’ve reached peak climate insanity.”

[ … ] 

Green energy transition so worth it?!

Morano: “I liken it to they compare the climate crisis to having cancer and the green energy transition, the Green New Deal is their version of chemotherapy. Yeah, you’re gonna be sick, you’re gonna be vomiting, you’re gonna be laid up, but just when you get to the other side of that, you’re gonna be cancer free or in this case, climate crisis-free. So in their minds, this is the necessary bitter medicine that we have to go through — that the Netherlands is going through. What Sri Lanka is going through. What Germany and England are going through, as they’re facing blackouts and energy shortages and economic devastation and inflation.”

By: Marc Morano – Climate Depot – July 17, 2022 8:07 AM

Climate activists are ‘completely unhinged’ after Manchin decision: Climate publisher – Fox News Channel – Broadcast July 16, 2022

Climatedepot.com publisher Marc Morano praises Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., for rejecting a climate spending bill and slams climate activists for pushing ‘necessary bitter medicine’ solutions to the climate.

Rough Transcript:

Will Cain: Climate spending bill potentially doing any major green legislation before the midterms…So does (W.VA) Sen. Manchin make a good case here with reaction is Marc Morano, publisher of ClimateDepot.com. Marc, great to see you this morning. You know, I think it’s unavoidable. It’s interesting what happens overseas what is happening across the world. You know, we’re seeing precursors of it right here back home when not that’s food shortages in Sri Lanka, climate change proposals in the Netherlands. And here’s Joe Manchin, seemingly standing in the way at least in part of some of this stuff, making it back to the United States.

Marc Morano: Yes, I’ve already said Europe is much further ahead with the insanity of their energy policy than the United States. So if you want to know what’s going to happen in the US, look to Europe, and we’re seeing devastating energy news in Europe. And what Joe Manchin did — what he did was phenomenal. It reveals that just insanity of the current climate energy movement, Green New Deal movement if you will, he pulled out of this deal that they were trying to push on him with all sorts of bribes on the climate bill that President Biden is pushing the build back better $2 trillion.

And the New York Times quoted a University of California professor who said she was ‘sobbing’ at this news. (Dr. Leah C. Stokes on Twitter: “Manchin says he won’t support the climate bill. I’m holding my children and sobbing.”

Sen. Chuck Schumer is ‘shell-shocked’. The House Budget Committee Chairman said ‘we’re all going to die’. We have a climate activist Bill McKibben actually saying that Joe Manchin’s name is going to be a geologic era in the Earth —  that Manchin is altering the geologic history of the earth.

They are completely unhinged because one politician is not going to support a pork barrel spending bill, which they somehow think is going to save the planet. Just another pork barrel spending bill in Washington somehow has this power.

We’ve reached peak climate insanity.

Kudos to Joe Manchin for withstanding the pressure he’s under. He’s had activists and events surrounding him in the street chanting, ‘We want to live’ surrounding him not even letting him walk this video footage. They have targeted him, the climate activists, the Green New Deal activists, and he has stood strong and not given into their demands.

Will Cain: So Marc, how do you explain the insanity? Do you think that the likes of Chuck Schumer and others look across the world and see what’s going on with hyperinflation and food shortages and think it’s disconnected from climate policies or do they think that you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet that it’s worth, you know, it’s worth a little human suffering to save the habitat?

Marc Morano: You’re spot on Will. That’s exactly what they think. When you hear everyone from Transporation Sec. Pete Buttigieg to Treasury Sec. Janet Yellen. They believe this is going to be a painful transition, but it’s necessary.

I liken it to they compare the climate crisis to having cancer and the green energy transition, the Green New Deal is their version of chemotherapy. Yeah, you’re gonna be sick, you’re gonna be vomiting, you’re gonna be laid up, but just when you get to the other side of that, you’re gonna be cancer free or in this case, climate crisis-free.

So in their minds, this is the necessary bitter medicine that we have to go through — that the Netherlands is going through what Sri Lanka is going through what Germany and England are going through, as they’re facing blackouts and energy shortages and economic devastation and inflation.

It’s all worth it because we’re going to solve the climate crisis, which is nuts because even John Kerry, the U.S. climate envoy said if the US and Europe zeroed out our emissions the Earth wouldn’t even notice in terms of CO2 emissions because China, India, the developing world’s economies are ramping up so fast that global CO2 emissions are going up. So if we were trying to save the planet, just hamstringing our economy and punishing our people has no impact on global emissions.

Will Cain: You know what I would love to see Marc, and we’ll leave it here. But I would love to see their description of the planet post — in your analogy, chemotherapy. What is their description because we have that they have told us piecemeal, it’s fewer humans on this earth? So it’s less population. I’m sure it’s not going to apply to them and their families. You know, it’s less impact on the earth. So whatever that means shorter lifespans, fewer people, less human flourishing. I’d like to know Bill McKibben, his description of a healthy planet because I think we wouldn’t all agree with the picture of health.

Marc Morano great to talk to you this morning.

Marc Morano: Thank you Will.

“We’re all going to die”: Dems irate at Manchin for tanking climate change part of new BBB bill – “We’re all going to die,” House Budget Committee Chairman John Yarmuth, D-Ky., told reporters when asked about the consequences of Congress failing to act… “Unfortunately, we have one Democrat who thinks he knows better than every other Democrat,” he said…

New York Times GUEST ESSAY: What Joe Manchin Cost Us – By Leah C. Stokes – Dr. Stokes is an associate professor of political science at the University of California, Santa Barbara. – Excerpt: “Like other young people, Mr. Manchin’s grandchildren will grow up knowing that his legacy is climate destruction.  …  Hold your children close tonight. Leave some water out for the birds. And make a plan to call your elected leaders to demand climate action, to rip out your fossil fuel furnace or to buy an e-bike. The climate crisis is getting worse, and Congress is one vote short of saving us.”

Rolling Stone: ‘Joe Manchin Just Cooked the Planet’ by not supporting Biden’s massive federal spending bill — ‘Condemned virtually every living creature on Earth to a hellish future of suffering, hardship, & death’

JEFF GOODELL of Rolling Stone: “West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin just cooked the planet. I don’t mean that in a metaphorical sense. I mean that literally. Unless Manchin changes his negotiating position dramatically in the near future, he will be remembered as the man who, when the moment of decision came, chose to condemn virtually every living creature on Earth to a hellish future of suffering, hardship, and death.”

New York Times: John Podesta, former senior advisor to President Obama: “It seems odd that Manchin would choose as his legacy to be the one man who single-hadedly doomed humanity.”  …

“Privately, Senate Democratic staff members seethed and sobbed on Thursday night, after more than a year of working and weekends to scale back, water down, trim and tailor the climate legislation to Mr. Manchin’s exact specification, only to have it rejected from the finish line.”

Politico Editor On Manchin’s No To Biden’s BBB: ‘Objectively devastating for the planet. The last best chance at climate change legislation is gone’

The Sunrise Movement, a youth movement to stop climate change, said in a post on Twitter that “Joe Manchin and the fossil fuel industry don’t care if we make it out of this climate crisis dead or alive. This is #PeopleVsFossilFuels.”

Michael Mann: “Joe Manchin just launched a hand grenade at [UN climate summit in] Glasgow,” Michael Mann, a distinguished professor of atmospheric science at Pennsylvania State University, tweeted. “W/out a clean energy standard in the reconciliation package, Biden admin cannot meet pledge of 50% reduction in U.S. carbon emissions by 2030. And international climate negotiations begin to collapse.”

‘Build Bank Bankrupt’: Watch: Morano’s 30 min speech in Glasgow at climate skeptic forum – ‘How many times do we have to save the planet?’

Marc Morano joined the Ezra Levant Show to discuss Democrat Sen. Joe Manchin single-handedly throwing a wrench in Joe Biden’s legislative agenda, halting his climate and tax plans.

U.S. cannot fulfill climate change pledges if Manchin won’t vote for clean energy, experts say

Economic chaos is GOOD for climate?! NYT praises inflation as way ‘to drive welcome change for the planet’ – ‘Adjust what we eat to save both our pocketbooks & our planet’

Climate Depot’s Marc Morano: “The New York Times seems bent on updating Gordon Gekko’s phrase from the 1987 film Wall Street: Chaos, for lack of a better word, is GOOD. Climate activists in academia, the Biden admin. and the media seem to think the more humans suffer, the more the planet will benefit. This is more evidence that economic calamity, debt, inflation, supply chain issues, and skyrocketing meat and energy costs are not the unintended consequences of the climate agenda, but the INTENDED consequences. Chaos conditions the public to accept more centralized control of their lives. Vladimir Lenin reportedly once said, ‘worse is better’ or ‘the worse, the better’ to cheer on chaos and the destruction of the existing order to impose his ideology.”

Also see: Climate Depot News Round-Up: 

Watch: Morano on Tucker Carlson on energy & food chaos: ‘This is a war against modern civilization’ – World Economic Forum & UN seek ‘controlling humans’

Media Matters calls Morano a ‘notorious climate denier’ & ‘a proponent of the Great Reset conspiracy theory’

Climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels RIP

https://www.climatedepot.com/2022/07/17/watch-morano-on-fox-friends-weve-reached-peak-climate-insanity-as-sen-manchin-kills-bidens-climate-agenda-completely-unhinged-activists-claim-a-pork-barrel-fed-spendin/

©Marc Morano. All rights reserved.

Climate-Related Deaths Are at Historic Lows, Data Show thumbnail

Climate-Related Deaths Are at Historic Lows, Data Show

/in , , , , , /by

By Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

Since the 1920s, atmospheric CO2 concentrations increased from about 305 parts per million to more to more than 400 ppm.

The latest talking point of progressive politicians, pundits, and activists is that America cannot afford not to spend trillions of dollars to “solve the climate crisis” because global warming is an existential threat. As Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) put it, “You cannot go too far on the issue of climate change. The future of the planet is at stake, OK?”

That is sham wisdom even if climate change were the terror Sen. Sanders imagines it to be. The resources available to public and private decision makers are finite. Resources allocated to “climate action” are no longer available to make mortgage payments, pay college tuitions, grow food, fund medical innovation, or build battleships. Prudent policymakers therefore not only consider the costs of policy proposals but also compare the different benefit-cost ratios of competing expenditures. As it happens, the benefit-cost ratios of carbon suppression policies are abysmal.

For example, just the direct expense of the electric sector portion of the Green New Deal would, conservatively estimated, cost $490.5 billion per year, or $3,845 per year per household, according to American Enterprise Institute economist Benjamin Zycher. Yet even complete elimination of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions would avert only 0.083°C to 0.173°C of global warming 70 years from now—a policy impact too small to discernibly affect weather patterns, crop yields, polar bear populations, or any other environmental condition people care about.

The climate “benefit” over the next 10 years would be even more minuscule. Yet during that period, Zycher estimates, the annual economic cost of the GND electric sector program would be about $9 trillion. It is unwise to spend so much to achieve so little.

The doomsday interpretation of climate change is a political doctrine, not a scientific finding, as Danish economist Bjorn Lomborg shows in a recent series of tweets and University of Alabama in Huntsville atmospheric scientist John Christy explains in a new paper titled “Falsifying Climate Alarm.”

Nobel economist Stiglitz tells us we need to suffer through hardship equal to World War III to fight climate change

His economic arguments for accepting policy costs of $100+ trillion are unfocused and wrong

Climate seems to eradicate any common sensehttps://t.co/kuVJDlYMjH

— Bjorn Lomborg (@BjornLomborg) June 4, 2019

In the aforementioned tweets, Lomborg rebuts an op-ed by Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz, who advocates spending trillions of dollars annually to combat climate change, which he calls “our World War III.” As evidence, Stiglitz claims that in recent years weather-related damages cost the U.S. economy 2 percent of GDP—a figure for which he gives no reference.

Lomborg deftly sets the record straight. Aon Benfield reinsurers estimate that during 2000-2017, weather-related damages cost the United States about $88 billion annually, or 0.48 percent of GDP per year, not 2 percent. More importantly, extreme weather is a natural feature of the Earth’s climate system. The vast majority of those damages would have occurred with or without climate change. “Does Stiglitz believe there is no bad weather without climate change?” Lomborg asks.

Click here for United States Economic and Insured Losses chart.

In the United States, hurricanes are the biggest cause of weather-related damages. Hurricanes have become more costly over the past 120 years but not because of any long-term change in the weather. Once historic losses are adjusted for increases in population, wealth, and the consumer price index, U.S. hurricane-related damages show no trend since 1900.

Click here for Continental US Landfalling Normalized Total Economic Damage (1900-2017) chart.

The past three decades are generally agreed to be the warmest in the instrumental record. Yet during that period, damages due to all forms of extreme weather as a share of global GDP declined. In other words, despite there being many more people and lots more stuff in harm’s way, the relative economic impact of extreme weather is decreasing. It is difficult to reconcile that trend with claims that ours is an “unsustainable” civilization.

Click here for Global Weather Losses as Percent to Total GDP 1990-2018 chart.

Lomborg provides an even more telling rebuttal point in a previous Tweet. Since the 1920s, atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations increased from about 305 parts per million to more than 400 ppm, and global average temperatures increased by about 1°C. Yet globally, the individual risk of dying from weather-related disasters declined by 99 percent.

Click here for Deaths from Climate and non-Climate Catastrophes 1920-2017 chart. 

Stiglitz claims we cannot afford not to spend trillions to mitigate climate change because “our lives and our civilization as we know it is at stake, just as they were in World War II.” Lomborg notes that in the peer-reviewed literature, unchecked climate change is estimated to cost 2-4 percent of global GDP in 2100. That “is not the end of the world,” especially considering that, despite climate change, global per capita incomes in 2100 are expected to be 5-10 times larger than today.

Ironically, in the “socio-economic pathways” (SSPs) literature, the richest SSP is the one that relies most on free markets and fossil fuels.

Click here for Socio-Economic Pathways Chart.

Source: Keywan Rhiahi et al. 2017. “This world [SSP5] places increasing faith in competitive markets, innovation and participatory societies to produce rapid technological progress and development of human capital as the path to sustainable development. . . . At the same time, the push for economic and social development is coupled with the exploitation of abundant fossil fuel resources and the adoption of resource and energy intensive lifestyles around the world.”

John Christy’s new paper, published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, summarizes two of his recent peer-reviewed studies. In 2017, Christy and fellow atmospheric scientist Richard McKnider examined 37.5 years of satellite data in the global troposphere (bulk atmosphere). Christy and McNider factored out the warming effects of El Ninõ and the cooling effects volcanic aerosol emissions. The underlying greenhouse warming trend—the dark line (e) in the figure below—is 0.095°C per decade, or about one-fourth the rate forecast by former NASA scientist James Hansen, whose congressional testimony launched the global warming movement in 1988.

Click here for The Updating the Estimate chart.

Christy and McNider estimate that when atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations double, global warming will reach 1.1°C—a quantity called “transient climate response.” Christy comments:

This is not a very alarming number. If we perform the same calculation on the climate models, you get a figure of 2.31°C, which is significantly different. The models’ response to carbon dioxide is twice what we see in the real world. So the evidence indicates the consensus range for climate sensitivity is incorrect.

In 2018, Christy and economist Ross McKitrick set out to test the accuracy of climate models. They examined model projections in the atmosphere between 30,000 and 40,000 feet, in the tropics from 20°N to 20°S. The atmosphere warms fastest in that portion of the atmosphere in almost all models used by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), such as the Canadian Climate Centre model, shown below.

Click here for the Hotspot in Canada Model chart.

In 102 model runs, the average warming in the “hot spot” portion of the tropical atmosphere is 0.44°C per decade, or 2°C during 1979-2017. “However, the real-world warming is much lower; around one-third of the model average,” Christy reports.

Click here for Tropical mid-Tropospheric Temperatures, Models vs. Observations chart.

Christy sums up the test results:

You can also easily see the difference in warming rates: the models are warming too fast. The exception is the Russian model, which has much lower sensitivity to carbon dioxide, and therefore gives projections for the end of the century that are far from alarming. The rest of them are already falsified, and their predictions for 2100 can’t be trusted. If an engineer built an airplane and said it could fly 600 miles and the thing ran out of fuel at 200 and crashed, he wouldn’t say ‘Hey, I was only off by a factor of three’. We don’t do that in engineering and real science. A factor of three is huge in the energy balance system. Yet that’s what we see in the climate models.

Statements like the following are increasingly common in popular media, academic journals, and political discourse: “The evidence that anthropogenic climate change is an existential threat to our way of life is incontrovertible.” Not so—not even close.

This CEI article was republished with permission.

AUTHOR

Marlo Lewis Jr.

Marlo Lewis, Jr. is a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Lewis writes on global warming, energy policy, and public policy issues. Marlo has been published in The Washington Times, Investors Business Daily, TechCentralStation, National Review, and Interpretation: A Journal of Political Philosophy. He has appeared on various television and radio programs, and his ideas have been featured in radio commentary by Rush Limbaugh and G. Gordon Liddy.

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The End of Private Car Ownership thumbnail

The End of Private Car Ownership

/in , , , , /by

By Jihad Watch

You will drive nothing and you will be happy.

The term “pedestrian” has a derogatory meaning because peasants walked while nobles were “equestrians” and rode horses. The industrial revolution eliminated this class difference, as it did so many others, by making car ownership available to the masses until eventually Herbert Hoover was able to boast that “Republican prosperity has reduced and increased earning capacity” to “put the proverbial ‘chicken in every pot’ and a car in every backyard to boot.”

Democrats have spent two generations trying to get those cars out of every backyard.

Biden is trying to bring back Obama’s mileage standards that were estimated to raise car prices by 20%.The goal is to “nudge 40% of U.S. drivers into electric vehicles by decade’s end.”

Will 40% of Americans be able to afford electric cars that cost an average of $54,000 by 2030?

Not likely. Nor are they meant to. Biden’s radical ‘green’ government, which includes Tracy Stone-Manning, the former spokeswoman for an ecoterrorist group as the head of the Bureau of Land Management, isn’t looking to nudge drivers into another type of cars, but out of cars.

Gas prices are a way to price Americans out of car ownership under the guise of pushing EVs.

Biden’s Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm responded to American concerns about high gas prices by urging them to buy electric cars. Granholm, who had promoted a green energy tycoon who spent years in prison for fraud, who had served on the board of directors of an electric battery company, and made millions divesting stock in an electric vehicle manufacturer, is a fan.

“Most electric vehicles are now cheaper to own than gas-powered cars from the day you drive them off the lot,” Granholm tweeted.

That isn’t actually true, but actual cars have become more expensive to own, largely because of efforts by the Biden administration, and by various states, including California. That hasn’t however made electric cars any more affordable for ordinary Americans.

The average price of an electric car shot up to $54,000 in May. Car prices in general have risen in the Biden economy, but electric cars are naturally expensive. The raw material costs for an average electric car are up to over $8,000. That’s compared to $3,600 for an actual car.

When your raw material costs are that high, electric cars will be inherently unaffordable.

The Obama administration pumped billions in taxpayer money into battery and electric car manufacturing, the majority of which failed, on the theory that enough government subsidies would lower battery costs. Not only was much of that money lost, but currently electric battery costs hover around the $160 kilowatt-hour mark. Green boosters cheer that’s far down from over $1,000 per kWh a decade ago, but that still adds up to the reality that an electric car capable of traveling for even short distances needs a battery that alone costs thousands.

The Nissan Leaf, which approaches $30,000 once the reality of MSRP in the current sales market is taken into account, is one of the cheapest electric cars around, and has a range of only 149 miles. Replacing its battery can set back car owners $6,500 to $7,500. And that’s even when you can manage to find one or someone willing to replace it. In less than 3 years, Leafs lose 20 miles of range. By the fifth year, they have lost 30 miles. And it’s all downhill from there.

The Nissan Leaf was initially a hit, but car manufacturers quickly realized that anyone willing to overpay that much for substandard performance had money to burn. The electric car market is now thoroughly dominated by luxury vehicles subsidized by taxpayers. And the Leaf went from 90% market share to less than 10%. The EV market is now a taxpayer-funded status symbol.

The dirty truth about the “clean” car market is that it consists of traditional car companies and Tesla frantically trying to unload a limited share of luxury electric cars on wealthy customers to cash in on the emissions credits mandated by states like California. Tesla makes more money reselling these regulatory credits to actual car companies than it does selling cars. Taxpayers and working class car-owners pick up the bill for the entire luxury electric vehicle market.

A market that they are shut out from by design.

The “green” vision is not a world in which everyone has their own electric car. It’s one of collective transport, of buses, light rail, and car-pooling through shared rides and roving self-driving cars. The only vehicle the average consumer is supposed to own is a bicycle.

While the Biden administration is still pretending that it’s out to “encourage” electric car ownership by making actual cars too expensive for much of the country to afford, others are saying the quiet part out loud.

“Car-lovers will doubtless mourn the passing of machines that, in the 20th century, became icons of personal freedom. But this freedom is illusory,” an Economist article predicted.

“There will be fewer cars on the road—perhaps just 30% of the cars we have today,” the head of Google’s self-driving car project predicted.

“The days of the single occupancy car are numbered,” Brook Porter at G2 Venture Partners, a green energy investment firm, thundered in an article titled, The End of Cars in Cities.

Dan Ammann, the former president of GM, claimed that “the human-driven, gasoline-powered, single-passenger car” is the “fundamental problem” in a post titled, “We Need to Move Beyond the Car”. He has since gone to work for Exxon-Mobil.

Predictions are cheap, but car bans are expensive and all too real. The European Union voted to back a ban on the sale of non-electric cars by 2035. California is also pushing for a similar 2035 ban on the sale of new actual cars in the state. Officials noted that the ban would push more than half of mechanics out of work and leave much of the state unable to afford cars.

Canada has its own 2035 car ban. Last year, Governor Newsom and Governor Cuomo, along with 10 other governors, urged Biden to impose a 2035 car ban on all Americans.

Electric cars aren’t actually “cleaner”. The mining processes that produce “green” technologies are as dirty, if not dirtier, and trade dependence on oil for dependence on rare earth metals, and dependence on the Middle East for dependence on Communist China. The one thing that they decisively accomplish is to make it impossible for ordinary Americans to own cars.

And that is what environmentalists really want. But not just them.

The vision of a nation in which private car ownership is a luxury good, in which cars have been priced out of the reach of most people through environmental measures that concentrated on gas-powered vehicles, and then added more taxes and fines for the waste” and “inefficiency” of an individual owning a vehicle is not very far away.

The technocratic sales pitch is that ride-sharing and self-driving cars will make car ownership unnecessary. Why own a big clunky machine when you can own nothing and be happy?

The reality is that car ownership offers mobility and independence. That is exactly what the leftist radicals making social policy want to eliminate. Gas prices are not Putin’s price hike, they’re the green dream. And that dream isn’t to put you in a Nissan Leaf. It’s the Pol Pot dream of dismantling civilization and rolling back the industrial revolution.

Once the dark age norms of their dark enlightenment are restored, peasants will go back to being pedestrians and only the progressive philosopher kings will ride.

AUTHOR

DANIEL GREENFIELD

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

RELATED ARTICLES:

FABRICATING REALITY: Climate Change, Atmospheric Transgenderism and Mental Masturbation

FACT: All Electric Vehicles (EVs) Are Powered by Coal, Uranium, Natural Gas or Diesel-Powered Energy

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Marx and the Banning of Elements in the Periodic Table thumbnail

Marx and the Banning of Elements in the Periodic Table

/in , , , /by

By Vlad Tepes Blog

Examining the problem, reaction, solution/thesis, counter thesis, solution, or the dialectic scam of the left.

There certainly seems to be more than one understanding of this phrase. Here is our shot at it. Of course, there are scholars of Hegel/Marx who read this site, and we welcome any corrections or other interpretations of this well known phrase.

Picking Global Warming as an example, we have a completely invented problem which of course can be manipulated in any way needed to end up at the point you want to land on. Primarily, the destruction of the West with its notions of free market economy and individual rights. Since the problem is fake, and created and enforced by “consensus” (See video below) all the reactions from people calling it out as fake must be dealt with using the dialectic attack of hate speech. This was fabricated by a second generation Frankfurt School acolyte, a certain Habermas, in the form of “Discourse Theory”.

For the past many decades, various leftist controlled governments and leftist think tanks, have attempted to use the element of Carbon as a means to control industry and humanity in a highly selective manner. Like slavery as an issue, we must only examine the ‘problem’ of CO2 production in Western and free market nations, more accurately perhaps, in cultures with the concept of individual rights as being sacrosanct. We must not look at slavery in Africa or Islam ever but must focus on the past actions in The USA pretty much exclusively in terms of passing moral judgment. And we must not look at really dirty industrial activity, let alone CO2 production in China or India but must pretend that CO2 produced by any and all means connected to humans in the West as an existential threat to the entire planet.

There should be no need to try and disprove the idea that CO2 is a problem on this site. I do have a dedicated page to the science of it here on Vlad but I don’t maintain it very well as to engage in a debate based on a lie is to lose that debate since only one side seeks to know the truth and the power of the lie is much greater in the short run. At least where the goal is destruction.

One fact though, is that where CO2 is produced, more life happens. Plants grow etc. Plants, and life, are made of carbon. Even on the side of highways, plants tend to thrive from a truly poisonous form of carbon, CO1 or Carbon monoxide. CO2 is actually pumped into greenhouses to help plants hit their optimal growth rate.

But let’s pretend that CO2 production was a problem. Then why are those who wrap themselves in a false flag of environmentalism, so opposed to nuclear power? Its the obvious solution to those who claim that carbon dioxide is an existential threat to the planet. Whatever the issues with nuclear power, it cannot be as bad as that.

And then there is this:

Geothermal

A very worthy deeper dive:

So we have a solution now for food production that is safe, energy efficient and absorbs far more carbon than it produces.

Global Warming is a consensus based thing though. Meaning communists agreed on creating it and presenting it as an existential problem in order to get to the solution they want, which is communism. No real world approach to solving even the non-problem of “global-warming” will be entertained and any attempt to expose it as the fraud it is will be met with charges akin to hate speech. “Climate-denier” for example, makes moral equivalence with a Holocaust denier to one who would deny the ‘existential threat of global warming’. A fairly palpable use of the Hate-Speech tactic.

More recently, in order to destroy farming in the Netherlands and replace these farms with what will almost certainly be beehive brutalist housing for illegal mostly Muslim and African migrants forced on the local population since before 2015, a new element and compound had to be demonized as an existential threat. Nitrogen, which makes up damn near 80% of the total atmosphere, and ammonia.

I won’t even bother to deal with the issue of nitrogen. To think that the tiny amount of nitrogen released on a few dutch farms justify the actions against farmers we see in the Netherlands is even worthy of rebuttal on that basis, means a lack of understanding of the tactic at play. Much like when one knows that nearly all human beings are born either a man or a woman (with the exception of extremely few genetic mutations which end with those individuals as they tend to be sterile) and to pretend these are fungible is, well risible.

So let’s look at the new threat of ammonia.

How could we somehow solve the issue of ammonia in a way that would satisfy those who claim its a problem while maybe at the same time, solving other problems many are concerned about:

The bottom line is:

The problems we are bombarded with, from Covid to vaccine hesitancy. From global warming to cow flatulence. From Nitrogen to ammonia, are all fake problems which, even by engaging about it, causes us to lose. These are not problems at all, and some, to the extent they might be, are selectively enforced against the Western nations and peoples with zero effort to deal with these non-problems in places like China, North Korea, India and other places where the raw production of these gasses and so on are orders of magnitude higher than in the West.

We need to understand that so much of what we engage with on a day to day basis is we, the intellectual descendants of Socrates, being constantly basted with pseudo-reality and false cosmologies in order to destroy Western civilization where it actually lives.

In our own minds.

Eeyore for VladTepesBlog.

EDITORS NOTE: This Vlad Tepes Blog column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

STAY INFORMED

Receive regular news, commentary, and analysis straight to your inbox.

POWERED BY

DrRichSwier.com | ThePricklyPear.org

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.