A federal court granted a preliminary injunction Wednesday against the Biden administration’s “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) rule that extends the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) regulatory authority.
The new rule, which defines what “navigable waters” are subject to government regulation under the Clean Water Act, allowed the EPA to claim regulatory authority over lands containing small streams and wetlands. District of North Dakota Judge Daniel Hovland granted 24 states who sued the EPA over the rule in February a preliminary injunction on Wednesday, finding they have “persuasively shown that the new 2023 Rule poses a threat to their sovereign rights and amounts to irreparable harm.”
“The States involved in this litigation will expend unrecoverable resources complying with a rule unlikely to withstand judicial scrutiny,” the court found.
BREAKING: The Court has granted our motion for preliminary injunction halting President Biden’s unconstitutional WOTUS rule. His interpretation of WOTUS is nothing more than a land grab usurping the rights of Missouri farmers to control their property.
— Attorney General Andrew Bailey (@AGAndrewBailey) April 12, 2023
Hovland also stated that the rule appears to “directly” affect landowners who are now “potentially subject to federal jurisdiction and permitting requirements,” forcing them to “undertake expensive assessments or forgo their activities.” He noted the “dire need” for clarification on what constitutes a navigable water, holding out hope that the Supreme Court’s pending decision in Sackett v. EPA will settle the issue.
A huge win for Indiana! The District Court for North Dakota granted us a preliminary injunction for our multi-state lawsuit challenging the new WOTUS rule. Now, the overreaching rule can’t be implemented or enforced in our state. Read the decision here: https://t.co/9B90EvuqaU
“Until then, every state will continue to swim in waters of uncertainty, ambiguity, and chaos,” Hovland wrote.
Last week, President Biden vetoed a bipartisan bill designed to overturn the new rule. Republicans have criticized the rule for the burden it places on farmers and landowners.
“The agencies are reviewing the decision and their options,” an EPA spokesman told the DCNF. “The agencies continue to believe the rule, which is informed by the text of the relevant provisions of the Clean Water Act and the statute as a whole, as well as the scientific record, relevant Supreme Court case law, input from public comment, and the agencies’ experience and technical expertise after more than 45 years of implementing the longstanding pre-2015 regulations defining waters of the United States, is the best interpretation of the Clean Water Act.”
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2023-04-12 18:51:162023-04-12 18:51:16Federal Court Blocks Biden’s Far-Reaching ‘Waters Of The United States’ Regulation
The head of one of America’s largest financial institutions, Chase Bank, says the electric vehicle ideology being pursued by the Joe Biden administration could be dangerous.
In fact, according to Jamie Dimon, such moves could imperil national security.
In a report from Just the News, it explained how Dimon’s comments came in the company’s 2022 annual report.
The top Democrat Party donor says he has concerns about Biden’s agenda.
“China … and its economic muscle to dominate batteries, rare earths, semiconductors or EVs, could eventually imperil national security by disrupting our access to these products and materials,” Dimon explained in the company’s 2022 report.
“We cannot cede these important resources and capabilities to another country.”
The Biden administration and others have admitted the U.S. needs to move to a position of being less dependent on China’s battery and semiconductor industries.
But analysts point out independence on such issues remains “far away.”
NOTE: James Dimon is an American billionaire businessman who has been the chairman and chief executive officer of JPMorgan Chase since 2005. Dimon was previously on the board of directors of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2023-04-11 17:51:142023-04-11 17:51:14CEO of JPMorgan Chase & Co.: Biden’s EV Addiction Could Hurt National Security
“Damn the whales, full speed ahead” seems to be the offshore wind policy of Biden’s NOAA. They now propose to approve yet another site survey, just 10 miles off Atlantic City. These surveys are the top suspect for the recent wave of dead whales, centered on New Jersey.
The site is a big one because the offshore wind project is huge. Phase 1 is a whopping 1,500 MW, which means over 100 monster turbine towers. The survey area is around 1,500,000 acres or an incredible 2,300 square miles.
Ironically the project is called Atlantic Shores, which is where all the dead whales are washing up. In fact this is basically a renewal of a prior permit. NOAA acts as though nothing has changed, ignoring the horrible New Jersey whale deaths.
NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is taking public comments on this preposterous proposal, details below.
The proposal’s cursory environmental impact assessment is ridiculously simple minded. NMFS itself predicts that a great many (supposedly protected by them) marine mammals will be subjected to unsafe levels of survey noise. See https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/s3/2023-03/AtlanticShoresHRG_2023_Proposed_IHA_OPR1.pdf
NOAA predicts the number of adverse impacts by species, but here are the staggering numbers by category:
42 Whales
2,534 Dolphins
142 Porpoises
1,472 Seals
Total = 4,190 adversely impacted marine mammals
Here is NOAA’s basic argument:
“….only Level B harassment is proposed for authorization, which NMFS expects would be of a lower severity, predominately in the form of avoidance of the sound sources that may cause a temporary abandonment of the location during active source use that may result in a temporary interruption of foraging activities for some species. NMFS does not expect that the proposed activity will have long-term or permanent impacts as the acoustic source would be mobile and would leave the area within a specific amount of time for which the animals could return to the area.”
In short these thousands of large animals will get the hell out of the way and come home when the survey is over, in a year or so. Apparently NMFS thinks this massive forced relocation is harmless. Despite having hundreds of scientists on staff they cannot think of how it might be harmful.
Here are two obviously harmful possibilities, among many.
First, the site is deliberately in a relatively low ship traffic area, surrounded by high traffic zones. This is one of the busiest ship traffic areas in the world. Being forced to relocate into higher traffic areas is virtually certain to increase the incidence of fatal ship strikes.
Second, moving this many animals into territory already occupied by similar animals should greatly increase the population densities for each species. But the food supply remains the same, which could lead to food scarcity.
The treatment of the severely endangered North Atlantic Right Whale is especially egregious. NOAA says this:
“…the size of the survey area (5,868 km2) in comparison with the entire migratory habitat for the North Atlantic right whale (BIA of 269,448 km2) is small, representing 2.11 percent of the entire migratory corridor.”
Right Whales migrate through the area twice a year, going between offshore Georgia and New England so the “corridor” is indeed large, but this is irrelevant. What is crucial is that the survey area is about 35 miles wide East to West and almost all of the migrating whales presently pass through this space. Thus the survey has the potential effect of blocking the migration, or at least seriously disrupting it, taking nearly 100% of the needed space not 2.11%.
Despite all of the above predicted and potential impacts, NOAA maintains that this proposed authorization is exempt from the environmental impact assessment requirements of NEPA. They specifically claim there is “no anticipated serious injury or mortality”.
They should anticipate a little harder. NEPA requires assessment if injury is reasonably likely. Injury and death certainly are reasonably likely here, to thousands of supposedly protected marine mammals, including the severely endangered Right Whales.
More deeply, the Atlantic Shores Wind Project has yet to be approved and may never be. Hugely disruptive site surveys should not be authorized until the Project is approved.
Here is the basic comment statement: “Comments should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. Written comments should be submitted via email to ITP.Potlock@noaa.gov “
I suggest as an email subject line: “Comment on proposed Atlantic Shores IHA”. Simple objection is sufficient but specific arguments are always useful. Anyone can comment.
In the offshore wind stampede Biden’s National Marine Fisheries Service has lost sight of its mission to protect marine mammals.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2023-04-11 16:51:362023-04-11 16:51:36Ignoring dead whales, NOAA proposes another site survey off New Jersey
President Joe Biden vetoed a bipartisan bill Thursday that would limit his administration’s broad interpretation of the “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) rule that grants the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) significant new authority.
The president rejected the bill, arguing that his administration’s new rule provides “clear rules of the road” to protect both economic efforts and water quality under the Clean Water Act, according to the veto. The rule dramatically expands the traditional limits of WOTUS — which allow the EPA to regulate navigable waters — to include all territorial seas, interstate waters, adjacent wetlands, traditional waters’ tributaries and some artificial reservoirs.
“The resolution would leave Americans without a clear definition of ‘Waters of the United States,’” Biden said in the veto. “The increased uncertainty caused by H.J. Res. 27 would threaten economic growth, including for agriculture, local economies, and downstream communities.”
Opponents of the rule currently lack the votes required to overcome the president’s veto.
Following a presidential veto, “Americans will need to hope the Supreme Court makes it clear that these EPA bureaucrats are way outside the authority that Congress actually provided in the Clean Water Act,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said in a March statement following the resolution’s passage by the Senate. He decried the Biden administration’s interpretation of the rule as a “radical power grab that would give federal bureaucrats sweeping control over nearly every piece of land that touches a pothole, ditch, or puddle.”
President Biden has once again turned his back on Iowa farmers and rural America.
His veto of @HouseGOP’s bipartisan resolution to overturn his overreaching WOTUS rule will saddle our producers with red tape, increase grocery bills for our families & threaten our food security.
Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, one of four Democratic senators who supported the bill, also issued a statement in March, encouraging the president to sign the bill.
“The Administration’s WOTUS rule is yet another example of dangerous federal overreach,” said Manchin in the statement. “The proposed changes would inject further regulatory confusion, place unnecessary burdens on small businesses, manufacturers, farmers and local communities, and cause serious economic damage. It is essential to ensure clean water for all West Virginians and Americans, but we can achieve this without regulating our hard-working people out of business.”
“The Biden administration’s WOTUS rule creates unnecessary confusion & burdensome red tape for [Montana] farmers, ranchers & landowners—that’s why the Senate voted to overturn it,” Republican Sen. Steve Daines said in a tweet immediately following the announcement. “[Joe Biden’s]veto today shows just how far he’s willing to go to impose big government regulations on [Montanans].”
A federal judge in late March stopped the Biden administration from implementing the rule in Texas and Idaho. At the time, the EPA told the Daily Caller News Foundation that it believes the expanded rule “is the best interpretation of the Clean Water Act,” and noted that it was still going into effect “in all other jurisdictions in the U.S.”
The EPA did not immediately respond to a DCNF request for comment.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2023-04-08 00:51:172023-04-08 00:51:17Biden Vetoes Bipartisan Attempt To Repeal EPA’s ‘Waters Of The United States’ Rule
According to the globalists, climate change is the No. 1 threat to humanity, necessitating radical quality of life sacrifices and the total relinquishing of privacy and freedom
Climate change is also being used to explain away food shortages, justify the need to move people from the countrysides and suburbs into smart cities, and promote the replacement of beef with insects. The COVID-19 pandemic was even blamed on it
Globalists want health (which includes both medicine and food, under the new “food is medicine” agenda), climate action and energy control to be addressed not as three separate issues but as one
One of the globalists’ fraudulent solutions to the purported climate crisis is Environmental, Social and Corporate Governance (ESG) investing. A company’s ESG score is supposed to tell investors how socially conscious the company is, but recent scandals have revealed ESG is a scam
Carbon trade refers to the buying and selling of credits that allow a company to emit a certain amount of carbon dioxide. By buying credits from nonpolluters, industry can continue to pollute. Basically, like ESG investing, the carbon trade is a globalist scam intended to lower the living standards of the poor and usher humanity into carbon slavery
According to the globalists, climate change is the No. 1 threat to humanity, necessitating radical quality of life sacrifices and the total relinquishing of privacy and freedom. Germany’s health minister Karl Lauterbach, for example, in December 2020 proclaimed that addressing climate change will require restrictions on personal freedom, similar to those implemented to “flatten the curve” of COVID.1
Similarly, British economics professor Mariana Mazzucato in September 2020 warned that “In the near future, the world may need to resort to lockdowns again — this time to tackle a climate emergency.”2 The World Economic Forum (WEF), the United Nations and the World Health Organization have also published articles stating their intent to “fight climate change” by shutting down society.3
Climate change is also being used to explain away food shortages, justify the need to move people from the countrysides and suburbs into smart cities, and promote the replacement of beef with insects. The COVID-19 pandemic was even blamed on it.
Health, Climate and Energy To Be Addressed as One Issue
Just about anything is now being justified on the basis that it helps address climate change. Indeed, dietary controls, energy control, carbon restrictions and climate change are increasingly tied together, whether it makes sense or not, and the reason for this can be found in a September 2022 WEF article4 co-written by the director of WHO’s Environment and Health Department. As noted in this article, titled “How to Fight the Next Threat to Our World: Air Pollution”:
“[W]orld leaders must put health at the core of climate action and social equity. The fight for clean air can accelerate the reduction of climate-warming emissions, the shift to cheaper and more reliable energy sources and justice for the marginalized and most vulnerable communities … We can confront these crises more effectively and fairly if we address them as one …”
In other words, health (which includes both medicine and food, as government has now launched a “food is medicine” agenda), climate action and energy control are to be addressed not as three separate issues but as one. The potential implications of this are enormous.
If the WHO ends up having sole power over global health, combining health, climate and energy issues into one will automatically give the WHO the de facto power to seize control over society in general.
They could issue climate lockdowns, for example, on the basis that lockdowns reduce pollution, hence improving public health. That the WHO will jump at the opportunity to implement climate lockdowns in particular can be seen in the WHO “Manifesto for a Healthy Recovery From COVID-19,” which states:5
“The ‘lockdown’ measures that have been necessary to control the spread of COVID-19 have slowed economic activity, and disrupted lives — but have also given some glimpses of a possible brighter future. In some places, pollution levels have dropped to such an extent that people have breathed clean air, or have seen blue skies and clear waters, or have been able to walk and cycle safely with their children — for the first times in their lives …
Opinion polls from around the world show that people want to protect the environment, and preserve the positives that have emerged from the crisis, as we recover …
Decisions made in the coming months can either “lock in” economic development patterns that will do permanent and escalating damage to the ecological systems that sustain all human health and livelihoods, or, if wisely taken, can promote a healthier, fairer, and greener world.”
This manifesto also lays out many other aspects of The Great Reset agenda, including smart cities, travel restrictions, new food systems, a complete transition to green energy and more. But again, the thing that will really facilitate all of these changes is to have a centralized powerbase, and that is the WHO.
We’re now told we have to sacrifice our standard of living because we have a responsibility to save the planet. However, ‘green solutions’ are a gigantic scam designed to disempower and control everyone but the ones at the very top of the power pyramid, while accomplishing little in terms of producing a cleaner environment, let alone having a distinct effect on climate. The WHO could also mandate individual carbon footprint tracking,6 as carbon emissions are claimed to be a primary contributor to climate change. A likely argument would be “We have to rein in our personal carbon footprint because pollution is deadly, and if you don’t, you’re responsible for the death of others.”
Sacrificing selfhood and the rights of individuals to “serve the greater good” is a hallmark call of authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, and they used this “care for others” argument during COVID to pressure people into compliance with everything from lockdowns and social distancing to wearing a mask and getting the jab.
The same narrative is also being used to prop up the “climate emergency.” We’re now told we have to sacrifice our standard of living because we have a responsibility both for others and for the earth itself.
However, while pollution is a reality that needs to be addressed, the solution the totalitarian cabal is offering is a gigantic scam designed to disempower and control everyone but the ones at the very top of the power pyramid, while accomplishing little in terms of producing a cleaner environment, let alone having a distinct effect on climate.
The ESG Scam
One of the globalists’ fraudulent solutions to the purported climate crisis is Environmental, Social and Corporate Governance (ESG) investing, first popularized in 2004.7 In more recent years, ESG funds have gained steam and now make up about 10% of all invested assets.8
A company’s ESG score is supposed to tell investors how socially conscious the company is, based on its behavior within the environmental, social and corporate sphere. For example, does the company have safeguards in place to protect the environment or policies to address climate change?
How “equitable” is its relationship with employees, suppliers, customers and the local community? And how does it stack up in terms of company leadership, executive pay, audits, internal controls and shareholder rights?
Has the company taken steps to eliminate conflicts of interest that encourage self-dealing by executives? Does it conduct independent audits and is there a traceable line of fiduciary duty? And so on.
ESG investing is supposed to encourage companies to act responsibly, but it’s actually having the opposite effect. Somehow or other, companies are greasing the right hands and getting great ESG ratings, only to later turn out to have the worst governance possible and/or a track record of environmental destruction.9
One of the latest in a long line of scandals is that of FTX, a cryptocurrency exchange that went belly up overnight while its CEO, Sam Bankman-Fried absconded with up to $2 billion of client funds.
John Ray, the appointed CEO of FTX’s bankruptcy stated: “Never in my career have I seen such a complete failure of corporate controls and such a complete absence of trustworthy financial information as occurred here.”
FTX’s ESG score really ought to have been nonexistent. Cryptocurrencies are extremely energy-intensive and wasteful (the “E” in the score), customer satisfaction (part of the “S” in the score) within the crypto space had been tanking for over a year, courtesy of the repeated evaporation of wealth.
As for the “G,” FTX had no board of directors, an “irregular ownership structure,” was rife with conflicts of interest and self-dealing, and had no financial controls whatsoever. Bankman-Fried didn’t even keep an accurate list of accounts. Yet at the time of FTX’s demise, it had a higher governance score than Exxon Mobil. As reported by Forbes:10
“Of the many dimensions of the FTX fiasco, the most shocking is the comprehensive failure of corporate governance, now becoming clear as the bankruptcy process unfolds. Sloppy and likely illegal management practices at FTX have raised doubts that extend beyond the company to call into question the whole crypto premise. They also cast doubt on the integrity of the ESG rating business …
ESG — broadly, let us call it ‘virtuous investing’ — is now a big business in the investment world. ESG ratings … purport to score capitalists (i.e., private-sector profit-driven corporations) against a melange of ‘goodness’ indicia of all sorts. Does the company’s business model help or hurt the Amazon forest?
Does the firm have enough ADA-rated bathrooms? Does it offer paternity-leave to its employees (regardless of gender)? Does it have board members who check all the right diversity boxes? …
ESG has captivated many, on both the ‘buy-side’ of the market … and on the ‘sell-side’ … But ESG is still a fluid concept, and much has been made recently of the inconsistencies and discrepancies in the ratings. For many, the core of ESG is G … Governance is the tip-of-the-spear when it comes to creating sustainable business models. It all starts from the top, which guides every other aspect all the way down …
According to a recent academic study of six prominent ESG rating agencies … ‘ESG ratings from different providers disagree substantially…’ Most of the divergence/confusion arises from differences in measurement methodology and execution. But there is also evidence of bias: ‘we detect that the rater’s overall view of a firm influences the measurement of specific categories’ …
The panoramic failure of FTX this month highlights a flawed governance framework, which today’s simplistic virtue metrics fail to reflect accurately — hence the absurd rankings cited for FTX vs Exxon and others.”
FTX isn’t alone in falling short of expectations though. According to a September 2021 report by climate change think tank InfluenceMap, more than half of the 723 funds marketed using ESG claims failed to meet the Paris Accord rules on carbon emissions and clean energy, and more than 70% of funds with broad ESG goals failed to meet global climate targets.11
Similarly, a May 2021 report12 by the Economist concluded some of the largest ESG funds in the world are “stuffed full of polluters and sin stocks.” A 2019 report by the Wall Street Journal13 also noted, “Eight of the 10 biggest U.S. sustainable funds are invested in oil-and-gas companies, which are regularly slammed by environmental activists.”
In short, the ESG investing scheme is yet another globalist scam that allows them to promote their own agenda outside of the democratic process.
Wind turbines, solar panels and electric-everything is touted as the answer to the purported climate crisis, yet most of these “green” solutions are far more environmentally destructive than oil and gas.14
Many also end up requiring more fuel rather than less. Importantly, there aren’t even enough minerals in the world to allow even a single country to go 100% electric. As just one example, to replace the 31.5 million vehicles in the U.K. with electric cars will require twice the global supply of cobalt!15 The math just doesn’t work.
So, are the globalists stupid? No. They’re fully aware they can’t replace all gas-powered cars with EVs, be it by 2030 or 2050. See, they know you won’t even be allowed to travel very far by the time the EV goals and mandates go into effect, so you won’t need a car in the first place.
Forcing states and countries to transition to EVs merely speeds up the end goal of preventing you from owning a car and driving anywhere. It also justifies the creation of “15-minute cities.”
Farmers Are Being Pushed Into Carbon Slavery
As Vandana Shiva, Ph.D., cofounder of the Indian NGO Navdanya, has warned, we are being ushered into carbon slavery. As explained in Navdanya’s report, “Earth Democracy: Connecting Rights of Mother Earth to Human Rights and Well-Being of All”:16
“If ‘feeding the world’ through chemicals and dwarf varieties bred for chemicals was the false narrative created to impose the Green Revolution, the new false narrative is ‘sustainability’ and ‘saving the planet.’
In the new ‘net zero’ world, farmers will not be respected and rewarded as custodians of the land and caregivers … the providers of our food and health. They will not be paid a fair and just price for growing healthy food through ecological processes, which protect and regenerate the farming systems as a whole.
They will be paid for linear extraction of fragments of the ecological functions of the system, which can be tied to the new ‘net zero’ false climate solution based on a fake calculus, fake science allowing continued emissions while taking control over the land of indigenous people and small farmers.
‘Net Zero’ is a new strategy to get rid of small farmers … through the burden of fake carbon accounting. Carbon offsets and the new accounting trick of ‘net zero’ does not mean zero emissions. It means the rich polluters will continue to pollute and also grab the land and resources of those who have not polluted — indigenous people and small farmers — for carbon offsets.”
Bill Gates has alluded to this double-standard in responding to those who criticize him for the hypocrisy of being a serious polluter himself, with a 66,000 square-foot mansion, a private jet, 242,000 acres of farmland and investments in fossil fuel-dependent industries such as airlines, heavy machinery and cars.17
This pollution is acceptable, Gates said, because, “I am offsetting my carbon emissions by buying clean aviation fuel, and funding carbon capture and funding low-cost housing projects to use electricity instead of natural gas.”18
Focusing solely on carbon reductionism also misses the point that lands, forests and ecosystems are more than just the carbon stored in them, and putting carbon conditions on small farmers will only make environmental injustices worse. As noted by Navdanya’s report, “Conditionalities put on the nonpolluters by the polluters who want to continue to pollute is unjust and ecologically, morally and ethically bankrupt.”
The Carbon Trade Scam
Carbon trade refers to the buying and selling of credits that allow a company to emit a certain amount of carbon dioxide, and by buying credits from nonpolluters, industry can continue to pollute. Basically, like ESG investing, it’s nothing but a globalist scam that lowers the living standards of the poor while having no negative impact on the wealthy.
Indeed, you can be assured that the carbon restrictions that will be placed on humanity will not apply to the globalists. They can simply buy enough carbon credits to maintain their lifestyle, while the lower-, middle- and even upper classes of “regular” folk will be forced to make major sacrifices to theirs. Ultimately, carbon slavery will apply not just to farmers but to all of us, as our personal carbon footprint will be part of our social credit score.
The first credit card with a carbon-emission spending limit was introduced in April 2019. As explained by the World Economic Forum,19 “Everything we put in our shopping basket comes at an environmental cost … Swedish fintech company Doconomy has launched a new credit card that monitors the carbon footprint of its customers — and cuts off their spending when they hit their carbon max.” Isn’t that nice? They’re helping you do your part to save the planet!
Or are they? “Helpful” tools like this will ultimately become tools for control. Eventually, your carbon footprint will dictate what you can eat and wear, where you can live and how far you can travel, and you won’t even need a special credit card. Meanwhile, there will be plenty of loopholes for the rich.
ESG, the carbon trade and personal carbon footprint tracking will all become barriers of entry — a way to keep the peons out of the rich boys’ club. Needless to say, rigged schemes like ESG and the carbon trade also make it difficult for startup companies to compete, which will facilitate consolidation of companies and industries into mega-monopolies.
Last but not least, the focus on carbon emissions has made the world turn a blind eye to other far more harmful kinds of pollution, such as dioxin — thought to be the most toxic molecule on Earth — which in March 2023 was allowed to contaminate huge areas of Ohio without government lifting a finger to address it.20
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2023-04-07 12:51:192023-04-07 12:51:19VIDEO: This Is Why ‘Green Solutions’ Are a Gigantic Scam
The Bidens are so dirty, so corrupt, that it makes my skin crawl as an American. Our Constitutional Republic is broken owed largely to state-run media.
Hunter Biden joined the board of Ukrainian gas firm Burisma on April 18, 2014 – three days before Joe visited Ukraine as vice president and pushed for fracking
Former White House stenographer Mike McCormick told DailyMail.com that press were briefed on Biden’s strategies to boost Ukraine gas production
The call for greater energy production was politically significant – and lucrative for Burisma which generated revenues of at least $400million
Joe Biden pushed for Ukraine to frack gas during his 2014 vice presidential visit – just days after his son Hunter joined the board of a firm set to profit from it.
The first son joined the board of allegedly corrupt Ukrainian gas firm Burisma on April 18, 2014, the company announced in a press release at the time.
Three days later, Joe was aboard Air Force 2 for an official visit to the East European country.
One of his senior officials briefed reporters on the plane that the VP was pushing ‘medium- and long-term strategies to boost conventional gas production, and also to begin to take advantage of the unconventional gas reserves that are in Ukraine.’
Joe Biden made a visit to Ukraine as vice president on April 21, 2014, to push for greater energy production, just three days after his son Hunter joined the board of Ukrainian gas firm Burisma. He is pictured in Kyiv with former Ukrainian prime minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk in 2014
Joe Biden made a visit to Ukraine as vice president on April 21, 2014, to push for greater energy production, just three days after his son Hunter joined the board of Ukrainian gas firm Burisma. He is pictured in Kyiv with former Ukrainian prime minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk in 2014
Biden’s push for greater energy production proved to be a lucrative move for his son’s company Burisma, which generated revenues of at least $400M
Biden’s push for greater energy production proved to be a lucrative move for his son’s company Burisma, which generated revenues of at least $400M
The president’s current national security advisor, Jake Sullivan (pictured in Kyiv in November), was the senior official who briefed reporters on Biden’s trip at the time
The president’s current national security advisor, Jake Sullivan (pictured in Kyiv in November), was the senior official who briefed reporters on Biden’s trip at the time
The ‘unconventional’ reserves were a reference to fracking, a gas extraction method for which Burisma was one of the few firms in Ukraine to have a license at the time.
The official said Joe was also promising help for Ukrainian energy firms from US experts.
Biden’s push for greater energy production was politically significant – making Ukraine more economically independent from Russia. But the move also led to millions of dollars for the company his son was then working for.
According to Burisma’s website, it ramped up production from 100million cubic meters in 2010 to 1.3 billion cubic meters in 2018 – when it generated revenues of at least $400million, according to a Reuters estimate.
In 2019 Burisma held 35 licenses for hydrocarbon production in Ukraine’s main oil and gas basins.
According to energy industry publication KeyFactsEnergy.com it began using hydraulic fracturing, known as fracking, in 2016 and by May 2019 used the technology in 10% of its wells.
A Burisma executive explained how the company benefited from the help of US expertise in Ukraine, in a 2017 interview with Ukrainian trade publication Nefterynok.
White House stenographer Mike McCormick, was aboard Air Force 2 when Sullivan briefed reporters on Biden’s 2014 trip, he told DailyMail.com
White House stenographer Mike McCormick, was aboard Air Force 2 when Sullivan briefed reporters on Biden’s 2014 trip, he told DailyMail.com
Head of country operations Taras Burdeinyi said Burisma partnered with US firms Schlumberger and ProPetro Services for fracking in Ukraine, allowing it to grow the ‘largest modern rig fleet’ in the country, three years after Biden’s intervention.
Mike McCormick, a White House stenographer who was on board the April 2014 Air Force 2 flight, told DailyMail.com that the anonymous ‘senior official’ who gave the briefing was Jake Sullivan, who now serves as President Biden’s National Security Advisor.
‘Our job basically was to record everything that was said to the press, or public facing, and very quickly make transcripts that the White House could release,’ McCormick said.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2023-04-07 11:51:172023-04-07 11:51:17BOMBSHELL: Then VP Biden Visited Ukraine, Pushed for FRACKING Days After Hunter Joined Burisma Board
CFACT helped lead an effort at Clemson University in South Carolina to determine the opinion of the student body on the issue of coal power in electricity generation. CFACT activists surveyed 985 students and found that a whopping 70% (69.95% to be exact) of students surveyed support the use of coal for electricity in South Carolina.
Specifically, CFACT asked students “Do you support the use of coal to power electricity in South Carolina?” 689 students said “yes,” 145 students said “no,” while 151 students said they were “unsure.”
Across the United States, reliable sources of electricity, such as coal, are being forced to close in the name of ill-advised “Net Zero” policy. Part of the thinking behind this is that many young people supposedly support such efforts. These survey results, however, clearly show that young college students at Clemson University don’t want to shut down any coal plants that would threaten grid reliability or affordability.
“Currently, coal power production in South Carolina contributes to cheap and reliable power for its citizens, and using government regulation to force it out will only destabilize our electrical infrastructure,” said Fish Belk, a junior that helped CFACT with the survey.
“There’s been rumors that the state might shut down coal plants here in South Carolina,” said CFACT National Field Coordinator Greg Neff, who helped lead the effort on the ground. “I hope these results make state bureaucrats realize that not even liberal-leaning college students agree with their bad idea.”
According to the South Carolina Energy Office, the Palmetto State gets 28% of its electricity from coal, while solar and wind only make up 0.1% of South Carolina’s energy. Forcibly closing over a quarter of the state’s energy sources and trying to make that up from sources that don’t exist yet will only spell disaster for South Carolina families, seniors, and businesses.
Over the years, great advancements have been made in emissions and pollution regarding coal plants, and now many coal plants are equipped with emissions controls and scrubbers that stop things like carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide from ever reaching the atmosphere, including those in South Carolina. Carbon capture is also being employed around the nation, defeating the Leftist argument that the switch must be made to solar and wind as soon as possible in the name of the environment or “climate change.”
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2023-04-06 22:52:112023-04-06 22:52:11SOUTH CAROLINA: Clemson Survey Shows 70% of Students Support Use of Coal for Electricity
We received an email titled “CALL TO ACTION – STOP COMMUNIST CHINA FROM BUILDING A BATTERY COMPANY IN MICHIGAN WITH $715 MILLION TAX DOLLARS – EXPANING TO OTHER STATES.”
Paul, one of our Michigan readers, is highly concerned about the Democrat Governor of Michigan spending Michigan taxpayer’s dollars to fund Gotion High-Tech, Inc. a Communist Chinese battery manufacturing company.
What has happened to Detroit, America’s car capitol? What happened to Made in America by American companies?
The people of Michigan are have none of this deal and are holding a protest on Wednesday, April 5th, 2023.
In his email Paul writes,
We fought in Vietnam to stop the spread of Communism. Now, the Governor of Michigan Gretchen Whitmer is using 715 million dollars of our taxes to fund a Communist China Battery Company to build a large plant in Michigan using Communist China employees. There have been 94 million people killed as countries were taken over by Communism Control. China alone killed 65 million in the People’s Republic of China, do we really want this for America?
The Globalists are using the Global Warming Hoax to take down America. China is still building Coal Powered Power Plants and taking over the world’s resources to build batteries that will be forced on Americans whether you want it or not, by our corrupt politicians. China has bought and paid for a majority of our Democrat and Republican politicians.
We need to stop China from taking over America. If you can, please contact the individuals at the end of the letter below, all the contact information is at the bottom of this email. We need to let these politicians know how we feel about this very dangerous move they are making for America.
Paul provided these articles about Gotion High-Tech, Inc.
Bill Johnson says, “This will be the most important protest that I’ve taken part in, in Michigan, during my lifetime.” That’s a big statement, but he is right! If the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is allowed an entrance into Michigan, it will put a smothering blanket over all issues. The implications are vast. It will affect our land, our physical health, and, with getting a foothold here, dire implications regarding our First Amendment and religious rights sure to be just around the corner. Once this is done, it can’t be undone; we cannot fathom the damage that would be done to our land, community, and way of living. If you live in Michigan but not near Big Rapids do not be fooled into thinking that this is someone else’s problem. If will affect all of us, directly and/or indirectly.
Some of you are likely wondering: “What protest?” “What are you talking about?” First, let me explain the protest, why it’s important that you show up, and then other actions that we must take to do all we can do to protect The Great Lakes State and her citizens – our family, friends, neighbors, and freedoms! (This is a lengthy email but it’s full of information we need to know. I urge you to read through to the end and share it with your friends – it’s that urgent!)
The Protest:
If you are not aware of the CCP Gotion plant that is proposed to open in Green Township (Big Rapids area), I urge you to inform yourself. We wrote a short article on it last week here.
On April 5 there was supposed to be a forum open to the public in which the proposed CCP Gotion plant would be discussed. However, township officials have now declared their meeting will be virtual – with no opportunity for the public to speak out! Already an attack on our First Amendment rights to be heard by our governing officials.
In response, those concerned and opposed to the CCP Gotion plant are asked to come to Big Rapids on Wednesday, April 5 at 6:30 p.m. and line the streets through town to peacefully stand in opposition. (More information next week on where to park and meet.) It is the goal to have hundreds, if not more, in attendance. Media, including Fox News, will reportedly be covering the protest. We urge you to attend. If you’re able to bring a sign, please do so. Remember, there are several issues at stake here: Ecological, Physical health, Freedoms, Spiritual, and the list goes on.
Why we must show up:
As stated, there is MUCH at stake. We’ve recently received an email with a great amount of important information regarding this deal. I’ll share it here:
Title: The Right Place has picked the wrong county for a $2.2B Gotion battery plant
If this is an issue that concerns you, the information below will help you communicate key concerns to your legislators. If it’s not an issue that concerns you…I ask you to please at least consider the points below.
This information has been assembled after ~20 hours of primary research, which has included directly speaking with many of the decision makers involved. For context, I (Marjorie Steele, a Green Township resident), have written for state and national publications as a journalist, have written federal grants, and have even spent several years working in leadership positions in urban real estate development. Tl;dr – this information is thoroughly sourced and accurate, as of today’s date (3.15.23).
Talking points: failure to perform basic due diligence and good faith disclosure
1) No information regarding environmental impact has been made public.
Big Rapids Township Treasurer Bill Stanek says The Right Place hired a third party to perform one, but that he hadn’t read it, and the township didn’t have a copy. None of the local officials I’ve spoken with seemed to have any knowledge of the survey’s contents. No environmental impact survey is provided on The Right Place’s Gotion project page, nor is one referenced.
The Right Place, on its website, in “CIP Considerations for Project Elephant” states, in regards to environmental contamination, simply “All development changes the natures of the land. Through planning, monitoring, and enforcement of regulations, hopefully environmental contamination can be kept to a minimum.”
“Hopes” for low environmental contamination are an insultingly inadequate assessment for the future of an entire town’s land and water systems.
2) The plant will most likely use toxic chemicals (N-Methylpyrrolidone, aka NMP)
Known lithium battery cathode/anode manufacturing processes (like that which Gotion Inc proposes to build in Big Rapids) use a type of chemical which are known to be hazardous to human and environmental health (specifically: N-Methylpyrrolidone, aka NMP). What’s more: EPA and other government regulations are behind on regulating NMP and similar chemicals such as PFAs / perfluorochemicals.
In light of this information, The Right Place’s assurance that the plant will enforce existing regulations make it an outright certainty that the plant will take no proactive measures whatsoever to mitigate NMP contamination, were they to fall outside of currently lax guidelines.
3) No third party economic assessment has been performed
The only economic impact projections which have been provided for the project (2,350 jobs, avg $61K salary) were sourced from “Project Elephant,” which is Gotion.
A project of this size (over $2.2B in total) in a community of this size (~30,000) deserves the proper due diligence of an independent economic impact assessment.
4) Over $14M in infrastructure costs are TBD
City planners have stated The Right Place plans to fund what would be to Big Rapids massive road/water/sewer changes through unnamed grants, and the Right Place’s project pro forma lists funding for infrastructure as “TBD”. Our local road commission is woefully underfunded already; we should have assurance that the community won’t have to foot the bill for these infrastructure costs.
5) Unknown if there is undisclosed conflict of interest between RP CEO Randy Thelen and Gotion VP Chuck Thelen
The CEO of the Right Place, Randy Thelen, is (according to local township leaders) spearheading the Gotion plant project for The Right Place. The lead VP on the project from Gotion, aka “Project Elephant,” is Chuck Thelen. The two men share a family name, and are both from Michigan.
The Right Place has not disclosed whether or not Randy and Chuck share a family relation. The community deserves the disclosure of this information, one way or the other.
6) Direct and indirect ownership by Chinese government
The Right Place discloses on their website that the Gotion plant in Big Rapids would have 0.13% direct ownership by the Guangdong Government, and that another ~22% would be owned by Chinese entities. This means the plant would have both direct ownership by Chinese companies, and would also give the Chinese government access to the plant.
What else we can do:
My co-worker, Chris Johnson, recently wrote these words in our free monthly newsletter: “The Gotion plant is not a done deal yet. There is still lots of planning to be done, permits to go through, and the incentives package still has to go through the legislature. But there is significant pressure on the state government to make this deal happen. Pray that it doesn’t, for the long term good of the nation and the people of Michigan.”
Let’s pray and then contact the following members of the Green Township Board (and others) and respectfully, yet urgently, express your concerns, asking them to put a stop to this. Cutting it off at the local level is the best way. They have a stake in their community; their children and friends live there. The lack of research and information alone should be alarming. Email or call these individuals urging them to consider the whole picture and our future. Take one or two of the talking points under “Why we must show up,” put them in your own words, and send it to as many people on the list below that you are able to.
State of Michigan, ‘American subsidiary’ regularly refer to Chinese Communist Party-linked corporation
Kyle Olson — April 1, 2023 — The Midwesterner Originals
China-based Gotion High-Tech is doing its best to appear as an “American subsidiary” as it attempts to open a massive battery plant near Big Rapids with $715 million in taxpayer money.
Bridge reported about a recent legislative hearing:
“I’m having a hard time finding answers here about Gotion,” (Republican state Sen. John) Damoose said.
In reply to Damoose’s question, Chuck Thelen, Gotion Inc.’s vice president of North America Manufacturing who joined the meeting via video conference, sought to distinguish Gotion Inc. from Gotion High-Tech, the parent company.
Gotion Inc., he said, is incorporated in the U.S. as a wholly owned subsidiary of Gotion High-Tech, which holds about 3.5 percent of China’s EV battery market share and is publicly traded in both Switzerland and China. Volkswagen is a majority shareholder, though the German automaker does not have a majority voting right on the Board of Directors; those were retained by the founding shareholders.
However, earlier in his presentation, Thelen did not distinguish between the Gotion division planning to build in Big Rapids and Gotion High-Tech as he spoke about the parent company’s expansion around the globe.
In the early announcements about state subsidies for the Chinese company, Gotion High-Tech was referenced, not Gotion, Inc.
An October 5, 2022 press release by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) simply referred to “Gotion,” but then said, “Founded in 1998 and based in Hefei, China, Gotion High-tech Co. engages in the research and development, production, and sale of power lithium batteries in China and internationally.”
In October 2022, Bloomberg reported:
Chinese battery maker Gotion High-Tech Co. was awarded $175 million in grants and a zoning designation estimated to be valued at $540 million, according to the Michigan Economic Development Corp.
And Reuters wrote it this way:
Chinese battery company Gotion High Tech and Michigan-based startup Our Next Energy (ONE) will open separate, new electric-vehicle battery plants worth a combined $4 billion in Michigan, Governor Gretchen Whitmer announced on Wednesday. Reuters added, “Gotion, a publicly traded company in China also known as Guoxuan High Tech Company, is partly owned by German automaker Volkswagen AG.”
And then there is a presentation given to the Senate Appropriations Committee March 22, as the company is lobbying for the money to officially be allocated.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2023-04-04 11:51:142023-04-04 11:51:14Michigan: April 5th Protest of Dem. Gov. Whitmer’s use of $715 Million to Fund a Communist Chinese Battery Company
Earth4All is an environmentalist public policy group that is an offshoot of The Club of Rome. In layman’s terms it is a strident “environmentalist” lobby.
Earth4All describes itself as “a vibrant collective of leading economic thinkers, scientists, and advocates convened by The Club of Rome, the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, the Stockholm Resilience Centre and the Norwegian Business School.” It bills itself as “a platform to connect and amplify the voices that want to upgrade our economies.” The organization has impeccable globalist credentials, which is reason for it to be suspect out here in flyover country.
Why would the rubes in flyover country be suspicious? Well, for as long as most folks can remember, there has been nonstop yammering – from the wealthiest and most well-connected one-world types and their mainstream media mouthpieces – about “saving the planet,” “equality” and “redistribution of resources.”
A more recent iteration is “diversity, equity and inclusion.” All the while, decent-paying jobs disappear and standards of living decline. A good number of flyover country folks have tumbled to the realization that all this glorious globalism is goring their ox. They are not sold on yet another planetary levelling scheme that somehow enables globalist elites to amass more wealth while further tightening the noose on working folks.
What does this globalist “vibrant collective” have to do with demography? They’ve just released Working Paper #1 in response to a call for research from the Global Challenges Foundation entitled People and Planet: 21st Century Sustainable Population scenarios and possible living standards within planetary boundaries.
Earth4All’s population study predicts humanity’s future via two population projection scenarios.
The first is “Too Little Too Late,” projecting peak population in 2050 at 8.6 billion, falling to 7 billion by 2100. This scenario is predicated on global development proceeding along a “decision making as usual” basis, which is “declining labour participation rates, declining trust in government, a steady increase in inequality and a steady increase in the ecological footprint along with huge losses of wildlife.”
“Declining trust in government?” I’ve been on board with that since my salad days in the imperial capital. Trust the government? Are they kidding?
Their second scenario, preferred by the study’s authors, is the “Giant Leap,” with population peaking at 8.5 billion about 2040, decreasing to 6 billion by century’s end. This is a much lower projection than other studies and is contingent upon a “progressive” agenda (cloaked in high-sounding verbiage). This scenario occurs when governments, businesses and society are able to implement “five extraordinary turnarounds:”
Ending poverty
Addressing gross inequality
Empowering women
Making our food system healthy for people and ecosystems
Transitioning to clean energy.
Whenever politicians, policy wonks and the like raise such issues, watch out. Let’s break down what those global “extraordinary turnarounds” could mean in practicality:
“Ending poverty?” I agree – but that usually means the nanny state robbing Peter to pay Paul and a bloated anti-poverty bureaucracy to implement it. I guarantee you that lowering taxes on the middle class is not in the mix. Meaningful tax relief might fuel economic growth, but that would be bad for the environment.
“Ending inequality?” Sure – but we already have equality before the law. What we don’t have is equality of result, and even the most oppressive race laws such as quotas and affirmative action can’t make that happen. The sheer hubris in the notion that some humans can make all humans “equal” is mind-boggling. The folly has revealed itself, so has been repackaged as “equity.”
“Empowering women?” Earth4All describes it as “gender equity.” Does anyone doubt that means management by misandrist malcontents, aka radical feminists?
“Making our food system healthy?” Better to have at least some junk food out there rather than government mandating what we’re to eat. Remember the Big Apple’s failed soda ban?
How about “clean energy?” Again, sounds great. But is this about forcing folks to curtail their enjoyment of life in order to reduce the carbon footprint? Oh, and lest we forget, having fewer or no children fits nicely into that agenda. Those pesky wee ones do a number on the environment.
So Earth4All’s “Great Leap” scenario welcomes a rapidly ageing world. Coping with that could open unforeseen cans of worms such as “assisted dying” and other measures intended to more efficiently manage the planet. All for our own good, you see.
Another consideration regarding Earth4All’s projections is how they compare with three leading population projections issued by the United Nations, the Wittengenstein Centre-International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (WC-IIASA) and TheLancet. Here is a summary of their most likely (median) projections:
The UN’s 2022 Revision of World Population Prospectsprojects global population to peak around 2080 at 10.25 billion and then begin a slow decline to 10.2 by 2100. This is a “cautious” assessment, not fully factoring in the unexpected acceleration of fertility decline.
WC-IIASA (EU funded) projects peak population in 2070 at 9.4 billion declining to 8.95 billion by 2100. This model assumes that education gradually decreases fertility, especially in the Global South.
The Lancet study (funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation) projects peak population at about 9.733 billion in 2064, with a precipitous decline to 6.290 billion by 2100. Increased immigration plus pro-natalist policies are seen as essential to sustain the industrialized world’s GDP.
The Earth4All study is different as their methodology emphasizes “economic advancement.” Mind you, this is not economic development. Should the world proceed along an unwoke, uncaring, trash-the-environment and women-oppressing basis as it has since Reagan’s time, we’ll have too many people: “The dominant economic model is destabilising societies. And the planet. It is time for a change.”
I couldn’t agree more, though I have a feeling that we might part company when discussing what kind of change. The globalist West, under the thumb of exploitative finance capitalism, believes in open-borders ideology to keep the cheap labour flowing. It would be wonderful to have a new paradigm prioritizing a living wage. That would be a boon for families.
But even where industrial (productive) capitalism reigns, fertility is falling. Is this nature’s payback for humanity’s rampant hubris and runaway greed?
The Earth4All’s “Great Leap” scenario, despite their denial, is as utopian as it gets. To implement any utopian scheme, everyone must be on board. We’re told that is a major reason why Soviet Communism failed. People just didn’t believe.
A warning to utopians everywhere: “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
AUTHOR
Louis T. March has a background in government, business and philanthropy. A former talk show host, author and public speaker, he is a dedicated student of history and genealogy. Louis lives with his family… More by Louis T. March.
In the Apple TV comedy series “Loot,” Maya Rudolph stars as a recently divorced billionaire having a life crisis as she tries to decide how she wants the rest of her life to play out. In a dramatic scene in Episode 10, Rudolph suffers a public humiliation while demonstrating a water-purification system she has helped to develop during a conference attended by fellow global elite billionaires.
The scene is a thinly-veiled reference to the annual World Economic Forum gatherings in Davos, Switzerland.
As she attempts to recover from the public humiliation when the system fails to function during a demonstration for the attendees, she comes to the realization that she and her fellow billionaires are the worst class of people to be telling the world’s masses how to live their lives. The scene in which she admits this reality is one of the highlights of the show’s first season.
I was delighted by the scene, given that one of the overarching themes of my writing about energy over the last several years has been the undeniable fact that we have the worst possible class of people — globalist political elites in the western world — making far-reaching energy decisions on behalf of the rest of us.
The obvious reason why they are the worst possible class of people for this task is that they are, by definition, immune to suffering the negative consequences of their own actions.
Energy prices rising rapidly due to government-created scarcity? They don’t care — they don’t even pay their own bills for the most part, and even if they did, they’re so wealthy not to even feel the pain.
Operators of grids overloaded with unreliable wind and solar capacity forced to implement rolling blackouts? Not in their gated neighborhoods, where backup generators are ubiquitous.
Price tag for the average car moving closer and closer to 6 digits? Those are just abstract numbers that have no meaning for these people.
That EV you bought really gets only about half the battery range advertised on the huge price tag? Easy solution — drive less and take the bus.
Bus routes being cut by half due to the enormous cost of electrification? Easy solution — stay at home.
You’ll get fired if you stay at home and don’t go to work? No problem — apply for enhanced unemployment benefits.
It all adds up to a never-ending spiral of bad solutions forcing deprivation and hardship on the 98% due to horrible energy decisions made by the 2% elites.
Last week, we saw another episode of this awful tragi-comedy of public policy absurdities play out when Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm gave congressional testimony over her department’s effort to finalize regulations limiting the use of gas stoves.
Granholm first denied there was any effort to ban the appliances — a dissembling prevarication at best — and then admitted — you guessed it — she uses a gas stove in her own home.
“There is no ban on gas stoves. I have a gas stove,” Granholm said. “It is just about making the existing electric and gas stoves and all the other appliances more efficient. It is a proposed rule, so the full range of gas stoves, absolutely, is not affected.”
“In fact, half the gas stoves that are on the market right now wouldn’t even be impacted,” Granholm added, explaining the stoves that would be impacted are “high-end” appliances that, she said, constitute a “wasteful use of natural gas.”
That’s right: DOE’s own analysis admits its regulation would ban the use of at least half of all gas stoves on the market today. At the same time, the bureaucrats at the Consumer Products Safety Board are working on banning the other half.
But we can all rest absolutely assured that any final regulations issued by this administration will contain carve-outs designed to ensure that Granholm and every other wealthy elite in the U.S. will be able to go right on cooking with gas.
Because that’s what happens when the worst possible class of people are the ones making all the energy decisions for us.
David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2023-04-02 21:52:162023-04-02 21:52:16Biden’s Energy Secretary Casually Reveals That She Wants To Control Our Decisions
The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) proposed sweeping new rules Thursday that authorize leasing federal land for conservation efforts similar to leases offered for mining, grazing and other projects.
While the move was broadly praised by environmental groups, it drew criticism from the Center for Biological Diversity for not going far enough, according to E&E News.
“There are so many overlays for conservation on BLM land, some of them in the law and some of them just made up administratively, that a lot of land has already been withdrawn,” Myron Ebell, at the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute, told the Daily Caller News Foundation.
The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) proposed new rules Thursday that would allow public land to be leased for conservation efforts, among other major changes to promote land health.
The proposal would expand land-health standards to the entirety of the 245 million acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), prioritize the designation of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) and establish a leasing framework for private partners to perform climate restoration and mitigation efforts on public land, according to the DOI. The new rule would make proposed leases for conservation efforts a valid “use” of public land, similar to mining, ranching and other energy projects under the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976, according to the BLM.
“It is our responsibility to use the best tools available to restore wildlife habitat, plan for smart development, and conserve the most important places for the benefit of the generations to come,” DOI Secretary Deb Haaland said in a statement.
Kathleen Sgamma, president of the Western Energy Alliance, an oil trade group, told Reuters she believed that it would be a “stretch” of the FLPMA to introduce conservation leases. This position was echoed by Myron Ebell, director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute, who also argued that the BLM already had significant authority to limit land usage in an interview with the Daily Caller News Foundation.
“There are so many overlays for conservation on BLM land, some of them in the law and some of them just made up administratively, that a lot of land has already been withdrawn … from resource production, recreational access, grazing, timber … a lot of land is already being managed for conservation,” Ebell told the DCNF. He argued that some regions, particularly in the Intermountain West, depend on grazing as a conservation method and that this rule might make it more difficult to get a grazing lease.
“It feels to me like [the proposal] provides a broader authority for the federal government to take more land off the table for productive use, under the guise of conservation,” Jack Spencer, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Energy, Climate and Environment, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “One of the problems I see with this is that it is clearly a response to the president’s climate agenda.”
President Joe Biden recently drew criticism from environmental groups over his approval of the Willow Project, a massive oil drilling project in Alaska. The administration argued that its hands were tied to halt the project thanks to its initial approval by the Trump administration, and simultaneously designated 13 million acres of Alaskan federal land off-limits to drilling, despite its location in the Natural Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A).
Though the BLM move was broadly praised by environmental groups, such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, Pew Charitable Trusts and Defenders of Wildlife, it drew criticism from the Center for Biological Diversity for not going far enough, according to E&E News. Randi Spivak, the organization’s public lands policy director, said the effort was akin to “rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic” and was a “missed opportunity” to handle the extinction and climate issues on public lands.
“The agency’s time would be better spent addressing the root problems of public lands degradation and protecting these treasured places for future generations,” Spivak told the outlet. “Instead of addressing destructive mining, fossil fuel extraction and grazing, this rule basically restates what’s already the law. Major improvements are needed.”
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2023-04-01 20:51:152023-04-01 20:51:15Biden Admin’s Sweeping New Rules Would Let Green Groups Lease Federal Land Away From Oil, Ranching
Ajay Banga, the former CEO of Mastercard that President Joe Biden has nominated to head the World Bank, told Axios Wednesday that both the bank and the private sector needed to spend “trillions” to combat both climate change and poverty.
Banga has been aggressively campaigning for the job, meeting with officials from 37 different governments in the past three weeks, Axios reported. The World Bank faces competing pressure from wealthy and developing countries over whether to focus on combating climate change or poverty mitigation, but Banga said he does not view the two goals as inherently opposed to one another.
“I think it’s a fallacious argument that says, either-or,” Banga said to Axios. “I have every intention of focusing the bank and its people on the idea that this is an intertwined challenge.”
The efforts to combat both climate change and poverty would cost “trillions of dollars a year” each, and the private sector would need to be a “constructive part of the solution,” Banga told Axios.
A group of developing nations including Russia, China and Iran signed a letter in February calling for the World Bank to “avoid measures” that might jeopardize its triple-A credit rating, the Financial Times reported. Banga said that the “only way” the World Bank can effectively combat climate change is if it maintains its triple-A rating, according to Axios.
Biden’s decision to nominate Banga, a former Wall Street executive with little background in climate issues, drew significant pushback from some environmentalists, who had been calling for a nominee that would aggressively tackle climate issues.
Banga was nominated after Trump appointee David Malpass — who is married to Daily Caller News Foundation president Adele Malpass — announced he would step down early from his role as the bank’s head on June 30.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2023-04-01 07:52:292023-04-01 07:52:29Biden’s World Bank Pick Calls For ‘Trillions’ In Climate Spending
The House of Representatives passed Republicans’ signature energy package, the Lower Energy Costs Act, in a mostly party-line vote Thursday.
The legislation, introduced by House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, includes permitting reform and rolls back several executive orders that limit domestic energy production. Democratic Texas Reps. Vicente Gonzalez and Henry Cuellar, Maine Rep. Jared Golden, and Washington Rep. Marie Glusenkamp Perez voted with 221 Republicans in supporting the package. Pennsylvania Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick was the only Republican to oppose it.
225-204: The House passes the Lower Energy Costs Act, Republicans’ marquee energy bill.
Deemed H.R. 1, signifying its high priority for the House GOP, it would increase domestic fossil fuel production and repeal several climate provisions of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. pic.twitter.com/xGT5l5XAh1
“What a great day this is for American families who have been struggling for too long under the weight of high prices, record-high inflation, all of the problems that President Biden has created, and especially for those people that have been frustrated to so long that President Biden has gone after American energy but yet gone all around the world and begged foreign dictators to get our energy from them,” Scalise said at a press conference held after the bill passed. “This has never been a question of whether or not we have oil or natural gas in the U.S. The question is, ‘where do we get it?’”
The Lower Energy Costs Act, which is not expected to pass the Senate, would resume construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, which Biden blocked on his first day in office. It also includes reforms of the National Environmental Policy Act and the Clean Water Act initially proposed by Democratic West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin in the 117th Congress that would speed up permitting for various projects.
The legislation would also prohibit foreign companies from mining on U.S. soil if those companies have documented histories of human rights violation. That provision is targeted at Chinese entities, many of which employ Uyghur slave labor.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2023-04-01 07:52:282023-04-01 07:52:28House Passes Republicans’ Signature Energy Reform Bill
Last week, I began to tell you about the people cashing in on green mania, starting with the beneficiaries of federal money from the ideologically overcommitted Biden administration and green investors who have a vested financial interest in getting you to buy into the phony narrative of climate change.
Today, we pick up with environmental groups which, it has long been reported, are taking money from Russia and China to propagate climate change malarkey. But the problem starts at home. A new report documents that environmental groups in Massachusetts have taken over $4 million from wind energy developers which compromises their ability to accurately assess the threats offshore wind projects pose to the endangered North Atlantic Right Whale.
Another extreme funding event occurred when a Democrat-connected nonprofit gave $140,000 to a research firm to produce a study claiming ‘climate change misinformation’ mushroomed on Twitter after Elon Musk took over. The research firm is the parent company of Fusion GPS which was behind the debunked Steele dossier in the Trump/Russia collusion hoax. I’m not big on hired gun ‘studies’.
Another recent story shows that Mrs. Steve Jobs and another left-wing billionaire have been bankrolling Climate Imperative, a green energy nonprofit that has been working to ban gas stoves. Climate Imperative has a billion dollar budget, enough to buy oodles of false messaging about natural gas and give grants to other groups working toward the same end. Climate Imperative has a Chinese government official on its advisory board, someone who serves in the Chinese legislature and on a party-insider committee. It is in China’s interest to move the U.S. away from reliable energy sources.
Journalists are also cashing in. I’ve told you previously about some multi-million dollar climate journalism projects at the Associated Press and elsewhere. [Daily Skirmish – 9/30/22] There are new details about the $8 million effort which enabled the Associated Press to hire 22 climate reporters. Green energy investors are behind the push, including big left-wing foundations like the Rockefeller Foundation and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation whose endowments are heavily invested in green energy companies. These investors are paying the media to push the climate change narrative to keep their endowments growing. None of this is disclosed in AP climate stories.
Journalists around the world are getting scholarships to report on biodiversity conferences. The scholarships come from the Earth Journalism Network which is funded, by among other others – would you look at this: the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. Still more grants for climate journalists are available from the Pulitzer Center Rainforest Journalism Fund. The fund is supported by the Norwegian International Climate and Forest Initiative (NICFI). Norway is banking on green energy to meet its future energy needs, so it’s all-in on the Paris climate accord and the climate change narrative driving it.
The recent Los Angeles school strike was partly about cashing in on green mania. The union demanded, among other things, the district adopt a socialist-backed plan to transform schools into ‘green’ social services hubs. And, oh by the way, teachers should be paid more – more than the $115,000 a year they’re currently getting – to teach ‘climate literacy’ courses, among other things.
States, entire countries and the U.N. also want on board the green gravy train. Wyoming’s Governor vetoed a bill that would have threatened a federally subsidized wind energy program in the state. California apparently wants to spend taxpayer money to give college students $10,000 stipends for climate activism. The U.N. is demanding billions of dollars to keep global warming at bay. African countries and Egypt want trillions of dollars supposedly for ‘climate mitigation’.
So there you have the rundown on green grifters, people only in the climate change game for the money. Remember to follow the money the next time you see screaming headlines about the climate or politicians crowing about how much taxpayer money they’re spending on climate change. It’s just the Green Industrial Complex at work.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2023-03-29 17:51:412023-03-29 17:51:41Cry Me an Atmospheric River
Berlin voters balked at a plan to make the German capital climate-neutral by law by 2030, which would have put it 15 years ahead of Germany’s national target.
The referendum, which would have obligated the city-state’s government to enshrine the climate goal in law, failed after fewer than the required 607,000 voters voted in favor, according to the state election commissioner’s tally. About 2.4 million people were eligible.
The result leaves in place a non-binding goal of climate neutrality by 2045, which is in line with the rest of Germany.
Referendum organizers, a nonprofit initiative called Klimaneustart Berlin, argued that Berlin’s governing body is “acting far too hesitantly.”
Days earlier, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned that time to stop global warming of more than 1.5C is running out.
Germany, which emits the most carbon dioxide among European countries, has lagged on its emissions goals and was most recently thrown off track by the energy crisis following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
BERLIN, March 26 (Reuters) – A referendum in Berlin on Sunday that would have bound the city to strive to be climate neutral by 2030 has failed, the city’s mayor Franziska Giffey said in a statement.
The measure would have forced the new conservative local government to invest heavily in renewable energy, building efficiency and public transport.
Had it passed, Berlin would have been one of the few major European cities with a legally binding goal to become carbon neutral in seven years.
The result “shows that the majority of Berliners also see that the demands of the referendum could not have been implemented – not even if they were cast into law,” Giffey said.
The European Union last year started a scheme to help 100 cities inside and outside of the bloc become climate neutral by 2030, but the scheme and the financial support it offers are not legally binding.
The referendum was a test of whether Germans, or at least Berliners, want Germany’s climate policy, which now aims to make Europe’s biggest economy carbon-neutral by 2045, to be more ambitious.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2023-03-28 15:51:122023-03-28 15:51:12Berlin Voters Reject Bid to Become Climate Neutral by 2030
Please use social media, etc. to pass on this Newsletter to other open-minded citizens…If you’d like to be added to (or unsubscribe from) the distribution of our popular, free, worldwide Media Balance Newsletter, simply send me an email saying that.
Note 1: We recommend reading the Newsletter on your computer, not your phone, as some documents (e.g., PDFs) are much easier to read on a large computer screen… We’ve tried to use common fonts, etc. to minimize display issues.
Note 2: For past Newsletter issues see the archives from: 2020 & 2021 & 2022 & 2023. To accommodate numerous requests received about prior articles over all thirteen plus years of the Newsletter, we’ve put this together — where you can search ALL prior issues, by year. For a background about how the Newsletter is put together, etc., please read this.
Note 3: See this extensive list of reasonable books on climate change. As a parallel effort, we have also put together a list of some good books related to industrial wind energy. Both topics are also extensively covered on my website: WiseEnergy.org.
Note 4: I am not an attorney or a physician, so no material appearing in any of the Newsletters (or any of my websites) should be construed as giving legal or medical advice. My recommendation has always been: consult a competent, licensed attorney when you are involved with legal issues, and consult a competent physician regarding medical matters.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2023-03-27 01:51:282023-03-27 01:51:28AWED MEDIA BALANCED NEWS: We cover COVID to Climate, as well as Energy to Elections
Despite the losses, Ford continues to push forward and hopes to manufacture two million EVs a year by 2026 and hit an 8% profit margin for its EV division. The company is chasing Elon Musk’s Tesla for EV sales in the U.S. and remains far behind the electric car giant. Tesla, which started in 2003, lost money for ten years before finally turning a profit in 2013. Musk’s company made $12.6 billion in 2022, an impressive jump from $5.5 billion in 2021.
They don’t care. As long as the Democrats are running/ruining the economy with their environmental/climate garbage, it’s the American taxpayer that will have to pay for this mess.
Ford Motor Co. expects to lose about $3 billion on its electric-vehicle business this year, a reminder of how far traditional auto makers have to go in turning their EV portfolios profitable.
Ford disclosed the figure Thursday while outlining a new financial-reporting structure intended to give investors better insight into the performance of its three business units. Ford finance chief John Lawler described the EV division as a startup inside the 119-year-old company, and said it is normal for a fledgling business to rack up losses.
Ford shares were down about 1.3% in afternoon trading Thursday…
Ford said Thursday that it expects its EV division will lose $3 billion in 2023 as it pushes to produce more vehicles and build electric battery plants in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Michigan, The Financial Times reported. The carmaker wasn’t surprised by the massive loss of money as it views its EV division, known as Model e, as a “start-up.”
“Ford Model e is an EV start-up within Ford and, as everyone knows, EV start-ups lose money while they invest in capability, develop knowledge, build volume and gain share,” said John Lawler, Ford’s chief financial officer.
Despite the losses, Ford continues to push forward and hopes to manufacture two million EVs a year by 2026 and hit an 8% profit margin for its EV division. The company is chasing Elon Musk’s Tesla for EV sales in the U.S. and remains far behind the electric car giant. Tesla, which started in 2003, lost money for ten years before finally turning a profit in 2013. Musk’s company made $12.6 billion in 2022, an impressive jump from $5.5 billion in 2021.
Ford plans to explain its financials in more detail to investors and how it will stick to its goal of selling only zero-carbon emission vehicles by 2040, according to The Financial Times. Ford is relying on Ford Blue, its gas-powered vehicle production, to fund the carmaker’s transition to EVs.
Ford Blue is expected to rake in $7 billion this year, and the company’s commercial vehicles division, Ford Pro, is expected to double last year’s earnings to $6 billion this year. Lawler blamed spending on new battery plants and battery technology for the carmaker’s EV losses.
Last month, the carmaker was criticized for collaborating with a Chinese company to build a battery plant in Michigan. In its proposal, Ford said it would partner with the Chinese company Contemporary Amperex Technology on the plant that would employ 2,500 people when it begins production in 2026.
Virginia Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin withdrew his state from consideration for the new battery plant because of Ford’s partnership with the Chinese company. Michigan Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, however, has pushed for the battery plant to come to the Great Lakes State and celebrated Ford’s decision to build the plant in Michigan.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2023-03-25 11:51:162023-03-25 11:51:16Ford Burns Through Billions, Expects to Lose $12 Billion on Electric Vehicle Line
Democrats’ Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) could cost roughly $1.2 trillion in green energy subsidies, more than four times an initial government forecast of outlays, Bloomberg reported Thursday, citing analysts from Goldman Sachs.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) initially forecast that the law, a cornerstone of President Joe Biden’s efforts to decarbonize the U.S. economy, would cost the government $370 billion to boost investments in green technology, according to Bloomberg. Goldman Sachs’ findings mirror those of analytics firm Benchmark Mineral Intelligence, which reported in February that the estimated cost of battery manufacturing tax breaks would be roughly $136 billion over the next 10 years, more than four times the $30.6 billion estimated by the CBO.
“Early analysis of the IRA relied on unrealistic expectations to keep cost estimates down,” Heritage Foundation economist E.J. Antoni told the Daily Caller News Foundation in a statement. “As time has progressed and those rosy forecasts are pushed outside the realm of possibility, the real cost is becoming increasingly clear.”
Goldman analysts estimate that private companies, spurred by government benefits, will invest an additional $3 trillion, Bloomberg reported. Biden specifically called out “every single” Republican for siding with “special interests” over the American people in opposing the bill, in remarks made after he signed it into law in August.
The IRA offers a variety of tax credits and subsidies to wind, solar and battery production and encourages U.S.-based mining by linking battery subsidies to a requirement that at least 40% of all minerals are mined domestically or from certain allies. The bill also expanded a federal loan program to support research and development of advanced batteries to be used in vehicles.
The massive climate bill would have an effect on inflation that was “statistically indistinguishable from zero,” according to a preliminary estimate made by the University of Pennsylvania Penn Wharton Budget Model made in July. President Joe Biden last August touted a letter signed by 120 economists, including some Nobel prize winners, which alleged that the bill would put “downward pressure” on inflation, based on a CBO estimate that the bill would cut government spending by $300 billion over 10 years, the Associated Press reported contemporaneously.
Then-House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy argued at the time that the bill would spend “half-a-trillion of your money,” building on “trillions in wasteful spending that caused runaway inflation” in an August debate on the bill.
“Passing this bill today means more expensive bills for Americans tomorrow. And anyone who says otherwise isn’t telling the truth,” McCarthy said. “Your pocketbook is their plan to fund more inflationary spending.”
The White House did not immediately respond to a DCNF request for comment.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2023-03-24 22:52:102023-03-24 22:52:10Inflation Reduction? Dems’ Climate Spending Spree Could Cost $1.2 Trillion, Analysts Say
The wacky world of climate change strikes again! Blaming fossil fuel companies for ‘climate homicide’ is all part of the plan to merge public health and climate change. We have already seen a doctor diagnose the first patient in the world as suffering form ‘climate change’ in 2021.
Of course, the reality is exactly the opposite. During the era of fear about ‘global warming,’ climate related deaths have dropped dramatically, proving that mankind has adapted to climate change by using the very oil and other fossil fuels that Harvard Law now wants to charge companies with murder over!
George Washington University – Law School; Justice Innovation Lab; DC Justice Lab
Date Written: January 23, 2023
Abstract
Prosecutors regularly bring homicide charges against individuals and corporations whose reckless or negligent acts or omissions cause unintentional deaths, as well as those whose misdemeanors or felonies cause unintentional deaths. Fossil fuel companies learned decades ago that what they produced, marketed, and sold would generate “globally catastrophic” climate change. Rather than alert the public and curtail their operations, they worked to deceive the public about these harms and to prevent regulation of their lethal conduct. They funded efforts to call sound science into doubt and to confuse their shareholders, consumers, and regulators. And they poured money into political campaigns to elect or install judges, legislators, and executive officials hostile to any litigation, regulation, or competition that might limit their profits. Today, the climate change that they forecast has already killed thousands of people in the United States, and it is expected to become increasingly lethal for the foreseeable future. Given the extreme lethality of the conduct and the awareness of the catastrophic risk on the part of fossil fuel companies, should they be charged with homicide? Could they be convicted? In answering these questions, this Article makes several contributions to our understanding of criminal law and the role it could play in combating crimes committed at a massive scale. It describes the doctrinal and social predicates of homicide prosecutions where corporate conduct endangers much or all of the public. It also identifies important advantages of homicide prosecutions relative to civil and regulatory remedies, and it details how and why prosecution for homicide may be the most effective legal remedy available in cases like this. Finally, it argues that, if our criminal legal system cannot focus more intently on climate crimes—and soon—we may leave future generations with significantly less for the law to protect.
UK Guardian: Authors of paper accepted for publication in Harvard Environmental Law Review argue firms are ‘killing members of the public at an accelerating rate’
Authors of paper accepted for publication in Harvard Environmental Law Review argue firms are ‘killing members of the public at an accelerating rate’
Oil companies have come under increasing legal scrutiny and face allegations of defrauding investors, racketeering, and a wave of other lawsuits. But a new paper argues there’s another way to hold big oil accountable for climate damage: trying companies for homicide.
The striking and seemingly radical legal theory is laid out in a paper accepted for publication in the Harvard Environmental Law Review. In it, the authors argue fossil fuel companies “have not simply been lying to the public, they have been killing members of the public at an accelerating rate, and prosecutors should bring that crime to the public’s attention”. … The paper also argues that the case for climate homicide has been bolstered by attribution science, which seeks to ascertain how much the climate crisis has worsened individual extreme weather events. Some studies have even been able to attribute a specific number of extreme weather deaths to the climate crisis. The duo argue that this growing body of science is among the most powerful tools to prove that oil companies’ actions have more than met the standard for a prosecutor to bring a homicide case. Bringing homicide charges against oil companies for deaths caused by the climate crisis would be unprecedented, but corporations have been tried for homicide before. California prosecutors charged the utility PG&E with manslaughter for its role in the deadly Camp Fire that leveled the town of Paradise in 2018. And federal prosecutors charged BP with manslaughter following the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster. In both cases, the companies pleaded guilty and paid billions in fines and penalties.
Death rates from natural disasters including “all geophysical, meteorological and climate events” are down 95% over the past century, and academics want to sue oil companies for deaths caused by meteorological events.
Fossil fuels keep billions of people alive day to day around the world. They provide our heat, light, communications and transportation. They make it possible for trucks to bring food. People who want to ban fossil fuels are advocating genocide.
On March 23, 1913 “scores” of towns were wiped out by tornadoes in six states. Omaha was largely destroyed.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2023-03-24 22:52:062023-03-24 22:52:06‘Climate Homicide’: Paper in Harvard Env. Law Review calls for ‘prosecuting’ big U.S. oil firms for ‘climate deaths’
Breitbart News reports that residents of Pajaro, California, a flooded community in Monterey County, are furious at Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) and President Joe Biden for failing to deliver the federal disaster aid that was promised earlier this month.
A levee that had not been improved in decades broke during storms and caused a large area of the Pajaro Valley, where many of the nation’s vegetables are grown, to be flooded. Newsom promised $42 million in relief aid — but it turned out that the aid had been signed into law years earlier by President Trump as part of coronavirus relief, and only $300,000 was available. Worse yet, the $300,000 was not specifically for flood relief, but was available in the form of $600 for farmworkers.
Relief workers vented their frustration last week at Newsom’s apparent broken promise.
Now, the situation is even worse, according to the San Jose Mercury News, as residents recall Newsom promising that the president had promised him “an ‘immediate response’” to the state’s request for a federal disaster declaration. But the state had not yet provided that response, because they had yet to identify 1,200 homes that had suffered major damage. Many of the residents of Pajaro are currently homeless.
“They let us down,” said Monterey County spokesperson Nicholas Pasculli. “We’re still waiting on the presidential emergency declaration that was promised to us over a week ago. Governor, please pick up the phone and call the president and ask him to have empathy for the suffering of people in Pajaro. Ask him to sign the declaration.”
[ … ]
When evacuation orders are lifted, residents won’t be going back to the same Pajaro they left. There is still no potable water or working sewer system in the town, and about 400 buildings — nearly half of those in the town — were damaged by the flooding, according to a preliminary damage assessment by CalFire.
Accusing “Authoritarian” Republicans of Promoting “Grievance and Victimhood”
On January 5, 2023, Newsom used his second-term inaugural address at the California state Capitol to accuse Republicans of “promoting grievance and victimhood, in an attempt to erase so much of the progress you and I have witnessed in our lifetime.” He further charged that GOP leaders were now openly venting their “long-dormant authoritarian impulses” to “prey upon fear”; passing laws that “make it harder to vote and easier to buy illegal guns”; “selling regression as progress” while promoting a “rising tide of oppression”; and striving to “silence speech, fire teachers, kidnap migrants, subjugate women, attack the Special Olympics, and even demonize Mickey Mouse.”
