CFACT: Empowering American Farmers To Stand Up, Take Action thumbnail

CFACT: Empowering American Farmers To Stand Up, Take Action

By Tom Deweese

Farmers across the nation have found themselves on the front lines of the Globalist/Davos drive to reset society. From massive wind and solar farms to the growing land grab called Carbon Capture Pipelines, usable farmland for growing our food is disappearing faster than any of the bogus predictions of melting polar ice caps.

The farmers are facing intimidation from powerful corporations and pressure groups as many elected officials stand by, shuffling their feet in nervous inaction. Something has to be done.

Well, CFACT is there! As the new CFACT Grassroots Coordinator, I just made a barnstorming trip through three affected states — Montana, Wyoming, and South Dakota. I made presentations in six cities, was interviewed on five radio programs, and talked with several elected officials. The mission was to arouse local citizens and provide a clear plan on how to stand up to these determined Global forces

First, I explained to the crowds who these forces are, the true purpose of their destructive policies, and how they will affect everyone personally. Secondly, and more importantly, I provided a detailed plan on how to organize and stand up to protect their rights. I call it building a “Freedom Pod” right in their own local community.

In my address, I warned folks that these elitists are using climate as a scare tactic to get them to surrender their liberties voluntarily. They paint a picture of “Environmental Armageddon” and frighten us by warning “It doesn’t matter how many rights you think you have – if you don’t have a planet to stand on!”

Of course, such hype is overblown. In my lecture, I showcase how such alarmists “are not protectors of the environment, they are destroying it as well as human society.”

While many of the people have expressed fear that nothing can be done to stop this onslaught and that elected officials will not listen, we at CFACT try to encourage them. “Do you want to be an isolated pessimist or an effective activist to save your farms?” we inquire. This is followed by reassuring them, “We are not outnumbered, we are out-organized.ClimateAo

As I traveled from city to city, I made stops at local radio stations, including Town Square Media with host Aaron Flint, in Billings, Montana. Host Matt Smith of Riverfront Broadcasting in Rapid City, South Dakota even attended my talk in that city. When Tom Schultz interviewed me on Voices of Montana, he said, “Powerful! I’m with you.” I had an opportunity to also go on the national network VCY American with Jim Schneider. Many people told me that hearing his program was what made them decide to attend the programs.

As I traveled across the states, I got a chance to meet several elected officials. In Billings, Montana, I sat down with two members of the city council. They confirmed much of what we suspected, namely that Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) who surround elected officials often place pressure on them to put these “sustainable development” policies in place. They told me that Billings alone has more than 100 such groups, pushing with sample legislation and grabbing lots of dollars from the federal grants they obtain. The council members affirmed that’s how the poison of the policies is driven — by private NGOs and grant money.

I spent a full day traveling and talking with South Dakota State Senator Julie Frei Mueller. As she hosted me on a personal tour of Mount Rushmore, we had an energetic chat about how state legislators, and even governors, are pressured to impose radical policies that impact private property, the farm industry, and our whole system of elected representation. Mueller is a fierce advocate of limited government and has paid a huge price for it.

In addition, I was honored to have the opportunity to meet and talk with South Dakota Jared Bossly, who was accused of threatening two corporate surveyors who walked into his house uninvited, scaring his wife. This is an example of the growing intimidation farmers are facing to surrender their land.

The response to my presentations and leadership was enthusiastic. One of my hosts said, “It is our pleasure to work with you.” Another said, “God bless you. I knew you would be on top of this!” And a very enthusiastic local activist said, “Valuable information. I’m looking forward to the formation of a Freedom Pod to take action.”

The goal now is to keep these folks motivated and involved in building an effective response. Organizing local Freedom Pods will allow concerned Americans to stand up and say they know how to tackle the growing attacks they are facing. This is my task as I work through CFACT, building an effective grassroots team to provide leadership, tactics, and inspiration that keep ordinary Americans in the fight in every city in the nation.

Is this a daunting task? Yes. Will we succeed? Absolutely, there is no other option.

*****

The article was published by CFACT, Committee for A Constructive Tomorrow and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

Biden Energy Secretary’s EV Clown Show thumbnail

Biden Energy Secretary’s EV Clown Show

By Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow

Check out this unbelievable story at CFACT’s Climate Depot.

Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm thought a showboat electric car road trip would be great PR.  Wrong!

NPR (of all outlets) covered the mess that resulted, and our Marc Morano picked it up at the Depot:

Granholm approaches a charging station to charge the Cadillac Lyriq she was riding during a four-day road trip through the southeast early this summer. The electric vehicle had charging problems due to an “isolated hardware issue,” Cadillac says. But Granholm’s team encountered plenty of not-so-isolated problems too. … Not every vehicle in Granholm’s caravan was electric. The Secret Service, for instance, rode in large traditional SUVs. …

Her advance team realized there weren’t going to be enough plugs to go around. One of the station’s four chargers was broken, and others were occupied. So an Energy Department staffer tried parking a nonelectric vehicle by one of those working chargers to reserve a spot for the approaching secretary of energy. That did not go down well: a regular gas-powered car blocking the only free spot for a charger?

In fact, a family that was boxed out — on a sweltering day, with a baby in the vehicle — was so upset they decided to get the authorities involved: They called the police.”

So let’s get this straight.

Granholm’s luxury EV didn’t work right.  There weren’t enough chargers to go around, so they blocked one with a gas powered vehicle, denying a charge to a family with a baby on board who called the police on the Secretary of Energy!

It turns out that in Georgia it is perfectly legal to park an efficient gas-powered vehicle at an EV charging station, but this wasnt the PR the Biden Administration was looking for.

They sent some of their EV entourage down the road looking for slower chargers, and eventually found a place for the young family who’s battery was running out.

Fortunately none of the vehicles caught fire.

These are just a few of the issues that have left consumers rejecting electric vehicles in favor of less expensive, more efficient, long-range, quick fill-up gasoline vehicles.

Business Insider reports that, “New car inventory on dealer lots is sitting at about a 54 days’ supply, according to Cox Automotive. But for electric vehicles, that number is almost two times as much, with 92.2 days’ supply at dealerships —  up 343% from a year ago.”

Leaving consumers free to choose the vehicles of their choice, however, is not a consideration for the EV zealots in the Biden Administration, nor in California.

California even went so far as to issue a rule banning sales of gas-powered vehicles starting in 2035.

Secretary Granholm’s EV clown show gives us all a taste of the frustrations in store if the Left succeeds in forcing us to drive the cars they choose for us.

Assuming, of course, they allow us to have cars in the first place.

For nature and people too.

©2023. CFACT. All rights reserved.

DAVID BLACKMON: Every Problem With The Texas Grid Is Caused By Government Policy thumbnail

DAVID BLACKMON: Every Problem With The Texas Grid Is Caused By Government Policy

By The Daily Caller

Grid managers at the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) were forced to move to stage 2 emergency measures Wednesday evening when record-high power demand threatened to overload the system as solar power declined with the setting sun and the state’s fleet of wind generation delivered lower-than-expected inputs. A check of ERCOT’s data at 7:29 CT, a few moments following its stage 2 emergency notice showed that thermal generation consisting of natural gas and coal-fired units was accounting for more than 82% of overall system generation.

The Daily Caller reported that Wednesday’s emergency, combined with forecasts of 100+ degree high temperatures across most of the state Thursday and Friday, led Biden Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm to issue an emergency order allowing ERCOT to exceed emissions limits to continue to input increased thermal inputs to preserve the integrity of the grid. While Granholm’s declaration is commendable, it is key to point out that the arbitrary emissions limits imposed by DOE on the Texas and other regional grids play a large role in creating the lack of grid stability in the first place.

There is no reason other than such irrational regulations why a state so incredibly rich in energy resources should ever experience capacity shortages on its power grid. The same holds true for every other regional grid across the nation. This is entirely a government-created situation. It’s a truth no one wants to discuss, though, so the conversations invariably go off on tangents that, while relevant, are not the actual cause of the problem.

A report in the Dallas Morning News from Thursday afternoon provides a great example. The headline reads “Texas power emergency hinged on stranded wind farm supplies.”  The report details an explanation by former ERCOT interim director Brad Jones that Wednesday’s emergency came about due to a single overloaded transmission line designed to transport electricity generated by South Texas wind farms to the Dallas/Fort Worth area in North Texas.

“The grid was facing the potential of congestion overload on the line coming from South Texas toward Dallas,” Jones said during an interview. “All the wind that was on in the south was struggling to get to Dallas to help meet demand. So right in the middle of this, ERCOT had to reduce generation in the south to prevent that line from being overloaded.”

Well, ok, that makes sense, as far as it goes. But nowhere in its report does the Morning News question why Texas must transmit power generated by wind farms sited hundreds of miles away to the DFW area, enduring a high percentage of line loss, when that market sits smack dab in the middle of the Barnett Shale, one of America’s biggest natural gas reserves. Wouldn’t it make more sense just to use that prodigious natural resource to generate electricity from power plants sited right in the region?

We should also ask why Texas has allowed those wind farms to be constructed right in the middle of the migratory pathways for hundreds of species of birds, creating an annual slaughter of untold thousands of them. Did the state have any real need for the power these wind farms generate outside of arbitrary targets set by state and federal governments? The answer to that question is clearly and unambiguously “no.”

The Texas grid is in no way unique here. The simple fact of the matter is that every problem related to stability and reliability of every power grid in this country has its germinating cause based in government targets, mandates, subsidies, and other policies. All these policies distort markets, create perverse incentives, and ignore what should be the main goal of any power grid, which is to protect and preserve the safety of the people in the service area.

But these are questions few in the media want to ask, because they don’t fit the prevailing narrative. And they are questions no one in government wants to answer, since honest answers to them invariably trace the causation back to their own policies and actions.

The inevitable outcome is a never-ending crisis that no one ever effectively addresses. None of this will get any better until this dynamic changes.

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.

AUTHOR

DAVID BLACKMON

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.

RELATED ARTICLES:

DAVID BLACKMON: Get Ready For More Pain At The Pump

Authorities Use Water Cannons On Eco-Activists, Detain Nearly 2,400

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


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.

Scientist Admits Omitting “Full Truth” From Climate Study To Get It Published thumbnail

Scientist Admits Omitting “Full Truth” From Climate Study To Get It Published

By Nick Pope

Patrick T. Brown, a climate scientist, wrote Tuesday in The Free Press that he deliberately omitted the “full truth” from a paper he recently authored in order to increase its chances of publication in a prestigious journal.

Brown explained his decision-making in the piece, asserting that he overlooked truths in his work in order to make it more appealing to the editorial biases of leading journals like Nature and Science. Brown and seven other authors wrote a paper which examined the relationship between climate change and wildfire risks in California, and Nature published the paper in August 2023.

Brown stated that scientists hoping to advance their careers by getting published in leading journals are inclined to tailor their findings to align with the biases of editors and reviewers, a dynamic which “distorts a great deal of climate science research, misinforms the public and most importantly, makes practical solutions more difficult to achieve.”

“I knew not to try to quantify key aspects other than climate change in my research because it would dilute the story that prestigious journals like Nature and its rival, Science, want to tell,” Brown wrote of his paper. He asserted that reviewers and “editors of these journals have made it abundantly clear, both by what they publish and what they reject, that they want climate papers that support certain preapproved narratives—even when those narratives come at the expense of broader knowledge for society.” (RELATED: ‘Shady Deals’: UN Enlisted Google To Push Down Opposing Viewpoints On Climate Science)

Brown further pointed out that the incentive structure he criticizes induces authors to overlook or downplay practical measures for mitigating climate-related risks, such as reasonable forest management policies. Instead, authors are inclined to highlight the problem of greenhouse gas emissions, which skews scientific analysis and facilitates legislation like the Inflation Reduction Act that takes aim at problems rather than facilitating solutions, Brown asserted in the piece.

“In my paper, we didn’t bother to study the influence of these other obviously relevant factors. Did I know that including them would make for a more realistic and useful analysis? I did,” Brown wrote in The Free Press. “But I also knew that it would detract from the clean narrative centered on the negative impact of climate change and thus decrease the odds that the paper would pass muster with Nature’s editors and reviewers.”

The media also deserves some blame because reporters often take studies at face value in pursuit of driving traffic, Brown wrote.

“You might be wondering at this point if I’m disowning my own paper. I’m not,” Brown stated in the piece regarding his paper. “On the contrary, I think it advances our understanding of climate change’s role in day-to-day wildfire behavior. It’s just that the process of customizing the research for an eminent journal caused it to be less useful than it could have been. ”

Representatives for Nature did not respond immediately to a request for comment.

*****

This article was published by the Daily Caller News Foundation and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

Biden Regime Cancels Trump-Era Oil and Gas Leases in Alaska thumbnail

Biden Regime Cancels Trump-Era Oil and Gas Leases in Alaska

By The Geller Report

The Democrats mean to kill the engine of America.

Biden canceled all of the Alaska drilling on Federal land. At the same time, he stopped allowing liquid natural gas from being transported by train.

That leaves the only mode of transportation by trucking. About 2 months ago the largest trucking company went out of business:

Yellow, one of the nation’s largest freight and trucking companies, announced it is shutting down, leading to one of the largest mass layoffs in recent history and potential shipping cost increases. The company is in bankruptcy just three years after getting a $700 million loan from taxpayers.

So that is going to create a massive supply chain issue of liquid natural gas which means your utility bills as well as the price of gas is going to skyrocket.

I want to make sure that you understand what is about to happen so you can prepare.

Biden canceled all of the Alaska drilling on Federal land. At the same time he stopped allowing liquid natural gas from being transported by train.

That leaves the only mode of transportation…

— Wendy Patterson (@wendyp4545) September 8, 2023

Biden cancels Trump-era oil and gas leases in Alaska: ‘Like a victim under this administration,’ governor says

Biden admin abruptly cancels several gas, oil leases in Alaska

Gov. Dunleavy blasts Biden: ‘2024 can’t come soon enough’

The governor of Alaska is accusing the president of violating the law after Biden’s administration pulled the plug on Trump-era oil leases.

“If he’s willing to break this law, surely there’s going to be others. And once again, Alaska right now feels like a victim under this administration. And the country is going to feel like a victim here if they haven’t already,” Republican Gov. Mike Dunleavy said on “Kudlow” Thursday.

Alaska’s state agency is expected to challenge the decision in court, after Biden canceled several oil and gas leases issued in early 2021 to an Alaskan state economic development agency on Wednesday.

The Department of the Interior (DOI) rescinded the seven 10-year leases — spanning 365,775 acres in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) — held by the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA) and supported by a wide range of stakeholders, including lawmakers and Native Alaskans. The leases were issued by the Trump administration in one of its final actions.

The Department of the Interior (DOI) rescinded the seven 10-year leases — spanning 365,775 acres in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) — held by the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA) and supported by a wide range of stakeholders, including lawmakers and Native Alaskans. The leases were issued by the Trump administration in one of its final actions.

“This makes absolutely no sense from any perspective unless your goal is to drive up the cost of oil and gas so much that it makes certain renewables cheaper,” Dunleavy told host Larry Kudlow.
Mike Dunleavy on Alaska oil leases

Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy said if Biden’s “willing” to break the state’s oil and gas laws, “surely there’s going to be others” the president violates, on “Kudlow” Thursday. (Fox News)

The DOI also issued a proposal to block off 13 million acres of land across the National Petroleum Reserve (NPR), an area in North Slope Borough, Alaska, set aside by Congress for resource development, and an additional 2.8 million of acres in the Beaufort Sea off the northern coast of Alaska, from oil and gas leasing.

“This is just two of 55 actions that the federal government under this administration is perpetrating against Alaska right now,” Dunleavy said, while adding that Russia, China, Saudi Arabia and Iran are “laughing” at Biden’s energy policy.

“They’re laughing together at the United States of America,” the governor said. “I can’t find anywhere in, really the history of nation-states or empires, where they worked at hobbling themselves to such a degree that’s happening currently with this administration. So 2024 can’t come soon enough for most of us.”

Keep reading.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLE: Biden killed oil and gas drilling in Alaska

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

Weekend Read: What the Left Did to Our Country thumbnail

Weekend Read: What the Left Did to Our Country

By Victor Davis Hanson

Will their upheaval  succeed?

In the last 20 years, the Left has boasted that it has gained control of most of America institutions of power and influence—the corporate boardroom, media, Silicon Valley, Wall Street, the administrative state, academia, foundations, social media, entertainment, professional sports, and Hollywood.

With such support, between 2009-17, Barack Obama was empowered to transform the Democratic Party from its middle-class roots and class concerns into the party of the bicoastal rich and subsidized poor—obsessions with big money, race, a new intolerant green religion, and dividing the country into a binary of oppressors and oppressed.

The Obamas entered the presidency spouting the usual leftwing boilerplate (“spread the wealth,” “just downright mean country,” “get in their face,” “first time I’ve been proud of my country”) as upper-middle-class, former community activists, hurt that their genius and talents had not yet been sufficiently monetized.

After getting elected through temporarily pivoting to racial ecumenicalism and pseudo-calls for unity, they reverted to form and governed by dividing the country. And then the two left the White House as soon-to-be mansion living, mega-rich elites, cashing in on the fears they had inculcated over the prior eight years.

To push through the accompanying unpopular agendas of an open border, mandatory wind and solar energy, racial essentialism, and the weaponization of the state, Obama had begun demonizing his opponents and the country in general: America was an unexceptional place. Cops were racist. “Clingers” of the Midwest were hopelessly ignorant and prejudiced. Only fundamental socialist transformation could salvage a historically oppressive, immoral, and racist nation.

The people finally rebelled at such preposterousness. Obama lost his party some 1,400 local and state offices during his tenure, along with both houses of Congress. His presidency was characterized by his own polarizing mediocrity. His one legacy was Obamacare, the veritable destruction of the entire system of a once workable health insurance, of the hallowed doctor-patient relationship, and of former easy access to competent specialists.

Yet Obama’s unfufilled ambitions set the stage for the Biden administration—staffed heavily with Obama veterans—to complete the revolutionary transformation of the Democratic Party and country.

It was ironic that while Obama was acknowledged as young and charismatic, nonetheless a cognitively challenged, past plagiarist, fabulist, and utterly corrupt Joe Biden was far more effective in ramming through a socialist woke agenda and altering the very way Americans vote and conduct their legal system.

Stranger still, Biden accomplished this subversion of traditional America while debilitated and often mentally inert—along with being mired in a bribery and influence-peddling scandal that may ultimately confirm that he easily was the most corrupt president to hold office in U.S. history.

How was all this possible?

Covid had allowed the unwell Biden to run a surrogate campaign from his basement as he outsourced his politicking to a corrupt media.

Senility proved a godsend for Biden. His cognitive disabilities masked his newfound radicalism and long-accustomed incompetence. Unlike his past failed campaigns, the lockdowns allowed Biden to be rarely seen or heard—and thus as much liked in the abstract as he had previously been disliked in the concrete.

His handlers, the Obamas, and the Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren radical Democrats, saw Biden’s half-century pretense as a gladhander—good ole Joe Biden from Scranton—as the perfect delivery system to funnel their own otherwise-unpopular leftwing agendas. In sum, via the listless Biden, they sought to change the very way America used to work.

And what a revolution Biden’s puppeteers have unleashed in less than three years.

They launched a base attack on the American legal system. Supreme Court judges are libeled, their houses swarmed, and their lives threatened with impunity. The Left promised to pack the court or to ignore any decision it resents. The media runs hit pieces on any conservative justice deemed too influential. The prior Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer whipped up a mob outside the court’s doors, and threatened two justices by name. As Schumer presciently put it, they would soon “reap the whirlwind” of what they supposedly had sowed and thus would have no idea what was about to “hit” them.

Under the pretense of Covid fears, balloting went from 70 percent participation on election day in most states to a mere 30 percent. Yet the rates of properly rejected illegal or improper ballots often dived by a magnitude of ten.

Assaults now followed on hallowed processes, laws, customs, and institutions—the Senate filibuster, the 50-state union, the Electoral College, the nine-justice Supreme Court, Election Day, and voter IDs.

Under Biden, the revolution had institutionalized first-term impeachment, the trial of an ex-president while a private citizen, and the indictment of a chief political rival and ex-president on trumped up charges by local and federal prosecutors—all to destroy a political rival and alter the 2024 election cycle.

Biden destroyed the southern border—literally. Eight million entered illegally—no background checks, no green cards, no proof of vaccinations. America will be dealing with the consequences for decades. Mexico was delighted, receiving some $60 million in annual remittances, while the cartels were empowered to ship enough fentanyl to kill 100,000 Americans a year.

Modern monetary theory,” the Leftist absurdity that printing money ensures prosperity, followed. It has nearly bankrupted the country, unleashed wild inflation, and resulted in the highest interest rates in a quarter-century. Middle-class wages fell further behind as a doddering Biden praised his disastrous “Bidenomics.”

Biden warred on fossil fuels, cancelling federal leases and pipelines, jawboning lending agencies to defund fracking, demonizing state-of-the-art, clean-burning cars, and putting vast areas of oil- and gas-rich federals lands off-limits to drilling.

When gas prices predictably doubled under Biden and the 2022 midterms approached, he tried temporarily to lease out a few new fields, to drain the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and to beg the Saudis, and our enemies, the Iranians, the Venezuelans, and the Russians, to pump more oil and gas that Biden himself would not. All this was a pathetic ruse to temporarily lower gas prices before the mid-term elections.

Biden abandoned Afghanistan, leaving the largest trove of military equipment behind in U.S. military history, along with thousands of loyal Afghans and pro-American contractors.

Biden insulted the parents of the 13 Marines blown up in this worst U.S. military debacle since Pearl Harbor. He lied to the parents of the dead that he too lost a son in the Iraq war, and when among them later impatiently checked his watch as he seemed bored with the commemoration of the fallen—and made no effort to hide his sense that the ceremony was tedious to him.

Vladimir Putin summed up the Afghan debacle—and Biden’s nonchalant remark that he wouldn’t react strongly to a “minor” invasion of Ukraine if it were minor—as a green light to invade Ukraine.

When Biden did awaken, his first reaction was an offer to fly the Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy out of the country as soon as possible. What has followed proved the greatest European killing ground since the 1944-45 Battle of the Bulge, albeit one that has now fossilized into a Verdun-like quagmire that is draining American military supply stocks and killing a half-million Ukrainians and Russians.

Suddenly, there are three genders, not two. Women’s sports have been wrecked by biological men competing as women, destroying a half-century of female athletic achievement. Young girls in locker rooms, co-eds in sororities, and women in prison must dress and shower with biological men transitioning to women by assertion.

There is no longer a commitment to free speech. The American Civil Liberties Union is a woke, intolerant group trying to ban free expression under the pretense of fighting “hate” speech and “disinformation.”

The Left has revived McCarthyite loyal oaths straight out of the 1950s, forcing professors, job applicants, and students applying for college to pledge their commitment to “diversity” as a requisite for hiring, admittance, or promotion. Diversity is our era’s version of the Jacobins’ “Cult of Reason.”

Race relations hit a 50-year nadir. Joe Biden has a long history of racist insults and putdowns. And now as apparent penance, he has reinvented himself as a reverse racial provocateur, spouting nonsense about white supremacy, exploiting shootings or hyping racial tensions to ensure that an increasingly disgusted black electorate does not leave the new Democratic Party.

The military has adopted wokeism, oblivious that it has eroded meritocracy in the ranks and slashed military recruitment. It is underfunded, wracked by internal suspicion, loss of morale and ginned up racial and gender animosity. Its supply stocks are drained. Arms productions is snail-like, and generalship is seen as a revolving door to corporate defense contractor board riches.

Big-city Democratic district attorneys subverted the criminal justice system, destroyed law enforcement deterrence, and unleashed a record crime wave. Did they wish to create anarchy as protest against the normal, or were they Jokerist nihilists who delighted in sowing ruin for ruin’s sake?

Radical racial activists, with Democrat endorsement, demand polarizing racial reparations. The louder the demands, the quieter they remain about smash-and-grab looting, carjacking, and the swarming of malls by disproportionally black teens—even as black-on-black urban murders reach record proportions.

In response, Biden tried to exploit the growing tensions by spouting lies that “white supremacy” and “white privilege” fuel such racial unrest—even as his ill-gotten gains, past record of racist demagoguery and resulting lucre and mansions appear the epitome of his own so-called white privilege.

This litany of disasters could be vastly expanded, but more interesting is the why of it all?

What we are witnessing seems to be utter nihilism. The border is not porous but nonexistent. Mass looting and carjackings are not poorly punished, but simply exempt from all and any consequences. Our downtowns are reduced to a Hobbesian “war of all against all,” where the strong dictate to the weak and the latter adjust as they must. The streets of our major cities in just a few years have become precivilizational—there are more human feces on the sidewalks of San Francisco than were in the gutters of Medieval London.

The FBI and DOJ are not simply wayward and weaponized, but corrupt and renegade. Apparently the perquisite now for an FBI director is the ability either to lie while under oath or better to mask such lying by claiming amnesia or ignorance.

Immigration is akin to the vast unchecked influxes of the late Roman Empire across the Danube and Rhine that helped to finish off a millennium-old civilization that had lost all confidence in its culture and thus had no need for borders.

In other words, the revolution is not so much political as anarchist. Nothing escapes it—not ceiling fans, not natural gas cooktops, not parents at school board meetings, not Christian bakeries, not champion female swimmers, not dutiful policemen, not hard-working oil drillers, not privates and corporals in the armed forces, not teens applying on their merits to college, not anyone, anywhere, anytime.

The operating principle is either to allow or to engineer things to become so atrocious in everyday American life—the inability to afford food and fuel, the inability to walk safely in daylight in our major cities, the inability to afford to drive as one pleases, the inability to obtain or pay back a high interest loan—that the government can absorb the private sector and begin regimenting the masses along elite dictates. The more the people tire of the leftist agenda, the more its architects furiously seek to implement it, hoping that their institutional and cultural control can do what  ballots cannot.

We could variously characterize their efforts as destroying the nation to save it, or burning it down to start over, or fundamentally transforming America into something never envisioned by the Founders.

Will their upheaval  succeed? All the levers of the power and money are on the side of the revolutionaries. The people are not. And they are starting to wake to the notion if they do not stop the madness in their midst they very soon won’t have a country.

*****

This article was published at American Greatness and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

Second Nobel Prize Winner Signs Letter With 1,600 Scientists Declaring Climate ‘Emergency’ A Myth

By Tristan Justice

A coalition of more than 1,600 scientists critical of their peers’ hyperbolic claims about climate change drew a prominent recruit to sign their 2019 declaration that the climate “emergency” is a myth.

John Clauser, who won last year’s Nobel Prize in physics, became the second Nobel laureate last month to sign the document with 1,607 other scientists rebuking the idea of a climate crisis.

“Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific,” the declaration organized by the Climate Intelligence Foundation (CLINTEL) reads. “Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures.”

Last year, the International Energy Agency (IEA) debuted a roadmap to net-zero emissions that became the model for corporate bishops of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) standards. A June report from the Energy Policy Research Foundation criticized the initiatives outlined as a “green mirage.” The IEA roadmap, researchers wrote, “will dramatically increase energy costs, devastate Western economies, and increase human suffering.”

“The aim of global policy should be ‘prosperity for all’ by providing reliable and affordable energy at all times,” reads CLINTEL’s World Climate Declaration. “There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm.”

Norwegian-American engineer Ivan Giaever, who won the Nobel Prize in physics in 1973, is also a signatory to the declaration.

“The popular narrative about climate change reflects a dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people. Misguided climate science has metastasized into massive shock-journalistic pseudoscience,” Clauser said. “In turn, the pseudoscience has become a scapegoat for a wide variety of other unrelated ills. It has been promoted and extended by similarly misguided business marketing agents, politicians, journalists, government agencies, and environmentalists.”

The document makes several claims that contradict popular narratives peddled by climate hysterics. For example, the planet is warming slower than predicted and has not driven a spike in natural disasters.

Mega-disasters are actually on the decline, while the destruction from natural events such as hurricanes and wildfires is on the rise. The increase in billion-dollar disasters, however, is a result of there being more to destroy. But that hasn’t stopped legacy outlets from blaming every natural event on the “climate crisis.” Two years ago, The New York Times published “Postcards From A World On Fire” despite natural disaster deaths declining by 90 percent.

The World Climate Declaration also notes that carbon dioxide is plant food, “not a pollutant.”

“It is essential to all life on Earth,” the document reads.

In fact, reforestation is on the rise, promoted by a global “greening” effect proliferating plant growth.

*****

This article was published by The Federalist and is reproduced with permission.


Wealthy Democrats Aided And Abetted The Biden Border Crisis, Now They’re Whining About It thumbnail

Wealthy Democrats Aided And Abetted The Biden Border Crisis, Now They’re Whining About It

By John Daniel Davidson

Amid the scrum of news this week about Democrat-led schemes to put former President Donald Trump on trial during the GOP primaries and rig the 2024 election in plain sight, you might have missed a cautionary tale out of New York City, where Democrat millionaires are whining about a migrant crisis they helped create.

A group of more than 120 executives, including Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase, Larry Fink of BlackRock, and Jane Fraser of Citigroup, sent a letter to the Biden administration and congressional leaders asking for more federal aid to New York, to help with what they call “the humanitarian crisis that has resulted from the continued flow of asylum-seekers into our country.

Credit where credit is due: These wealthy New York executives seem to have figured out the connection between huge numbers of illegal immigrants — sorry, “asylum-seekers” — and the humanitarian crisis that always follows.

It’s a connection many of us made years ago, back when massive waves of illegal immigrants were overrunning Texas border towns and gathering in sprawling makeshift encampments along the north banks of the Rio Grande. Unable to house or even properly process these people, federal border officials resorted to dropping them off at bus stations in places like McAllen and Del Rio, Texas — relatively small towns with few resources to cope with the thousands of illegal immigrants released from federal custody, sometimes on a daily basis.

But so long as the chaos and crisis stayed in south Texas, Democrats in deep-blue enclaves like New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles were happy to tut-tut anyone who claimed there was a problem at the border or suggested that maybe we should do something to stop the flow of illegal border-crossers. If you complained or proposed solutions, you were a racist — just like those Border Patrol horsemen with their “whips.” How dare they try to stop foreigners from illegally entering the country right in front of them?

But now that hotels and shelters are filled to overflowing in these cities, now that the crisis has come directly to open-border Democrats’ homes and places of work, wealthy urban elites want the government to do something about it. (A New York Times story this week mentioned that new arrivals are being forced to sleep outside over-capacity shelters, including one at the Roosevelt Hotel in Midtown, “just blocks away from JPMorgan’s offices.”)

The New York letter, whose list of signatories includes people like Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla and Wells Fargo CEO Charles Scharf, ends with a plea to Washington “to take immediate action to better control the border and the process of asylum and provide relief to the cities and states that are bearing the burdens posed by the influx of asylum seekers.”

Of course, to hear White House flack Karine Jean-Pierre tell it, President Biden is controlling the influx of migrants at the border and, in fact, has stopped the flow! She actually said that this week, even though as Bill Melugin of Fox News was quick to point out, it’s completely false.

Leaving aside idiotic White House spin, do the wealthy letter-signers of New York realize that one very effective way to “better control the border” is for state and local law enforcement to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement to ensure illegal immigrants under an order of deportation by an immigration judge are actually deported? Do they know that kind of enforcement is a powerful deterrent to would-be illegal border-crossers abroad, and lack of such enforcement is a powerful pull factor that encourages more illegal immigration?

It would seem they do not. These are the same people, after all, who tacitly supported a 2019 law making it much easier for illegal immigrants to get a driver’s license in New York, thus shielding them from detection, while also prohibiting ICE and CBP from accessing New York DMV records.

Did the current Democratic mayor of New York City, Eric Adams, support this policy when it was introduced four years ago? He was a state senator for years; surely he knew about it. Today, Mayor Adams says that any plan to address the migrant crisis in his city that does not involve stopping the flow of illegal immigration at the border “is a failed plan.”

I hate to be the one to break it to him, but stopping the flow of illegal immigration at the border means taking away the incentives for people to illegally cross the border in the first place. Making it easy for illegal immigrants to get a driver’s license, for example, while helping to shield them from federal immigration authorities, is a recipe for more, not less, illegal immigration.

New York is of course only one state among many that have passed such laws. Indeed, a vast illegal immigrant sanctuary network has sprung up nationwide in recent years among blue cities, states, and counties that have enacted laws, ordinances, regulations, and policies that hinder immigration enforcement and shield criminal aliens from ICE.

Still, even amid the crisis, with migrant families sleeping on the streets of New York and other major cities, blue-state elites don’t quite seem to grasp what’s happening, which is why they aren’t demanding deportation but better processing and expedited work permits for “asylum-seekers” — policies that do nothing but provide more and stronger incentives for migrants to enter the United States illegally.

And make no mistake: Would-be migrants are acutely aware of the incentives and disincentives at work here. As Todd Bensman of the Center for Immigration Studies noted in a recent interview, “All U.S.-bound immigrants pay very, very close, almost academic attention, to any and all policy pronouncements uttered or implemented by American leaders about immigration. They also pay close attention to news of all immigration-related court rulings. The reason they are so disciplined is because this or that policy or court ruling either makes illegal entry easier or harder.”

Which means, in turn, that surges in illegal border crossings of the kind we’ve seen since Biden took office — a record 2.3 million border arrests last year and on track for the same or greater this year — are driven almost entirely by policy decisions coming out of Washington, D.C., and legal rulings from the federal judiciary.

If New York millionaire Democrats paid half as much attention to border policy as illegal immigrants do, maybe they’d grasp what’s going on at the border, and why. Maybe they could then start to make sense of the anger and frustration of working- and middle-class residents of their cities, who increasingly show up at public meetings to express outrage at the migrant crisis. One woman, a Chicago resident speaking at a recent meeting about a migrant shelter in Hyde Park, was blunt about it: “I don’t want them there. Take them someplace else or send them back to Venezuela. I don’t care where they go. This is wrong. You got 73 percent of the people homeless in this city are black people. What have you done for them?”

Maybe, just maybe the wealthy elites who run our blue cities are beginning to wake up and realize that soon that woman’s question will be on the lips of every resident of New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and every other place where Democrats have helped create the conditions for this crisis.

Here’s hoping they can connect the dots. If they can’t, they can always go down to the local migrant shelter and have an asylum-seeker explain it to them.

*****

This article was published by The Federalist and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

The Richest Opponents of Carbon-Free Nuclear Energy thumbnail

The Richest Opponents of Carbon-Free Nuclear Energy

By Ken Braun

A new profile at InfluenceWatch for the Opposition to Nuclear Energy movement lists eleven anti-nuclear nonprofits that each individually have annual revenue in excess of $50 million. As shown in a previous essay, there are hundreds of left-leaning nonprofits that oppose the use of zero-carbon nuclear energy, including nearly all of the nation’s largest climate/carbon alarmist groups.

Their combined annual revenue exceeds $2.3 billion.

Nuclear power is America’s largest source of zero-carbon electricity, and second place isn’t even close. In 2022, according to the U.S. Department of Energy, nuclear provided 78 percent more electricity than wind turbines, 189 percent more power than hydro-electric dams, and 435 percent more than solar panels.

A nation that was serious about cutting carbon emissions could and should be building far more nuclear power stations.

It’s the cleanest of the “clean” energy sources. According to the Department of Energy, “nuclear energy produces more electricity on less land than any other clean-air source.” The Department of Energy notes the comparison is particularly apt for wind and solar because “wind farms require 360 times more land area to produce the same amount of electricity and solar photovoltaic plants require 75 times more space.”

The waste profile of nuclear power is tiny. According to the Department of Energy, “all of the used nuclear fuel produced by the U.S. nuclear energy industry over the last 60 years could fit on a football field at a depth of less than 10 yards!”

The fuel is plentiful. The Department of Energy also reports that uranium is “a common metal found in rocks all over the world.” And a 2009 Scientific American analysis projected that supplies found in seawater could keep nuclear reactors running for another 60,000 years.

Nuclear is also the safest major power source we have. In 2020, Our World in Data estimated that getting an equal amount of energy from nuclear fuel rather than other major other sources “results in 99.9% fewer deaths than brown coal; 99.8% fewer than coal; 99.7% fewer than oil; and 97.6% fewer than gas.”

These 11 American nonprofits known to have annual revenue in excess of $50 million are the vanguard of the opposition to the development of carbon-free nuclear energy.

World Wildlife Fund

The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) reported a total revenue of $381,636,162 for the year ending June 2022.

In April 2021, according to the WWF InfluenceWatch profile, the group registered its opposition to a final draft of proposed rules regarding what the European Union would consider “green taxonomy” energy investments. The World Wildlife Fund statement declared that “fossil fuels and nuclear power are unsustainable” and that the final rules needed “to make clear that gas and nuclear will not be part of the green taxonomy once and for all.” In March 2020, as recommendations were being made regarding the final draft, the WWF praised recommendations provided to the EU that “would rightfully put an end to polluting fossil fuels, nuclear and bioenergy being greenwashed.”

World Resources Institute

The World Resources Institute (WRI) reported a total revenue of $289,669,226 for the year ending September 2021.

In 2018, according to the WRI InfluenceWatch profile, the group hosted an awards ceremony honoring two activists credited with blocking the construction of a nuclear power plant in South Africa. A WRI news release praised the pair for a “victory that protected South Africa from an unprecedented expansion of the nuclear industry. . .”

EDF

The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) reported a total revenue of $284,762,302 for the year ending September 2022.

In 2017, according to the EDF InfluenceWatch profile, the group advocated for the shutdown of a nuclear energy plant in New York. In 2016 EDF promoted the shutdown of the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant in California. The pro-nuclear Environmental Progress has accused EDF of “hypocrisy” because EDF advocated for taxpayer subsidies for wind and solar energy but opposed similar assistance for nuclear energy.

NRDC

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) reported total revenues of $186,185,838 for the year ending June 2022.

The NRDC Influence Watch profile shows the group has repeatedly supported the shutdown of nuclear power plants, including Diablo Canyon in California and Indian Point in New York.

Sierra Club

The Sierra Club reported total revenues of $152,093,074 for the year ending December 2021.

The InfluenceWatch profile for the Sierra Club shows that the group is one of the nation’s most strident opponents of nuclear power. The Sierra Club website has stated that nuclear power is “a uniquely dangerous energy technology for humanity” and that the “Sierra Club remains unequivocally opposed to nuclear energy.”

Rocky Mountain Institute

The Rocky Mountain Institute reported a total revenue of $116,983,377 for the year ending June 2022.

Amory Lovins, the RMI founder, has been an influential opponent of nuclear energy for nearly fifty years. The RMI InfluenceWatch profile quotes a 2011 RMI report written by Lovins, in which he asserted that nuclear power is “costly and dangerous and a poor alternative to renewable energy sources.” Lovins reiterated his criticisms of nuclear power in a July 2017 report for RMI.

Also covered in the InfluenceWatch profile for RMI is a February 2022 report on solutions to an energy shortage in Europe. Written by another RMI researcher, the report recommended that policymakers not look “backward to domestic fossil or large-scale nuclear,” criticized French and Dutch investments in nuclear energy, and proposed that all of Europe should instead invest heavily in alternative sources such as weather-dependent wind.

League of Conservation Voters

The League of Conservation Voters (LCV) reported total revenues of $114,796,662 for the year ending December 2021.

According to LCV’s InfluenceWatch profile, the group was one of more than 100 co-signatories on a November 2020 letter to the U.S. Senate that expressed opposition to S. 4897, the “American Nuclear Infrastructure Act of 2020.” The letter stated that nuclear power “amplifies and expands the dangers of climate change” and denounced it as an example of “false solutions to the climate crisis that perpetuate our reliance on dirty energy industries.”

NAACP

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) reported total revenue of $103,738,054 for the year ending December 2021.

The InfluenceWatch profile for the NAACP shows two examples of the group’s opposition to nuclear energy.

In 2018 the NAACP approved a resolution titled: “In Opposition to Nuclear and Fossil Fuel Technologies as Safe, Viable Alternatives to Renewable Energy.” The text of the resolution stated: “THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that, the NAACP stands in opposition to nuclear energy and attempts to avoid the much needed, inevitable energy transition by merely converting from one fossil fuel source to another…”

In May of 2021, the NAACP was one of 715 groups and businesses listed as a co-signer on a letter to the leadership of the U.S. House and Senate that referred to nuclear energy as a “dirty” form of energy production and a “significant” source of pollution.

Southern Environmental Law Center

The Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) reported total revenues of $82,818,237 for the year ending March 2022.

The InfluenceWatch profile for SELC shows the group has repeatedly criticized and opposed nuclear power generation and promoted instead weather-dependent wind and solar energy systems. Examples of SELC’s anti-nuclear advocacy have occurred in Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia.

Dream Corps

Dream Corps reported a total revenue of $57,812,679 for the year ending December 2021.

Green for All is the climate policy project of Dream Corps. The Dream Corps profile on InfluenceWatch reports that Green for All was one of more than 600 co-signing organizations on a January 2019 open letter to Congress that denounced nuclear power as an example of “dirty energy” that should not be included in any legislation promoting the use of so-called “renewable energy.”

Movement Strategy Center

The Movement Strategy Center reported a total revenue of $57,326,783 for the year ending June 2022.

The MSC profile on InfluenceWatch features quotes from a January 2015 report produced jointly by MSC that criticized nuclear energy and carbon capture technology as examples of “false solutions” to the challenge of creating low-carbon and carbon-free energy sources. The same report praised the work of left-leaning advocates in India who were opposing nuclear power and zero-carbon hydro-electric dams.

*****

This article was published by Capital Research and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

COVID-19 Lies and What to Do About Them thumbnail

COVID-19 Lies and What to Do About Them

By Kurt Mahlburg

The fall of Fauci and the unraveling narrative about COVID-19’s origins is something of a slow-motion train wreck.

As recently as 2021, White House Chief Medical Advisor and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Dr. Anthony Fauci was hailed as a national hero and an icon of science.

To be fair, Fauci did much of the hailing. “I represent science,” he infamously boasted on CBS’s Face the Nation. Just months earlier, he had assured MSNBC host Chuck Todd, “Attacks on me quite frankly are attacks on science.”

Now Fauci is the subject of an official Department of Justice criminal referral by Senator Rand Paul, R-Ky. Senator Paul has credibly accused Fauci of lying to Congress about his use of U.S. taxpayer dollars to fund risky gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

As for COVID-19’s origins, until recently, every man and his dog was accused of spreading misinformation—and was silenced on social media—for suggesting the virus came from the Wuhan lab.

We now know from the U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence that “all agencies continue to assess that both a natural and laboratory-associated origin remain plausible hypotheses to explain the first human infection.” The lab leak theory remains the FBI’s favored explanation for the origins of the pandemic and, after much kicking and screaming, one that many mainstream news outlets finally acknowledge as a possibility.

Most damning of all is the trove of emails and other memos sent between Fauci and his co-conspirators that have been forced out into the light of day thanks to Freedom of Information Act requests.

Perhaps the most influential peer-reviewed paper on COVID-19’s origins was “The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2,” published in Nature Medicine on March 17, 2020.

The paper argued COVID-19 “is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus.” Its authors penned public emails and appeared in interviews denouncing the lab leak hypothesis as “crackpot” and “conspiracy theories.”

The only problem?

In private communications, every one of the paper’s five authors feared that SARS-CoV-2—the virus that brought the world to a standstill for two years—may in fact have leaked from the Wuhan lab.

These eminent scientists consciously misled the world, publishing dogged claims they secretly questioned.

*****

Continue reading this article at Intellectual Take Out.

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

DAVID BLACKMON: Energy Companies Want Nothing To Do With Biden’s Botched Offshore Wind Projects thumbnail

DAVID BLACKMON: Energy Companies Want Nothing To Do With Biden’s Botched Offshore Wind Projects

By The Daily Caller

Is investor interest in committing billions of dollars to new offshore wind projects starting to wane in the United States? If the results of last week’s heavily-touted Biden administration lease sale in the Western Gulf of Mexico are any indication, that could be the case.

The auction resulted in a single tract of 102,480 acres offshore Louisiana attracting a winning bid $5.6 million from German wind company RWE. Two tracts offshore Texas that were also offered attracted no bids at all. That low bid level is a tiny fraction of the billions of dollars in bids received for leases off the northeast Atlantic coast in February, 2022.

Several factors could be at play in creating the lack of interest in this Gulf of Mexico sale, perhaps most prominent among them the fact that, since wind developers began conducting seismic testing for those Atlantic projects last fall, the dead carcasses of more than 60 baleen whales have washed up onto the beaches of New Jersey and New York. While the Biden regulators claim no cause-and-effect connection exists between the developments and whale deaths exists, a rising chorus of critics begs to disagree.

Former California gubernatorial candidate and climate activist Michael Shellenberger serves as executive producer of a new documentary released in August that claims to have scientifically established a direct connection. “The film documents surprisingly loud, high-decibel sonar emitted by wind industry vessels when measured with state-of-the-art hydrophones,” Shellenberger recently wrote at the New York Post. “And it shows that the wind industry’s increased boat traffic is correlated directly with specific whale deaths.”

The fisheries industry is also concerned about the negative impacts offshore wind development will have on its continued ability to conduct its business. Meghan Lapp, a spokesperson for The Center for Sustainable Fisheries, testified to a congressional hearing in May that the undersea cabling and other infrastructure of the wind developments will make it impossible for offshore wind and the fishing industry to co-exist. She also noted that the federal agency NOAA is failing to enforce its own regulations governing incidental takes of marine mammals as they relate to offshore wind in the same way the agency has consistently enforced them related to offshore oil and gas development.

RWE told reporters that the offshore Louisiana tract was attractive for several reasons. One such reason is the state’s strong existing coastal port and supply chain infrastructure, which together constitute one of the most key foundations of Louisiana’s economy.

Another is, of course, subsidies, invariably a crucial consideration for the rent-seeking wind industry. Unlike Texas, Louisiana has a state goal to install 5 GW of offshore wind infrastructure by 2035. One can only wonder if the state’s Republican-dominated legislature will allow that goal to stand once members are made fully aware of the likely negative impacts on Louisiana’s own robust fishing industry, which provides thousands of jobs to residents in the southern third of the state.

That is not to mention potential negative impacts on the Gulf of Mexico’s own populations of both sea mammals and wide variety of migratory birds. Every spring, from March through May, literally millions of migratory birds traverse the Gulf of Mexico. Indeed, as the chart here compiled by Biden’s own Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) shows, the bird migration path known as the Mississippi Flyway flows directly through the very same area where RWE plans to construct its gigantic wind towers with blades longer than a football field.

In other slides from this same presentation, BOEM says that more than 2.1 billion birds from 395 separate species traverse the Gulf of Mexico each year. Importantly, a footnote for one of the slides reads “*This estimate only applies to nocturnal migrants with a northward trajectory, thus is a conservative estimate.”

You just cannot make this stuff up. You really can’t.

The question becomes whether the same Biden regulators who don’t appear to be properly enforcing regulations governing incidental taking of sea mammals will make any real effort to quantify the carnage when these mammoth wind blades become aviary Cuisinarts once the projects go active.

Could any or all of this help explain the extremely low investor interest in this particular lease sale? It sure seems possible.

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.

AUTHOR

DAVID BLACKMON

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.

RELATED ARTICLE: DAVID BLACKMON: Should We Believe The Media Hype Linking Hurricane Idalia To Climate Change?

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.


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.

I Rented A Tesla For A Week And Am Totally Sold On Gas-Powered Cars thumbnail

I Rented A Tesla For A Week And Am Totally Sold On Gas-Powered Cars

By Stella Morabito

After test-driving one for an entire week, we learned we will never buy a Tesla or any electric vehicle as long as we have the option of gas-powered cars or even hybrids.

While planning a week-long trip to the Seattle area recently, I wondered aloud to my husband if we should rent a Tesla. Neither of us had ever driven an electric vehicle before. The price difference between the long-range Tesla Model 3 and a standard mid-size gas-fueled vehicle was pretty negligible.

We agreed it would be an interesting learning experience despite our objections to the eco-agenda to phase out gas-powered vehicles. We also don’t believe EVs are particularly environmentally friendly since they need batteries that require the strip-mining of rare earth minerals such as lithium and cobalt. The World Economic Forum knows this very well and is likely looking for heavy limits on EV mobility after eliminating gas-powered vehicles.

But more people like us are also finding some very practical reasons to object to Teslas. There’s a glut of them on the market now despite subsidies and price reductions. After test-driving one for an entire week (instead of just 30 minutes,) we learned we will never buy a Tesla or any EV as long as we have the option of gas-powered vehicles or even hybrids. Read on for seven big reasons why. (Yes, “mileage may vary.”)

1. Battery Drainage Is Stress-Inducing

In the Tesla, stress is a given. The battery drains faster than you might think. Our Model 3 had an advertised range of about 300 miles, but that’s if you charge it to 100 percent (which no one does) and run it to 0 percent (which no one does). So the practical range is about 150-200 miles. We felt compelled to recharge after going just 150 miles versus refueling after about 450 miles in our Honda Accord. The battery even drained 10 percent just sitting in the driveway for about a day. Granted, we covered some distances in Washington state during our travels. But that confirms EVs are a poor choice for road trips unless you enjoy the risk of being stranded.

2. Few Charging Station Locations and Length of Time There

Yes, there are now more than 1,500 “supercharger” stations across the U.S. Regular chargers can be found at hotels, where guests at least have a room to stay in while charging for three to six hours. We plugged into a Tesla charger at a hotel for nearly three hours to get the battery up to 85 percent from about 30. Compare that with about 150,000 gas stations where we could fill up in less than five minutes and be on our way, ready for the next 500 miles. Even at a supercharger, we had to wait about 30 minutes to up the battery charge by 50 percent. And it’s all a matter of luck if there are amenities close by, especially if you need a charge when it’s late at night.

3. Personal Safety at Charging Locations Can Feel Dicey

It’s a good idea to plan the times at which you charge your vehicle. We had to stop on a Sunday evening at a supercharger located in an Ikea parking lot. Ikea was closed, and there were no walkable amenities around it. Ditto for our visit to another Tesla supercharger located across from a pawn shop. I got the uneasy feeling that many of these unsupervised locations — and the length of time required to be there — were crime scenes waiting to happen. Sure you can stop charging and be on your way. But on your way to where? To another supercharger.

4. Texting While Driving Is Required

Texting while driving is considered dangerous and mostly illegal. How ironic that in a Tesla, you are dependent upon the touch screen that sits between the driver and passenger seat like a big laptop. The interface is not intuitive, and autopilot is too new and unpredictable to use safely.

Luckily for us, there was always a passenger available to cope with the screen. We had to be in motion in order to check for a charging station nearby. There’s nothing intuitive about the air conditioning. Ditto for the radio, which we could only “turn off” by reducing the volume. The windshield wipers are supposed to be automatic, but when it started raining, we realized they were “turned off.” After fishing around the screen, we finally pulled over to consult YouTube to get them working again.

5. No Convenient Manual to Consult While Renting

Our Tesla rental was proudly “paperless.” It would have been worthwhile to have a hard copy manual on hand that didn’t put us at the mercy of a satellite signal. Hertz at the Seattle airport could provide no support in answering our questions about the vehicle. When I was able to flag employees down (twice), they were unable to help. We hoped to get a clue from a manual in the glove compartment, but what glove compartment?  The employee at the checkout kiosk explained that the glove compartment was permanently locked shut. There’s no spare tire either, by the way.

6. How to Lock the Car?

This was not clear, not even with the Hertz tutorials on renting a Tesla. The key card operates like a hotel-room “smart” key, but (per YouTube) we discovered we needed to find the “sweet spot” by the window on the driver’s side, apparently the only place to lock the car. There are ways to lock from the inside as well, but it all depends on your tech-savviness, and willingness to risk locking yourself in, I suppose.

7. Don’t Expect the Cost of a Battery Charge to Always Be Lower than Gasoline

There are so many variables in fuel/charging costs, it’s hard to know if you’re getting a deal. When we tapped the “lightning bolt” image on the Tesla’s touch screen, we got a list of superchargers in the region as well as the cost per kilowatt hour, which varied from about 18 cents to about 50 cents. Our cheapest total charge was around $7 and ranged up to $25. We generally didn’t put more than a 50 percent charge into the car at any one time, and given the miles driven, the $25 charge was about the same as we would have paid for gas. Since there are government subsidies both for purchasing an EV and for charging, I would expect those prices to rise if everyone gets with the program and demand is up.

But pigs will fly before I buy an EV based on my Tesla experience/experiment. This conclusion is not based on a one-hour test drive but on an entire week of driving in an EV-friendly part of the country.

Granted, there are some moments of fun when driving a Tesla. “Regenerative braking” is a system that recharges the battery. So once your foot is off the accelerator, the car slows down quickly. We rarely needed to use the brake at all, even at red lights. And once you accelerate, expect a fast pick-up! The tinted glass roof was kind of cool. The seats were comfortable enough. But all in all, it was too much hassle and too much anxiety. I’m now totally sold on gas-powered vehicles.

*****

This article was published by The Federalist and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

‘ALL CARS ARE BAD’: Biden’s Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg’s Equity Advisers thumbnail

‘ALL CARS ARE BAD’: Biden’s Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg’s Equity Advisers

By The Geller Report

Cars are racist.

‘ALL CARS ARE BAD’: Pete Buttigieg’s Equity Advisers Want You To Stop Driving

Transportation secretary’s equity committee aims to bring ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusion’ to America’s infrastructure

By: Washington Free Beacon, September 1, 2023

Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg is appointing a group of “leading experts” to advise him on “transportation equity,” including several who argue that cars cause climate change and promote racism and therefore should be phased out. Buttigieg earlier this month appointed 24 new members to his Advisory Committee on Transportation Equity, an Obama-era body that Buttigieg is reviving after the Trump administration scrapped it. Included on the committee is Andrea Marpillero-Colomina, a “spatial policy scholar” who says “ALL CARS ARE BAD” given that they cause “a myriad of environmental issues and conditions.” Another Buttigieg appointee, self-described “transportation nerd” Veronica Davis, argued in an August essay that cars perpetuate “systemic racism” and are therefore “the problem” in America’s transportation system.

Buttigieg’s appointments—and his decision to revive the equity advisory committee—reflect the Biden administration’s whole-of-government emphasis on diversity, equity, and inclusion. President Joe Biden shortly after taking office in 2021 issued an executive order that called on federal agencies to “pursue a comprehensive approach to advancing equity for all.” Under the order, agency heads must conduct an “equity assessment” to identify policies that create “systemic barriers” in minority communities.

The committee will advise Buttigieg on “promising practices to institutionalize equity into agency programs, policies, regulations, and activities” and plans to meet for the first time this fall, according to Buttigieg’s August announcement. Marpillero-Colomina told the Washington Free Beacon that she is not “advocating for a complete erasure” of cars but intends to push Buttigieg to move America away from its reliance on private motor vehicles.

“My interest in being on the [equity committee] is to raise the question and push the Department of Transportation to really think about: What are some equitable, environmentally sustainable, economically beneficial, and feasible alternatives to policy that is car-centric?” she said in an interview. “How can we reimagine streets to prioritize people instead of cars? How can we create streets that are inclusive of modes other than cars?”

Read more.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

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

Greenhouse Gas Abatement that Makes Some Sense: Methane-Sniffing Drones thumbnail

Greenhouse Gas Abatement that Makes Some Sense: Methane-Sniffing Drones

By MercatorNet – Navigating Modern Complexities

Bad old carbon dioxide is not the only gas that contributes to the earth’s net heat balance by trapping heat in the atmosphere. Another commonly used gas — methane, the chief constituent of natural gas — is more than 25 times as effective as CO₂ in trapping heat. Fortunately, methane’s lifetime in the atmosphere is much shorter: about 12 years as opposed to the hundreds of years it takes for CO₂ to go away. So doing something about methane emissions promises to have much more of a near-term effect than anything we do with CO₂.

Enter Percepto, a company founded in Israel that recently moved to Austin, Texas, to market their services of sniffing out emissions of methane and 14 other gases using artificial intelligence (AI)-equipped drones. Their target market is refineries and petrochemical plants, where methane and other hydrocarbon gases can escape in leaks that can take days or weeks to find by technicians walking around with hand-held detectors.

Percepto’s system, as outlined in an article that appeared in the Austin American-Statesman, consists of a drone equipped with a wavelength-selective camera. Most hydrocarbon gases emit and absorb characteristic infrared wavelengths, and a cleverly designed imaging spectrometer can present the user with a photograph showing a cloud of methane made as visible as a cloud of red smoke from a cherry bomb firework.

Finding and fixing such a leak is not only good safety practice. In 2024, the Biden administration will begin to implement the Methane Emissions Reduction Program, a combination of over a billion dollars of funding to pay for programs like Percepto’s, combined with steeply increasing fines for emitting methane and other greenhouse gases. Ariel Avitan, co-founder of Percepto, saw a business opportunity in providing large firms with a means of tracking leaks that is faster and more comprehensive than the older methods. So now, his firm is poised to help track down leaks and other sources of methane that have previously gone undetected.

Negligible effect

Percepto is to be congratulated for seeing a market niche and exploiting it. Methane itself is not a particularly valuable gas. When the cost of transporting it from a wellhead to the market exceeds what it can be sold for, producers typically flare it by burning it at the source. The government is coming down hard on flares, too, which may lead to other expensive issues, as even flares don’t burn 100 percent of the gas they consume.

In an ideal world, we wouldn’t waste or release any methane at all through oil and gas operations. But even if we had a magic wand to do that, it would decrease the world’s budget of methane release by only 14 percent.

According to the International Energy Agency in Paris, France, the most profligate source of methane emissions worldwide is a natural one. Methane is emitted in wetlands by natural decomposition, and unless we are willing to drain all the wetlands, there’s nothing we can do about the 32 percent that nature produces. The next largest source is agriculture, at 23 percent — think flatulent cows (there aren’t any other kind). Oil and gas come next at 14 percent, then coal operations and something labelled as “waste,” which probably means methane produced by landfills.

If anyone thinks that we’re going to stop global warming by fixing all our methane leaks, this means that there is a disappointment in store. But in the current state of climate rhetoric, few people are going to think beyond the one step that can be summarised as “Greenhouse gases bad — must stop at any cost.”

As I have mentioned elsewhere, the climate has slowly been warming and the ocean levels slowly rising (we’re talking millimetres here) since the early 1800s. And now that CO₂ levels have risen as much as they have, whatever effect that’s going to have on the climate will be with us for the next couple of hundred years, even if we stopped 100 percent of all human activity that emits CO₂, including breathing. And stopping the breath of the 8 billion or so humans on the planet is exactly what some “deep ecologists” would like us to do — the folks who regard humanity as some kind of evil infestation of an otherwise pristine Earth.

Stoking fears

The sensible thing to do — the thing that would let most of those 8 billion people enjoy some of the benefits of modern technology that we in the US have enjoyed for many decades — is to figure out how to adapt to the relatively minor and certainly gradual changes that global warming is going to make, while picking low-hanging fruit with regard to reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. If there’s a six-foot hole in a dike in one place and a three-inch crack in another, the only reasonable thing to do is go after the six-foot hole first. And if you can more easily deal with the water over the dike than fix the dike, maybe that’s the best thing to do.

Unfortunately, the debate — or more accurately, accepted doctrine — about global warming has left such notions behind. Most world leaders and their cadres of experts have bought into the easily propagated notion that if we don’t do really drastic and painful things about greenhouse gas emissions right now, we’re all going to die horrible deaths as the globe imitates an egg in a frying pan.

The fact that highly reputable people such as Steven Koonin have shown this oversimplification to be mostly false has no effect on something that has become the mass-psychology equivalent of a kind of hypochondria. It’s like a patient that comes to a doctor with a pimple on his nose and says it’s cancer and he’s sure it’s going to kill him.

We would try to talk reason to such a person, but it’s easier than trying to talk sense to an international community that has bought into a severely distorted picture wholesale, and created huge institutional incentives to keep the delusion going.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m glad Percepto saw their opportunity and took it. People have a right to profit from laws that, however misconceived, do some incremental good. And it’s certainly a good thing to stop methane leaks, even if it costs millions of dollars to do so. But one can still question the reasoning behind the laws, and wonder whether succeeding generations (if there are any) will scratch their heads over the strange panic about climate change that we are currently enduring.

AUTHOR

KARL D. STEPHAN

Karl D. Stephan is a professor of electrical engineering at Texas State University in San Marcos, Texas. This article has been republished, with permission, from his blog Engineering Ethics, which is a MercatorNet partner site. His eBook Ethical and Otherwise: Engineering In the Headlines is available in Kindle format and also in the iTunes store.

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

Climate scientists and experts declare ‘there is no climate emergency’ thumbnail

Climate scientists and experts declare ‘there is no climate emergency’

By Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow

Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. In particular, scientists should emphasize that their modeling output is not the result of magic: computer models are human-made. What comes out is fully dependent on what theoreticians and programmers have put in: hypotheses, assumptions, relationships, parameterizations, stability constraints, etc. Unfortunately, in mainstream climate science most of this input is undeclared.

To believe the outcome of a climate model is to believe what the model makers have put in.  This is precisely the problem of today’s climate discussion to which climate models are central. Climate science has degenerated into a discussion based on beliefs, not on sound self-critical science. We should free ourselves from the naïve belief in immature climate models. In future, climate research must give significantly more emphasis to empirical science.

There is no climate emergency

A global network of over 1609 scientists and professionals has prepared this urgent message. Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures.

Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming

The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming.

Warming is far slower than predicted

The world has warmed significantly less than predicted by IPCC on the basis of modeled anthropogenic forcing. The gap between the real world and the modeled world tells us that we are far from understanding climate change.

Climate policy relies on inadequate models

Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as global policy tools. They blow up the effect of greenhouse gases such as CO2. In addition, they ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with COis beneficial.

CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth

CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.

Global warming has not increased natural disasters

There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent. However, there is ample evidence that CO2-mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly.

Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities

There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050. If better approaches emerge, and they certainly will, we have ample time to reflect and re-adapt. The aim of global policy should be ‘prosperity for all’ by providing reliable and affordable energy at all times. In a prosperous society men and women are well educated, birthrates are low and people care about their environment.

Epilogue

The World Climate Declaration (WCD) has brought a large variety of competent scientists together from all over the world*. The considerable knowledge and experience of this group is indispensable in reaching a balanced, dispassionate and competent view of climate change.

From now onward the group is going to function as “Global Climate Intelligence Group”. The CLINTEL Group will give solicited and unsolicited advice on climate change and energy transition to governments and companies worldwide.

It is not the number of experts but the quality of arguments that counts

World Climate Declaration plus all signatories in pdf

World Climate Declaration AMBASSADORS

NOBEL LAUREATE PROFESSOR JOHN F. CLAUSER / USA
NOBEL LAUREATE PROFESSOR IVAR GIAEVER NORWAY/USA
PROFESSOR GUUS BERKHOUT / THE NETHERLANDS
DR. CORNELIS LE PAIR / THE NETHERLANDS
PROFESSOR REYNALD DU BERGER / FRENCH SPEAKING CANADA
BARRY BRILL / NEW ZEALAND
VIV FORBES / AUSTRALIA
DR. PATRICK MOORE / ENGLISH SPEAKING CANADA
JENS MORTON HANSEN / DENMARK
PROFESSOR LÁSZIÓ SZARKA / HUNGARY
PROFESSOR SEOK SOON PARK / SOUTH KOREA
PROFESSOR JAN-ERIK SOLHEIM / NORWAY
STAVROS ALEXANDRIS / GREECE
FERDINAND MEEUS / DUTCH SPEAKING BELGIUM
PROFESSOR RICHARD LINDZEN / USA
HENRI A. MASSON / FRENCH SPEAKING BELGIUM
PROFESSOR INGEMAR NORDIN / SWEDEN
JIM O’BRIEN / REPUBLIC OF IRELAND
PROFESSOR IAN PLIMER / AUSTRALIA
DOUGLAS POLLOCK / CHILE
DR. BLANCA PARGA LANDA / SPAIN
PROFESSOR ALBERTO PRESTININZI / ITALY
PROFESSOR BENOÎT RITTAUD / FRANCE
DR. THIAGO MAIA / BRAZIL
PROFESSOR FRITZ VAHRENHOLT / GERMANY
THE VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY / UNITED KINGDOM
DUŠAN BIŽIĆ / CROATIA, BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA, SERBIA AND MONTE NEGRO

Read the declaration at CLINTEL.org

Read the PDF version with list of signers

Climate Intelligence (CLINTEL) is an independent foundation that operates in the fields of climate change and climate policy. CLINTEL was founded in 2019 by emeritus professor of geophysics Guus Berkhout and science journalist Marcel Crok. CLINTEL’s main objective is to generate knowledge and understanding of the causes and effects of climate change as well as the effects of climate policy.

CFACT Ed

CFACT — We’re freedom people.

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

‘Climate Crisis’ Lies Are Killing People thumbnail

‘Climate Crisis’ Lies Are Killing People

By Catherine Salgado

The thoroughly mendacious “climate crisis” narrative, which has been consistently and wildly wrong for 50 years and continues to be wrong now, has turned deadly. People are dying as a result of terrible policies based off climate change hysteria.

I just reported for PJ Media on a media call where several climate experts agreed that government negligence and obsession with “climate change,” driven and justified by the media’s anti-science fearmongering on the topic, were at least partly responsible for the devastating and deadly fire in Lahaina, Maui. That fire left likely 1000 or more casualties (including an unknown number of children).

The experts said Maui was warned of the risk of wildfires, Hawaii’s governor spent millions on fighting “climate change,” and Hawaii Electric gave the Hawaiian government a $190 million plan to prevent wildfires (which the government “sat on”)…and yet there was no water to fight the fire, no preventative measures were taken ahead of time, and people were blocked from escaping. The whole thing was a disaster waiting to happen and then exacerbated either by deliberate malice or gross incompetence. In Lahaina, the climate lies drove policy-making and negligence that cost lives.

Then there is the reality of arson. The Yosemite fire last year was started by a radical climate activist and arsonist. There’s rumors of arson in the Maui fires and 79 arsonists were just arrested in Greece, which is experiencing fires that killed 20 people this week. It is unclear why these people committed arson, but one wonders if radical environmentalism was a motivation. After all, the Greek and Maui fires are being used to further the climate crisis narrative…

Fires like that put tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, yet there are no measures taken to prevent them. Why?

Some of the people pushing this insanity have been brainwashed into really believing that the world is about to become a burning ball of fire. Others are in it for the fame and fortune—they can make money or gain media attention by pushing climate doom (Al Gore and Greta Thunberg, for instance). Finally, there are evil people at the top, who know perfectly well it’s all a lie, but they want to weaponize climate alarmism for their own purposes. The World Economic Forum (WEF) told us to be poor for the planet and organizations and governments such as WEF, the United Nations, and the Biden regime aim to use the fake climate crisis to initiate their dystopian one world tyranny.

The globe is cooling and has been for at least eight years. CO2 from fossil fuels is too low to cause global warming. This has not been the hottest summer on record. The climate alarmists have been wrong for more than 50 years. And yet these lies continue to be used to justify destructive policy-making and active terrorism. They are deadly lies, and they have to be stopped.

*****

This article was published by Pro Deo et Libertate and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

Offshore Wind Is Neither Clean, Nor Green And Doesn’t Cut CO2 Emissions thumbnail

Offshore Wind Is Neither Clean, Nor Green And Doesn’t Cut CO2 Emissions

By Craig Rucker

America is preparing to spend trillions of taxpayer and ratepayer dollars to install thousands of offshore wind turbines – for illusory benefits.

Advocates claim offshore wind energy is clean and sustainable. Wind itself certainly is, but that doesn’t mean getting energy from wind is.

Relying on the wind just to provide electricity to power New York state on a hot summer day would require 30,000 megawatts. That means 2,500 Haliade-X 12 MW offshore turbines and all the materials that go into them. Powering the entire U.S. would require a-100 times more than that.

These numbers are huge, but the situation is actually much worse.

This is because offshore turbines generate less than 40% of their “rated capacity.” Why? Because often there’s no wind at all for hours or days at a time. This requires a lot of extra capacity, which means many more windmills will have to be erected to charge millions of huge batteries, to ensure stable, reliable electricity supplies.

Once constructed, those turbines would hardly be earth-or human-friendly, either. They would severely impact aviation, shipping, fishing, submarines, and whales. They’re hardly benign power sources.

“But,” say, wind proponents, “wind energy is our salvation because it will cut down on CO2 emissions and protect us from the greatest threat to Mother Earth – global warming!”

Sounds reasonable … at least to those who suffer from climate anxiety. But not so fast.

A new study by energy analyst David Wojick devastates this repeatedly invoked justification for offshore wind. His report, “How Offshore Wind Drives Up Global Carbon Emissions,” explains why adding offshore wind to our energy mix “will likely increase global CO2 emissions.”

First, notes Wojick, any local CO2 reduction from offshore wind turbines will be small, because intermittent winds force gas-fired backup power plants we rely on now into up-and-down generation mode, hour after hour, day after day, and remain in standby mode otherwise. That highly inefficient arrangement burns excess fuel and emits excess CO2.

Second, building huge offshore wind facilities requires mining, processing, smelting, fabrication, installation, repair, replacement, decommissioning, landfilling – and transportation every step of the way. Almost everything up to installation is increasingly done overseas, nearly 100% with fossil fuels and few emission controls.

That’s because the U.S. sets much higher standards than in Africa, Asia, and Latin America for mining permits, coal and gas use, environmental protection, workplace safety, wages, and human rights.

Dr. Wojick reviews New Jersey’s plan for 11,000 MW of offshore wind power. That’s if the electricity turbines could generate if the wind blows 24/7, instead of the more likely one-third of the time annually. But that “nameplate capacity” would require 917 Haliade-X or 1,834 6 MW turbines, assuming coastal residents don’t veto them.

Suppose the 6 MW behemoths utilize monopile towers some 30 feet in diameter and 300 feet long, fixed to the seafloor and used to support the rotor and three 300-foot blades. Each tower would weigh around 2,500 tons before being filled with almost 15,000 tons of concrete.

Making steel and cement for such monstrosities, Wojick notes would require enormous amounts of energy, resulting in extensive CO2 emissions. Just producing those materials would cause about 14,000 tons of CO2 per monopile.

That means every 1,000 monopiles would result in 14,000,000 tons of CO2 just for the steel and concrete – not including the other wind turbine and electricity transmission components.

None of that includes materials for the gas-fired generators or millions of battery modules that would be needed to stabilize New Jersey’s electrical grid and back up turbines every time the wind dies down or gets so strong during storms that turbines must be idled.

In addition, a no-fossil fuels economy would require electricity generation, electric vehicles, home heating, water heating, and cooking – all dependent on wind (and solar) power – and batteries that must be charged constantly by those same sources.

That means today’s electricity requirements – and raw materials demands – would have to be doubled or tripled to run a Net Zero society.

Those clamoring about a “climate crisis” maintain it’s a global problem. Therefore, any proposed solution should thoroughly and carefully examine raw material requirements, mining needs, costs, and global benefits, all through landfilling turbine blades and other non-recyclable components.

Dr. Wojick’s study exposes the frightening fact that an honest, complete analysis of offshore wind costs and benefits, including purported atmospheric CO2 reductions, has never even been attempted.

*****

This article was published by CFACT, Committee for A Constructive Tomorrow, and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

Hawaii’s Green Agenda — And Questionable Decisions — Primed The State For One Of The Deadliest Wildfires In History thumbnail

Hawaii’s Green Agenda — And Questionable Decisions — Primed The State For One Of The Deadliest Wildfires In History

By Nick Pope

While climate hawks were quick to blame the tragic Hawaiian fires on climate change, some of the state’s green policies and questionable decision-making before and during the tragedy helped set the stage for a disaster that has so far claimed over 100 lives.

Along with other Democrats and some members of the media, Democratic Gov. Josh Green repeatedly suggested in the wake of the disaster that climate change and its effects were the primary cause, with Green himself stating explicitly that climate change is “the ultimate reason that so many people perished.” However, a growing list of actions and green policy decisions made by elected and unelected officials of key Hawaiian institutions, public and private, in the years leading up to the fires appear to have played a major role.

For years before the fires, government agencies understood that Western Maui, the hardest-hit area, was particularly susceptible to wildfires because of high concentrations of non-native grasses in the area, according to The New York Times. An assessment report from 2020 stated that the region had a 90% chance of wildfires each year on average, a percentage calculated with the pervasive non-native dry grasses in mind. (RELATED: Beach-Lounging Biden Has ‘No Comment’ As Maui Death Toll Nears 100)

Despite its understanding that the abundance of dry grass in the region posed a threat, the state allowed it to grow without doing much to trim it or otherwise keep it under control, according to NBC News. As a result, huge swaths of the region became open-air tinderboxes, particularly in West Maui.

For example, the state appears to have dragged its feet in negotiations with Hawaiian Electric, the state’s utility company whose downed power lines reportedly started the blaze. Hawaiian Electric had identified an urgent need as early as 2019 to make infrastructure upgrades and manage vegetation to reduce the possibility that its equipment could spark a fire, and it proposed to spend $190 million to do so last June, according to The Wall Street Journal.

In response to the proposal, state bureaucrats and regulators bogged the proposal down in red tape and reviews, according to the WSJ. The utility said that it would not begin the work until it had negotiated a deal with the state to recover the costs from ratepayers, an arrangement which is typical for utility companies seeking to make major investments of this variety, according to the WSJ.

Hawaiian Electric is not completely absolved of responsibility, Dan Kish, senior fellow at the Institute for Energy Research, told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

“It’s sad to see all the government and utility officials passing the buck rather than stepping up and admitting that mistakes were made,” Kish told the DCNF.

“Hawaii’s obsession with climate took the utility’s eyes off the ball,” Kish continued. “Rather than concentrating on what they can fix, they focused on the climate industrial complex and its unworkable solutions.”

Hawaiian Electric interpreted the signals sent by the state’s commitment to reach 100% green electricity generation by 2045, deciding to expend significant resources to achieve this aim, according to the WSJ. The firm invested vast resources in green technologies, but ultimately spent less than $245,000 on wildfire-specific projects on the island between 2019 and 2022, after it had determined that it had to do more to mitigate the risks posed by errant sparks, according to the WSJ.

“While there was concern for wildfire risk, politically the focus was on electricity generation,” Mina Morita, chair of the state utilities commission from 2011 to 2015, told the WSJ.

A 2020 audit of the company’s management systems found that its risk considerations were mostly focused on financial risks, with minimal analysis of operational risks, while the division within the firm that oversaw power line operations had significant management problems, according to the WSJ.

Hawaiian Electric did not respond immediately to a request for comment. (RELATED: CNN Host Confronts KJP Over Biden’s Response To Maui Disaster)

The fires began in earnest the morning of Aug. 8, as a downed power line reportedly sparked some dry grass and started the fire which would grow into one of the deadliest wildfires in American history.

West Maui Land Co. made a request at 1 p.m. to the state’s Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR), asking the agency for permission to divert stream water to their reservoirs so that firefighters on the front lines could have access to more water to battle the resurgent flames, according to a letter it wrote to the DLNR on Aug. 10.

In response to that request, the department’s Commission on Water Resource Management, which is led by an advocate of “indigenous knowledge” who has said that water management requires “true conversations about equity,” told the company to contact a downstream farmer to ensure that a temporary diversion would not impact his taro farming operation in undesirable ways, according to the letter. The company tried to make contact with the farmer, but communications were spotty and time was of the essence, the letter asserts.

The agency eventually granted approval to the company for the diversion at 6 p.m., some five hours after the request had been made, according to the letter. By that point, the fires were raging out of control, shutting down a key roadway and making it impossible for the company to access the siphon which would have allowed it to divert the water into the right places for the firefighters to access, the letter states. (RELATED: ‘Horrible, Horrible Disservice’: Tulsi Gabbard Unloads On Biden Admin’s Response To Maui Wildfires)

Lahaina’s fire hydrants went dry, and the firefighters on the front lines had no choice but flee as their town went up in smoke, according to Hawaii News Now.

The alleged hesitation to approve a water diversion was not the only critical mistake made as the catastrophe unfolded. Lahaina’s emergency alert sirens never sounded, a decision that Maui Emergency Management Agency (EMA) chief Herman Andaya has publicly defended with vigor, even as many residents reportedly did not know of the fires until seeing them or smelling smoke.

Andaya had zero prior career experience in crisis management before getting the job for Maui County. He did, however, serve as the chief of staff for the former mayor of Maui between 2011 and 2017, and also worked for the Maui housing administration from 2003 to 2007.

Andaya resigned late Thursday following backlash over his role.

At some point, the local 911 system went down, according to Hawaii News Now.

The tragedy has so far claimed 111 lives, and that figure may continue to climb as emergency workers comb through the wreckage and attempt to locate the hundreds of civilians still unaccounted for. It is feared that many of the yet-to-be-discovered dead may be children, according to the WSJ.

Green’s office, the DLNR and the Maui EMA all did not respond immediately to requests for comment.

*****

This article was published by The Daily Caller News Foundation and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

Grading the First Peanut Gallery Debate thumbnail

Grading the First Peanut Gallery Debate

By Eric Lendrum

Vivek was the single exception to an underwhelmingly mediocre debate

While the eyes of well over 160 million people were on the highly-anticipated interview between President Donald Trump and Tucker Carlson, the undercard debate of also-ran candidates proved very telling in its own way, often at the expense of the GOP.

With a single exception, all of the candidates onstage proved to be underwhelmingly mediocre, presenting plenty of platitudes but no clear vision for a country in desperate need of a tectonic shift in leadership. As such, all but one of the candidates should receive no higher than average marks after this performance.

Individual Scorecards

Vivek Ramaswamy: A

The man who had the most to lose at the debate tonight wasn’t the Governor of Florida. It was the one and only man who has been steadily rising in the polls leading up to tonight. Despite having high expectations, he met and surpassed them in spades.

Vivek Ramaswamy openly acknowledged his dilemma that many Republican voters still might know who he is, with a lighthearted self-deprecating joke about “this skinny guy in the middle of the stage with a funny last name,” before launching into his opening remarks. This tactic served to defuse any lingering confusion over what kind of a man he truly is, and dictated his tone throughout the rest of the night: Willing to talk about serious issues, but also capable of remaining lighthearted even when the knives came out.

In many ways, Vivek felt like a stand-in for Donald Trump circa 2015, taking the most flak from rival candidates and effortlessly withstanding all of it. He laughed off multiple attacks from Christie, Pence, and Haley, often firing right back with even more devastating one-liners.

He called out the rest of his opponents as “super PAC puppets,” and when his unapologetic response to the “global warming” question was to call it a hoax and declare that he was the only candidate on the stage “who isn’t bought and paid for,” he clearly riled up the moderators so much that the entire conversation suddenly shifted: The moderators proceeded down the rest of the stage not asking the other candidates about global warming, but instead asking the question “Are you bought and paid for?” Game, set, match: Vivek Ramaswamy effortlessly changed the entire conversation with just one smooth response, laughing as all of the other candidates – as well as the moderators – were seething.

The first attack of the night was launched against Vivek by Mike Pence, quickly setting the tone of the debate with Vivek as the underdog. Poking fun at the increasingly absurd political language used by everyone else, Vivek joked that he “didn’t exactly understand Mike Pence’s comment” criticizing him on Social Security and Medicare, before saying “I’ll let you all parse it out.” Pence’s response of “I’ll go slower this time” came across as extremely condescending and thus earned requisite boos from the audience, and it only got worse from there.

When Vivek again called out the other candidates for having “their memorized, pre-prepared slogans,” Pence thought he sounded clever by asking “Was that yours, Vivek?” But, keeping it as cool as ever, Vivek simply replied with “Not really Mike, we’re gonna have fun tonight.” And that, in a nutshell, is what Vivek was on that stage, especially whenever he clashed with Mike Pence: He was the cool kid having fun while surrounded by dorks and nerds. It was, indeed, very reminiscent of then-candidate Donald Trump in 2015.

The one and only not-great moment that Vivek had was when Nikki Haley ferociously attacked him on foreign policy, screaming hysterically that he would defund our ally Israel. While Vivek had a strong response to this – pointing out that his favorite aspects of Israel were its border policies and crime policies – he made a calculated mistake by trying to respond to Haley while the bought-and-paid-for audience was still roaring obsessively over her pro-Israel platitudes, drowning out his own words. It would have done him well to take a page from Donald Trump’s book and point out the audience’s abundance of donors and special interests.

Nevertheless, while fighting off all of these attacks and more, Vivek at the same time articulated the clearest vision of anyone on the stage: He painted a picture of an America that is broken right down to its very soul, and that this identity crisis is a greater threat than any particular policy battle. He excelled at giving specific, solutions-based answers, and then flawlessly tying them into broader existential issues without coming across as pivoting. On the crime and homelessness issue, he vowed to bring back mental institutions, while at the same time pointing out that the rise of mental illness is indicative of the American people “lacking meaning” in their lives due to a national identity crisis, “a time when faith, family, and so many other things have disappeared.”

He did it again on the education question, after first acknowledging the laundry list of federal agencies that he would abolish. After reaffirming his support for parents having greater authority in what their children learn, and which schools they go to, he succinctly pointed out that “education policy also begins in the family,” and that “the nuclear family is the greatest form of governance known to mankind.” As such, he said, the breakdown of the nuclear family is indicative of a broader breakdown of American society and “national identity” itself.

Perhaps most powerful of all was the simple visuals that Vivek produced that night. On two of the most controversial questions asked of the candidates – “Would you support Trump as the nominee if he is convicted,” and “Would you end funding to Ukraine” – Vivek was immediately the first one to raise his hand. On the Trump question, the other candidates then lazily followed Vivek’s example, one by one. On the Ukraine question, he was the only candidate to raise his hand, to thunderous applause.

Expect Vivek’s numbers to rise dramatically.

Tim Scott: C+

With reports swirling that establishment donors are considering Tim Scott as the next anti-Trump alternative after DeSantis, the South Carolina Senator needed a stronger-than-average performance. He didn’t give it.

Scott was the first candidate to attempt the holier-than-thou “above the fray” approach when he derided the clashes between Vivek and other candidates as “being childish” and “not helpful to the American people”…before proceeding to squander this moment with a boring answer on America’s “carbon footprint.”

Scott also caved to the narrative on January 6th by stating that he believed “Mike Pence did the right thing” on January 6th, before going for a cheap applause line saying that he would fire Merrick Garland as Attorney General on the first day of his presidency. The only issue with that? Garland would already automatically be fired on inauguration day, as would the rest of the Biden Cabinet, solely by virtue of Scott’s hypothetical ascension to the presidency. So it was a moot point.

The one strong moment Scott had was when he, along with Pence, took the most pro-life stance on the stage. In stark contrast to Nikki Haley’s declaration that the matter should be left up to the states, Scott called out states like California legalizing abortion up to the moment of birth as “ethically, morally wrong.” He managed to be better than the rest, but not much better.

Most telling of all, his closing statement proved to be extremely out of touch: “The American Dream is real, it is alive, and it is healthy.” This not only stood in contrast to the message of other, stronger candidates like Vivek painting a picture of an America in decline, but it clashed with the dire conditions represented by the moderators’ line of questioning. There is a time for feel-good platitudes, and this debate was not one of them.

Ron DeSantis: C

Surprisingly enough, the awkward Governor of Florida didn’t have any truly disastrous moments as some might have expected. And yet he didn’t have any standout moments either: No zingers, no memorable clashes with other candidates, and no powerful answers. He just gave focus group-tested one-liners, made an obsessive amount of references to the fact that he is Governor of Florida, and could be seen, more than once, shamefully waiting to see how others would answer first before finally taking a stand.

Perhaps most telling of all was DeSantis’ repeated refusal to answer basic questions, to the point that even the moderators became frustrated with him.

On abortion, when asked “how would you sell the heartbeat bill” banning abortions after 6 weeks, DeSantis sloppily pivoted to reminding the audience that he got re-elected, claiming that he would “sell the biggest election victory in Florida.” When Bret Baier pressed him further, asking once again if he would sign a federal version of the heartbeat bill, DeSantis punted once more, simply saying “I’m gonna stand on the side of life.” Where others took clear stances, for better or for worse, DeSantis remained annoyingly on the fence.

The same goes for the most contentious question of the night: Whether or not any of the candidates would pardon President Trump of the bogus charges he currently faces. DeSantis relied once again on a focus group-tested line, declaring that “we need to end the weaponization of the federal government.” Baier once again had to openly remind him that he was not answering the question.

An exasperated DeSantis sighed and then tried to respond with another slick one-liner: “This isn’t about January 6th, 2021, this is about January 20th, 2025,” to which he received a smattering of applause. He then re-established his anti-Trump and anti-base bona fides by declaring that Mike Pence “did his duty” and “I’ve got no beef with him” over his actions on January 6th, before asking, in a clearly annoyed tone of voice, if they were going to continue “re-litigating” events of the past rather than talk about policy.

Baier then proceeded to deliver perhaps the most punishing takedown of the entire night: “We’ve spent an hour talking policy. Trump is beating you by 30 points in the polls, so yes, he is a factor in this race.”

As his poll numbers continue to tumble, with no sign yet of the ground approaching, DeSantis needed a knockout performance to reverse his fortunes. Instead, he was neither memorably bad nor memorably strong: He was perfectly mediocre, and thus forgettable, which is arguably even worse.

Nikki Haley: C-

Haley’s opening remarks showed a surprising amount of potential, as she was the first candidate to launch an attack on the GOP as a whole for its failure to prevent our current situation. However, she then ruined it by immediately attacking President Trump. This proved to be the first of several instances where she would have a strong moment but then turn around and shove her foot into her mouth, most often due to her anti-Trump stance: Her declaration that “Donald Trump is the most disliked politician in America” told everyone all that they need to know about where she truly stands.

The only true strategy Haley had onstage was to play the identity politics game, more so than anyone else. She frequently had to remind the audience that she is the only woman in the race, including a forced and eyeroll-inducing Margaret Thatcher quote. But any cred she might have earned for playing the woman card was revoked when she spoke up on abortion; completely caving to the Left’s rhetoric by suggesting that conservatives want to throw women in jail or have them killed for having abortions, and even indirectly attacking the Dobbs decision as the result of “unelected justices deciding something this personal,” she came across as the most pro-choice candidate on the stage.

Her biggest moment of the night was her attack on Vivek Ramaswamy, and all this did was highlight a deep and fundamental divide between the base and the party establishment when it comes to foreign policy. Declaring that Vivek would “hand Ukraine to Russia and feed Taiwan to China,” she unapologetically took the Neoconservative stance of asserting that “Ukraine is the first line of defense for us” in some imaginary Cold War 2 against Russia.

When Vivek called out how she and others with the same mentality have repeatedly dragged our nation into endless no-win wars, and even cracked a joke about Haley auditioning for a “future job on the board of Raytheon,” a clearly-rattled Haley changed the subject by claiming that Vivek would defund Israel. Her shrill voice reaching levels that nearly broke the sound barrier, she went on a breathless, unhinged tirade about how funding Israel is essential, suggesting that it would be the gravest sin imaginable to suggest defunding it.

While Nikki Haley might have briefly won the thundering support of the in-studio audience of donors and special interests, the viewing audience at home saw a completely different picture. They saw a candidate for President of the United States giving the single most passionate display of the night not over a domestic issue, such as crime, immigration, education, and other things that affect all of us directly. They saw a candidate show more concern for a foreign nation than our own. Even a proud Zionist, such as yours truly, couldn’t help but admit that the optics of this misdirected passion were not what Haley thought they would be.

And in that sense, Nikki Haley solidified herself as the dominant candidate in the Neoconservative lane. She can claim that 3% of the GOP base for herself after that debate.

Chris Christie: D

The former New Jersey governor’s strategy has always been to take up as much of the “NeverTrump” lane as possible. In that, he absolutely succeeded. But the uselessness of this doomed strategy was made evident every time Christie made another obligatory declaration of his hatred of President Trump, receiving the loudest and longest boos of the night when he accused President Trump of “normalizing conduct” that he considered to be “beneath the President of the United States.”…..

*****

Continue reading this article at American Greatness.

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

New Study Shoots Down Biden’s Claim that Transition to Green Energy will Create Jobs thumbnail

New Study Shoots Down Biden’s Claim that Transition to Green Energy will Create Jobs

By The Geller Report

The grim reality is that the transition to green energy will be catastrophic for the economy, and if it is fully followed through, will reduce the United States to Third World status.

The Biden regime seems intent on making life as difficult as they possibly can for Americans, and aiding and enabling America’s foes in every way.

That’s what the green agenda will do: China, a much greater polluter than America ever was, will take the place of the U.S. in the global economy as we reduce ourselves to a backwater and former great power.

New Study Complicates Biden’s Claims That His Green Agenda Will Be Great For The Working Man

by Nick Pope, Daily Caller, August 21, 2023:

A recently-published study complicates President Joe Biden’s claims that his massive green agenda will allow for a “just transition” for blue-collar fossil fuel workers to land on their feet in his envisioned green economy.

Biden has routinely asserted that his anti-fossil fuel “Bidenomics” agenda will usher in a new green manufacturing and jobs boom in the U.S. However, the study, authored by researchers from the University of Pennsylvania, Wake Forest University and labor market analytics firm Lightcast, found that less than 1% of workers leaving fossil fuel-related jobs transition into green energy jobs, and that the supposed benefits of such a transition are unlikely to be evenly distributed across the country, geographically or socioeconomically.

“I came to office determined to move away from the trickle-down economics and to focus on the middle class.  Because I said when the middle class does well, everybody does well — everybody does well,” Biden said during a Wednesday speech in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, touting the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), his signature climate and healthcare bill, on its one-year anniversary.

“Folks, as I’ve said for a long time — for a long time: when I think climate, I think jobs,” Biden said in the speech. “Not a joke. When I think climate, I think jobs.  That’s the future.”…

While some states exhibit low rates of transition into green jobs, states like California have above average rates of green energy job adoption, the study asserted. To arrive at their findings, the authors analyzed 130 million online employment profiles, which represented about 300 million job-to-job transitions….

Read more.

AUTHOR

Atlas Shrugs

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