Marx and the Banning of Elements in the Periodic Table thumbnail

Marx and the Banning of Elements in the Periodic Table

By Vlad Tepes Blog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And then there is this:

Geothermal

A very worthy deeper dive:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The bottom line is:

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

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

In our own minds.

Eeyore for VladTepesBlog.

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

EPA Now Stuck Between A Rock and A Hard Place on CO2

By David Wojick

EPA is stuck. What they will now do is anybody’s guess. Enjoy their dilemma!

There are lots of happy reports on the Supreme Court’s ruling throwing out EPA’s so-called Clean Power Plan. Some go so far as to suggest that EPA is barred from regulating power plant CO2 emissions.

It is not quite that simple and the result is rather amusing. EPA is still required to regulate CO2 under the terms of the Clean Air Act, but that Act provides no way to do that regulation. The Clean Power Plan attempted to expand an obscure minor clause in the Act to do the job but SCOTUS correctly ruled that the clause does not confer that kind of massive authority.

EPA is between a rock and a hard place. It should tell Congress that it cannot do the job and needs a new law, along the lines of the SO2 law added to the Act in 1990, curbing emissions. But such a law has zero chance of passing in the foreseeable future.

EPA is stuck. What they will now do is anybody’s guess. Enjoy their dilemma!

Here is a bit more detail on the situation.

On one hand, EPA’s legal mandate to regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act is clear. First the (prior) Supreme Court ruled that CO2 was a “pollutant” under the Act. This is because buried in the 1990 Amendments was a clause adding causing climate change to the definition of “pollutant”. The Court accepted the government’s claim that the CO2 increase could cause climate change. The new Court could change this but is unlikely to do so.

Given CO2 is a pollutant under the Act, EPA was required to decide if it was dangerous to human well-being or not. It then produced an “endangerment finding” saying that CO2 was indeed a threat.

Given these two steps, the Act then requires EPA to regulate CO2. It has been trying to figure out how to do so ever since.

The deep problem is that the Clean Air Act specifies very specific regulatory actions, none of which work for CO2. This is because CO2 is nothing like the true pollutants that the Act was developed to regulate.

The Act’s mainline mechanism is the NAAQS (pronounced “nacks”) which stands for National Ambient Air Quality Standards. These standards specify the ambient concentration levels allowed for various pollutants. Carbon dioxide’s cousin carbon monoxide is one of these pollutants. Locations that exceed the NAAQS receive stiff penalties.

Clearly, this mechanism assumes that local levels are due to local emissions, which can be controlled to achieve and maintain compliance.

But CO2 is nothing like that. There is no way America can control the ambient CO2 level. Even if humans are causing that level (which is itself controversial), it is then based on global emissions. CO2 is not a local pollutant.

For a CO2 NAAQS EPA could either set the standard below the global level or above it. If below then all of America would be out of compliance and subject to the Act’s penalties, with no way to comply. It is very unlikely that the Court would allow these universal endless penalties.

If the CO2 NAAQS were above the present level then there would be no legal basis for EPA taking any action, since compliance was complete.

So the NAAQS mechanism simply does not work.

Another major mechanism is to control the emissions of what are called “hazardous air pollutants” or HAPS. EPA explains it this way:

“Hazardous air pollutants are those known to cause cancer and other serious health impacts.  The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to regulate toxic air pollutants, also known as air toxics, from categories of industrial facilities.”

But CO2 is nontoxic, so not a HAP. In fact, our exhaled breath contains over one hundred times the ambient level of CO2, that is over 40,000 ppm. Clearly, if ambient 400 ppm CO2 were toxic we would all be dead. It would be absurd for EPA to try to classify CO2 as a HAP. No Court would stand for it.

The only other piece of the Clean Air Act that EPA might try to use is called “New Source Performance Standards” but as the name says they only apply to new construction (or major modifications). The myriad existing fossil-fueled power plants that supply our daily juice would not be covered. Even worse if EPA drove up the cost of new gas-fired plants we would likely restart the host of retired coal-fueled plants. What a hoot that would be!

So there you have it. EPA bought itself CO2 as a Clean Air Act pollutant, but there is no way under the Act to regulate it. To mix metaphors, EPA is all dressed up with no place to go. The Supreme Court decision returned EPA to its regulatory dead end.

I find this ridiculous situation to be truly laughable. What were they thinking? Does the EPA Administrator understand this? Has he told the President? How about Congress?

EPA’s problem with CO2 is much deeper than the latest Supreme Court Decision. The Clean Air Act simply does not work for CO2. What will EPA do?

*****

This article was published by the Heartland Institute and is reproduced with permission.

Studies Show The Electric Vehicles Democrats Insist You Buy Are Worse For The Environment And Lower Quality thumbnail

Studies Show The Electric Vehicles Democrats Insist You Buy Are Worse For The Environment And Lower Quality

By The Geller Report

It was never about the climate. It was always about destroying our way of life, our standing in the world and transferring our wealth to left-wing elites with nonsensical, failed ‘businesses’.

Studies Show The Electric Vehicles Democrats Insist You Buy Are Worse For The Environment And Lower Quality

By: Helen Raleigh, The Federalist, July 11, 2022:

Two recent studies have shown that electric vehicles have more quality issues than gas-powered ones and are not better for the environment.

Many people believe electric vehicles are higher quality than gas-powered vehicles and are emissions-free, which makes them much better for the environment. But two recent studies have shown that electric cars have more quality issues than gas-powered ones and are not better for the environment.

J.D. Power has produced the annual U.S. Initial Quality Study for 36 years, which measures the quality of new vehicles based on feedback from owners. The most recent study, which included Tesla in its industry calculation for the first time, found that battery-electric vehicles (EVs) and plug-in hybrid vehicles have more quality issues than gas-powered ones.

According to J.D. Power, owners of electric or hybrid vehicles cite more problems than do owners of gas-powered vehicles. The latter vehicles average 175 problems per 100 vehicles (PP100), hybrids average 239 PP100, and battery-powered cars — excluding Tesla models — average 240 PP100. Tesla models average 226 PP100. Given the average cost of an electric car is roughly $60,000, about $20,000 more than the cost of a gas-powered car, it seems owners of EVs didn’t get the value they deserve.

Some blamed the supply-chain disruptions caused by pandemic-related lockdowns as the main reason for EVs’ quality issues. EV makers have sought alternative (sometimes less optimal) solutions to manufacture new vehicles. But the same supply-chain disruption affected makers of gas-powered vehicles. Yet the three highest-ranking brands, measured by overall initial quality, are all makers of gas-powered vehicles: Buick (139 PP100), Dodge (143 PP100), and Chevrolet (147 PP100).

Some pointed to the design as a main contributing factor to EVs’ quality issues. According to David Amodeo, global director of automotive at J.D. Power, automakers view EVs as “the vehicle that will transform us into the era of the smart cars,” so they have loaded up EVs with technologies such as touch screens, Bluetooth, and voice recognition. EV makers also prefer to use manufacturer-designed apps to “control certain functions of the car, from locking and unlocking the doors remotely to monitoring battery charge.” Increasing technical complexity also increases the likelihood of problems. Not surprisingly, EV owners reported more infotainment and connectivity issues in their vehicles than owners of gas-powered vehicles. Amodeo acknowledged that “there’s a lot of room for improvement” for EVs.

Electric Vehicles Are Worse for the Environment

Besides quality issues, a new study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that electric vehicles are worse for the environment than gas-powered ones. By quantifying the externalities (both greenhouse gases and local air pollution) generated by driving these vehicles, the government subsidies on the purchase of EVs, and taxes on electric and/or gasoline miles, researchers found that “electric vehicles generate a negative environmental benefit of about -0.5 cents per mile relative to comparable gasoline vehicles (-1.5 cents per mile for vehicles driven outside metropolitan areas).”

Keep reading.…..

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

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

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

Court Blocks Pennsylvania’s Carbon Pricing Scheme thumbnail

Court Blocks Pennsylvania’s Carbon Pricing Scheme

By Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow

“Don’t let activists who believe that putting Pennsylvanians out of work will help ‘save the planet.’ It’s time to confront the wannabe planet savers here in this room and this state and tell them not only NO, but HELL NO.”

That’s what CFACT’s Marc Morano declared before the Pennsylvania House of Representatives when Governor Tom Wolf tried to push The Keystone State into “The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative” (aka RGGI) scheme without authorization by law.

A state court agreed and blocked Wolf’s power grab as an attempt to establish an “unlawful tax.” The court said plaintiffs “raised a substantial legal question” since taxing is a power that is supposed to be wielded by the Pennsylvania General Assembly rather than the Executive.

As reported by the AP, “The Power Pa Jobs Alliance, a coalition of industry and labor groups, said that power plant operators would have started paying what it called the ‘carbon tax’ on Friday had the court not issued its injunction. It contends the carbon policy will impose higher electricity costs on consumers. The group called Friday’s ruling a ‘significant win for working families.’”

Winning court decisions are important and cause for celebration. But we must remind ourselves that oftentimes they’re only isolated “battles” and don’t necessarily determine the larger outcome.

Take, for example, how the Biden Administration is brazenly moving forward on its climate agenda despite the fact the Supreme Court handed them a stinging defeat on regulating carbon dioxide emissions in West Virginia v. EPA.

No sooner did the court wallop them, than Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg rolled out plans to regulate CO2 emissions from motor vehicles and boost his power over the states in ways Congress never intended.

As CFACT senior policy analyst Bonner Cohen reported at CFACT.org:

“One week after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency could not regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants because the agency lacks congressional authorization to do so, the Biden Department of Transportation (DOT) proposed a rule targeting CO2 emissions from highway vehicles, for which DOT also has no legal authority.”

“In a rare moment of regulatory candor, the administration acknowledges in the docket supporting DOT’s proposed rule that DOT’s scheme will ultimately encourage Americans to switch from gasoline-powered cars to EVs.”

For those on the Left, court decisions are a useful tool if they propel their agenda forward — but if they suffer a setback then they proceed on as though it’s just business as usual. They need to lose again and again to force compliance.

Let’s hope the courts continue to teach Governor Wolf, Secretary Buttigieg and their armies of bureaucrats a sorely needed lesson in constitutional checks and balances.

RELATED VIDEO: COVID lockdowns morphing into climate lockdowns

RELATED ARTICLES:

Biden’s Transportation Department targets CO2 emissions of cars on highways to push EVs

No excuse for Texas energy debacle

Electric vehicles a tool ripe for abuse

Government benefits more from fuel sales than oil companies!

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

FABRICATING REALITY: Climate Change, Atmospheric Transgenderism and Mental Masturbation thumbnail

FABRICATING REALITY: Climate Change, Atmospheric Transgenderism and Mental Masturbation

By Dr. Rich Swier

“I’ve called it ‘atmospheric transgenderism.’ If men can get pregnant, then CO2 is a pollutant, you see. If you’re fabricating reality, then anything goes.”, July 7, 2022 Natural News

Mental Masturbation: The act of engaging in useless yet intellectually stimulating conversation, usually as an excuse to avoid taking constructive action in your life.


We have spent a lot of energy, no pun intended, in defending energy, specifically that energy produced by fossil fuels. We have carried this torch to keep not only Americans but mankind in general able to reap the benefits of cheap and reliable energy.

If you Google Atmospheric Transgenderism one of the links goes to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Policy on Gender Identity Protections statement which reads,

This Order establishes the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Policy on Gender Identity Protections, which advances NOAA’s goal to provide a workplace that is free from discrimination and fully inclusive of all employees. These protections include all forms of gender identity and gender expression. NOAA strives to ensure equal opportunity and protection from all forms of harassment for all employees, contractors, fellows, interns, grantees, and applicants for employment. This Order is not intended to replace or impede any applicable discrimination complaint processes and does not alter the filing deadlines for invoking those processes.

NOAA is made up primarily of climate scientists yet they want to protect gender identity?

Gender identity is scientifically determined by ones genomes. One is either born XX (male) or XY (female). This is scientifically indisputable.

QUESTION: If NOAA’s scientists can’t follow the science on gender then are they also ignoring the science on the climate too?

Below is a video titled “IPCC Climate Change 2022 Impacts Report: Insights from NOAA Authors” that explains NOAA’s “scientific” position on climate change. This video features interviews with NOAA scientists Libby Jewett and Kirstin Holsman — contributors to the IPCC Climate Change 2022 Impacts Report. They served on an international team of authors who assessed scientific literature to prepare the new IPCC report’s chapter on North America.

According to the NOAA video byline, “Climate change refers to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns, mainly caused by human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels.

Their premise is fossil fuels create CO2, which is a pollutant and therefore impacts every aspect of life and that mankind, by changing their behaviors, can in fact control the climate.

That’s the definition of “atmospheric transgenderism.”

The Science of Anything Goes

NOAA is the perfect example of scientific mental masturbation.

NOAA’s mental masturbation RE: manmade global warming goes something like this: man uses fossil fuels ⇒ which emit the pollutant CO2 ⇒ therefore fossil fuels must be eliminated in order to save the planet.

We have written here, here, here, here and here that CO2 is not a pollutant but rather is essential to keeping the planet green and mankind healthy.

In the below December 15, 2011 video Professor Ian Clark, Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Ottawa and director, G.G. Hatch Isotope Laboratories, one of Canada’s leading analytical facilities, is testifying before a Canadian Senate hearing on climate change.

Professor Clark presents three important findings on what impacts the earth’s climate:

  1. Earths warming and cooling periods over millions of years has been due to activity on the sun.
  2. H2O (water vapor) is driving green house gas models, not CO2. It is H2O that keeps earth at a livable temperature for mankind.
  3. CO2 has little to do with global warming. CO2 actually helps keep the planet green.

Watch this entire video to understand how data and science are used to define green house gases and their effect over time on our climate.

Scientists Can’t Control the Climate or Change a Person’s Gender

No one can change their gender! What they can do is mutilate themselves psychologically, spiritually and physically. It’s the greatest and most destructive myth of our generation.

The same goes for the climate and weather. Mankind cannot control neither the weather nor the climate because:

  1. The climate changes.
  2. These changes in the climate follow natural cycles (e.g. Summer, Fall, Winter, Spring)
  3. These natural climate changes are immutable and cannot be changed in any way, shape or form.

Recently there have been four major developments impacting those who believe, like NOAA, that CO2 and fossil fuels are harmful.

  1. In a landmark ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt a massive blow to the Climate Change Agenda by saying the CO2 cannot be regulated by the EPA. On July 1st, 2022 Zero Hedge’s Tyler Durden wrote, “In a majority opinion authored by chief justice John Roberts, the justices ruled that in the latest example of Democratic overreach, the Environmental Protection Agency was not specifically authorized by Congress to reduce carbon emissions when it was set up in 1970. The ruling leaves the Biden administration dependent on passing legislation if it wants to implement sweeping regulations to curb emissions. The opinion from the court’s conservative majority said that “a decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body”. The justices added they doubted Congress intended to delegate the question of “how much coal-based generation there should be over the coming decades, to any administrative agency”.
  2. On July 9th, 2022 the European Union voted to declare fossil fuel to be ‘green’ energy. “EU Parliament backs green label for nuclear and natural gas, defying climate Left,” reports the Washington Examiner. The decision will, “ease construction of infrastructure for those power sources over the objections of some environmentalists and members of the bloc…Suddenly, European nations are panicking to try to rebuild their energy infrastructure. But since they’ve officially blocked most funding for non-green energy projects, the only way to get funds to rebuild fossil fuel infrastructure is to declare fossil fuels to be ‘green.’”
  3. Natural gas prices soars by 700%. Bloomberg reported on June 29th, 2022, “[N]atural gas is the hottest commodity in the world right now. It’s a key driver of global inflation, posting price jumps that are extreme even by the standards of today’s turbulent markets — some 700% in Europe since the start of last year, pushing the continent to the brink of recession. It’s at the heart of a dawning era of confrontation between the great powers, one so intense that in capitals across the West, plans to fight climate change are getting relegated to the back-burner. In short, natural gas now rivals oil as the fuel that shapes geopolitics. And there isn’t enough of it to go around.”
  4. In an article titled “This Country Tried To Go Green, Now They Are In Total Collapse!” PRETCHI wrote, “Germany is now facing economic disaster following massive investments in green energy. The Wall Street Journal reported that in an effort to get ready for a potential recession, Germany stated on July 5 its intention to amend 1970s legislation to send taxpayer funding to energy companies. According to Reuters, the breakdown occurred shortly after Germany disclosed its intention to spend $220 billion to convert all of its energy needs to renewable sources, the fund for Germany’s energy plan was an industrial transformation between now and 2026, including climate protection, hydrogen technology and expansion of the electric vehicle charging network. “200 billion euros in funding for the transformation of the economy, society and the state,” German finance minister Christian Lindner said.

The atmospheric transgenderism of climate change and mind masturbation have run head first, no pun intended, into global economic and political realities.

The climate on climate change is changing rapidly.

People are looking at their pocketbooks and realizing that they’ve been duped by scientists and their governments on the climate, fossil fuels and CO2 things.

People are now seeing the myth of Atmospheric Transgenderism and they’re not happy.

As Bill Clinton said, “It’s the economy, stupid.” Citizens in the U.S. and globally are now waking up to this climate Mental Masturbation exercise. They’re seeing it for what it really is about—control and nothing more!

They’re saying enough is enough. And so do we!

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Canada’s Peoples Party: ‘Climate change alarmism is based on flawed models that have consistently failed at correctly predicting the future.’

Don’t Let Climate Change Alarmism Ruin Your Future

Two Videos on the Global Warming/Climate Change Hoaxes

VIDEO: Big Government Is Not the Answer to Climate Change

SUPPLY CHAIN CRISIS: 70,000 Self-Employed Truckers in California Forced Off The Road Under New Democrat State Law thumbnail

SUPPLY CHAIN CRISIS: 70,000 Self-Employed Truckers in California Forced Off The Road Under New Democrat State Law

By The Geller Report

The Democrats war on the hard working American ratcheted up another unimaginable notch. But this time, it not only outs the small businessman out of business, throw in massive shortages (food, supplies etc.), supply chain issues etc. It’s a catastrophe

Sadly, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a review on whether California Assembly Bill 5 (AB-5) violates the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 as it applies to self-employed truck drivers.

70,000 Self-Employed Truckers in California Face Shutdown Under New State Law

Industry says it’s ‘pouring gasoline’ on supply chain crisis

By Allan Stein, The Epoch Times, July 8, 2022:

Tens of thousands of independent California truck owner-operators could be out of business soon under a new statewide worker classification law designating them as employees.

On June 30, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a review on whether California Assembly Bill 5 (AB-5) violates the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 as it applies to self-employed truck drivers.

“Gasoline has been poured on the fire that is our ongoing supply chain crisis,” the California Trucking Association (CTA) wrote in a June 30 response to the high court’s decision regarding the association’s legal challenge to the bill.

“In addition to the direct impact on California’s 70,000 owner-operators—who have seven days to cease long-standing independent businesses—the impact of taking tens of thousands of truck drivers off the road will have devastating repercussions on an already fragile supply chain, increasing costs and worsening runaway inflation,” the association added.

“We are disappointed the court does not recognize the irrevocable damage eliminating independent truckers will have on interstate commerce and communities across the state.

“The legislature and [Gavin] Newsom administration must immediately take action to avoid worsening the supply chain crisis and inflation.”

The California State Assembly adopted AB-5 in September 2019, sparking CTA’s legal challenge and the Supreme Court’s latest decision.

The bill’s primary sponsor was Lorena Gonzalez (D), a union leader and former Assembly member.

Under AB-5, a self-employed commercial truck owner must satisfy a three-part test to be considered an independent contractor, with exceptions for construction trucking services.

The bill adds that existing law “creates a presumption that a worker who performs services for a hirer is an employee for purposes of claims for wages and benefits arising under wage orders issued by the Industrial Welfare Commission.”

Existing law defines employees for purposes that include “any individual who, under the usual common law rules applicable in determining the employer-employee relationship, has the status of an employee.”

Self-Employed Truckers Entitled to Benefits

The bill would entitle those self-employed truck drivers and owners to the same benefits and workers’ compensation as regular employees.

According to Globecom Freight Systems, a leading provider of transportation services, owner-operators make up 9 percent (350,000) of the commercial truckers on the road today. Their average salary is about $50,000.

A recent study by the American Trucking Association found that the nationwide shortage of 80,000 truck drivers could double by 2030. In light of the shortage, many trucking companies now offer lucrative sign-on bonuses and salaries to attract more drivers.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration recently launched an apprenticeship driver program for those aged 18–to–20 that would allow them to cross state lines to help further alleviate the shortage.

Tony Bradley, president and CEO of the Arizona Trucking Association, criticized AB-5 as a “horribly misguided piece of legislation” by California labor unions that will have a “drastic impact across all trucking.”

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

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

Biden Economics: Natural Gas Soars 700% thumbnail

Biden Economics: Natural Gas Soars 700%

By The Geller Report

“Best economy in history.” — White House

Natural Gas Soars 700%, Becoming Driving Force in the New Cold War

(Bloomberg) — One morning in early June, a fire broke out at an obscure facility in Texas that takes natural gas from US shale basins, chills it into a liquid and ships it overseas. It was extinguished in 40 minutes or so. No one was injured.

It sounds like a story for the local press, at most — except that more than three weeks later, financial and political shockwaves are still reverberating across Europe, Asia and beyond.

That’s because natural gas is the hottest commodity in the world right now. It’s a key driver of global inflation, posting price jumps that are extreme even by the standards of today’s turbulent markets — some 700% in Europe since the start of last year, pushing the continent to the brink of recession. It’s at the heart of a dawning era of confrontation between the great powers, one so intense that in capitals across the West, plans to fight climate change are getting relegated to the back-burner.

In short, natural gas now rivals oil as the fuel that shapes geopolitics. And there isn’t enough of it to go around.

It’s the war in Ukraine that catalyzed the gas crisis to a new level, by taking out a crucial chunk of supply. Russia is cutting back on pipeline deliveries to Europe — which says it wants to stop buying from Moscow anyway, if not quite yet. The scramble to fill that gap is turning into a worldwide stampede, as countries race to secure scarce cargoes of liquefied natural gas ahead of the northern-hemisphere winter.

The New Oil?

Germany says gas shortfalls could trigger a Lehman Brothers-like collapse, as Europe’s economic powerhouse faces the unprecedented prospect of businesses and consumers running out of power. The main Nord Stream pipeline that carries Russian gas to Germany is due to shut down on July 11 for ten days of maintenance, and there’s growing fear that Moscow may not reopen it. Group of Seven leaders are seeking ways to curb Russia’s gas earnings, which help finance the invasion of Ukraine — and backing new LNG investments. And poorer countries

that built energy systems around cheap gas are now struggling to afford it.

“This is the 1970s for natural gas,” says Kevin Book, managing director at ClearView Energy Partners LLC, a Washington-based research firm. “The world is now thinking about gas as it once thought about oil, and the essential role that gas plays in modern economies and the need for secure and diverse supply have become very visible.”

Natural gas used to be a sleepy commodity that changed hands in fragmented regional markets. Now, even though globalization appears to be in retreat across much of the world economy, the gas trade is headed in the opposite direction. It’s globalizing fast — but maybe not fast enough.

Keep reading……

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLE: EU Declares Fossil Fuel To Be ‘Green’ Energy As ‘Climate Change’ Narrative Self-Destructs

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

EU Declares Fossil Fuel To Be ‘Green’ Energy As ‘Climate Change’ Narrative Self-Destructs thumbnail

EU Declares Fossil Fuel To Be ‘Green’ Energy As ‘Climate Change’ Narrative Self-Destructs

By The Geller Report

When reality meets propaganda, it’s brutal.

Trump was right. Right about “green energy’ farce, right about the climate accord, right about the Paris Agreement …. he was right about everything.

“EU Parliament backs green label for nuclear and natural gas, defying climate Left,” reports the Washington Examiner. The decision will, “ease construction of infrastructure for those power sources over the objections of some environmentalists and members of the bloc.”

When Trump spoke at the UN and called out countries for depending on Russian oil, the German delegation laughed at him.

Trump was right. pic.twitter.com/lD92gLyKk4

— Hananya Naftali (@HananyaNaftali) March 7, 2022

This decision is the first sign that European leaders may be pulling back from the green energy suicide cult that now typifies socialist, progressive “libtard” governments that are more interested in virtue signaling than allowing their own domestic economies to function. The fraudulent, junk science narrative of “climate change” has caused western nations (including the USA) to dismantle much of their fossil fuel infrastructure over the last 20 years. With Russia’s energy exports suddenly cut off due to economic sanctions, Western Europe is finding itself mired in an unprecedented energy crisis with potentially catastrophic consequences.

Suddenly, European nations are panicking to try to rebuild their energy infrastructure. But since they’ve officially blocked most funding for non-green energy projects, the only way to get funds to rebuild fossil fuel infrastructure is to declare fossil fuels to be “green.”

And that’s exactly what the EU parliament just did with natural gas, delivering a devastating blow to the climate change narrative, which was always based on so much quackery and bunk that I’ve called it “atmospheric transgenderism.” If men can get pregnant, then CO2 is a pollutant, you see. If you’re fabricating reality, then anything goes.

It turns out that even “progressive” national leaders of European nations are being dragged back to reality, kicking and screaming, reluctantly admitting that fossil energy is the only thing that can power modern economies at the moment, at least until hot fusion or cold fusion are commercialized…… (more here)

EU parliament backs labelling gas and nuclear investments as green

By Kate Abnett, Reuters, July 6, 2022

Lawmakers back ‘green’ EU investment label for the fuels

Likely to become law unless super-majority of states veto

Gas, nuclear rules have split EU countries and lawmakers

Luxembourg, Austria to challenge law in court

BRUSSELS, July 6 (Reuters) – The European Parliament on Wednesday backed EU rules labelling investments in gas and nuclear power plants as climate-friendly, throwing out an attempt to block the law that has exposed deep rifts between countries over how to fight climate change.

The vote paves the way for the European Union proposal to pass into law, unless 20 of the bloc’s 27 member states decide to oppose the move, which is seen as very unlikely.

The new rules will add gas and nuclear power plants to the EU “taxonomy” rulebook from 2023, enabling investors to label and market investments in them as green.

Out of 639 lawmakers present, 328 opposed a motion that sought to block the EU gas and nuclear proposals.

The European Commission welcomed the result. It proposed the rules in February after more than a year of delay and intense lobbying from governments and industries.

“The Complementary Delegated Act is a pragmatic proposal to ensure that private investments in gas and nuclear, needed for our energy transition, meet strict criteria,” EU financial services chief Mairead McGuinness said.

The rules have split EU countries, lawmakers and investors. Brussels redrafted the rules multiple times, flip-flopping over whether to grant gas plants a green tag. Its final proposal fuelled fierce debate about how to hit climate goals amid a crisis over dwindling Russian gas supplies.

Gas is a fossil fuel that produces planet-warming emissions – but far less than coal, and some EU states see it as a temporary alternative to replace the dirtier fuel.

Nuclear energy is free from CO2 emissions but produces radioactive waste. Supporters such as France say nuclear is vital to meet emissions-cutting goals, while opponents cite concerns about waste disposal.

Read more

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLES:

Dutch Farms Seized To Make Way For Migrants

White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre: ‘Our Economy is Stronger Now Than Ever Before!’

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

White House ‘Disinformation’ Campaign Against Climate Policy Critics Sparks Litigation thumbnail

White House ‘Disinformation’ Campaign Against Climate Policy Critics Sparks Litigation

By Kevin Mooney

Climate activists are working in coordination with the Biden White House and Democrat-dominated congressional committees to silence political opponents under the guise of “disinformation,” legal and energy policy analysts say. 

Under President Joe Biden, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy has kept a tight lid on how the administration advances its climate agenda, Chris Horner, an attorney representing a government transparency group, told The Daily Signal.

Horner said the White House science office refuses to respond forthrightly to related open records requests from his nonprofit group, Energy Policy Advocates. Such answers, he said, would enlighten Americans on the White House’s recruitment of outside activists and academics to discredit dissenters on climate change.

“It’s sort of like paying someone else to take your LSAT test,” Dan Kish, a senior fellow with the Washington-based nonprofit Institute for Energy Research, told The Daily Signal.

Horner’s Energy Policy Advocates has filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the White House science office after it declined to release records detailing some of the correspondence of two of its staffers.

The lawsuit, filed in May, cites a “virtual roundtable” on climate change that the science office hosted Feb. 25 for the stated purpose of confronting “climate delayism.” A White House press release describing the roundtable identifies 17 outside participants, including communication strategists, professors, and researchers associated with universities across the country.

“We have filed numerous open records suits pertaining to ‘climate,’ seeking records from local, state, or federal bodies known to be working with what we view as a climate industry, or otherwise pursuing the agenda,” Horner said in an email to The Daily Signal.

He said Energy Policy Advocates, which is based in Washington state, went to court after the White House science office “failed to move” on one request under the Freedom of Information Act, or to determine that it would comply with that request. The office also “attempted to deny another request on what appear to be specious grounds that the material was ‘deliberative’ in nature,” Horner said.

Horner is one of two lawyers representing Energy Policy Advocates in the litigation.

In an email, The Daily Signal sought comment from the Office of Science and Technology Policy on the lawsuit and the purpose of the “climate disinformation” campaign. The office had not responded by publication time.

Seeking Emails With Outsiders

In February, Energy Policy Advocates asked for correspondence about a climate event involving Eric Lander, a science adviser to Biden who resigned that month, and Jane Lubchenco, the science office’s deputy director for climate and the environment.

The request asked for email records spanning an eight-week period that was “used at any time for work-related correspondence that was sent to one or more … named outside parties,” the suit says.

Lander resigned from the White House science office in response to allegations that he “bullied and demeaned” fellow staffers, according to media reports.

Lubchenco previously served as undersecretary of commerce and administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the Obama administration. During that time, Energy Policy Advocates’ suit claims, Lubchenco used a previous employer’s email account for “official federal work-related correspondence.”

The nonprofit also filed numerous lawsuits at the state and federal levels to obtain records pertaining to other such efforts. At the state level, for instance, former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg paid for unofficial consultants to work with progressive state attorneys general to pursue Bloomberg’s climate agenda, according to the litigation.

The overarching purpose of the FOIA requests is to “inform the public of high-profile ethics revelations” at the White House science office “and media coverage thereof, and also the genesis of a tendentious event and campaign” out of the office, according to the suit.

Horner said he views the White House “roundtable” event as part of a larger effort aimed at “freezing out opposing political speech.”

He points to Biden’s aborted attempt to create a Disinformation Governance Board within the Department of Homeland Security as an example of how the administration is working to cut off meaningful debate about climate change.

“It’s certainly a reasonable conclusion that this administration and its allies, including on Capitol Hill, seek to use the weight of the federal government to silence political speech in opposition to its ‘whole-of-government’ climate agenda,” Horner said.

“Whether that means attempts at criminalization or not, we shall see,” he added, in anticipation that the House Oversight and Reform Committee would make referrals to the Justice Department for possible prosecution. A related transparency lawsuit suggests that such a referral is one objective of the House committee.

‘Hypocritical Hearings’

Katie Tubb, an energy and environmental policy analyst with The Heritage Foundation, testified in February before the House Oversight and Reform Committee during a hearing titled “Fueling the Climate Crisis: Examining Big Oil’s Climate Pledges.” (The Daily Signal is Heritage’s multimedia news organization.)

The climate hearing continued last year’s interrogations of energy companies that figure into Virginia talk show host Rob Schilling’s lawsuits. In her testimony, Tubb encouraged lawmakers to develop a better understanding of the “ongoing energy-price crisis.”

She told The Daily Signal in an email that the Biden administration’s “keep it in the ground” approach to energy policy “cedes ground to other producers to fill the vacuum in a global market that cannot find enough supply.”

“We tend to think of oil in terms of transportation products—jet fuel, gasoline, diesel,” Tubb said, adding:

Just that alone enables so much productive, worthwhile activity. But oil is also a feedstock for hundreds of other products that make our lives better (pharmaceuticals being just one category). We take that for granted in the U.S., which is expressed by some in Congress with hypocritical hearings.

The Daily Signal previously reported that Horner, an attorney with the nonprofit group Government Accountability and Oversight, represents Rob Schilling in that litigation.

This other lawsuit alleges that lawmakers received assistance from privately funded sources in violation of House ethics rules and federal law, for the purpose of steering their climate-related investigations.

Schilling also is executive director of Energy Policy Advocates, the plaintiff in the litigation against the White House science office.

‘Collusive Behavior’

Kish, whose Institute for Energy Research advocates free-market policies, expressed concern about the role privately funded activists could have in reshaping national energy policy.

“I’m flabbergasted to the extent I see this sort of collusive behavior between outside groups and the current leadership of the House via the committees,” Kish told The Daily Signal. “That’s just not supposed to happen. It’s sort of like paying someone else to take your LSAT test.”

Kish credits the lawsuits under the Freedom of Information Act for calling attention not just to questionable ethics but also to Biden’s pursuit of green energy initiatives that, from his point of view, undercut American interests.

During the February roundtable, Alondra Nelson, a deputy assistant to the president who also directs the Office of Science and Technology Policy, told participants that the Biden administration is committed to reaching 100% clean electricity by 2035 and to reach net-zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050.

“From a national security standpoint, and from an energy security standpoint, it’s imperative that if this country continues to go down the road toward green energy, that the American people be aware of just exactly the implications of that and who is behind pushing these programs and it all seems to lead back to China and to a certain extent, Russia,” Kish said.

“Under Biden, we are literally disarming and dismantling our nation’s energy, economic, and national security and turning over control of energy resources to China,” he said.

In a letter dated June 9, the White House science office informed Energy Policy Advocates that it would provide a partial response to its requests. The office cited exemptions under the law that allow federal agencies to withhold and redact information that federal officials view as legally sensitive.

*****

This article was published by the Daily Signal and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

Are you concerned about election integrity? What informed United States citizen isn’t? Did the 2020 national election raise many questions about election integrity? Are you concerned about the current cycle of primaries and then the general election in November? No doubt the answer for The Prickly Pear readers is YES.

Click below for a message from Tony Sanchez, the RNC Arizona Election Integrity Director to sign up for the opportunity to become an official Poll Observer for the 8/2 AZ Primary and the 11/8 General Election in your county of residence. We need many, many good citizens to do this – get involved now and help make the difference for clean and honest elections.

Barrels of Oil Released by Biden From Reserve Were Sent to China thumbnail

Barrels of Oil Released by Biden From Reserve Were Sent to China

By Jihad Watch

Dumping the country’s oil reserves was the only strategy to lower energy prices that Biden would accept. He continues blocking domestic drilling and taxes remain high. The practical impact of the reserve releases was negligible and, worse still, five million barrels of oil from the reserve were actually exported abroad.

More than 5 million barrels of oil that were part of a historic U.S. emergency reserves release to lower domestic fuel prices were exported to Europe and Asia last month, according to data and sources, even as U.S. gasoline and diesel prices hit record highs.

About 1 million barrels per day is being released from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) through October. The flow is draining the SPR, which last month fell to the lowest since 1986.

Considering the scale of even the national use, 20 million a day, there was never going to be much of an impact here.

U.S. officials have said oil prices could be higher if the SPR had not been tapped.

Ah, the hypothetical.

Anyway the oil went all over.

The fourth-largest U.S. oil refiner, Phillips 66 PSX.N, shipped about 470,000 barrels of sour crude from the Big Hill SPR storage site in Texas to Trieste, Italy, according to U.S. Customs data. Trieste is home to a pipeline that sends oil to refineries in central Europe.

Atlantic Trading & Marketing (ATMI), an arm of French oil major TotalEnergies TTEF.PA, exported 2 cargoes of 560,000 barrels each, the data showed.

Cargoes of SPR crude were also headed to the Netherlands and to a Reliance RELI.NS refinery in India, an industry source said. A third cargo headed to China, another source said.

Yes, the story wouldn’t be complete without China. Much like the PPP disaster, the government efforts invariably only punish Americans and reward Communist China.

AUTHOR

DANIEL GREENFIELD

RELATED ARTICLES:

Stunning Amount Of Oil Released By Biden Found Its Way To China, Other Countries

Black Lives Matter Celebrates 4th with Race Riots and Vandalism

Boris Johnson’s successor is likely to be even worse than he is

UK: Boris Johnson resigns following unprecedented wave of resignations over his leadership

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

UPDATE: Holland’s Eco-War Against Farmers thumbnail

UPDATE: Holland’s Eco-War Against Farmers

By Matthys van Raalten

“If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face— forever.” ― George Orwell, 1984


Since Monday the Fourth of July, there has been an uprising of Dutch farmers. Though the farmers break laws, their protests should be considered peaceful and within the spirit of democracy.

Their case is justified. The Dutch Government says it wants to protect Nature and the farmers pollute heath with too much Nitrogen from their cattle. However, Nitrogen is beneficial for Nature and changes barren heath into beautiful green forest. Do you know that 78% of the air you breathe consists of Nitrogen?

Dutch farmers belong to Holland, just as cowboys belong to the USA. Holland was made a great nation by farmers, preachers and merchants.

As I wrote you before, the real reason that the Dutch Government wants to expel farmers from their farmlands is, that they need the land to build homes for mass immigration from Africa and the Middle East. Holland will become a city state, full of ugly modern architecture, meant for foreigners.

Dutch police and even part of the Military have responded aggressively to the farmers’ protests. There has even been an occasion in which a police officer shot at a 16 year old boy, who was unarmed and drove away from the protest without being a threat to anyone.

This is 16-year-old farmer to be Jouke. He was being shot by Dutch police in Heerenveen late last evening whilst leaving the protest.

Then he was being arrested. Contact with his mother is not allowed. #DutchFarmers #DutchUprising #boerenprotest pic.twitter.com/09UXdzOoF9

— Kaktus (@MenuKaktus) July 6, 2022

This happened in Heerenveen and there is video of the incident on Twitter.

🇳🇱 Netherlands – Heerenveen (Police shoots at Farmers) [Jul 5, 2022]

So, this is where the Netherlands is at. Police firing shots at Farmers, who have been peacefully demonstrating for their existence!

This country is lost.#boereninopstand #politiegeweld #FarmerProtests pic.twitter.com/ZAIrpwIeE0

— 🏛️ BMedia 🇳🇱📵 (@BananaMediaQ) July 5, 2022

Prime Minister Mark Rutte, a fake conservative, doesn’t seem to be impressed by the protests. He has offered that a friend of his mediate between the Government and the farmers. But Rutte has said that the plan to expel farmers will not be negotiable, so negotiations are meaningless. The mediator is also a driving force behind the climate hysteria in Holland.

🇳🇱 Police use tear gas to disperse the blockade of a distribution center by farmers tonight in Heerenveen in the Netherlands.#FarmerProtests pic.twitter.com/15DbcMGlgI

— PPCNEWS24 (@ppcnews24) July 4, 2022

#Police are now shooting at protesting citizens in the Netherlands.

So much for a free country…#FarmersProtest #boereninopstand #policeshooting #FarmersProtest #Heerenveen #freedom pic.twitter.com/7SdqiNx23B

— JulesAmiens (@JulesAmiens) July 5, 2022

I see a bleak future for Dutch farmers. But also for Dutch fishermen. They are also under attack by the Government. They have to diminish their fleet, so that wind turbines can be erected in the North Sea.

And what we also see happening, is that slowly but steadily a police state is developing in Holland. The Dutch Constitution is merely an obstacle that can be overcome by declaring “emergency” situations.

Yes, Holland is in deep trouble. Only immediate elections could offer a way out. But then again, would the people vote wisely? They are so misinformed by state run media and by media supporting the state.

RELATED TWEETS:

Dutch farmers burn hay bales in the middle of the highway near Apeldoorn. At the same time, Mark Rutte’s police in Heerenveen shot Dutch farmers in at least two instances. pic.twitter.com/m713Smm7MP

— RadioGenova (@RadioGenova) July 6, 2022

💢 Despite the state thugs firing teargas in Heerenveen & Sneek, the Dutch farmers protests have been second to none, blocking borders, highways, distribution centres, media companies, ports, bringing the world’s attention, as the sun goes down, they celebrate.#DutchFarmers pic.twitter.com/gFhRDYunjw

— puritan (@puritan_777) July 5, 2022

©Matthys van Raalten. All rights reserved.

UN Journal Touts ‘The Benefits of World Hunger’ – ‘Hunger Has Great Positive Value’ thumbnail

UN Journal Touts ‘The Benefits of World Hunger’ – ‘Hunger Has Great Positive Value’

By Marc Morano

The UN Chronicle, which bills itself as “The magazine of the United Nations, Since 1946” originally published this essay in 2008 

by Professor George Kent of the University of Hawaii:

“Hunger has great positive value to many people. Indeed, it is fundamental to the working of the world’s economy. Hungry people are the most productive people, especially where there is a need for manual labour. … How many of us would sell our services if it were not for the threat of hunger?” 

“More importantly, how many of us would sell our services so cheaply if it were not for the threat of hunger?” … 

“For those of us at the high end of the social ladder, ending hunger globally would be a disaster. If there were no hunger in the world, who would plow the fields? Who would harvest our vegetables? Who would work in the rendering plants? Who would clean our toilets? We would have to produce our own food and clean our own toilets. No wonder people at the high end are not rushing to solve the hunger problem. For many of us, hunger is not a problem, but an asset.”

[ … ]

Update: After outcry, the UN pulls the essay from its website on July 6, 2022, claiming it was satire! (UN essay archived here🙂

Climate Depot’s Morano comments: “This is a UN article and was published in 2008 in the UN Chronicle. It is now just getting media attention and the author of the article, Professor George Kent, told Climate Depot on July 6, 2022, that the UN article is most definitely not a ‘satire’ but intended to be ‘provocative.’ The UN is now trying to erase history by deleting the essay and falsey pretending that it was merely a “satire.” 

Given how the world has been transformed under the ‘new normal’ of COVID lockdowns, it seems this old UN Chronicle article presciently reveals how the World Economic Forum and the UN & the WHO, seek to rule humanity with an iron bureaucratic fist and wish to keep the ‘masses’ poor, tired, and hungry.” 

Meanwhile, a new July 2022 UN report finds: U.N. says 2.3 billion people severely or moderately hungry in 2021

By: Marc Morano – Climate Depot July 6, 2022 1:59 PM with 0 comments

Climate Depot Special Report 

https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/benefits-world-hunger

Update: UN pulls the essay from its website on July 6, 2022! (UN essay archived here

The UN Chronicle issued this statement via Twitter: “This article appeared in the UN Chronicle 14 years ago as an attempt at satire and was never meant to be taken literally. We have been made aware of its failures, even as satire, and have removed it from our site.”


The Benefits of World Hunger – By Professor George Kent  in 2008 – the University of Hawaii – Published in UN Chronicle in 2008 & 2009

Click to access BenefitsofWorldHunger.pdf

Full Text of UN article: 

We sometimes talk about hunger in the world as if it were a scourge that all of us want to see abolished, viewing it as comparable with the plague or aids. But that naïve view prevents us from coming to grips with what causes and sustains hunger. Hunger has great positive value to many people. Indeed, it is fundamental to the working of the world’s economy. Hungry people are the most productive people, especially where there is a need for manual labour.

We in developed countries sometimes see poor people by the roadside holding up signs saying “Will Work for Food”. Actually, most people work for food. It is mainly because people need food to survive that they work so hard either in producing food for themselves in subsistence-level production, or by selling their services to others in exchange for money. How many of us would sell our services if it were not for the threat of hunger?

More importantly, how many of us would sell our services so cheaply if it were not for the threat of hunger? When we sell our services cheaply, we enrich others, those who own the factories, the machines and the lands, and ultimately own the people who work for them. For those who depend on the availability of cheap labour, hunger is the foundation of their wealth.

The conventional thinking is that hunger is caused by low-paying jobs. For example, an article reports on “Brazil’s ethanol slaves: 200,000 migrant sugar cutters who prop up renewable energy boom”.1 While it is true that hunger is caused by low-paying jobs, we need to understand that hunger at the same time causes low-paying jobs to be created. Who would have established massive biofuel production operations in Brazil if they did not know there were thousands of hungry people desperate enough to take the awful jobs they would offer? Who would build any sort of factory if they did not know that many people would be available to take the jobs at low-pay rates?

Much of the hunger literature talks about how it is important to assure that people are well fed so that they can be more productive. That is nonsense. No one works harder than hungry people. Yes, people who are well nourished have greater capacity for productive physical activity, but well-nourished people are far less willing to do that work.

The non-governmental organization Free the Slaves defines slaves as people who are not allowed to walk away from their jobs. It estimates that there are about 27 million slaves in the world,2 including those who are literally locked into workrooms and held as bonded labourers in South Asia. However, they do not include people who might be described as slaves to hunger, that is, those who are free to walk away from their jobs but have nothing better to go to. Maybe most people who work are slaves to hunger?

For those of us at the high end of the social ladder, ending hunger globally would be a disaster. If there were no hunger in the world, who would plow the fields? Who would harvest our vegetables? Who would work in the rendering plants? Who would clean our toilets? We would have to produce our own food and clean our own toilets. No wonder people at the high end are not rushing to solve the hunger problem. For many of us, hunger is not a problem, but an asset.

Notes 1 Tom Phillipps, “Brazil’s ethanol slaves: 200,000 migrant sugar cutters who prop up renewable energy boom”. The Guardian. Online, 9 March 2007.
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/energy/story/0,,2030144,00.html

2 Free the Slaves. Online, 2007. http://www.freetheslaves.net/

UN Chronicle notes: George Kent is a professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Hawaii. He works on human rights, international relations, peace, development and environmental issues, with a special focus on nutrition and children. He has written several books, the latest is Freedom from Want: The Human Right to Adequate Food.

END Full Text of UN Chronicle Essay


Climate Depot Comments: 

There has been some discussion online about whether the article was a satire. See: Article describing “The Benefits of World Hunger” published by the UN goes viral, netizens confused whether it is real or satire

The UN Chronicle is now claiming — after 14 years — that the essay is “satire.” But the author of the essay disputes the UN’s claims. Climate Depot has determined that the UN Chronicle article on “The Benefits of World Hunger” is not a satire, according to the author of the report. Climate Depot spoke with the author, Prof. George Kent, emeritus of the University of Hawaii on July 6, 2022.

Kent also emailed  the following comments to Climate Depot:first published in the UN Chronicle in 2008, and again in 2009 when the UN Chronicle changed its format

Prof. George Kent’s July 6, 2022 email to Climate Depot:

“The essay was first published in the UN Chronicle in 2008, and again in 2009 when the UN Chronicle changed its format.” … “Yes, I wrote that paper. No, it is not satire. I don’t see anything funny about it. It is not about advocacy of hunger. I have not encountered anyone else who thought it might be advocacy. I don’t think the UN would have published it if they thought it was satire or advocacy.

The purpose of the paper was to highlight the point that the only way to understand the persistence of hunger is to recognize is that some people with power benefit from it. This point lit up for me when I was at a conference in India about some sort of assistance program for poor people, when one person, apparently a farm owner, stood up and argued against that asistance. His explicit concern is that the assistance would reduce his supply of cheap labor.

Persistent hunger is due mainly to the shortage of caring.”

Kent, in a phone interview with Climate Depot, said that he now “regrets” not being clearer and said that while his article was trying to be “provocative,”  he was not “advocating” for preventing an end to global hunger.

Meanwhile, a new July 2022 UN report finds: U.N. says 2.3 billion people severely or moderately hungry in 2021 – UNITED NATIONS (AP) — World hunger rose in 2021, with around 2.3 billion people facing moderate or severe difficulty obtaining enough to eat — and that was before the Ukraine war, which has sparked increases in the cost of grain, fertilizer and energy, according to a U.N. report released Wednesday.

“The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World” paints a grim picture, based on 2021 data, saying the statistics “should dispel any lingering doubts that the world is moving backwards in its efforts to end hunger, food insecurity and malnutrition in all its forms.”

“The most recent evidence available suggests that the number of people unable to afford a healthy diet around the world rose by 112 million to almost 3.1 billion, reflecting the impacts of rising consumer food prices during the (COVID-19) pandemic,” the heads of five U.N. agencies that published the report said in the forward.

California to Pivot to Fossil Fuels to Avoid Blackouts. Fossil fuels to the rescue … in California? thumbnail

California to Pivot to Fossil Fuels to Avoid Blackouts. Fossil fuels to the rescue … in California?

By Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

California is hardly the first state to realize that transitioning to renewable energy is easier said than done.


In May, The Wall Street Journal reported that energy grid operators across the US were bracing for rolling blackouts heading into the summer.

“I am concerned about it,” MISO CEO John Bear told the newspaper, noting that green energy sources were struggling to produce enough supply to meet rising demand. “As we move forward, we need to know that when you put a solar panel or a wind turbine up, it’s not the same as a thermal resource.”

Nearly two months later, it’s clear that grid operators were not crying wolf.

On Friday, the Associated Press reported that California—a state desperately trying to “quit” fossil fuels—is seeking to tap fossil fuel to avoid blackouts.

“A sweeping energy proposal Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Thursday puts the state in the business of buying power to ensure there’s enough to go around during heat waves that strain the grid. But some critics say the method of getting there is at odds with the state’s broader climate goals, because it paves the way for the state to tap aging gas-fired power plants and add backup generators fueled by diesel.”

Unlike most states, California gets most of its electricity—nearly 60 percent—from renewable sources. But the AP notes the state lacks the storage capacity to dispatch sufficient energy when intermittent energy sources are not producing, something Newsom’s proposal seeks to address.

The governor’s proposal would help “keep the lights on in California,” The Los Angeles Times notes, “making it easier for solar and wind farm developers to sidestep local government opposition, and limiting environmental reviews for all kinds of energy projects.”

The proposal would also likely serve as a lifeline to beachfront gas plants, as well as the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, the Golden State’s largest power plant and only operating nuclear facility.

At first blush, Gov. Newsom’s proposal makes perfect sense. But there’s more to the story.

As I noted in May, energy industry leaders had made it clear that grids are struggling to keep pace with rising energy demands as plants shift from thermal energy sources to renewables.

But California is already familiar with blackouts.

In August 2020, the state experienced a series of rolling blackouts that captured national attention. (This didn’t stop lawmakers from banning gas-powered generators the following year, something many Californians turned to to keep the lights on during the blackouts.)

Following the blackouts, the state water board agreed to allow gas-fired power plants in Redondo Beach, Huntington to continue operating for three additional years, even though they were slated for retirement.

“We feel double-crossed,” Redondo Beach Mayor Bill Brand told the Times. “These retirement dates were set 12 years ago.”

Brand has a point.

Newsom has repeatedly called for the phasing out of fossil fuels and denied that doing so would have an adverse economic effect. His pivot to fossil fuels is prudent because it will reduce the dangerous possibility that Calfornians will again find themselves without power during the peak heat of summer, but it’s also a betrayal ideologically.

For progressives, California is America’s energy blueprint, the model showing the way forward on “green” energy. Turning back to fossil fuels is a move that runs against Newsom’s own rhetoric and the progressive vision of our energy future. It’s an admission that fossil fuels aren’t just important but necessary to human survival.

We need to phase out our dependence on fossil fuels and focus on clean energy sources.

All new fracking will be reviewed by independent scientists.

There will be no more new permits for high-pressure steam-injected oil drilling in CA.https://t.co/mahfCx6IME

— Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) November 20, 2019

The GOP and oil companies want you to believe that getting rid of oil will hurt our economy.

CA is proof that’s not true — home to nearly half a million green jobs. SIX TIMES MORE than fossil fuel jobs.

Climate leadership & economic growth CAN coexist. pic.twitter.com/hOlVMaPiLD

— Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) November 4, 2021

California is hardly the first state to realize that transitioning to renewable energy—which is not as green as many activists and lawmakers would like you to believe—is easier said than done.

General Motors CEO virtue signaling how “clean” the new Chevy Volt is.

Then a reporter asks where the charging electricity comes from.

Oh my…. Wait for it.

Awkward. pic.twitter.com/wcMNhHVSK9

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) June 8, 2022

In its eagerness to retire coal plants, for example, Hawaii recently found itself using oil to charge the Kapolei Energy Storage Facility—essentially a huge battery designed to utilize green energy—after renewable energy projects were beset by problems.

The revelation was an embarrassment for energy officials, but it revealed an important reality. While many today see fossil fuels as immoral or even evil, the reality is they provide most of the energy in the US and are vital to human existence and flourishing.

This is not to say that renewable energy sources like solar power are not important and cannot serve a key role. They can (though the idea that they come with no environmental costs is untrue).

But the discussion gets at a key lesson of basic economics: tradeoffs exist.

“There are no solutions,” economist Thomas Sowell famously observed. “There are only trade-offs.”

What we’re seeing in California is that the tradeoffs of “green” energy are getting real for politicians. Having $7 gasoline is painful, but bearable. Having the highest energy bills in the country is not desirable, but it can be endured. Blackouts are where politicians seem to draw the line, and it’s not hard to see why.

Unlike many countries around the world, Americans are not accustomed to blackouts, and it seems the political price to them is simply too high—even for politicians who are green energy evangelists.

AUTHOR

Jon Miltimore

Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. His writing/reporting has been the subject of articles in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox News, and the Star Tribune. Bylines: Newsweek, The Washington Times, MSN.com, The Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, the Epoch Times.

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. This article was adapted from an issue of the FEE Daily email newsletter. Click here to sign up and get free-market news and analysis like this in your inbox every weekday.

SCOTUS Message to EPA, Agencies: You’re Not Legislatures thumbnail

SCOTUS Message to EPA, Agencies: You’re Not Legislatures

By Larry Bell

A landmark June 30 Supreme Court ruling in favor of plaintiff states in West Virginia v. EPA will have enormously profound and far-reaching separation of powers implications limiting de facto lawmaking powers of executive branch-controlled regulatory agencies.

Whereas certain special interest groups are vehemently criticizing the court’s 6-3 vote determination as “anti-environmental,” this is a grossly unfair mischaracterization of deliberative substance.

Rather, the majority ruling was founded on a central constitutional principle that Congress alone has legislative authority to decide major policy issues with sweeping impacts.

A related legal “Major Question Doctrine” (MOD) holds that federal agencies must point to clear authorization from Congress before exercising new significant and transformative regulatory powers.

The controversy that gave rise to this case and decision can readily be traced back to a war on coal agenda clearly articulated by then-Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama during a 2008 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle’s editorial board: “So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them, because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”

That promise was echoed by then-presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, who also pledged that, “We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.”

The subsequent Obama-Biden administration, including Clinton as secretary of state, accomplished great progress toward that goal under the auspices of its congressionally approved Clean Air Act declaring CO2 plant food a climate “pollutant.”

Although the 2015 Obama “Clean Power Plan” (CPP) that would have required states to reduce CO2 emissions from the generation of electricity primarily by forcing them to shift away from coal-fired plants never took effect, regulatory pressures were nevertheless very successful.

The U.S. coal industry lost 50,000 jobs during Obama’s first term, and another 33,000 during his second…about 11,000 in his last year alone.

By the end of Obama’s presidency, at least 400 coal mines had been shuttered.

Although the Supreme Court had blocked CPP implementation in 2016 by a 5-4 vote, the legal fight continued. After Donald Trump took office, and his EPA repealed the Obama-era plan altogether, 22 mainly Democrat states, the District of Columbia, and some of the nation’s largest cities sued back for its regulatory reintroduction.

In the recent West Virginia case joined by 18 mostly Republican-led states and coal companies, the Supreme Court ruled that CPP exceeded the authority Congress granted to EPA in the Clean Air Act which had been broadly interpreted by the agency as allowing a “beyond the fence line” approach.

Removing the original “inside the fence line” limit essentially allows EPA to fashion any “system” it chooses, leaving every energy production and user industry vulnerable to periodic politically directed White House whims which preferentially dictate winners and losers

This overreach would have allowed EPA to set standards that are impossible to meet at coal-fired plants, using a national cap-and-trade program covering all electricity production, grid management, and consumer use.

If allowed, EPA’s Clean Air Act would have been transformed to enable the agency to impose regulations cloaked as “environmental protection” that put them unaccountably in charge of our nation’s entire energy industry.

To be clear, the June 30 SCOTUS decision does not reverse the court’s earlier ruling authorizing EPA to regulate greenhouse gases — primarily interpreted to mean CO2 emissions — as “air pollutants” under the Clean Air Act.

According to the ruling written by Chief Justice John Roberts: “…the only interpretive question before us, and the only one we answer, is more narrow; whether the ‘best system of emission reduction’ identified by EPA in the Clean Power Plan was within the authority granted to the Agency in Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. For the reasons given, the answer is no.”

Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion stated that while “capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity may be a sensible ‘solution to the crisis of the day,”’ the Clean Air Act nevertheless doesn’t give EPA the authority to do so.

“A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body,” he wrote.

The West Virginia v. EPA ruling comes at a particularly critical time when the current Biden administration is routinely using federal agencies under its control to unilaterally usurp and/or ignore congressional powers and authority in other major policy arenas.

Examples include Homeland Security’s transparently open illegal migrant southern border policy, Department of Interior withholdings of federal oil and gas leases and permits, and the January Supreme Court blockage of an OSHA COVID vaccine-or-test rule for employees of large private companies.

The West Virginia ruling should not, however, be viewed as exclusively a conservative victory. Looking forward, American democracy is a sure winner.

Let’s credit some wise advice from Justice Stephen Breyer, a Bill Clinton nominee generally associated with the liberal wing of the court who is retiring this very same day on June 30.

In his book “The Authority of the Court and the Peril of Politics” (2021), Justice Breyer wrote: “The accumulation of powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

*****

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

TAKE ACTION

Are you concerned about election integrity? What informed United States citizen isn’t? Did the 2020 national election raise many questions about election integrity? Are you concerned about the current cycle of primaries and then the general election in November? No doubt the answer for The Prickly Pear readers is YES.

Click below for a message from Tony Sanchez, the RNC Arizona Election Integrity Director to sign up for the opportunity to become an official Poll Observer for the 8/2 AZ Primary and the 11/8 General Election in your county of residence. We need many, many good citizens to do this – get involved now and help make the difference for clean and honest elections.

Biden Administration Looks To Halt Offshore Drilling In Atlantic, Pacific Amid Energy Crisis thumbnail

Biden Administration Looks To Halt Offshore Drilling In Atlantic, Pacific Amid Energy Crisis

By Jack Mcevoy

The Biden administration announced a five-year plan Friday that prevents new offshore oil drilling projects in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.

The proposed plan will give the administration the ability to hold no new lease sales at all, according to the Interior Department. The plan could allow a maximum of 11 oil lease sales for offshore drilling, ten in the Gulf of Mexico and one in the Cook Inlet off of the south-central Alaska coast over the course of the next five years. (RELATED: Biden Admin Considers Banning All Offshore Drilling As Energy Crisis Worsens: REPORT)

“A Proposed Program is not a decision to issue specific leases or to authorize any drilling or development,” said Department of the Interior (DOI) Secretary Deb Haaland.

“From Day One, President Biden and I have made clear our commitment to transition to a clean energy economy,” she continued.

The proposal comes amid rising gas prices and inflation and calls for increasing oil production as well as President Joe Biden’s commitment to tackling climate change. Biden also vowed to ban offshore fossil fuel drilling during his campaign.

Any new offshore leases are unlikely to have a short-term impact on fuel prices as it often takes years after a sale is completed for companies to begin drilling.

The announced plan is part of the federally required process to implement a new five-year plan for offshore oil drilling. The DOI last held an offshore oil and gas auction in November, located in the Gulf of Mexico; however, a court order later stopped the sale on the grounds that the administration had failed to properly account for its impact on the climate.

The DOI intends to open this matter to public comment and may reduce the areas they open up for new drilling based on the public’s reaction.

The White House did not immediately respond to The Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment. The DOI referred TheDCNF to its statement issued at the time of the decision.

*****

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

TAKE ACTION

Are you concerned about election integrity? What informed United States citizen isn’t? Did the 2020 national election raise many questions about election integrity? Are you concerned about the current cycle of primaries and then the general election in November? No doubt the answer for The Prickly Pear readers is YES.

Click below for a message from Tony Sanchez, the RNC Arizona Election Integrity Director to sign up for the opportunity to become an official Poll Observer for the 8/2 AZ Primary and the 11/8 General Election in your county of residence. We need many, many good citizens to do this – get involved now and help make the difference for clean and honest elections.

Farmer Uprising in The Netherlands thumbnail

Farmer Uprising in The Netherlands

By Matthys van Raalten

Tomorrow, on the 4th of July, there will be massive protests by Dutch farmers against the Dutch government.

The Dutch government led by Prime Minister Mark Rutte (a fake conservative) wants to drive large numbers of farmers off their lands. Dutch farmers are among the best in the world and they supply the Dutch population with high quality food, every day.

The reason that the government needs to intervene is supposedly to save Nature. They claim that the farmers and their cattle produce too much Nitrogen.

In reality; they want their land to build houses on for mass numbers of immigrants from Africa and the Middle East. Mostly Muslims.

Explained: Why are Dutch farmers protesting over emissions?

Some 40,000 farmers gathered last week in the central Netherlands’ agricultural heartland to protest the government’s plan to slash emissions of damaging pollutants. What is the government proposing, and why are farmers protesting?

By: AP | The Hague | Updated: July 3, 2022 10:01:39 pm

Farmers protested around the Netherlands as lawmakers voted Tuesday on proposals to slash emissions of damaging pollutants, a plan that will likely force farmers to cut their livestock herds or stop work altogether.

The government says emissions of nitrogen oxide and ammonia, which livestock produce, must be drastically reduced close to nature areas that are part of a network of protected habitats for endangered plants and wildlife stretching across the 27-nation European Union.

As tractors gathered outside the parliament building, Prime Minister Mark Rutte said farmers have the right to protest but not to break the law.

Read more.

Si vis Pacem para Bellum

©Matthys van Raalten. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Dutch rules on emissions affecting farmers threaten food security

Neil Gorsuch Takes a Stand Against the Tyranny of Unaccountable, Rogue Bureaucracy thumbnail

Neil Gorsuch Takes a Stand Against the Tyranny of Unaccountable, Rogue Bureaucracy

By Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

“The framers believed that a republic—a thing of the people—would be more likely to enact just laws than a regime administered by a ruling class of largely unaccountable ‘ministers.’”


Without a doubt, Neil Gorsuch is the most libertarian Supreme Court justice of my lifetime. He just proved his constitutional, limited government bona fides yet again with a powerful concurrence inveighing against the tyranny of unaccountable, rogue bureaucracy.

The case in question is West Virginia v. EPA, which was decided Thursday in a 6-3 ruling against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) along the justices’ typical ideological lines.

At issue was the Obama-era Clean Power Plan, a 2015 regulatory scheme devised by the EPA. The plan sought to reinterpret a decades-old statute to discover new authority for the EPA to forcibly transition the energy sector so that new coal power plants could not be built.

The Clean Power Plan never actually went into effect as it was caught up in legal battles. Then, in 2019, the Trump administration sought to repeal the rule and was itself sued. So, it remained a live question: Could the EPA take unilateral action to restructure the energy industry without congressional approval?

The Supreme Court sought to answer this question in its decision. The majority, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, ruled in favor of West Virginia and against the EPA, but did not go so far as to overturn long-held doctrines enabling wide bureaucratic discretion.

Gorsuch, for his part, wrote a concurrence perfectly explaining why rogue bureaucracy must be further reined in. (Full credit to the Brownstone Institute’s Jeffrey Tucker for first highlighting Gorsuch’s concurrence + quotes).

“Vesting federal legislative power in Congress [rather than bureaucrats],” Gorsuch writes, “is vital because the framers believed that a republic—a thing of the people—would be more likely to enact just laws than a regime administered by a ruling class of largely unaccountable ‘ministers.’”

But what about those, like dissenting Justice Elena Kagan, who say that federal bureaucrats need wide latitude because Congress is failing to, in their view, adequately address climate change?

“Admittedly, lawmaking under our Constitution can be difficult,” Gorsuch acknowledges. “But that is nothing particular to our time nor any accident.”

“The framers believed that the power to make new laws regulating private conduct was a grave one that could, if not properly checked, pose a serious threat to individual liberty….” he said. “As a result, the framers deliberately sought to make lawmaking difficult by insisting that two houses of Congress must agree to any new law and the President must concur or a legislative supermajority must override his veto.”

With an empowered, unelected bureaucracy, “agencies could churn out new laws more or less at whim,” Gorsuch adds. “Intrusions on liberty would not be difficult and rare, but easy and profuse.”

This isn’t hypothetical speculation—it’s exactly what we’ve seen under the status quo.

For a glaring example, just consider the Centers for Disease Control’s pandemic-era “eviction moratorium.” The federal agency unilaterally declared that evictions nationwide were prohibited in many circumstances by citing an old statute that gave the CDC director the ability to order in specific places “such measures to prevent such spread of the diseases as he/she deems reasonably necessary, including inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, pest extermination, and destruction of animals or articles believed to be sources of infection.”

They went from that to a nationwide “eviction moratorium.” Stretch, much?

That’s right: Unelected government officials effectively commandeered the nation’s rental market, which caused tremendous dysfunction, trampled over property rights, and sabotaged the supply of rental housing. (For which prices are now surging. Shocker!) And, it was years before the courts finally stopped them and struck down the “moratorium.”

The stakes of this issue are high.

Most Americans might not realize it, but the federal government is actually the biggest employer in the US. Yup: more people work for the feds than any private company. The scope of the administrative state is genuinely hard to grasp.

Tucker describes the administrative state as “the effective governing apparatus of the US,” and a “vast and permanent bureaucracy of 432 agencies and 2.9M bureaucrats who are unreachable by any standard of personnel management.”

It’s a beginning but a very strong one. Check out this Supreme Court justice actually quoting The Federalist Papers. Wow. https://t.co/dRoFnh6fuC

— Brownstone Institute (@brownstoneinst) July 1, 2022

He’s exactly right.

The federal government’s vast bureaucracy continues to grow and exercise more power over our daily lives. But the average American has no say in what they do, no recourse if their decisions harm us. At least with Congress or the president, as deeply flawed as they may be, they’re ultimately accountable to voters every 2, 4, or 6 years.

If we want to preserve our freedoms and protect our prosperity over the long run, we need to follow Neil Gorsuch’s lead and rein in the administrative state—before it’s too late.

WATCH:  Brad Reacts to Dumb Tweets About High Gas Prices (CRINGE)

AUTHOR

Brad Polumbo

Brad Polumbo (@Brad_Polumbo) is a libertarian-conservative journalist and Policy Correspondent at the Foundation for Economic Education.

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

Foreign Funding of Nonprofits Goes Unchecked thumbnail

Foreign Funding of Nonprofits Goes Unchecked

By Sarah Lee

Think tanks and universities are taking millions in foreign donations, and Biden has no interest in imposing transparency.

The University of Pennsylvania received more than $15 million in anonymous donations from China in 2018, the same year it announced the founding of its Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement. This is just one high-profile example of a question that has been bubbling behind the scenes in think tanks and universities for several years: How has new, massive, unreported foreign funding flowing into America’s intellectual infrastructure shaped the country’s approach to governing, national security, and even cultural affairs?

Following on the heels of a 2020 Trump administration report excoriating universities—including Harvard and Stanford—for failing to report $6.5 billion in foreign funding, two new pieces of legislation have been introduced since Biden’s election that would address the influence of foreign spending in the academic, nonprofit, and think tank sectors.

Welcome to an age of heightened concerns over foreign money flowing into America’s institutions, both private and nonprofit. It has led to debates over donor transparency, intellectual and academic theft, lobbying and election integrity, and the proper role of charity in American civic and political life.

Conservatives tend to like the idea of donor privacy, especially in this era of cancel culture. But the calculus changes a bit when you consider how foreign entities might be using U.S. nonprofits to influence public policy, notes Michael E. Hartmann, a senior fellow of the Capital Research Center and co-editor of The Giving Review.

“The legal structure of American tax-exempt nonprofitdom has always wrestled with how to manage what are often the competing desires for transparency and donor privacy,” Hartmann says. “Historically, there hasn’t seemed to have been as much tension between transparency and foreign funding of nonprofits—that is, non-American funding of American nonprofits—[but] the whole set of underlying considerations with which to wrestle…is just so appreciably different than the regular old domestic ones.”

Republican legislators seem to agree that the question of transparency becomes a bit more fraught when foreign interests are involved and national security concerns are raised. Particularly if the disclosure rules are being outright flouted, as was the case with the 12 universities mentioned in the 2020 Trump administration report.

On the Senate side, one attempt to address the problem is to strengthen the Higher Education Act of 1965, specifically Section 117 dealing with disclosure requirements of foreign gifts and contracts. Republican Senators Tom Cotton, Bill Hagerty, Marsha Blackburn, and Tim Scott are all attached to the legislation they are calling the “Foreign Funding Accountability Act,” which, according to a joint release, will attempt to “combat malign foreign influence in American colleges and universities.”

Senator Cotton, who in 2021 released a report on “decoupling” from China, said the reason for the legislation is simple: If China wants to win a new economic Cold War, they will need to harness the “traditionally open research” on U.S. college campuses to give them a “competitive advantage in all innovative fields,” including semiconductors, artificial intelligence, and quantum research.

“The CCP has patiently cultivated its de facto allies on college campuses across the country, offering prestigious fellowships, in-kind gifts, and donations to lure professors and universities into sharing information,” Cotton said.

“Just like every other member of the ‘China Lobby,’ from multinational corporations and Hollywood executives to NBA stars and large banks, colleges and universities have lined their pockets with Chinese cash for years and don’t want to stop any time soon,” he explained. “The China Lobby opposes anything that might hurt their bottom line. And they know that transparency about their Chinese cash binge will bring tough questions from Congress and a real effort to stop the inflow of Chinese money.”

Cotton said he doubts universities are in the dark about what these foreign gifts are intended to inspire.

“I find it hard to believe that they’re ignorant of what the CCP wants from them,” he said. “For example, MIT, Princeton, [and] Yale have all accepted millions from a Chinese tech billionaire, Ma Huateng, the founder of Tencent. His company actively censors the internet in China and is at the forefront of China’s efforts to dominate A.I. It doesn’t take a college education to suspect something is up.”

As a solution, Cotton’s legislation attempts to impose reporting requirements, which the Trump administration had established for a short period following their 2020 report. But, as Cotton noted, the American Council on Education wrote a letter to President Biden begging them to halt the reporting requirement on foreign gifts.

“And of course, the Biden administration has caved to this,” Cotton said.

Over on the House side, Republicans are also proposing a disclosure system for nonprofit think tanks (often attached to academic institutions) similar to the ones universities had before Biden caved.

Rep. Lance Gooden of Texas introduced the “Think Tank and Nonprofit Foreign Influence Disclosure Act” in March, which he said is an important first step in getting a handle on the “undeniably rampant corruption in the non-profit sector that must be addressed.”

“Americans and Congress deserve to know if the radical climate groups advocating to shut down the Keystone pipeline are funded by Russia or Russian-backed entities,” Gooden said. “Russia has clearly benefited from the Biden administration crippling the U.S. energy sector, and we must know if the climate groups pushing for this have been doing Russia’s bidding.”

“Foreign nations will no longer be able to hide their agenda behind the non-profits they fund,” Gooden continued. “Both our adversaries and our allies will have to be transparent about the groups they support and will have to explain why they support those groups’ agenda.”

Gooden’s bill would require the U.S. Treasury Department to make “publicly available in a searchable database information relating to such gifts and contributions received from foreign governments and political parties.” This would mimic the database created in June 2020 by the Department of Education to record gifts of $250,000 or more (Cotton’s Senate bill would lower this threshold to $25,000 or more).

Gooden’s bill would also require disclosure of think tank or similar nonprofit funding of over $50,000 a year from “foreign governments, foreign political parties or foreign military entities.” Gooden is particularly concerned about the foreign funding alleged to be flowing into the environmental sector, which the Capital Research Center has calculated, based on a report from The Center for International Policy, is part of over $174 million in foreign funding to major U.S. think tanks.

More transparency of foreign funding in the energy and environmental sector might almost put some environmental activist groups out of business, Gooden predicts.

“If the flow of foreign funding is cut off to radical environmental groups, they will no longer have the resources to advocate for economy-crippling green energy and Green New Deal priorities,” Gooden said.

The question of what to do about foreign funding of public policy is not reserved for the right side of the political aisle. While Republicans focus on the nonprofit sector and universities, Democrats have also begun to train a powerful eye on the corporate sector, with a focus on election interference rather than public policy.

In 2021, Democrats reintroduced a bill called “Get Foreign Money Out of U.S. Elections,” which would “block foreign-owned corporations from spending company funds to influence U.S. elections.”

The bill would “extend the federal ban on political donations from foreign nationals to multinational companies that are at least partially owned by foreign nationals,” the Hill reported in December.

While these legislative proposals are ongoing, conservatives have not forgotten the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

In early 2020, the Department of Justice issued an advisory opinion that clarified the rules regarding when a U.S. nonprofit that receives foreign government funding must register as a foreign agent. This led more than a dozen of the nation’s most well-known advocacy groups to warn that FARA registration was a potential threat to free speech and could threaten their mission.

“Being labeled as a foreign agent under FARA would put our neutrality and independence in jeopardy,” the International Foundation for Electoral Systems said in comment.

Given the problem of potentially malign influence outlined above, and the obvious truth that both sides of the political aisle recognize the potential for foreign interests to be in conflict with domestic policy, FARA reform may be the easiest—and quickest—path to change.

“Congress could certainly try to clarify that which is necessary for a foreign-funded nonprofit to have to register under FARA, as I know some are strongly urging,” Hartmann said. “It’s hard to imagine that there’d be a serious objection from donor-privacy advocates to something like this, much less that any such objection would carry the day among policymakers.”

*****

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

TAKE ACTION

Are you concerned about election integrity? What informed United States citizen isn’t? Did the 2020 national election raise many questions about election integrity? Are you concerned about the current cycle of primaries and then the general election in November? No doubt the answer for The Prickly Pear readers is YES.

Click below for a message from Tony Sanchez, the RNC Arizona Election Integrity Director to sign up for the opportunity to become an official Poll Observer for the 8/2 AZ Primary and the 11/8 General Election in your county of residence. We need many, many good citizens to do this – get involved now and help make the difference for clean and honest elections.

VIDEO: Good Stewardship Rides High in Texas! thumbnail

VIDEO: Good Stewardship Rides High in Texas!

By Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow

VIDEO: Good Stewardship Rides High in Texas! – Dr. Rich Swier

Copyright © 2021 DrRichSwier.com LLC. A Florida Cooperation. All rights reserved. The DrRichSwier.com is a not-for-profit news forum for intelligent Conservative commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own. Republishing of columns on this website requires the permission of both the author and editor. For more information contact: drswier@gmail.com.

Supreme Court Delivers Massive Blow To Biden’s Climate Agenda thumbnail

Supreme Court Delivers Massive Blow To Biden’s Climate Agenda

By The Daily Caller

The Supreme Court delivered a massive blow to the Biden administration’s climate change plan Thursday, severely limiting the power of federal agencies.

The Court, in a 6-3 decision, limited the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority to regulate greenhouse gases from power plants, significantly curtailing the power of the federal agency. The decision restricts the agency to regulating individual power plants and not the entire power sector.

“Congress did not grant EPA in Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act the authority to devise emissions caps based on the generation shifting approach the Agency took in the Clean Power Plan,” Justice Roberts wrote in the majority opinion.

The case stems from an Obama-era EPA climate rule and addresses the scope of Congress’s ability to delegate legislative authority to executive agencies.

In August 2015, the EPA adopted the Clean Power Plan that sought to cut carbon emissions by 32% from power plants by 2030.

However, in early 2016, the Supreme Court blocked the plan’s implementation in a 5-4 vote. Plaintiffs successfully argued that the EPA had exceeded its congressional mandate under the 1970 Clean Air Act, which broadly authorizes the agency to issue the “best system of emission reduction.”

The Trump administration repealed the Clean Power Plan and created the Affordable Clean Energy Rule, which included looser restrictions and allowed states to regulate their standards.

“Unlike the Clean Power Plan, ACE adheres to the Clean Air Act and gives states the regulatory certainty they need to continue to reduce emissions and provide a dependable, diverse supply of electricity that all Americans can afford,” former EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said in a statement at the time.

Hillsdale College Associate Professor of Politics Joseph Postell said the case has to do with the EPA’s authority to regulate major sources of air pollution that are stationary, like smokestacks.

“Does the statute allow the Obama administration to force the state of West Virginia to put more clean power into its energy grid as a means of reducing carbon emissions or does the Clean Air Act force the states to implement technology controls at the actual existing plants?” Postell said.

Postell said the new Trump rules regulated only the existing sources of air pollution rather than requiring new energy generation from sources like wind and solar.

“The Trump administration basically advanced version of what is now known as the major questions doctrine,” Postell said. “When there is a question of major importance or a major question. It has to be resolved by Congress and cannot be kicked over to the agency.”

In 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated everything the day before Biden’s inauguration, according to SCOTUSblog. While the Biden Administration could reinstate the Clean Power Plan, it has instead chosen to draft alternate power plant emissions rules.

The Biden Administration was awaiting the Supreme Court’s ruling before releasing its plan, the Washington Post reported.

Following the repeal, West Virginia led a coalition of 20 other Republican-led states and coal companies to file an appeal to ask the Supreme Court to challenge the appeals court decision.

The plaintiffs argued that the appeals court wrongly grants “an agency unbridled power—functionally ‘no limits’—to decide whether and how to decarbonize almost any sector of the economy.” They asked the Supreme Court to preemptively intervene before the EPA issues additional emissions reduction plans or rules using this authority.

Click here to read the full decision: Supreme Court — West Virginia vs EPA

AUTHOR

JOSH HYPES

Contributor. 

RELATED ARTICES:

Jen Psaki Says US Needs To Move Away From Crude Oil Altogether Amid Ukraine Crisis

Biden Backs Changing Filibuster To Codify Roe V. Wade

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