Joe Hoft over at Gateway is reporting that terrible Joe is selling America’s reserves of oil to Asia after shutting down oil production in the U.S. This is the act of an enemy. There is no pushback from quisling GOP ‘leadership.’
Practically overnight, America went from oil independence and being a net oil [exporter], to suffering shortages and, as noted, rising prices. When asked about the problem, Biden risibly blamed OPEC and Russia. Meanwhile, Jennifer Granholm, the energy secretary, simply cackled maniacally and claimed the administration was helpless
Biden is now under pressure to tap the SPR to relieve some of the pressure on fuel prices. (Again, remember that Biden birthed this problem by squashing American fuel production, thereby creating the shortage. There’s also the little matter of his administration working with Congress to print money like rolls of toilet paper—except that toilet paper is more useful than inflationary dollars.) Even Chuckie Schumer wants to lower prices by chipping away at our SPR emergency supply, despite our having vast, untapped resources beneath American land.
It turns out, though, that Biden is already tapping into the SPR; he’s just not doing it to help Americans. A report in investment circles is finally trickling down into the mainstream news: Biden is selling massive amounts of SPR oil…to Asia!
About 1.6 million barrels of crude from the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve — a monthly record — was shipped out in October, according to data from market intelligence firm Kpler. Three cargoes were loaded onto a supertanker in the U.S. Gulf Coast and are headed to Asia.
“Given the ongoing pace of the current SPR release — 12 million barrels in the last two months and the biggest weekly release so far last week at 3.1 million barrels — it’s fair to assume more SPR barrels are going to leave U.S. shores in the weeks ahead,” said Matt Smith, an oil analyst at Kpler.
Biden gave Taliban terrorists $84 billion in arms and gear and planes and choppers. Biden opened the Southern Border and more than a million illegal immigrants have crossed into the US. Now Biden sells the US oil reserves to Asia after changing America from being an oil exporter to dependent on Russia and the Middle East.
Is it time to impeach and remove Biden yet? If not when will it be enough?
Quick note: Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. We will not waver. We will not tire. We will not falter, and we will not fail. Freedom will prevail.
Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.
Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2021-11-21 06:52:182021-11-21 06:52:18With Oil Prices Up More than 60% in a Year Beijing Biden Sells U.S. Oil Reserves Overseas to Asia
“Forget the CO2. Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It controls the Earth’s temperature.” – American Chemical Society, founded in 1876 and chartered by the U.S. Congress.
Biden’s Climate Change Agenda is a Complete Sham.
Currently the federal government spends more than $22 billion a year financing programs to stop climate change. That’s $41,856 every minute!
After the United Nation’s COP 26 Conference the Biden administration went on the offensive to push its Climate Change Agenda.
Biden’s Build Back Better plan calls for 185 times more spending on climate than future pandemic preparedness.
Biden’s economic plan involves $550 billion in climate initiative funding and only $3 billion in pandemic preparedness.
The massive $1,750,000,000,000 plan allocates an eye-popping $550 billion for climate change projects, the backbone of the economic plan. Meanwhile, only $3 billion goes towards beefing up future “pandemic preparedness” despite coronavirus‘ economic impact on the country.
[ … ]
The plan calls for significant climate investments valued at $550 billion over the next ten years, including $320 billion for clean energy tax credits and $110 billion in investments for clean energy technology.
Which gas then is to blame for global warming and should be controlled?
Water vapor accounts for 60-70% of the greenhouse effect while CO2 accounts for 25% —a notable difference when numbers alone are compared. It would seem then that water vapor should be climatologists’ primary focus. However, water vapor cannot be controlled by human intervention; it is simply a product of its environment.
[ … ]
As the atmospheric temperature rises, more water is evaporated from ground storage, such as that found in our rivers, oceans, soils, and reservoirs. The released water vapor becomes a greenhouse gas where it then absorbs more energy radiated from the Earth and thus warms the atmosphere. The warmer atmosphere results in further water evaporation and the cycle continues. This mechanism is known as a Positive Feedback Loop. [Emphasis added]
The Environmental Protection Agencies’ Big Lie. The EPA’s website states:
Greenhouse gases trap heat and make the planet warmer. Human activities are responsible for almost all of the increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere over the last 150 years.1The largest source of greenhouse gas emissions from human activities in the United States is from burning fossil fuels for electricity, heat, and transportation. [Emphasis added]
NOTE: Human activity is NOT responsible for almost all of the increased greenhouse gases.
“Forget the CO2. Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It controls the Earth’s temperature.”
It’s true that water vapor is the largest contributor to the Earth’s greenhouse effect. On average, it probably accounts for about 60% of the warming effect. However, water vapor does not control the Earth’s temperature, but is instead controlled by the temperature. This is because the temperature of the surrounding atmosphere limits the maximum amount of water vapor the atmosphere can contain. If a volume of air contains its maximum amount of water vapor and the temperature is decreased, some of the water vapor will condense to form liquid water. This is why clouds form as warm air containing water vapor rises and cools at higher altitudes where the water condenses to the tiny droplets that make up clouds.
So, what causes the earth’s temperature to rise, and fall? Why its the sun stupid.
In 2007, while doing some solar physics research, John Casey stumbled on a curious pattern among sunspots that would prove to be the most important problem he had ever confronted – what causes climate change and what is the planet’s next climate era going to be like? A few months later after completing his research, he made several a startling announcements to the world. In April and May of 2007 Mr. Casey said:
Global warming was about to end, within three years!
The Sun was going to begin a “solar hibernation” beginning with the next solar cycle #24 (which began in 2008). This hibernation would result in a record reduction in the energy output of the Sun.
The Earth’s atmosphere and oceans were about to begin a long term drop in temperatures lasting for decades.
A new cold climate era was beginning that posed a serious threat to all with the potential to bring global crop damage and loss of life through starvation, cold weather fatalities, and social upheaval on a historic scale.
He proposed that a new climate theory which he called the “Relational Cycle Theory” or simply the “RC Theory” should replace the greenhouse gas theory of manmade climate change and asserted that the Sun and not mankind was the primary cause of climate change.
Forget everything government officials, many media outlets, and “activist scientists” have warned about the damaging effects of carbon dioxide, because in reality there’s no cause for alarm, a group called the CO2 Coalition urges.
[ … ]
“Atmospheric CO2 is not a pollutant, it is in fact the very elixir of life,” Craig Idso, a science adviser to the CO2 Coalition, said during a panel discussion at CPAC exploring the benefits attached to higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
The CO2 Coalition, founded in 2015, describes its mission as “educating thought leaders, policymakers, and the public about the important contribution made by carbon dioxide to our lives and the economy.”
[ … ]
“Adding CO2 to the atmosphere enhances plant water use efficiency,” he said.
Increased levels of carbon dioxide could boost plant growth and make plants more resistant to droughts, he said. This could lead to increased food production, which in turn could offset projected food shortages. [Emphasis added]
So why does the EPA, the Biden administration and Democrats believe mankind is responsible for the climate changes? It’s simple, scare the people that the earth is coming to an end because of their bad behaviors and you can impose draconian limits on them.
I have learned three absolutes about the climate (a.k.a. weather)
The climate changes.
These changes in the climate follow natural cycles (e.g. summer, fall, winter, spring)
There is nothing mankind can do to change these natural cycles.
The Democrats are now joined by the government of Slovenia. Both want to control their populations using mandates. Biden’s vaccine mandates versus Slovenia’s no jab no gas mandate.
The U.S. State Department currently has a “Do Not Travel” alert for Slovenia. Interesting isn’t it.
Fuel stations across Slovenia are adopting one of the most authoritarian policies to date, requiring consumers to provide proof-of-vaccination, a negative COVID test, or proof of recovery from COVID to fill up their cars.https://t.co/NL4aJJIIvi
In the Democrats’ $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill is funding for a Civilian Climate Corps (CCC). This $8 billion budget item was put into the bill to commission a federally funded climate police called the Civilian Climate Corps (CCC) who will conduct environmentalist activism on the American taxpayers’ dime (pages 8, 21, and 926).
We already have Climate Czar John Kerry calling for abolishment of fossil fuels by 2035. We have Biden’s nominee for Comptroller of the Currency Saule Omarova wanting to ‘bankrupt’ the fossil fuel industry to ‘tackle climate change’.
Gird your loins. The Democrats ‘Green New [Very Bad] Deal’ is here!
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2021-11-19 17:51:212021-11-19 17:51:21The Democrats ‘Green New [Very Bad] Deal’ Is a Complete Sham
The Navajo Nation criticized the Biden administration for banning oil and gas leasing on a large swath of New Mexico land that supported much of its community.
The tribe argued that President Joe Biden failed to properly consult it before issuing the sweeping order earlier this week. Biden and Interior Secretary Deb Haaland announced Monday that the federal government would review a new rule prohibiting oil and gas leasing within the 10-mile radius around the Chaco Culture National Historical Park in northwest New Mexico for 20 years.
Biden made the announcement during the White House Tribal Nations Summit and said the ban would “protect” the more than 200,000 acres of tribal lands covered by the rule.
“The Biden Administration bypassed previous requests to Congress for field hearings and for leaders to hear directly from our Navajo families affected in the Chaco Canyon region,” Navajo Nation Council Speaker Seth Damon said in a statement Tuesday. “It is important that the federal government consider and work with our Navajo allottees to further advance development.”
“The Administration must respect our tribal sovereignty and what the government to government relationship entails,” Damon continued.
The Navajo Nation previously opposed the ban proposed by the Biden administration, instead advocating for a 5-mile radius around the historic site, according to Damon. Fossil fuel companies return an estimated $90 million per year to Navajo mineral owners, a sum that helps support the largely low-income community, a watchdog report concluded in 2017.
“The White House is ignoring the will of the Navajo Nation, which voted overwhelmingly to support a five-mile buffer that would protect the park while enabling Navajo mineral owners to access their prime oil resources,” Kathleen Sgamma, president of the fossil fuel industry group Western Energy Alliance, said in a statement. “Oil and natural gas development is already done in a way to protect cultural resources.”
Republicans also criticized the administration’s action, noting the indirect harm it would do to Navajo families.
“In the Biden administration’s desperate attempts to appease radical environmentalists, however, they are expanding that protected perimeter to miles outside the park, jeopardizing the ability of Navajo allottees to develop their mineral rights,” House Natural Resources Committee Ranking Member Bruce Westerman said in a statement.
Westerman added that the historic park is already protected.
Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez confused a number of facts about fossil fuels in a video to her followers explaining why pipelines are bad for the country.
The congresswoman mistakenly asserted that the Keystone XL and Line 3 pipelines were proposed to increase U.S. natural gas exports in the video she posted on her Instagram account Saturday. The two pipelines would transport crude oil, not natural gas, from Canada into the U.S. as an import, according to their operators.
“When you look at Keystone XL, and when you look at a lot of these other pipelines, people say, ‘Oh, this is for energy, you know, independence in the United States,’” Ocasio-Cortez stated during the video which has garnered more than 180,000 views. “We actually already produce enough to power our own country, whether you agree with it or not.”
“A lot of these pipelines are being built so that the United States can export and sell natural gas abroad,” she continued. “And, you know, people make geopolitical arguments as to why that should be the case.”
Line 3 has transported crude oil into the U.S. through Minnesota since the 1960s. Enbridge, the company that operates the pipeline, is currently constructing a $2.9 billion Line 3 replacement, but the company has faced intense resistance from environmental activists.
Ocasio-Cortez said that she believes Line 3 “should not exist.”
WATCH:
The Keystone XL pipeline would have similarly taken crude oil into the U.S. from western Canada. However, the pipeline — proposed as an extension to an already existing line that stretches from North Dakota to Texas — was canceled by its operator TC Energy after President Joe Biden revoked its federal permit.
More than 20 states have accused the president of overstepping his constitutional authority in an ongoing federal lawsuit challenging the permit revocation.
“The President has certain prerogatives to act on behalf of the United States in foreign affairs,” the lawsuit stated. “But as far as domestic law is concerned, the President must work with and abide by the limits set by Congress—whether he likes them or not.”
Republicans and fossil fuel industry advocates have argued that ensuring the U.S. has a steady, reliable supply of oil and natural gas protects national security. They also argue that the U.S. should leverage its own natural resources to be a net exporter of oil and gas rather than rely on foreign powers for energy.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2021-11-17 14:53:092021-11-17 14:53:09Watch as AOC Confuses Natural Gas For Oil In Video Explaining Why Pipelines Are Bad
In the Democrats’ $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill is funding for a Civilian Climate Corps (CCC). This $8 billion budget item was put into the bill to commission a federally funded climate police called the Civilian Climate Corps (CCC) who will conduct environmentalist activism on the American taxpayers’ dime (pages 8, 21, and 926).
The Republican Study Committee also found in the Democrat Party’s reconciliation bill these “green mandates”:
Pushes Green New Deal in our public schools: Requires funding for school construction be used largely on enrollment diversity and Green New Deal agenda items (page 55).
Pushes Green New Deal in our universities: Democrats include a $10 billion “environmental justice” higher education slush fund to indoctrinate college students and advance Green New Deal policies (page 1,935).
Includes dangerous & deadly green energy mandate: Effectively forces Americans to get 40% of their energy from wind, solar and other unreliable forms of energy within 8 years (page 392). Reliance on these energy sources has proven deadly.
Increases energy dependence on OPEC, Russia and China: The bill prohibits several mineral and energy withdrawals (page 979). It overturns provisions included in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that authorized energy production in the Arctic that will result in 130,000 Americans losing their jobs and $440 billion in lost federal revenue (page 983) and the mineral withdrawals it prohibits would, ironically, include minerals necessary for renewable energy sources (pages 934, 940, 943).
Chases green energy pipe dreams: $264 million to the EPA to conduct research with left-wing environmental justice groups on how to transition away from fossil fuels (page 1063).
The Democrats also included a legislative hull for Biden’s vaccine mandate. The bill increases OSHA penalties on businesses that fail to implement the mandate up to $700,000 per violation and includes $2.6 billion in funding for the Department of Labor to increase enforcement of these penalties (page 168).
Civilian Climate Corps (CCC) the new Allgemeine-SS?
The Waffen-SS was the military branch of the Nazi Party’s SS organization. Its formations included men from Nazi Germany, along with volunteers and conscripts from both occupied and unoccupied lands. The Allgemeine SS was responsible for enforcing the racial political policies of Nazi Germany, the general policing of the German people and the protection of Adolph Hitler.
It now appears that the Civilian Climate Corps, if funded and organized, will become the “militant branch” of the Democrat Party’s climate change agenda. We can expect volunteers and conscripts, like Swedish environmental activist Greta Thunberg, to join the CCC.
Will the CCC become responsible for enforcing the racial political policies of Socialist Democrats, like AOC author of the Green New Deal, and for the general policing of the America people?
The more government enforcement agencies, like the CCC, the more control over we the people.
Will we be arrested and sent to concentration camps by the CCC if we don’t comply with the Green New Deal’s mandates?
Is Biden and the Democrat Party Creating a Fourth Reich?
QUESTION: Are there similarities between Hitler’s Third Reich and the Biden Administration?
Since Biden’s election we have seen a dramatic increase in government control. Some are comparing what Biden is doing today as similar to what Hitler did after he took power in Germany on January 30, 1933. Hitler’s regime was called the Third Reich. Hitler fundamentally transformed Germany into a dictatorship.
Are Biden, his administration, Democrats in Congress, at the local, county and state levels all working in concert to fundamentally transform America into a dictatorship?
The following is a brief history of what Hitler did when he took power in 1933. We then compare what Hitler did to what Biden has done since his inauguration on January 20th to date.
The Third Reich
The Holocaust Museum makes these key points about what Hitler did, once elected Chancellor, to create the Third Reich:
Following the appointment of Adolf Hitler as chancellor on January 30, 1933, the Nazi state (also referred to as the Third Reich) quickly became a regime in which Germans enjoyed no guaranteed basic rights.
After a suspicious fire in the Reichstag (the German Parliament), on February 28, 1933, the government issued a decree which suspended constitutional civil rights and created a state of emergency in which official decrees could be enacted without parliamentary confirmation.
In the first months of Hitler’s chancellorship, the Nazis instituted a policy of “coordination”—the alignment of individuals and institutions with Nazi goals.
Culture, the economy, education, and law all came under Nazi control.
The Nazi regime also attempted to “coordinate” the German churches and, although not entirely successful, won support from a majority of Catholic and Protestant clergymen.
Extensive propaganda was used to spread the regime’s goals and ideals.
Hitler had the final say in both domestic legislation and German foreign policy.
Open criticism of the regime was suppressed by the Gestapo (secret state police) and the Security Service (SD) of the Nazi party, but Hitler’s government was popular with most Germans.
The Fourth Reich
QUESTION: Like Hitler fundamentally transformed Germany into the Third Reich, is Biden also doing fundamentally the same things to transform America into a dictatorship/Fourth Reich?
Let’s compare what Hitler did to what has happened since Biden was elected president on January 20th, 2021.
Biden, like Hitler, is ending America’s Constitutional Republican form of government with a radical expansion of powers under the executive branch of government. OSHA and the CDC are using Covid to reshape our freedoms to choose our job, healthcare and economic futures.
Americans, like under Hitler, are seeing their guarantied basic rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness stripped away. Government mandates are replacing our basic rights. If you don’t obey and get vaxxed you lose your job. As more and more people vote for a living rather than work for a living we can understand how Democrats, like Hitler, gain more and more power over the individual.
The January 6th, 2021 protest in Washington, D.C is being used by Biden and Democrats, just as Hitler did using the Reichstag fire, as an excuse to oppress all political opponents. Those who participated in the Save America peaceful protest have had their constitutional rights taken away. They have been imprisoned, abused and even tortured. The Biden administration, and the Democrats in Congress, are demonizing those who peacefully protested the results of the 2020 election.
Under Biden’s “Build Back Better Agenda” we are seeing the coordination —the alignment of individuals and institutions— with Democrat Party goals. The Green New Deal impacts all major institutions. The vaccination mandates have clearly hit all companies with 100 or more employees. From manufacturing, to healthcare, to law enforcement, to first responders, to our public schools, all are impacted.
Since Biden’s inauguration we are witness a “cultural war” against those who do not agree with the policies and politics of the Democrat Party. If you are a parent and speak out against Biden’s plan to put Critical Race Theory in every classroom, then your are labeled a domestic terrorist by the FBI. If you don’t get jabbed then you’ll be punished. If you don’t obey your family won’t eat.
Propaganda is the foundation upon which the Biden administration is built. The legacy media, social media, the White House press secretary are in full agreement that telling the big lie (propaganda) is the best pathway to keeping power. Anything negative about Biden is either suppressed or spun to make Biden look competent and his opponents look like enemies of the state. Lies are being told by members of the Executive Branch daily. The “big lie” is now the standard operating procedure of Biden and his handlers.
Biden has coopted many Jewish, Catholic and Protestant clergymen. Churches fear losing their tax exempt status as Biden weaponizes the IRS.
Biden’s handlers have the final say on all domestic legislation and U.S. foreign policy. Even if those policies are dangerous domestically and overseas. From Biden’s immigration policy of open borders, to kowtowing to our enemies like Iran, China and Russia, to leaving Americans behind in Afghanistan. All are disasters.
Oppression. Biden is using the FBI to go after parents who disagree with what is being taught in our public schools. The FBI is complicit in suppressing opposition to Biden and Democrats. Some even suggest that the FBI is the new Stasi, the Ministry for State Security, or State Security Service, the official state security service of the German Democratic Republic. It has been described as one of the most effective and repressive intelligence and secret police agencies to have ever existed until Biden came along, that is.
Biden’s policies are becoming less and less popular with the American people. However, there are hard core groups like Antifa, Black Lives Matter, Democrat Socialists like AOC, Nazi collaborator George Soros and the organizations he funds, and others who embrace Biden’s Fourth Reich.
Conclusion
The Democrats crave power. In his book 1984 George Orwell wrote, “Orthodoxy means not thinking–not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.”
Will the CCC be the enforcers of climate orthodoxy? Let’s hope that this reconciliation bill never passes. However, if it does remember what the Declaration of Independence says:
When a government fails to protect the unalienable rights of its citizens, it is the duty and right of citizens to create another form of government.
“I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is “needed” before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents’ “interests,” I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.”
It appears Biden, his administration and the Democrat party aren’t interested in their constituents interests. They are hell bent on inaugurating new programs that do violence to our Constitutional Republican form of government.
Gird your loins. It will most certainly get worse if the CCC is established.
So, it appears that: a. The Attorney General committed perjury b. DOJ used counterterrorism tools vs. everyday parents c. The Left will exploit almost any means to continue polluting young minds with anti-white CRT propaganda https://t.co/8FRO7jiRYI
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2021-11-17 13:52:072021-11-17 13:52:07Is the Civilian Climate Corps (CCC) the new Allgemeine-SS?
Rather than relying on climate change models that could be the basis of expansive and costly regulations, policymakers should instead question those models, focusing on the legitimacy of their underlying assumptions.
So said The Heritage Foundation’s chief statistician at a recent climate change conference in Las Vegas that preceded the international summit in Glasgow, Scotland, that concludes today.
While the Biden administration continues to pursue regulatory policies based on a concept known as the “social cost of carbon,” increased carbon dioxide emissions have led to a “greening of the planet,” Kevin Dayaratna, principal statistician and data scientist for The Heritage Foundation said in his presentation at the Heartland Institute’s 14th International Climate Change Conference.
The nonprofit, Illinois-based free-market think tank attracted dozens of scientists, economists, and academics from across the globe to the conference, which ran from Oct. 15 to 17.
The Heartland Institute is a co-sponsor of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, which has brought together scientists, researchers, and scholars from across the globe who dispute U.N. findings that point to catastrophic climate change. Dayaratna is among the researchers who have advised policymakers to refrain from enacting anti-carbon measures in the name of averting climate change.
“Regardless of one’s predictions on the extent of human influence on climate change, commonly proffered solutions by lawmakers here, such as carbon taxes and ‘cap and trade,’ will have no meaningful impact on altering the climate anyway, as we’ve demonstrated in prior Heritage Foundation research,” Dayaratna told The Daily Signal, the news outlet of The Heritage Foundation.
Dubious Assumptions on Social Cost of Carbon
The social cost of carbon is typically defined as “the economic damages per metric ton of carbon dioxide emissions,” according to Dayaratna’s slide presentation at the Heartland conference.
There are three statistical models the Obama administration used to measure the long-term economic impact of carbon dioxide emissions over a particular time horizon, Dayaratna explained. They are the DICE model, the FUND model, and the PAGE model.
The Biden administration recently reinstituted Obama-era climate-modeling exercises that attempt to calculate the social cost of carbon. But an “honest cost/benefit analysis” of carbon dioxide emissions is not possible under current modeling practices, Dayaratna said. That’s because the assumptions built into the climate models overstate recent warming trends while failing to account for the positive attributes of carbon dioxide, the data analyst told his audience.
“The benefits of CO2 may outweigh the damages,” Dayaratna said.
“In fact, when more realistic assumptions about how sensitive the climate is to carbon dioxide emissions are plugged into the climate models, many of the damages disappear from the forecasts,” he added.
“Is global warming necessarily a bad thing?” he asked, answering his own question: “CO2 in the atmosphere can increase agricultural productivity.”
One of Dayaratna’s slide presentations included a satellite image of “the Greening of the Earth” that occurred from 1982 to 2009. The Heritage Foundation statistician also cited a newspaper article in The Guardian dating back to 2004 that described how Pentagon officials told then-President George W. Bush that climate change over the following 20 years could “bring the planet to the edge of anarchy” and that “nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine, and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.”
The fact that those predictions of a catastrophe have not materialized demonstrates that there’s still much to learn about climate change and that climate models such as those used to calculate the social cost of carbon are “highly sensitive to assumptions” that may not be accurate, Dayaratna warned.
“‘Settled science’ is an oxymoron,” he said. “Science is never settled.”
Understating Benefits of Carbon Dioxide
Dayaratna is the co-author of a peer-reviewed research article that explores “the implications of recent empirical findings about CO2 fertilization and climate sensitivity on the social cost of carbon in the FUND model.”
He and his colleagues selected the FUND model because, unlike the other models, the FUND model accounts for the possibility of agricultural benefits.
Nevertheless, they conclude that even the FUND model understates the benefits of carbon dioxide.
There is “overwhelming evidence that CO2 increases do have a beneficial effect on plant growth, so models that fail to take these benefits into account overstate the [social cost of carbon],” the research article says. “The recent literature on global greening and the response of agricultural crops to enhanced CO2 availability suggests that the productivity boost is likely stronger than that parameterized in FUND.”
After making “reasonable” adjustments to “agricultural productivity specifications” in combination with “moderate warming” forecasts that can be plugged into climate models, Dayaratna finds that there are “social benefits” to what he describes as the “lukewarming” the planet has experienced.
“There has indeed been man-made global warming, but the extent to which humans have contributed to it over the last century has been vastly overstated,” Dayaratna told The Daily Signal in an interview.
To use a term coined by Pat Michaels of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, I like to refer to it as ‘lukewarming.’ The climate models also greatly overstate the amount of warming that is likely to occur going forward. Human CO2 emissions are indeed responsible for some warming, but much of it is the result of natural influences and this ‘lukewarming’ we have experienced, which is fairly mild, has benefits that are overlooked.
Carbon dioxide is a naturally occurring, colorless, odorless, nontoxic gas. It is a key element of photosynthesis and thus has agricultural benefits, and to consider it only as a pollutant that solely has deleterious effects is a mistake.
Dayaratna offered some advice for policymakers and the public at the conclusion of his Oct. 16 presentation.
“Models are highly sensitive to assumptions, and the Biden administration is using these same models,” he said. “We need to think seriously about the administration’s estimates, and the assumptions that went into producing them.”
If not, Dayaratna cautioned, predictions as inaccurate as those provided to Bush in 2004 could beguile the public into accepting costly regulatory policies that do not square with scientific observations.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00ThePricklyPear.orghttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngThePricklyPear.org2021-11-17 02:00:002021-11-17 02:00:00Climate Models Overlook Benefits of CO2 and ‘Lukewarming,’ Data Scientist Says
The Glasgow climate summit and recent bold climate proposals are more about politics and do little to actually help the global environment.
The recent climate summit in Glasgow saw world leaders gather together to unanimously declare—as articulated by U.S. President Joe Biden himself—climate change as the “[paramount] challenge of our collective lifetimes.” Calling on the world community to devote themselves to confronting this “existential threat,” Biden cited his own administration’s lofty goal of reducing carbon emissions by at least 50 percent in the lead up to 2030.
“High energy prices only reinforce the urgent need to diversify sources, double down on clean energy development, and adapt promising new clean energy technologies.” This will ostensibly manifest through the type of long-term development envisioned in the massive infrastructure bill currently making its way through Congress.
As previously stated in this publication, the United States—as well as the developed economies of Western Europe—is hardly the primary cause of concern for those who would wish to see lower carbon emissions on a global scale. Substantial growth projected in greenhouse gas emissions is largely due to developing countries, such as India and China, which are poised to continue increasing their reliance on coal. The latter country has already set plans in motion to build increased capacity for the high carbon-emitting fuel, while the former currently sees about 70 percent of its electricity output derived from coal.
That does not mean that the United States needs to simply disregard its levels of carbon emissions. The U.S. still relies on dirtier forms of petroleum for 35 percent of its energy consumption, and coal for 10 percent. Prioritizing a transition to natural gas, in addition to the energy security made possible through independence from imports, would see real movement in measurable reductions to U.S. emissions. Instead, with the price of natural gas doubling in part due to the Biden administration’spolicy choices, the use of coal has subsequently increased by 22 percent in 2021. Despite upending U.S. energy independence, the president apparently sees no irony in shamelessly asking for OPEC to increase production in an effort to reduce gas and oil prices.
The attempts of developed Western nations to subsidize policy that radically overhauls the energy landscape have a less than stellar record. Echoes of the Obama-eraSolyndra scandal still reverberate in the energy industry. Germany’s attempt to heavily subsidize wind and solar in the 2010s led to a significant increase in burning coal, due to the inability of the former two to provide energy without interruption. Although the Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline may imply a more realpolitik approach in Berlin to ensuring a stable and clean source of fuel, coal burning still tops wind as the country’s primary source of electricity.
While U.S. renewable energy investment continued to rise by significant amounts throughout the Trump administration—despite claims that the former president heavily favored the oil and gas industries—frozen windmills in Texas this past winter, although not responsible for blackouts, displayed the danger of relying entirely on fickle renewables. The impact of the weather freezing the turbines led to a 60 percent drop in wind-energy production compared to the previous week.
These facts, however, are all irrelevant to those attempting to place climate as the central axiom around which to enact a new green-centric policy agenda. That is because their true goal is radical social reorganization based on equity-based notions of justice. The acolytes of transformational programs such as the Green New Deal are not interested in pragmatic, if gradual, steps that would allow the United States to practically and effectively become more energy efficient; rather, they are interested in recasting society according to ideological principles.
This is not the rambling of conspiracy theorists who envision an underground lair of technocratic elites laying the foundations for a one-world government—it is the words of the agenda’s own proponents. Vice President Kamala Harris, in collaboration with Green New Deal champion Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, last year introduced the Climate Equity Act (CEA) in the Senate, in order to “center [the fight against climate change] in justice and equity.” Equity, as aptly described by James Lindsay, is shifting resources and shares in a system so as to ensure that outcomes proportionally resemble the envisioned conception of fairness.
Harris’s cosponsoring of the CEA is not an aberration in an otherwise moderate climate policy; it is rather a testament to the Biden administration’s wholesale buy-in to the radical green agenda. The 46th president has additionally created the new Office of Domestic Climate Policy, headed by chief of staff Maggie Thomas who has previously stated that there is “no role for natural gas” in the nation’s energy mix, short-term or otherwise. Instead, she supports a goal of 90 percent of electricity production coming from renewables by the year 2035. Another new establishment under the Health and Human Services Department is the Office of Climate Change and Health Equity, tasked with the stated mission of “protecting vulnerable communities” from the impact of climate change. It is easy to see how these vaguely defined executive appointments not beholden to an electorate could morph into centralized authorities for enforcing a radical equity-based agenda—in fact, they would likely welcome the task in their mission statement.
During the Glasgow summit, President Biden additionally took it upon himself to apologize for the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accords during the Trump administration. Trump had originally withdrawn from the pact under the auspices of its disadvantageous impact on U.S. industry. Citing a commitment to the American workers, Trump criticized the deal as resulting in “lost jobs, lowered wages, shuttered factories, and vastly diminished economic production.” Considering the achievement of (now eliminated) energy independence, the United States becoming a net exporter of oil in 2019 for the first time in its history, a continued growth in renewables, and all while still managing a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, one has to question how exactly participation in the Paris Accord was in the national interest of the United States.
The answer is that it wasn’t. It wasn’t even really advantageous to the interest of reducing global carbon emissions. As previously stated, if multilateral agreements such as the Paris Climate Accord actually wanted to invest resources in the areas which are most crucial to reducing carbon emissions—in other words, where they would receive the greatest return on investment—they would focus almost exclusively on the challenges posed by developing countries.
This, however, is not the concern of those who seek to overhaul the world economy and hamstring western industry along the way. Those interested in a recasting of society are not concerned with actual concrete steps that would practically allow the United States to approach reductions in carbon, as well as more energy efficient solutions, through innovation and ingenuity. They are also not interested in prioritizing energy security for American citizens.
At the summit, Prince Charles called for a “war-like footing” on the climate issue, proclaiming the need of a “Marshall-like plan.” Another Brit, much greater and deserving of our attention, previously stated that there are those who will seek to perpetuate a sense of crisis in times of peace, so as to justify the individual citizen’s subjugation to the state. “The argument…that economic crises are only another form of war, such that we must live our lives in a perpetual state of war…this, of course, is the socialist view.” These words were written by Winston Churchill in defense of the U.S. Constitution, as a response to (ironically) the big-government views of U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt.
According to Churchill, once the government found a seemingly just cause that it could utilize to incite the passions of its people, it would then be able to manipulate their desire to do good for its own purposes. After the individual is brought under the “subjugation of the executive government,” Churchill continued, “socialism…[allows] the rulers to demand of him in time of peace sacrifices only tolerable in a period of national self-preservation.”
Those who wish a radical overhaul of society—whether out of a genuine belief in the greater good or from a selfish desire for power—have found an issue that allows them to invoke a sense of moral superiority. What higher duty is there than responsible stewardship of our natural home, the earth? We must be on our guard that our desire to live up to this task does not blind us to the schemes of those who would seek personal advantage from our goodwill.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00ThePricklyPear.orghttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngThePricklyPear.org2021-11-17 01:55:002021-11-17 01:55:00Environmental Solutions, Not Social Overhaul
It’s time to admit the recycling mania is a giant placebo.
A couple of years ago, after sending my five-year-old daughter off to school, she came home reciting the same cheerful environmental mantra I was taught in elementary school.
“Reduce, reuse, recycle,” she beamed, proud to show off a bit of rote learning.
The moral virtue of recycling is rarely questioned in the United States. It has been ingrained into the American psyche over several decades. On a recent trip to the Caribbean, my friend’s wife exhibited nervous guilt while collecting empty soda, water, and beer bottles destined for the trash since our resort offered no recycling bins.
“I feel terrible throwing these into garbage,” she said, wearing a pained look on her face.
I didn’t have the heart to tell her that there was a good chance the bottles she was recycling back in the States were ending up just like the ones on the Caribbean island we were visiting.
Difficult Implementation
As Discover magazine pointed out a decade ago, recycling is tricky business. A 2010 Columbia University study found that just 16.5 percent of the plastic collected by the New York Department of Sanitation was “recyclable.”
Since that time, things have only gotten worse. Over the weekend, The New York Times ran a story detailing how hundreds of cities across the country are abandoning recycling efforts.
Philadelphia is now burning about half of its 1.5 million residents’ recycling material in an incinerator that converts waste to energy. In Memphis, the international airport still has recycling bins around the terminals, but every collected can, bottle and newspaper is sent to a landfill. And last month, officials in the central Florida city of Deltona faced the reality that, despite their best efforts to recycle, their curbside program was not working and suspended it. Those are just three of the hundreds of towns and cities across the country that have canceled recycling programs, limited the types of material they accepted or agreed to huge price increases.
One reason for this is that China, perhaps the largest buyer of US recyclables, stopped accepting them in 2018. Other countries, such as Thailand and India, have increased imports, but not in sufficient tonnage to alleviate the mounting costs cities are facing.
“We are in a crisis moment in the recycling movement right now,” Fiona Ma, the treasurer of California, told the Times.
Cost is the key word. Like any activity or service, recycling is an economic activity. The dirty little secret is that the benefits of recycling have been dubious for some time.
“Recycling has been dysfunctional for a long time,” Mitch Hedlund, executive director of Recycle Across America, told The Times.
Has Recycling Always Been An Illusion?
How long? Perhaps from the very beginning. Nearly a quarter century ago, Lawrence Reed wrote about the growing fad of recycling, which state and local governments were pursuing—mostly through mandates, naturally—with a religious-like fervor. There were numerous problems with the approach, he observed.
The fact is that sometimes recycling makes sense and sometimes it doesn’t. In the legislative rush to pass recycling mandates, state and local governments should pause to consider the science and the economics of every proposition. Often, bad ideas are worse than none at all and can produce lasting damage if they are enshrined in law. Simply demanding that something be recycled can be disruptive of markets and it does not guarantee that recycling that makes either economic or environmental sense will even occur.
If only lawmakers had heeded Mr. Reed’s advice, or that of John Tierney, who offered similar guidance in The Times the following year.
Believing that there was no more room in landfills, Americans concluded that recycling was their only option. Their intentions were good and their conclusions seemed plausible. Recycling does sometimes make sense–for some materials in some places at some times. But the simplest and cheapest option is usually to bury garbage in an environmentally safe landfill. And since there’s no shortage of landfill space (the crisis of 1987 was a false alarm), there’s no reason to make recycling a legal or moral imperative.
That’s economics, you say. What about the environment? Well, the environmental benefits of recycling are far from clear. For starters, as Popular Mechanicsnoted a few years ago, the idea that we don’t have sufficient space to safely store trash is untrue.
According to one calculation, all the garbage produced in the U.S. for the next 1000 years could fit into a landfill 100 yards deep and 35 miles across on each side–not that big (unless you happen to live in the neighborhood). Or put another way, it would take another 20 years to run through the landfills that the U.S. has already built. So the notion that we’re running out of landfill space–the original impetus for the recycling boom–turns out to have been a red herring.
Recycling Efforts Backfire and Create Waste Themselves
And then there are the energy and resources that go into recycling. How much water do Americans spend annually rinsing items that end up in a landfill? How much fuel is spent deploying fleets of barges and trucks across highways and oceans, carrying tons of garbage to be processed at facilities that belch their own emissions?
The data on this front is thin, and results on the environmental effectiveness of recycling vary based on the material being recycled. Yet all of this presumes the recyclables are not being cleaned and shipped only to be buried in a landfill, like so much of it is today. This, Mises would say, is planned chaos, the inevitable result of central planners making decisions instead of consumers through free markets.
Most market economists, Reed points out, “by nature, philosophy, and experience” a bunch skeptical of centrally planned schemes that supplant choice, were wise to the dynamics of recycling from the beginning.
As engineer and author Richard Fulmer wrote in 2016,
Recycling resources costs resources. For instance, old newsprint must be collected, transported, and processed. This requires trucks, which must be manufactured and fueled, and recycling plants, which must be constructed and powered.
All this also produces pollution – from the factories that build the trucks and from the fuel burned to power them, and from the factories that produce the components to build and construct the recycling plant and from the fuel burned to power the plant. If companies can make a profit recycling paper, then we can be confident that more resources are saved than are used. However, if recycling is mandated by law, we have no such assurance.
Again, economics is the key.
It’s time to admit the recycling mania is a giant placebo. It makes people feel good, but the idea that it improves the condition of humans or the planet is highly dubious.
It’s taken three decades, but the actions of hundreds of US cities suggest Americans are finally willing to entertain the idea that recycling is not a moral or legal imperative.
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.
Todays blog comes from Chris whose work you all seem to like! Please share as always!
I predicted two weeks ago the Glasgow climate conference wouldn’t amount to much, and I was right. It was billed as the “last chance” to save humanity, but it ended with China and India teaming up to water down language calling for phasing out the use of coal. The final language talks about how coal will be ‘phased down’, not ‘out’.
So there were two skunks at this garden party, but it was all completely foreseeable when you remember both China and India are building coal-fired power plants like crazy. Estimates vary, but China is building at least 95 new coal plants and India is building 28. You can add to that 23 more in Indonesia and dozens elsewhere. Add it all up and you get 195 new coal plants being built around the world, as we speak.
China already has over a thousand coal plants. India ranks second with 281, the U.S. third with 252, and 475 in the next nine countries combined. No wonder U.S. climate envoy John Kerry said in January the U.S. could go to zero carbon emissions tomorrow and it wouldn’t make any difference, not when 90 percent of global emissions come from outside the U.S.
Speaking of John Kerry, we were treated during the conference to the pathetic spectacle of him desperate to get a deal, any kind of deal, with China. The dealhe got is big on hifalutin talk about ‘thinking big’ and ‘shouldering responsibility’, but short on specifics. China pledged to decrease its coal use. Good luck with that when China’s 95 new coal plants come on line. If we didn’t know Kerry’s ‘deal’ was worthless when it was announced, we certainly knew it when China and India watered down the final conference agreement. And for this worthless piece of paper Kerry explicitly stated he was willing to overlook China’s use of slave labor to produce solar panels. Swell guy.
Did the conferees act like climate change is a crisis? No. In addition to watering down the final language, the conferees made more worthless pledges to double the amount rich nations will pay poor nations for climate change. Which doesn’t mean a whole lot when you consider developed countries reneged on a previous pledge to deliver $100 billion in climate payments per year to developing countries by 2020. Meanwhile, the actions promised at the conference are insufficient to meet the conferee’s own goal of keeping the planet from warming more than 1.5 degrees Celsius. No matter. John Kerry declared mission accomplished, peace with honor, don’t make the perfect the enemy of the good.
I’ve said many times I’ll believe it’s a crisis when they act like it’s a crisis. They’re not acting like it and, therefore, have failed to make the case it really is a crisis. Yet Kerry & Friends want to turn the U.S. upside down to tilt at windmills. Kerry says the U.S. won’t have coal-fired power plants by 2030. Looks like former President Obama’s ‘war on coal’ has resumed. One of Joe Biden’s nominees said she wants coal and oil companies to go bankrupt to fight climate change.
The inmates are running the asylum. They’re chasing unicorns starting with the whole bogus notion of human-induced climate change, but this is what they’re really talking about: cutting your energy use by 90 percent, stopping economic growth entirely, keeping you from traveling, cutting your food by a third, and only allowing you to buy 9 pounds of clothing a year. Is that what you want?
In case you haven’t figured it out yet, this isn’t about the climate. It’s about making you poor and keeping you under their thumb. Obama said he would give upa lot of his lifestyle to fight climate change. OK, you go first. When Obama and Kerry follow the climate crowd’s advice to own nothing and be happy about it, I will gladly follow suit. Until they do, they should just stop flapping their gums. It’s annoying.
Please use social media, etc. to pass on this Newsletter to other open-minded citizens…
If at any time you’d like to be added to (or taken off) the distribution of our popular, free Media Balance Newsletter, simply send me an email saying that.
Note 1: We recommend reading the Newsletter on your computer, not your phone, as some documents (e.g. PDFs) are much easier to read on a large computer screen… We’ve tried to use common fonts, etc. to minimize display issues.
Note 2: For recent past Newsletter issues see 2020 Archives & 2021 Archives. To accommodate numerous requests received about prior articles over the twelve plus years of the Newsletter, we’ve put together archives since the beginning of the Newsletter — where you can search by year. For a detailed background about the Newsletter, please read this.
Note 3: See this extensive list of reasonable books on climate change. As a parallel effort, we have also put together a list of some good books related to industrial wind energy. Both topics are also extensively covered on my website: WiseEnergy.org.
Note 4: I am not an attorney or a physician, so no material appearing in any of the Newsletters (or the WiseEnergy.org website) should be construed as giving legal or medical advice. My recommendation has always been: consult a competent, licensed attorney when you are involved with legal issues, and consult a competent physician regarding medical matters.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2021-11-15 11:52:542021-11-15 11:52:54AWED NEWSLETTER: We cover COVID to Climate, as well as Energy to Elections
COP 26 has finally come to an end. There is even a new agreement. Yet as he made his closing remarks COP 26 President Alok Sharma, MP hung his head and proclaimed through tears, “May I just say to all delegates, I apologize for the way this process has unfolded and I am deeply sorry.”
President Bidens’ climate envoy John Kerry tried to declare victory, but the Left is livid.
Swedish climate scold Greta Thunberg tweeted, “The #COP26 is over. Here’s a brief summary: Blah, blah, blah.”
The #COP26 is over. Here’s a brief summary: Blah, blah, blah.
But the real work continues outside these halls. And we will never give up, ever. https://t.co/EOne9OogiR
Minutes before nearly 200 nations adopted the final agreement, India, working with China, stepped in to protect coal.
Kerry has been making much of the fact that The Glasgow Climate Pact is the first climate agreement to actually name a fossil fuel. However, India amended the agreement to change “phase out” of coal to “phase down.” For China and India this actually means INCREASE coal. Both nations are expanding coal burning as fast as their economies can go. “Phase down” is the verbiage China suckered John Kerry into when China and the U.S. penned a side climate deal last week. Full text at CFACT.org. China promised Kerry to maybe think about phasing coal down during its 15th five year plan which doesn’t even start until 2026.
Here’s more of what has the climate-Left gnashing their teeth. The Glasgow Climate Pact:
Names coal, but not oil or gas;
Extends deadline for nations to submit new emissions reduction plans;
Does not fund reparations for “loss and damage” when poor nations experience natural disasters;
Does not mandate ongoing public climate finance;
Contains weasel words such as “unabated” fossil fuels and “inefficient” subsidies leaving plenty of wiggle room;
Climate computer models project current emissions commitments leave the world warming 2.4 degress C;
UN Secretary General António Guterres said limiting warming to 1.5 degrees C is “on life support.”
Disappointment on the Left is a sure indicator that the free world dodged a bullet. However, there’s plenty of danger still lurking in the Glasgow Agreement. Carbon carpetbaggers came away smiling.
The sums of money changing hands in the name of climate are staggering. John Kerry is talking about $130 TRILLION dollars, not only through government mandates and spending, but through private finance. Kerry’s true constituents: the people selling subsidized wind, solar, batteries, offsets, carbon credits and the rest are ecstatic.
They may not know how to alter the temperature of the Earth, but they do know how to make a buck.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2021-11-14 11:52:312021-11-14 11:52:31COP 26 President Apologizes in Tears after UN Conference Failure
The plan would simply waste money, create zero jobs on net, and do nothing to mitigate climate change.
The fate of President Biden’s multi-trillion-dollar social spending agenda, the “Build Back Better” plan, has consumed the political conversation in recent weeks. Amid all the furious attempts at reading political tea leaves, a curious fact has flown under the radar: The latest iteration of Biden’s plan includes one of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s worst ideas.
“Happy to announce creation of a US Civilian Climate Corps is now in the Build Back Better Act,” the far-left congresswoman recently tweeted. Referencing the public works “job creation” scheme first proposed as part of the Green New Deal, Ocasio-Cortez claimed the initiative will create 300,000 jobs while combating the “climate crisis” and “environmental injustice.”
Happy to announce creation of a US Civilian Climate Corps is now in the Build Back Better Act.🌎
Estimated to create 300k+ public jobs w/ Dept of Labor + Americorps to combat the climate crisis & enviro injustices.
Indeed, a perusal of White House communications makes it clear that the plan for a Civilian Climate Corps—not long ago considered a radical pipe dream—is now part of the president’s plan.
“The Build Back Better Framework will create a Civilian Climate Corps with over 300K members that look like America,” the official White House Twitter account wrote. “This workforce will conserve public lands, bolster community resilience, address the changing climate, and put good-paying union jobs within reach for more people.”
“Climate change has become a climate crisis,” Vice President Kamala Harris similarly said in a speech promoting the plan. “But today we know that this moment of crisis is also a moment of opportunity… an opportunity to create good, union jobs.”
“Once these bills are passed… young people will join our new Civilian Climate Corps,” she continued. “These are the opportunities we have within our grasp right now.”
.@VP Kamala Harris: “Once these bills are passed, plumbers will fill the jobs we need to replace all those lead pipes. Young people will join our new Civilian Climate Corps. These are the opportunities we have within our grasp right now.” pic.twitter.com/qwAOYTQXHD
The Build Back Better Framework will create a Civilian Climate Corps with over 300K members that look like America. This workforce will conserve public lands, bolster community resilience, address the changing climate, and put good-paying union jobs within reach for more people.
With the proposal gaining momentum in Washington, DC, it’s well worth examining its actual merits. And even a cursory glance reveals that in reality the plan would simply waste money, create zero jobs on net, and do nothing to mitigate climate change.
According to Fox News, the latest bill text allocates $8 billion in taxpayer funds for this Civilian Climate Corps initiative. That’s a sizable sum that could be spent elsewhere—or better yet, left in our pockets to begin with. Yet under the Biden-AOC plan, the federal government would use that $8 billion to create well-paying jobs for young people who want to be employed full-time doing environmental activism and community projects.
Yet the claim that this would “create” jobs is false, at least on net. Sure, it would “create” some jobs in this new Climate Corps. But the government cannot create resources out of thin air. Whatever money it spent to put these climate change activists to “work” would have to, directly or indirectly, come from elsewhere in the economy.
As Henry Hazlitt wrote in Economics in One Lesson, “It is highly improbable that the projects thought up by the bureaucrats will provide the same net addition to wealth and welfare, per dollar expended, as would have been provided by the taxpayers themselves, if they had been individually permitted to buy or have made what they themselves wanted, instead of being forced to surrender part of their earnings to the state.”
Simply put, a dollar spent paying a 19-year-old to plant flowers is a dollar not spent by a private company paying them to deliver food, and so on. So, there’s no reason at all to believe a Civilian Climate Corps would create jobs on net.
Perhaps most damning, the Civilian Climate Corps would make a statistically negligible difference in reducing US carbon emissions, the stated goal of the Biden administration’s plans. Even halting all US vehicle emissions would barely make a dent in global emission levels, and make-work schemes like this would have no noticeable impact, simply as a matter of scale. Even many supporters of the idea acknowledge this.
“Emissions reduction, obviously, is the goal we need to achieve for the sake of safety,” Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse said. “To be clear, I support a Civilian Climate Corps. It just doesn’t measurably reduce emissions.”
So, if a Civilian Climate Corps wastes billions, creates zero jobs, and doesn’t even help the climate, why on Earth has President Biden included it in his spending agenda? Whatever his reasons, wasting $10 billion on AOC’s fever dreams is a raw deal for American taxpayers.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2021-11-13 23:51:232021-11-13 23:51:23One of AOC’s Worst Green New Deal Ideas is Included in Biden’s ‘Build Back Better’ Plan
Over the last decade, climate activists have successfully pressured governments, banks, and corporations to divest from crude oil and natural gas companies. The energy infrastructures are just like the “civil” infrastructures the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Infrastructure Report Cards constantly addresses, and the resultant poor “grades” given to the infrastructures of our economy. Under-investment in infrastructure leads to deterioration and supply chain issues that more adversely impact the economy.
Without fossil fuel infrastructure we’re supposed to have an ENERGY CRISIS! ESG “Environmental, Social, and Governance” investments are all the rage on Wall Street these days as climate activists continue to pressure governments, firms, and banks to divest from oil and gas exploration. The ESG investment directions are impacting the energy markets and the supply chain of products and fuels manufactured from crude oil and are, paradoxically, causing rising coal use, carbon emissions, and shortages.
Meanwhile, China, India, East Asia, and Europe are all mining and burning more coal to make up for the lack of natural gas. China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Vietnam, and Africa will have more than 3,000 coal-fired power plants by 2030 in those developing countries with billions of people seeking abundant, affordable, and reliable electricity.
The ESG considerations now propagating throughout corporate America account for much of the decline in capital expenditures by international oil companies in recent years. Big financial institutions such as Bank of America and Mastercard, investment managers such as BlackRock and Vanguard, and hundreds of corporations are going all-in on the financial and commercial portion of the Great Reset, pushing environmental, social, and governance (ESG) metrics.
As we have learned from the ASCE Infrastructure Report Cards, under-investment in oil and gas exploration is “supposed” to facilitate the deterioration of fossil fuel infrastructures and lead to an economy rife with inflation and supply-chain disruptions.
Of the three fossil fuels of coal, natural gas, and crude oil, the ESG enthusiasts do not understand that crude oil is seldom ever used for the generation of electricity. For electricity, most of the world’s continuous uninterruptable electricity generation is by coal, natural gas, hydropower, and nuclear. Crude oil is a non-player for electricity generation.
The primary usage of crude oil is not for electricity, but to manufacture oil derivatives that make 6,000 products used in our daily lives, and the transportation fuels needed by the world’s:
Militaries 23,000 Commercial jets 20,000 Private jets 10,000 Superyachts over 24 meters in length 300 cruise ships 53,000 merchant ships, and 1.2 billion vehicles
The economic comeback from the covid pandemic has pushed up demand. The underperformance of electricity generation from breezes and sunshine has meant higher demand for both natural gas and coal, to provide continuous uninterruptable electricity generation.
With ESG investment guidelines hovering over corporate America, oil and gas firms have since refused to expand production, even though the proof of this desperately needed infrastructure is in the data. Fossil fuels’ share of global energy production remain unchanged at 81 percent. To the extent emissions in Europe and the US declined, it was largely due to the transition from coal to natural gas.
Socially responsible investing is decades old, but ESG was embraced over the last decade by large university endowments, investment banks like Blackrock, governments, the International Energy Agency, the United Nations, and eventually by oil and gas companies themselves, including Shell, Total, and many others. In May, a court in The Netherlands ordered Shell to reduce its emissions, a ruling that made firms reluctant to invest in new oil and gas exploration.
With ESG having picked breezes and sunshine as the winners for intermittent electricity generation, those taxpayer subsidies could further reduce the incentive for private firms to invest in oil and gas. Even if they don’t, the Biden administration has moved to restrict oil and gas drilling on public lands.
Like California, that relies primarily on foreign countries for 58 percent of California’s crude oil demands, President Biden has effectively accepted the idea that the United States will rely more on foreign oil. As a result, foreign nations will benefit from rising oil and gas prices at America’s expense.
High oil and gas prices are already creating political problems for governments as they worsen inflation. Prices and shortages are likely to remain high for years not months.
Increasing America’s dependence on foreign oil producers makes even The New York Times, which has long championed oil and gas divestment, nervous.
The flagship of the alarmist policies today is the Green New Deal, the most recent iteration of the Green New Deal was first proposed in the United States by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and backed by other prominent politicians and Democratic presidential candidates, including Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Elizabeth Warren (D_MA), and Kamala Harris (D-CA).
Among the goals, the GND seeks to accomplish by 2030 are the following:
The elimination of all electricity generated by coal, natural gas, and nuclear power, concurrently while intermittent electricity from breezes and sunshine is underperforming. The GND seeks to replace all fossil fuels, including the innocent bystander fossil fuel of crude oil that is seldom used for electricity, but necessary for products and fuels. The ESG movement does not bode well for both the electricity market and the supply chain for more than 6,000 products as the primary usage of crude oil is for the manufacture of derivatives for thousands of products, and fuels for transportation infrastructures.
Seems that we have learned very little from the ASCE Infrastructure Report Cards that have taught us those infrastructures deteriorate with under-investments. By under-investment in crude oil and natural gas infrastructures, the world leaders are tinkering with the supply chain of crude oil that is destined to impact resultant shortages of transportation fuels and the thousands of products made from the oil derivatives manufactured out of crude oil demanded by current lifestyles and worldwide economies.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00ThePricklyPear.orghttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngThePricklyPear.org2021-11-13 02:00:002021-11-13 02:00:00Without Fossil Fuel Infrastructure We’re Supposed To Have An ENERGY CRISIS!
CFACT is in Scotland for the UN conference on climate change in search of exaggerated weather claims, mistaken public policy, wasteful spending, hidden agendas, hypocrites, Socialists, and so-called “solutions” that solve absolutely nothing.
If you’ve been paying attention, you know CFACT has had no problem locating way too much of the above.
With your help, CFACT’s hunt has been so successful in fact, we decided to follow Nimoy, and so many others, and try our luck in search of Scotland’s most famous, most elusive monster, “Nessie” herself.
The business of the 26th United Nations Climate Summit took a lull in the action, which allowed for some light-hearted business mixed with sight-seeing by the CFACT crew.
We decided to go in search of the legendary, cryptic “Loch Ness Monster,” which took us to the northern Scotland village of Drumadrochit, a three-hour drive from Glasgow through the Scottish countryside in a fossil-fueled vehicle.
And we found it!!
From the 16th century ruins of the Urquhart Castle on the west bank of Loch Ness Lake, CFACT leadership, dressed in Scottish kilt, hit pay dirt. It not only located the Loch Ness monster, but befriended this beast and its new friend, the visiting Sasquatch!!
The climate change issue is the Loch Ness legend on a far grander scale. We are now in at least the fourth decade since politicians and hucksters alike sounded the alarm about inexorable global warming, which followed a generation of know-it-alls that predicted an upcoming ice age, planetary starvation from overpopulation, and related calamities. In many respects, there is about as much reason to believe a disastrous, imminent global warming apocalypse as there is a Nessie and Big Foot roaming about Earth.
Climate is changing, but in a natural and historically consistent way with mankind’s influence tangential at best and of arguable significance regardless.
But the beat goes on with the catastrophic climate narrative, as does the Loch Ness myth. The latter story has playfully become a tourist attraction; the former is reaching the point of parody.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2021-11-12 21:52:112021-11-12 21:52:11COP 26: Loch Ness and Other Monsters
Globe-trotting private jet enthusiast and Vietnam-era traitor John Kerry, President Joe Biden’s so-called “climate envoy,” said in an interview with Bloomberg at the COP26 climate conference in Glasgow, Scotland, that there would be no coal in the United States by the end of the decade.
“By 2030 in the United States, we won’t have coal,” Kerry stated. He went on to say, “We’re saying we are going to be carbon-free in the power sector by 2035. I think that’s leadership. I think that’s indicative of what we can do.”
It’s not leadership. It’s part of the Biden administration’s goal to commit national energy suicide. By contrast, the power-mad Chinese regime has no intention of sacrificing any its energy infrastructure for the sake of the planet.
Kerry is the first Biden official to publicly comment on the administration’s environmental policy since the $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill that contained numerous sections dedicated to climate change passed Congress. His aspiration to rid the country of its coal by 2030 aligns with Biden’s deadlines for lowering greenhouse gasses by the same year.
According to the U.S Energy Information Administration (EIA), coal accounted for 10% of our nation’s total energy consumption in 2020.
KERRY SAYS “THE BIGGEST THING” HE IS DOING FOR ENVIRONMENT IS “TRAVELING AROUND THE WORLD”
During an interview aired on the October 27, 2021 edition of Bloomberg’s Leaders with Lacqua, host Francine Lacqua asked Kerry: “Secretary, have you changed anything in your lifestyle to actually help the cause against climate change?”
Kerry answered: “Indeed, I have. I have a solar system for my home. I drive an electric car now. I still have the one internal combustion engine vehicle, which is being traded for another electric car, and we’re making more conscious decisions about our use of energy within the house. I mean, I’ve become a flagrant light switch-chaser whenever I walk through a room or a building. Yes, I think there’s a new consciousness. Am I doing everything that I should be or could be? Probably not. But I’m super conscious of the need to try to all of us do what we can to make a contribution here. The biggest thing I’m doing in my lifestyle is traveling around the world, trying to do diplomacy and help make a larger decision in the context of Glasgow that could reduce a lot of the anxiety that we’re all living with today about where we’re headed.”
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2021-11-11 07:52:542021-11-11 07:52:54Climate Czar John Kerry: the U.S. ‘Won’t Have Coal’ by 2030
The day-to-day conditions of the atmosphere at a place with respect to elements like humidity, temperature, wind speed, rainfall, etc. is called the weather of that place.
Weather can be cloudy, sunny, rainy, stormy or clear. It is a part of the natural phenomenon which maintains the equilibrium in the atmosphere.
But conditions can be worse sometimes. When the atmospheric conditions are extreme or intense enough to cause property loss or life loss, such weather is termed as severe weather.
These also vary according to the altitudes, latitudes, and region and pressure differences. Tornadoes, cyclones, heavy rainfall, fog, winter storms come under this category. They are disastrous and hazardous. Proper disaster management and strategies are required to handle these conditions.
Weather is the key factor in our daily lives. The weather determines how we heat/cool our homes, how we dress to keep warm or fight the heat and how we live our lives. If your an Eskimo living in Alaska you deal with different weather conditions than someone who is living in Florida, for example.
Why are we so focused on the Climate?
Climate was in use in English for well over a hundred years before we began to use the word in the 16th century to refer to weather conditions. So climate is synonymous with the weather. Then mankind began to use the phrase climate change in 1956.
Skeptical Science, whose mission is to debunk climate misinformation by presenting peer-reviewed science and explaining the techniques of science denial, noted this about the phrase climate change:
“The roots of the term have been around since 1956, when a scientist referred to it as ‘climactic change’ in a paper. By the ’80s, ‘climactic change’ had morphed into ‘climate change’ and entered popular discourse.”
All the changes that happen in the weather are made by the sun. Because the sun has a very high temperature and it is a huge sphere of hot gases. It is the main source of heat and light for the earth. It is even the primary source of energy hence affects the weather.
The energy reflected and absorbed by the earth’s surface, the oceans and the atmosphere play an important role in determining the weather at any place.
Gases like methane, water vapour and carbon dioxide also play a role in determining the weather.
So is it weather or climate?
Why I’m a Conservationist and not an Environmentalist
I deeply care about the planet earth and about all of the creatures living on the land and in our seas, rivers and oceans. However, I am not a environmentalist. Rather I am a conservationist.
According to Merriam-Webster, a conservationist is “a person who advocates conservation especially of natural resources.”
In contrast, an environmentalist is defined as one “concerned about environmental quality especially of the human environment with respect to the control of pollution.”
Do you see the difference?
Conservationism
A conservationist uses what has been given to us to use. He or she does not want to control people but give people access to all natural resources but task people to use these natural resources for the good of all of mankind. Not to do so is blasphemy.
I believe that it is mankind’s duty to use our God given natural resources. I also believe that God tasks us to use them wisely. I believe in waste not, want not.
Environmentalism
Environmentalists, unlike conservationists, want to prevent mankind from using earth’s natural resources. Environmentalism wants to “save the planet” by sacrificing the lives, liberties and prosperity of mankind.
An environmentalist is focused neither on nature nor on science. An environmentalist is focused on controlling pollution by controlling people. Environmentalists have killed millions of people (e.g. when environmentalists banned DDT which lead to the deaths of millions who succumbed to malaria in third world countries from infected mosquitoes).
In order to control the people environmentalists have over time pushed three myths (big lies):
Myth #1: Human Extinction Due To Climate Change Is Imminent
Myth #2: The Climate Is Getting Substantially More Dangerous for Humans
Myth #3: Natural Disasters Are Getting Substantially More Frequent And Severe
Conclusion
I believe Theodore Roosevelt said it best, “To waste, to destroy our natural resources, to skin and exhaust the land instead of using it so as to increase its usefulness, will result in undermining in the days of our children the very prosperity which we ought by right to hand down to them amplified and developed.”
It’s not about pollution at all.
Environmentalists want to reduce the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere. They forget that it’s CO2 that feeds the plants and makes them green and grow faster thereby producing more for mankind to consume. Remember learning about osmosis in high school?
Genesis 1: 27-30 reads:
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.’ Then God said, ‘I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground–everything that has the breath of life in it–I give every green plant for food.’ And it was so.
Don’t fall for the environmentalist’s big lies. Believe in the truth. God’s truth.
We have been given great bounty and we are tasked to give thanks for it.
Remember what Edmund Burke wrote,
“There is but one law for all, namely that law which governs all law, the law of our Creator, the law of humanity, justice, equity – the law of nature and of nations.”
As we approach Thanksgiving Day 2021 perhaps we should bow our heads in prayer and be most thankful for our conservationists who give us food, drink and with this bounty, health and prosperity.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2021-11-10 19:52:552021-11-10 19:52:55It’s the Weather, Not the Climate, Stupid!
“The goal of socialism is communism.” – Vladimir Lenin
Why Saule Omarova is Biden’s Bolshevik
On November 6 and 7, 1917, leftist revolutionaries led by Bolshevik Party leader Vladimir Lenin launched a nearly bloodless coup d’état against the Duma’s provisional government. It now appears that Biden has appointed a Bolshevik as his Comptroller of the Currency.
Joe Biden wants to put an actual Communist — self-proclaimed “radical” Cornell University law school professor Saule Omarova — in charge of the nation’s banking system.
Omarova graduated from the Soviet Union’s Moscow State University in 1989 on the Lenin Personal Academic Scholarship, according to the Wall Street Journal. As recently as 2019, she was still praising the USSR’s economic system as in some ways superior to our own. “Say what you will about old USSR, there was no gender pay gap there. Market doesn’t always ‘know best.’” [Emphasis added]
In the tweet below Omarova wants more public debt.
Why? Because, according to her socialist thinking, public debt serves the “public good.”
Assistant Professor of Law at UC Berkeley School of Law Abbye Atkinson in a paper titled Making Public Debt a Public Good wrote,
“In other words, a public agency like the NIA [National Investment Authority] would center broad social welfare in its fiscal mandate rather than individual wealth accumulation. For example, it could readily support infrastructure geared toward remediating racial justice.“
A terrific new essay by @abbye_atkinson on how to make public debt serve… well, the public. And thanks for the shoutout to the National Investment Authority (NIA) idea! Spot on. @LPEblog@justmoneyorg@BuddyYakov
What is the National Investment Authority (NIA)? According to Data for Progress:
Originally advanced in 2018, the NIA proposal has become particularly salient in the context of the current intersecting public health, economic, and climate crises. Drawing on the experience of the New Deal era’s Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC), the NIA offers a concrete institutional solution to multiple organizational, financial, and operational challenges associated with the long-term climate agenda. The NIA would operate alongside the Treasury and the Federal Reserve and directly allocate both public and private capital to clean infrastructure projects that currently do not get funded in private markets on the necessary scale.
The NIA fits perfectly with Biden’s Build Back Better agenda.
Biden’s Bolshevik Saule Omarova is all in on bankrupting our energy industry and increasing public debt.
A new poll from Axios/SurveyMonkey is out on how Americans view free-market capitalism and socialism. The initial takeaway, as we’ve seen with many other polls in recent years, is that overall support for socialism is on the rise while the appeal of capitalism is ebbing away.
Is Biden Building Back Better the second Bolshevik Revolution?
Conclusion
Biden’s Build Back Better agenda is morphing from a cultural war into a full blown Bolshevik Revolution. The Russian Revolution of 1917 involved the collapse of an empire under Tsar Nicholas II and the rise of Marxian socialism under Lenin and his Bolsheviks. The causes of the Bolshevik Revolution were widespread inflation and food shortages in Russia after World War I.
After the collapse of Afghanistan, America’s longest war, Biden inherited an economy from President Trump that was robust, growing, with low inflation, no food shortages with American energy independence.
Biden, since his inauguration, has reversed everything President Trump has done to make America great. Biden’s Build Back Better has, in fact, caused supply chain shortages, rising inflation, food shortages, rising cost for home heating fuel and gasoline prices. Biden and his Bolshevik are now determined to destroy America’s energy industry for the “great good” of climate change.
Watch this absurd question by Kamal Harris:
NEW – Kamala Harris asks NASA if they are able to “track trees” by race as part of “environmental justice.”pic.twitter.com/zFMayeTbhJ
Track trees by race? Environmental Justice? Really. What happened to equal justice under the law. What happened to our Constructional rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
We believe is will get worse before getting better. The are dark days ahead as long as the Democrats and their Republican RINO allies keep taxing, spending and raising the debt on our children and grandchildren.
According to the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Debt Management, the U.S. government is just five years away from the point where every new dollar it borrows from the public will go toward funding interest payments on the national debt.
Craig Eyermann warns, “There’s an old saying that applies for the U.S. government’s looming fiscal situation: “If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.” It’s only ever a question of how painful it will be when it does.”
Conservatives must take control of one or both houses of Congress to stop the Biden Bolsheviks and their agenda to destroy our collective pursuits of happiness.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2021-11-10 10:51:492021-11-10 10:51:49BIDEN’S BOLSHEVIK: Saule Omarova wants to ‘bankrupt’ the fossil fuel industry to ‘tackle climate change’
Climate change is the greatest political fraud of our time – the earth has been warming for millions of years. It’s the very definition of the emperors new clothes. But it provides the left with a hammer.
The ‘boogie man” is about to get the COVID clampdown treatment.
A British Columbia emergency room doctor diagnosed a patient with ‘climate change’ after believing his asthma worsened as a result of a historic heat wave
He said his patient’s health was also exacerbated by poor air quality linked to forest fires in the province during the summer
Nearly 500 Canadians were killed, mostly in British Columbia, during a five-day heat wave as temperatures surged past 121F Climate change will kill 250,000 per year between 2030 and 2050 from malnutrition, malaria, and heat stress, the World Health Organization says
By Michelle Thompson For Dailymail.Com, 7 November 2021
A Canadian doctor pointed to ‘climate change’ as the cause for a patient’s asthma after finding that an unprecedented heat wave and poor air quality contributed to the person’s deteriorating health.
Dr. Kyle Merritt, who works at a Nelson, British Columbia hospital, said the environmental hazards prompted him to make his first ‘climate change’ clinical diagnosis after treating the patient who came in struggling to breathe.
‘If we’re not looking at the underlying cause, and we’re just treating the symptoms, we’re just gonna keep falling further and further behind,’ the emergency room doctor told Glacier Media.
‘It’s me trying to just… process what I’m seeing.’
The diagnosis came shortly after a historic heat wave in June killed nearly 500 Canadians during a five-day period as temperatures surged past 121F.
When the heat wave passed, it was replaced by another health threat as thick smoke from wildfires compromised air quality.
‘We’re in the emergency department, we look after everybody, from the most privileged to the most vulnerable, from cradle to grave, we see everybody. And it’s hard to see people, especially the most vulnerable people in our society, being affected. It’s frustrating,’ he said.
Merritt also spoke about a patient in her 70s whose ailments were exacerbated during the heat wave.
‘She has diabetes. She has some heart failure. … She lives in a trailer, no air conditioning,’ he told the outlet. ‘All of her health problems have all been worsened. And she’s really struggling to stay hydrated.’
The observations made by Merritt and other doctors throughout the western Canadian province promoted the colleagues to launch Doctors and Nurses for Planetary Health.
The healthcare professionals are using the group to advocate for better health by protecting the environment, they said on the website.
‘We are deeply concerned about the climate crisis and its impact on health,’ the group’s website says. ‘This summer, our patients experienced extreme weather events of heat dome, drought, and severe wildfires. Record-breaking temperatures soared above 40 degrees Celsius in June and air pollution from wildfires reached 43 times the amount of safe levels throughout July and August. ‘
Quick note: Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. We will not waver. We will not tire. We will not falter, and we will not fail. Freedom will prevail.
Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.
Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2021-11-10 08:53:162021-11-10 08:53:16Doctor Diagnosed Patient With ‘Climate Change’ in Canada
Barack Obama may have served as the 44th President of the United States, but he is just as wrong as anyone else who approaches global warming from deep roving left field.
“For those listening back home in the U.S., let me say this,” Obama told UN COP 26, “It doesn’t matter if you’re a Republican or a Democrat if your Florida house is flooded by rising seas, or your crops fail in the Dakotas or your California house is burning down.”
Sorry to inform you, Mister President, all those things are WEATHER, NOT CLIMATE. It doesn’t matter if you’re rich or poor, short or tall, crop production is setting records, California fires are historically normal, and sea level has risen at the same minuscule pace since before the industrial revolution.
“It’s not just that we can’t afford to go backward,” Obama said. “We can’t afford to stay where we are. The world has to step up and it has to step up now.”
The U.K. Independent commented, “The emptiness of these promises shows COP26 — and the future COP27, COP28, COP129 — for the farce that it is. This is not a serious attempt to solve the climate crisis. It’s a chance for world leaders to pat themselves on the back for doing barely anything in the past and pledge to do stuff they’ll never do in the future. Obama is famed for inspiring hope, but today his words ring hollow.”
Obama called for wealthy nations to spend much more. The Paris Climate Accord contains plans to redistribute $100 billion per year to poor nations. Funding never reached that level and the developing world is not happy. At a UN conference in Bonn years ago, a delegate from the island of Tonga approached CFACT’s delegation and asked, “you’re Americans? When are you sending the money?” Climate cash is the reason they signed onto the Paris agreement in the first place.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez also jetted in to Glasgow to push the Green New Deal. “I have worked very hard on advancing the Civilian Climate Corps, which is now successfully in the Build Back Better Act,” AOC said, “we’ll seek to mobilize over 300,000 jobs for young people in emissions draw down and environmental injustice.”
That’s a pretty big reveal AOC made. If she is correct, the Biden social spending bill still contains funding for AOC to mobilize, indoctrinate and deploy a vast brigade of climate campaigners to harry and subdue the rest of us. There seems no end to the bad policy crammed into Biden’s bill. That’s no way to “build back better.”
The UN announced today that it has performed an analysis that the pledges made at COP 26 are insufficient to keep the globe from warming over its (arbitrary) 1.5 degree C target. The UN announced that 2.4 degrees seems more likely. Of course that is based on climate computer modeling, not reality.
The good news? Climate computer modeling ALWAYS runs too hot!
“In general, the greater the understanding, the greater the delusion; the more intelligent, the less sane.” ― George Orwell, 1984
Heidi Peltier is a “senior researcher at the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University and director of programs for the Costs of War Project.” For all her skills as a researcher, however, she doesn’t appear to be aware that the Obama administration ended the war on terror in 2012. What’s more, the waste she decries in the war on terror is largely derived from the fact that it was wrongly conceived from the beginning, and wrongly executed all the way through.
In any case, she wants an end to Wilsonian messianic interventionism, and that would indeed be a good thing. But she wants the resources of the U.S. government to be devoted instead to fighting “climate change,” apparently unaware of the fact that such a fight will be just as empty and fruitless as the “war on terror,” if not even more so. It is, to say the least, unproven that human activity has caused climate change, and even more unproven that human activity can fix the climate. What’s more, the activities proposed are all being undertaken by the U.S. and Western Europe, while China ignores the problem and benefits economically from the West’s self-abnegation.
She says: “Climate-related disasters have killed more Americans from flooding and wildfires than the 2,996 people who died in the 9/11 attacks.” That may be, but again, there is no proof that this was the result of something human beings did. There have been floods and wildfires throughout history. Nor is it certain that ending the use of the internal combustion engine etc. will solve the problem.
Large government bureaucracies are often slow to adapt to changing realities, such as the catastrophic threats we face in a warming world. The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is no exception. New research from Brown University’s Costs of War Project shows that the DHS has been overly focused on foreign and foreign-inspired terrorism, while violent attacks in the US have more often come from domestic sources. A combination of willful ignorance and institutional inertia caused the agency to miss the rise in white supremacy and domestic terrorism that led to the January 6, 2021, insurrection at the US Capitol.
The new data from Dr Erik Dahl, Associate Professor of National Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School, show that just one of the 46 failed terror plots in the US from 2018 through 2020 was directed by a foreign organization. In contrast, 29 plots were planned or carried out by domestic groups. In 2019, DHS finally acknowledged the growing threat of targeted violence and domestic terrorism borne mainly of far-right ideology and white supremacy and issued its first strategy document identifying these threats.
While we know now that the threat of violent attacks from domestic sources outnumber those from foreign sources, a bigger source of insecurity still is that of climate change. On October 21, the DHS released its first-ever “Strategic Framework for Addressing Climate Change,” acknowledging the importance of climate as a source of disruption and threat to security. As the COP26 UN climate meetings start this week, it’s time for a recognition that climate change is in fact a more expensive, more deadly, and more real threat to lives and to the US economy than the threat of what we call terrorism.
The “War on Terror” – a phrase born in the George W Bush administration – needs to be retired both as an action and a concept. The word “terrorism” instills a sense of fear and gives carte blanche for the US government to intervene around the globe….
Instead of wasting trillions of dollars and millions of lives fighting a war on terror, the US should be mobilizing to combat climate change….
Climate-related disasters have killed more Americans from flooding and wildfires than the 2,996 people who died in the 9/11 attacks….
EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2021-11-09 06:51:432021-11-09 06:51:43Brown University Researcher: ‘Instead of fighting a war on terror, U.S. should be mobilizing to combat climate change’
![The Democrats ‘Green New [Very Bad] Deal’ Is a Complete Sham thumbnail](https://143isp3taqkd16faanpgvjpy-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/greennewdeal-e1637327653624.jpg)
![America Finally Admits Recycling Doesn’t Work [+Video] thumbnail](https://143isp3taqkd16faanpgvjpy-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/recycling-doesnt-work.jpg)
