Interactive Calculator Shows How Cutting Carbon Emissions Would Barely Budge Temperatures thumbnail

Interactive Calculator Shows How Cutting Carbon Emissions Would Barely Budge Temperatures

/in , , , , /by

By Kevin Dayaratna

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

Editors’ Note: We don’t think the connection between CO2 and “global warming” has been established. However, even if you assume the theory, and use their own models, the destruction of our standard of living by environmental zealots does not substantially change future temperatures. Then why the continued force-feeding of their agenda? Because it gives the government and the elites control over every aspect of our lives and forces us to act on a lie. This is essential to establish the totalitarian state that deep environmentalists yearn for.

Ever since the start of Joe Biden’s presidency, curbing climate change has been a fundamental component of his energy policy agenda.

During the spring, for example, the Biden administration issued a power plant rule­­, imposing strict emissions reductions regarding the use of fossil-fuel power plants. There have been many other rules proposed as well, including regulating cars, stoves, dishwashers, water heaters, and even microwaves.

All of these rules are predicated on concerns about the effects of greenhouse gas emissions on global temperatures and climate change. If greenhouse gas emissions drive climate change, then curbing the use of sources of energy that emit them (such as coal, oil, and natural gas) should in theory curb these increases in global temperature.

However, lawmakers often present policies aimed at curbing climate change only in terms of greenhouse-gas emissions reductions. For example, the recent rule the Biden administration issued on electric vehicles claims it will reduce greenhouse gases by 7.2 billion tons through 2055.

This figure sounds large, but it’s surprisingly deceptive: A key unanswered question is the actual temperature impact of these and other related policies.

The predicted temperature impact of these and other policies hinges on a number of assumptions that affect our ever-changing climate. 

That’s why we have created The Heritage Foundation Climate Calculator, an online tool that enables the public to change some of the assumptions to simulate the climate effects of these policies to reduce carbon emissions. (The libertarian Cato Institute had a similar tool in the 2010s.)

The calculator is based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Model for Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Induced Climate Change.   

As the documentation illustrates, there are myriad assumptions regarding climate in this model. Our calculator focuses on allowing the user to play with two key assumptions:

  1. Climate sensitivity
  2. Level of emissions reduction

Scientists generally agree that the earth warms as carbon dioxide emissions increase. The real question, then, is to what degree (no pun intended).

Climate sensitivity measures how much the earth’s temperature will warm as a result of a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. Climate scientists’ estimates of climate sensitivity vary greatly, partly because the physical interactions between carbon dioxide and temperatures are not fully understood.

The level of emissions reductions is the percentage of CO2 emissions that lawmakers would seek to reduce with respect to current emissions. The methodology explained below contains full details.

The simulations presented in this calculator allow user-selected climate sensitivities between 2 and 5 degrees, stated as the “very likely” range of climate sensitivity, according the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report, encompassing the “likely” range of 2.5 to 4 degrees.

Although empirical evidence comparing observations to predictions suggests that sensitivities toward the lower end of these ranges may indeed be more plausible, The Heritage Foundation Climate Calculator allows users to decide which climate sensitivity they would like to assume and how steep the reductions in fossil fuel use they’d like to see.

For example, what if lawmakers wanted to reduce carbon emissions by 40% starting this year? Assuming a 3-degree sensitivity (the middle of the IPCC’s range of sensitivities), there would be about a 0.036 degree Celsius reduction by 2050 and 0.070 degree Celsius decline by 2100.

What about the European Union, again assuming 3.5 degree Celsius sensitivity and 40% reductions? It’s even more trifling—less than 0.019 degree Celsius temperature reduction by 2050 and 0.037 degree Celsius temperature decline in 2100.

Even assuming the most aggressive policy imaginable (100% reductions) and the IPCC’s worst-case scenario regarding climate sensitivity (5 degrees sensitivity), The Heritage Foundation Climate Calculator shows that if the U.S. were to completely eliminate use of fossil fuels, there would be less than 0.23 degree Celsius global temperature reduction by 2100.

If the EU were to do so, the impact would be even more trifling—less than 0.13 degree Celsius global temperature reduction.

These are just a few of the scenarios that one can simulate using The Heritage Foundation Climate Calculator.

We encourage you to play with the calculator and tweak assumptions yourself. The results will speak for themselves: Regardless of the assumptions made using this government model, the climate effects of carbon reduction policies are slim to none.

Don’t be deceived: Emissions reductions that lawmakers claim to be large in quantity will fail to produce meaningful temperature reductions and strengthen China, while Beijing continues to pump out greenhouse gases in much larger quantities than the rest of the world.

*****

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

TAKE ACTION

The Prickly Pear’s TAKE ACTION focus this year is to help achieve a winning 2024 national and state November 5th election with the removal of the Biden/Obama leftist executive branch disaster, win one U.S. Senate seat, maintain and win strong majorities in all Arizona state offices on the ballot and to insure that unrestricted abortion is not constitutionally embedded in our laws and culture.

Please click the TAKE ACTION link to learn to do’s and don’ts for voting in 2024. Our state and national elections are at great risk from the very aggressive and radical leftist Democrat operatives with documented rigging, mail-in voter fraud and illegals voting across the country (yes, with illegals voting across the country) in the last several election cycles.

Read Part 1 and Part 2 of The Prickly Pear essays entitled How NOT to Vote in the November 5, 2024 Election in Arizona to be well informed of the above issues and to vote in a way to ensure the most likely chance your vote will be counted and counted as you intend.

Please click the following link to learn more.

China and India Report Record Coal Production

/in , , , , /by

By Duggan Flanakin

Estimated Reading Time: 4 minutes

Editors Note: We find it amazing that US policymakers and environmental zealots keep pushing Net Zero policies on America but seem to forget entirely what China and India are doing. The same goes for many coal-using European countries. If you buy into the theory of “global warming,” why are restrictive policies placed selectively and a blind eye turned to the rest of the world? Does global temperature care where the C02 comes from? Well, we don’t buy into the theory, but even if one does, the sacrifice the US is making means nothing if India and China continue using coal at record tonnage. Either environmental policy makers are glaringly ignorant or they are deliberately out to harm the industrial capacity of the US and the economic security of its people.  Neither alternative is cause for comfort.  It is either willful ignorance or malicious intent.  Your pick.

Back in April, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a new final rule that will force U.S. coal-fired power plants to install carbon capture systems or shut down operations. The rule is a key part of President Biden’s pledge to eliminate all energy sources that emit carbon dioxide by 2035 in the electricity sector and by 2050 for home heating, steel production, and all other uses.

But, as Tsvetana Paraskova reported in May, the Biden Administration plan faces insurmountable problems, given that fossil fuels still provide 60 percent of total U.S. electricity generation. Coal’s share has fallen to 16 percent, while natural gas accounts for 43 percent. Coal-fired power generation is highest during summer heatwaves when wind power is intermittent. Thus, coal still supplies more electric power than wind (11 percent), hydropower (6 percent), or solar (4 percent).

The push seeks to eradicate not just coal but all fossil fuels from American society. The fly in Biden’s ointment is more like the elephant in a tiny room. Around the world, countries large and small are far more concerned about providing energy and electricity for their citizens than pursuing a fearmonger-led “crusade” to rid the planet of life-giving carbon dioxide.

Here at home, five states – North Dakota, Missouri, Kentucky, Wyoming, and West Virginia — still rely on coal for more than half their electricity generation. Data centers, artificial intelligence, and electric vehicles are using greater and greater shares of existing power, taxing utilities struggling to keep energy supply at levels sufficient to meet energy demand.

Over in Europe, where official enthusiasm for ending fossil fuels has at times surpassed that of America’s, even Germany has reopened a coal-fired power plant, and other European countries are pondering their own need for alternatives to Russian natural gas. EU lignite production dropped to 240 megatons in 2020 from over 300 megatons in the 2010s.

Four EU countries mine hard coal, led by Poland and Germany, with annual production at about 150 megatons a year in the recent past. Coal still provides 70 percent of Poland’s electric power, while coal’s share in Germany is well above 25 percent. Coal provides about 11 percent of Russia’s electricity, making it the world’s fifth-largest consumer of coal.

Prior to invading Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin had announced a new national goal to achieve net zero carbon dioxide by 2060 – long after the West’s self-imposed deadline. Other nations outside the globalist cabal based in Doha and Brussels (and Washington, DC) are even less inclined to end coal production; India and China, notably, are moving in the other direction.

Back in April, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi was overjoyed to report that his nation had produced over 1 billion metric tons of coal and lignite in the 2023-24 fiscal year, at nearly 100 million tons more than in 2022-23. Modi, whose nation still needs a lot more electric power to meet its first-world goals, lauded the production as “a remarkable feat and a historic milestone toward self-reliance” in a vital sector.

A new report from the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA) and the Global Energy Monitor (GEM) says that coal power plant permitting, construction starts, and new project announcements accelerated dramatically in China in 2022, with new permits reaching the highest level since 2015. China’s coal power capacity starting construction was six times as large as that in the rest of the world combined.

National Public Radio’s Julia Simon reports that China’s heat waves increased demand for air conditioning and dried up rivers, forcing Chinese hydropower facilities to shut down. Aiqun Yu, co-author of the CREA-GEM report, noted that high prices for liquefied natural gas due to the Russia-Ukraine war led another Chinese province to turn to coal.

The CREA-GEM report somewhat greenwashes China’s commitment to coal, claiming that the “massive additions of new coal-fired capacity don’t necessarily mean that coal use or CO2 emissions from the power sector will increase in China.” After all, China is also building wind, solar, and nuclear energy facilities, and President Xi has “pledged that China would reduce coal consumption in the 2026-2030 period.”

This, the authors said apologetically, “would mean a declining utilization rate” rather than continued growth in coal-fired power generation. Surely, they say without words, China will phase out these expensive new coal plants within the next eight years. And pigs fly.

Still, the CREA-GEM team found it necessary to include some “policy recommendations” to instruct President Xi in how to stay in the good graces of the Net Zero overlords. First, they said China must impose strict controls on new coal power capacity and reject or revoke permits to projects not necessary for “supporting grid stability” or “supporting the integration of variable renewable energy.”

Way back in 2020, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres told India it should commit to carbon neutrality by ending fossil fuel subsidies and investing in solar power. Claiming that investing in coal is “bad economics,” Guterres said India can only become a “true global superpower in the fight against climate change if it speeds up its shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy.”

Did Prime Minister Modi bow and scrape to Guterres?

Guterres, in the same year, went all the way to Beijing to “urge” China to stop funding coal projects because (OMG!) the Paris climate agreement goals will slip out of reach without China’s cooperation. There, too, he begged the “economic superpower” to genuflect, whispering that “the way in which China restores growth will have a major impact on whether we can keep 1.5C within reach” in the post-pandemic world (spoken at the height of the pandemic!).

Was President Xi so flattered by the former Prime Minister of Portugal that he immediately stopped all future plans for new coal-fired power plants in China?

Back in November 2021, forty-something countries, including coal-reliant Poland, Vietnam, and Chile, all committed to shift away from coal. The U.S. and 19 other nations would only pledge to end public financing for “unabated” fossil fuel projects abroad by the end of 2022.

What would happen if only the West and its friends abandoned fossil fuels?

*****

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

TAKE ACTION

The Prickly Pear’s TAKE ACTION focus this year is to help achieve a winning 2024 national and state November 5th election with the removal of the Biden/Obama leftist executive branch disaster, win one U.S. Senate seat, maintain and win strong majorities in all Arizona state offices on the ballot and to insure that unrestricted abortion is not constitutionally embedded in our laws and culture.

Please click the TAKE ACTION link to learn to do’s and don’ts for voting in 2024. Our state and national elections are at great risk from the very aggressive and radical leftist Democrat operatives with documented rigging, mail-in voter fraud and illegals voting across the country (yes, with illegals voting across the country) in the last several election cycles.

Read Part 1 and Part 2 of The Prickly Pear essays entitled How NOT to Vote in the November 5, 2024 Election in Arizona to be well informed of the above issues and to vote in a way to ensure the most likely chance your vote will be counted and counted as you intend.

Please click the following link to learn more.

New EPA Rule Is a Death Sentence for American Energy thumbnail

New EPA Rule Is a Death Sentence for American Energy

/in , , , , , , /by

By The Daily Signal

The Environmental Protection Agency plays judge, jury, and executioner—and its newest-issued rule is a death sentence to American energy and energy-producing states.

Meanwhile, states like Pennsylvania, which will be disproportionately harmed by the rule because of our abundant natural gas production, hold the key to America’s increasing energy needs, generating immense economic development and reducing the very emissions targeted by this heavy-handed agency.

The EPA unilaterally issued a final rule establishing draconian emission standards that target existing coal and new natural gas power plants nationwide. It requires 90% carbon capture for power-generating facilities by 2032.

Aside from its questionable legality, the new rule is unfeasible. The EPA proposed impossible standards. Current carbon-capture technology—a water- and energy-intensive process that filters and sequesters emissions—neither meets this standard nor projects to do so in the next decade.

Research suggests that current technology could achieve, at best, 10% capture, which still doesn’t factor in the immense implementation costs. No utility-scale natural gas carbon capture plant exists today, so forcing a transition to nonexistent technology within a decade is unreasonable.

This egregious federal overreach will not stand in court. In West Virginia v. EPA, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the agency lacked the legal authority to devise such emissions caps. As the current legal challenge works through the courts, our highest court will likely strike down this new rule, too.

National energy forecasts show rising demand with a plummeting capacity for our existing energy infrastructure to deliver. Because of bad policies in the name of climate radicalism, early retirements of fossil fuel-based power-generating facilities are already catapulting us to an electrical grid reliability crisis. Meanwhile, utility bills increase as power generators chase federal subsidies to overbuild unreliable, weather-dependent wind- and solar-based electrical generation facilities.

Because of this, two-thirds of the United States risks major blackouts in the next few years. Yet, the EPA doesn’t consider grid reliability when creating its regulations, much less safeguard it.

Per agency protocol, the EPA “does not conduct operational reliability studies,” meaning the agency ignores the widening gap between supply and demand.

The failure to defend grid reliability is a recipe for disaster.

Unfortunately, disaster has already struck. In 2022, a winter storm in Texas caused 4.5 million people to lose power, killing 246 people who couldn’t heat their homes in subzero temperatures. Increased capacity—namely, more natural gas pipelines—could have saved lives in Texas. The North American Electric Reliability Corp. warned lawmakers that the lack of pipelines and infrastructure leaves the country susceptible to similar tragedies.

Natural gas remains the most economically feasible option to meet that demand in time. (Meanwhile, work must continue to leverage other energy sources, such as nuclear, to accommodate our growing need for baseload power, which is the minimum amount needed to maintain and power our grid.)

To understand the benefits of natural gas, Pennsylvania, the second-largest producer of natural gas and the largest energy exporter in the nation, provides ample evidence.

In the last two decades, the Keystone State’s energy generation sector has increased energy production and reduced emissions—all thanks to natural gas.

The share of Pennsylvania’s electricity production that comes from natural gas increased from 5% in 2005 to 59% in 2022. During that same period, overall energy production emissions dropped 46%, including the most significant year-over-year decline on record.

Transitioning to natural gas proved to be a boon to public health in Pennsylvania. This transition removed about 12.5 million tons of nitrogen and sulfur oxides—emissions associated with respiratory ailments like asthma, pneumonia, bronchitis, and lung cancer.

Using the EPA’s methodology for quantifying the health impact of removing these emissions from the atmosphere, Pennsylvania’s increased use of natural gas yielded between $450 billion and $1.04 trillion in public health benefits for residents.

Despite natural gas’ benefits, Pennsylvania still endures the same worrisome trend of pernicious eco-fundamentalist policies. Pennsylvania lawmakers flirt with onerous “cap and trade” schemes, such as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative or the newly proposed Pennsylvania Climate Emissions Reduction Initiative. By slapping a carbon tax on energy production, these two initiatives guarantee increased utility bills for inflation-weary Pennsylvanians.

The EPA’s rule is like these initiatives on steroids. The rule will not only lead to blackouts and brownouts nationwide but also will force the economies of energy-producing states to forego supporting—and benefiting from—our ever-growing energy demands.

Instead, policymakers must remove the regulatory barriers that hamstring energy-producing states and prevent the energy industry from providing reliable, clean power.

Moreover, Congress must advance the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act, a policy supported by 68% of Americans, to boost accountability and transparency with federal regulators. The act would require Congress to approve administrative rules that would have significant financial impacts before they could take effect.

A future without fossil fuel-generated power is a myth. Almost 80% of the world’s energy comes from fossil fuel sources. Rather than obstruct clean, reliable energy, the EPA must allow natural gas to light the way to American energy independence.

AUTHORS

Andre Beliveau

André Béliveau is the senior manager of energy policy at the Commonwealth Foundation, Pennsylvania’s free-market think tank. On X: @therealbeliveau.

Amy Cooke

Amy O. Cooke is president and chairwoman of the Board of Always on Energy Research. On X: @TheRightAOC.

Chinese Building Is Globalists’ Dystopian Dream for Us All

/in , , , , /by

By Catherine Salgado

Estimated Reading Time: 2 minutes

Globalists like the World Economic Forum (WEF) have a dream to force all of us peasants to live in 15 minute cities—in fact, such experiments have already been launched in Tempe, Arizona, and Oxford, England. You will have your tiny apartment, stores, restaurants, all within a short walk of your home—and George Orwell would tell you to run in the other direction.

A recent article (see below) describes the Chinese version of this dystopia, with everything in one building. By the way, when the article praises how “swanky” the building is, take it with a grain of salt—in China, infrastructure is consistently badly built and the quality is always exaggerated. But even if the buildings were wonderful, happiness isn’t just in having material necessities. Freedom is key.

There’s a reason humans have always romanticized pastoral life, why owning land was a wealth symbol, and why the American dream used to be owning property. Freedom and the space to exercise it—those are things that the Chinese building doesn’t have, and that’s why it’s a dystopian nightmare instead of a utopian paradise.

“[Climate Depot] Thousands of people live in one of China’s largest apartment block which is so well equipped residents never actually have to leave.

This company is able to provide residents with everything they need, so they never have to go outside again…Would that be a utopian dream or a dystopian nightmare?

It seems at least 20,000 people are living that reality regardless in one of China’s largest buildings…[facilities include] a massive food court, barber shops, nail salons, medium-sized supermarkets, swimming pools, and even internet cafes….And if you’re curious about how much it costs to live here, small apartments without windows (yes, you read that correctly) usually go for around 1,500 RMB per month ($210), according to local news outlets.

Meanwhile, some of the larger properties with balconies are on the market for 4,000 RMB per month ($570).”

Note the without windows option. The average monthly salary in China is reportedly around $1300, so $570 a month rent for a windowed apartment isn’t chump change.

Unfortunately, if the Democrats and their globalist buddies get their way, this building plan could be coming soon to a town near you…

*****

Catherine Salgado is an accomplished writer and investigative reporter who publishes daily in her Substack column, Pro Deo et Libertate (For God and Liberty). This superb column provides news and opinion pieces from an honest, common-sense perspective in the spheres of culture, politics, liberal arts, and religion. The Prickly Pear is grateful for her permission to reproduce her public writings and recommends that our readers subscribe to Catherine’s superb Substack column. Please consider a paid subscription for full access to all of her excellent and informative writings.

Follow Catherine Salgado on X (@CatSalgado32). 

Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons

TAKE ACTION

The Prickly Pear’s TAKE ACTION focus this year is to help achieve a winning 2024 national and state November 5th election with the removal of the Biden/Obama leftist executive branch disaster, win one U.S. Senate seat, maintain and win strong majorities in all Arizona state offices on the ballot and to insure that unrestricted abortion is not constitutionally embedded in our laws and culture.

Please click the TAKE ACTION link to learn to do’s and don’ts for voting in 2024. Our state and national elections are at great risk from the very aggressive and radical leftist Democrat operatives with documented rigging, mail-in voter fraud and illegals voting across the country (yes, with illegals voting across the country) in the last several election cycles.

Read Part 1 and Part 2 of The Prickly Pear essays entitled How NOT to Vote in the November 5, 2024 Election in Arizona to be well informed of the above issues and to vote in a way to ensure the most likely chance your vote will be counted and counted as you intend.

Please click the following link to learn more.

TAKE ACTION AGAINST: Bidenflation and Broke America — Sinking Hearts and Pocketbooks thumbnail

TAKE ACTION AGAINST: Bidenflation and Broke America — Sinking Hearts and Pocketbooks

/in , , , , , , , /by

By ACT For America!

Biden’s War on Energy and Its Catastrophic Impact on America

TAKE ACTION TO MAKE ENERGY AFFORDABLE AGAIN!

Biden’s war on energy is a war on the lower and middle class, who are always the first to feel the pain of high gas prices and the inevitable inflation that follows.

Fox Business reports, “Biden touts cooling inflation, but prices are up nearly 20% since 2021,” compared to the low of 1.4% when Biden first took office. Americans spend over $1,000 more monthly, $12,800 more annually, on necessities than 3 years ago.

The surging prices Americans face at the pump are a direct result of Biden and the Leftists’ unprecedented war on American energy, initiated on his first day in office, including the radical Green New Deal agenda. By 2022, the national average for a gallon of gas exceeded $5 for the first time in history.

By catering to this radical fringe, Biden has turned his back on lower and middle-class Americans, ALL AMERICANS, diminishing their ability to afford housing, groceries, gas, and medicine.

It seems the LEFT isn’t content with just waging an energy war—they’re now launching a full-scale burger war, targeting the fast-food industry while pushing for the consumption of lab-grown meat and insects.

In California, Governor Gavin Newsom, with a stroke of the pen, killed 10,000 jobs overnight with his minimum wage increase, combined with soaring food prices that have devastated many fast-food chains.

Bidenomics is national suicide, jeopardizing the health and survivability of major contributors to the US economy and threatening the job security of millions of Americans! Restaurants alone employed 7.2 million and generated $464 billion in revenue in 2023.

Anyone with a basic understanding of economics understands that policies eroding energy security and punishing fossil fuels would cause prices, and therefore inflation, to soar, impacting certain industries faster and more devastatingly. So why enact policies targeting and discriminating against a vital industry on which lower and middle-class Americans and communities rely?

Considering that 63% of restaurant owners polled preferred a Republican-controlled Congress, despite half identifying as Democrats or Independents, it raises questions. In April 2023, a survey determined that U.S. adults were dining out less than they had six months prior. When looking at the frequency of dining out compared to six months ago, 55% of U.S. adults claimed they were eating out less at full-service restaurants, and 45% claimed they were eating out less at fast food restaurants.

Bidenflation has caused the price for fast food favorites to skyrocket:

  • McDonald’s Medium French Fries is UP 167.6%
  • McDonald’s Big Mac Meal is UP 103.5%
  • McDonald’s 10 Piece Chicken McNuggets Meal is UP 95.5%
  • McDonald’s Hamburger Happy Meal is UP 140.6%
  • McDonald’s 4 Piece Chicken McNuggets Happy Meal is UP 97.3%
  • Taco Bell’s Cheesy Gordita Crunch is UP 111.5%
  • Taco Bell’s Nachos Bell Grande Combo is UP 77.0%
  • Taco Bell’s Beefy 5-Layer Burrito is UP 153.8%
  • Chick-fil-A’s Chicken Sandwich Combo is UP 94.8%
  • Chick-fil-A’s 8 Piece Nuggets is UP 98.2%

Join us in saving America from national suicide caused by Bidenflation!

TAKE ACTION TO MAKE ENERGY AFFORDABLE AGAIN!

Conservatives have always fought for fiscal responsibility and policies that lift all Americans out of poverty to experience the American dream. Tragically, Americans nationwide now face the harsh reality of choosing between eating and filling up their cars with gas, foregoing medicines to pay bills, and depleting their savings or going into debt to pay rent or mortgages.

Biden refuses to take responsibility for destroying our economy and the quality of life of 73% of America’s working class, choosing to blame “greed” and business owners struggling to survive! Shame!

The fastest way to combat soaring inflation is to unleash the power of Trump-era 100% Energy Independence, which would drop gas prices and keep more money in taxpayers’ pockets overnight!

RELATED VIDEO: U.S. Job Gains Are Not Going to American Workers | TIPPING POINT

EDITORS NOTE: This ACT for America column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Red-state AGs Sue Blue States For Imposing Climate Extremism Everywhere thumbnail

Red-state AGs Sue Blue States For Imposing Climate Extremism Everywhere

/in , , , , /by

By Bonner Cohen

Editors’ Note: For the moment, we will put the questionable science and impractical assertions of the environmental lobby aside. What we see here is another expansion of lawfare, the use of law and the courts to obtain a political or social outcome without the consent of the people or their representatives. It is profoundly undemocratic. In this case, some “progressive” states wish to impose their will on other states so now we will have lawfare among the states. This is not a good development. Secondly, we have a small handful of blue states that could substantially lower the standard of living of the entire nation, endanger national defense, and twist the law into a punitive initiative against corporations conducting perfectly legal business. Again, all of this is done by a small minority of states wishing to get their way without the consent of the people. Bully for the Red State AGs fighting back. It is too bad Arizona has an AG not only sitting this fight out, but actively pursuing her own lawfare agenda against those who want election integrity.

A coalition of 19 state attorneys general, led by Steve Marshall of Alabama, is suing five other states — California, Connecticut, Minnesota, New Jersey and Rhode Island — saying the latter group’s litigation seeking billions of dollars in damages from fossil-fuel companies for their role in the alleged “climate crisis” would undermine U.S. energy security and jeopardize the livelihoods of Americans.

In their May 23 complaint filed with the U.S. Supreme Court, these red-state attorneys general assert that California and its climate allies “are threatening to weaken our national energy system through tort litigation under their state laws and in their state courts.” They add that “attempts by defendant states to impose liability or obtain equitable relief from energy companies for emissions by or in plaintiff states (including by targeting protected speech) is unconstitutional and beyond the competence of defendants to prosecute.”

Far more than a mere shakedown of energy companies by avaricious blue states, the attack on fossil-fuel producers is a scheme to use state tort laws and state courts to regulate out-of-state emissions and thus control energy use nationwide. Rhode Island, for example, seeks compensatory damages for harm from “dire climate-related effects” from certain greenhouse-gas emissions. It doesn’t matter whether emissions come from blue states, Alabama, or across the planet. “The effects are all the same and, as a result, they are seeking to punish energy companies for selling their products anywhere,” the lawsuit argues.

And it’s not just the companies that will bear the brunt of the punishment.

“The theory advanced by these states is truly radical. A small gas station in rural Alabama could owe money to the people of Minnesota simply for selling a gallon of gas. The customer might even be liable, too,” Alabama’s Marshall said in a statement. “These states are welcome to enforce their preferred policies within their jurisdiction, but they do not have the authority to dictate our national energy policy.”

“If the Supreme Court lets them continue, California and its allies will imperil access to affordable energy for every American,” Marshall added. “That would threaten our national security and harm millions of Americans already struggling to pay for gas and groceries. To protect Alabama citizens and constitutional order, we had no choice but to sue.”

The reference to the Constitution is crucial to getting the Supreme Court to step in and put an end to the blue states’ extraterritorial power grab. “While the Constitution preserves as expansive realm of state sovereignty, that authority ends at each state’s borders,” Marshall wrote in The Wall Street Journal. “Alabama doesn’t get to say what law applies to California, and Hawaii can’t regulate conduct in Indiana.”

The case, Alabama v. California, is the latest legal skirmish pitting blue jurisdictions seeking to impose their energy policies on the rest of the nation against red states and fossil-fuel producers opposing those efforts.

Dozens of lawsuits against oil and gas companies (many of them funded by the Rockefeller Family Fund) have been filed in state courts in the last few years. They claim that the companies have violated a variety of state laws, including statutes covering consumer protection, nuisance, failure to warn, fraud, and racketeering — all related to the companies’ emissions of greenhouse gases. In addition to states cited in Alabama v. California, jurisdictions suing the oil and gas companies include Massachusetts, New York, the cities of Chicago, Honolulu, New York, and Boulder, Colo., along with several Native American tribes.

Knowing that climate-obsessed jurisdictions are relishing the home-court advantage provided by state courts, the fossil-fuel companies — now joined by the 19 red-state attorneys general — want the proceedings shifted to federal courts.

So far, their efforts have fallen short. In April 2023, for example, the Supreme Court declined an appeal by ExxonMobil and other oil companies to move most of the cases filed against them from state to federal court. If the Supreme Court continues to remain aloof, these cases — beginning with Massachusetts — will go to trial in a few months, kicking off litigation that could last for years.

All this comes amid mounting concerns over how the nation is to meet its growing energy needs at a time when the Biden administration, deep-blue jurisdiction, and deep-pocketed foundations are undertaking a concerted effort to block access to affordable and reliable energy.

The vaunted (and heavily taxpayer-funded) transition to green energy is colliding headlong with developments that this elite-driven agenda did not foresee. They include consumers shunning EVs, local resistance to wind and solar plantations, threats to grid stability caused by increased reliance on intermittent renewable energy, soaring household energy costs, and skyrocketing demand for power by proliferating, energy-hungry, artificial intelligence-driven data centers.

Another way to put this is to say that the blue states’ assault on the nation’s energy security could not have come at a worse time.

*****

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

TAKE ACTION

The Prickly Pear’s TAKE ACTION focus this year is to help achieve a winning 2024 national and state November 5th election with the removal of the Biden/Obama leftist executive branch disaster, win one U.S. Senate seat, maintain and win strong majorities in all Arizona state offices on the ballot and to insure that unrestricted abortion is not constitutionally embedded in our laws and culture.

Please click the TAKE ACTION link to learn to do’s and don’ts for voting in 2024. Our state and national elections are at great risk from the very aggressive and radical leftist Democrat operatives with documented rigging, mail-in voter fraud and illegals voting across the country (yes, with illegals voting across the country) in the last several election cycles.

Read Part 1 and Part 2 of The Prickly Pear essays entitled How NOT to Vote in the November 5, 2024 Election in Arizona to be well informed of the above issues and to vote in a way to ensure the most likely chance your vote will be counted and counted as you intend.

Please click the following link to learn more.

AWED MEDIA BALANCED NEWS: Welcome! We cover COVID to Climate, as well as Energy to Elections. thumbnail

AWED MEDIA BALANCED NEWS: Welcome! We cover COVID to Climate, as well as Energy to Elections.

/in , , , , , , , /by

By John Droz, Jr.

Welcome! We cover COVID to Climate, as well as Energy to Elections.

Here is the link for this issue, so please share it on social media.

Checkout the 2024, 2023, 2022, & 2021 archives, plus asterisked items below.

— This Newsletter’s Articles, by Topic —

If You Only Have Time to Read Some Select Articles:

*** We Have Been Subverted (Ayaan Hirsi Ali)

*** Party Platform Comparison 2020-2024

*** I Refuse to Stand By While My Students are Indoctrinated

*** Shall I Compare New Jersey’s Curriculum to a Summer’s Day?

*** I’ve taught civics for decades. Our kids have lost faith in our nation

*** How Academic Saboteurs Dupe College Students into Activism

*** The NAIA’s Transgender-Athletes Policy Is a Triumph

*** Mark Mills: The “Energy Transition” Won’t Happen

*** Vaclav Smil Calls Bullshit On Net Zero

*** Energy is the most important issue in the world (Ayaan Hirsi Ali)

*** Shanghaied

*** Irrational Transition

*** EVs, wind, and solar are neither reliable nor environmentally friendly: here’s why

*** Solar and Wind Resource Availability Fatal Flaw

*** Anatomy of an EV Policy Error

*** Short video: Judith Curry — Climate Scientists Can’t Intimidate Me

*** Study confirms reports on declining climate disasters

*** The Cost of EPA’s Senseless CO₂ Capture

*** John Stossel: Pushing Back Against Environmental Scaremongering

*** Numbers Behind the Narrative: What Climate Science Actually Says

*** Casinos, Vacant Lots, Gas Stations, Strip Clubs, etc. on Nevada’s Voter Roll

*** Video: Journalist who broke Hunter Biden laptop bombshell speaks out

*** The Sorcerer’s Apprentices

*** Trust The “Science”…That Just Retracted 11,000 “Peer Reviewed” Papers

*** Why Most People Can’t Think Critically Since COVID

*** Dr. McCormick Grills Fauci on Audio of Him Discussing Vaccine Requirements

*** WHO pandemic treaty defeated, at least for now

*** HUGE COVID Legal Victory – HFDF Wins Appeal in Ninth Circuit

*** Dr. Kory’s Expert Testimony for Dr. Mary Talley Bowden Against the Texas Medical Board

*** Trump NY Trial Commentary

*** Trump Verdict Makes NYC ‘Venezuela-on-the-Hudson’

*** Never Surrender

*** 35 and a Citizen

*** NY v. Trump: Judge reveals Facebook post implying juror discussed guilty verdict with family ahead of time

Secondary Education Related:

*** Report: The Key to Fixing the US Education System

*** I Refuse to Stand By While My Students are Indoctrinated

*** Shall I Compare New Jersey’s Curriculum to a Summer’s Day?

*** I’ve taught civics for decades. Our kids have lost faith in our nation

In Portland (OR), the Islamic Revolution Begins in Kindergarten

Silicon Valley School District Prepares ‘Anti-Racist and Anti-Oppressive’ Curriculum Makeover

Welcome to the ‘Parent Revolution’

Higher Education Related:

*** How Academic Saboteurs Dupe College Students into Activism

*** The NAIA’s Transgender-Athletes Policy Is a Triumph

Yale wants science profs to ‘promote DEI through teaching

University of Arizona’s DEI Boondoggle Tells Students to ‘Live Like a Bug’

Penn creates climate change vice provost role

NC lawmaker fights student-loan scheme

Artificial Intelligence:

Cyberscammers use AI to manipulate Google search results

Beyond Mad Max with Dystopian AI

Technocrats at OpenAI in ‘Reckless’ Race For Dominance

Greed Energy Economics:

“Offshore Wind Needs Bigger Subsidies”

Wind Subsidies Are Rising…but wind power production isn’t rising with them

Unreliables (General):

*** Shanghaied

*** Irrational Transition

*** EVs, wind, and solar are neither reliable nor environmentally friendly: here’s why

The Foundation of Property Rights: Where There Is No Law, There Is No Freedom

Private Property Rights

Wind Energy — Offshore:

*** Report: Offshore Wind Power (Dr. Michael Hogan)

*** The renewable green energy disaster off the northeastern US is getting worse Less than one per cent of the way to the Biden 2030 target

Offshore Wind Industry Braces for More Turbulence—and Trump

Wind Energy — Other:

*** Taking the Wind Out of Climate Change (referencing 60± studies)

*** Wind Turbines = Enormous “Unintended” Consequences

Australia has World Class windless weather: Today 95% of wind turbines are failing

Solar Energy:

*** Solar and Wind Resource Availability Fatal Flaw

As Solar Power Surges, U.S. Wind Is in Trouble

Fossil Fuel Energy:

*** Senator Tuberville, Colleagues Propose Measure to Halt Regulation on American Power Plants

China, India Break Coal Production Records

Electric Vehicles (EVs):

*** Anatomy of an EV Policy Error

*** 3 Reasons There’s Something Sinister With the Big Push for Electric Vehicles

Electric Vehicles Have a New Problem: Careening Through Guardrails

Federal and Provincial Largess for EV and Ford’s Ontario Plant’s EV Delays

Turns Out Those ‘All-Electric’ ‘Zero Emissions’ Fire Trucks Have Diesel Engines

Misc Energy:

*** Mark Mills: The “Energy Transition” Won’t Happen

*** Vaclav Smil Calls Bullshit On Net Zero

*** Energy is the most important issue in the world (Ayaan Hirsi Ali)

Net-Zero Push and its Offshoots by Politicians and Bureaucrats Creates Strange Happenings Part 1

Manmade Global Warming — Some Deceptions:

*** Short video: Judith Curry — Climate Scientists Can’t Intimidate Me

*** Study confirms reports on declining climate disasters

Exxon Mobil Takes On Climate Extremists

We can still avoid the Net Zero trap

“Bonus” Gets it wrong about May and Crok, 2024

Manmade Global Warming — Misc:

*** The Cost of EPA’s Senseless CO₂ Capture

*** John Stossel: Pushing Back Against Environmental Scaremongering

*** Numbers Behind the Narrative: What Climate Science Actually Says

*** Who is Winning the Climate Change War?

*** It’s Time to Make a Strategic PR Pivot in Dealing with the Climate Change Issue

New Zealand takes axe to climate policies

Getting Ready For The European Elections

Home insulation is the latest net zero farce

US Election:

Election-Integrity.info (10 major election reports by our team of experts, plus much more!)

*** Party Platform Comparison 2020-2024

Dr. Walter Daugherity: Voting Patterns Observed in 2020 Could Not Have Happened Naturally

US Election — State Issues:

*** Casinos, Vacant Lots, Gas Stations, Strip Clubs, etc. on Nevada’s Voter Roll

RNC Challenges Nevada’s Mail Ballot Counting Practices

How do you Legally Administer and Certify Elections using Uncertifiable Electronic Voting Machines?

Ranked Choice Voting Now Illegal in Louisiana (10th state overall)

NY v Trump Trial:

*** Trump NY Trial Commentary

*** Trump Verdict Makes NYC ‘Venezuela-on-the-Hudson’

*** Never Surrender

*** 35 and a Citizen

*** NY v. Trump: Judge reveals Facebook post implying juror discussed guilty verdict with family ahead of time

The United States Reincarnates Communism and Stalin’s Trials

Dr. Phil Sits Down With President Trump in Exclusive In-Depth Interview

How Trump’s Sham Conviction Awakened a Sleeping Giant

Great Work Democrats – Your Framing Failed

After Trump’s Conviction, What Should Republicans Do?

Misc US Politics:

*** Video: Journalist who broke Hunter Biden laptop bombshell speaks out

Bannon to Jail for Contempt of Congress

Will All Real Republicans Please Speak Up?

Censorship:

We Will Not Be Silenced Trailer  Full Movie

The Rise of the Censorship Industrial Complex

Societally US:

*** We Have Been Subverted (Ayaan Hirsi Ali)

Eight in 10 New York towns and cities have lost population since 2020

Cognitive Warfare, Mental Manipulation, Tyranny of Digital Transformation

Religion Related:

Faith-Based Funding Can Help Protect Democracy

United Methodists Embrace LGBT Ideology: Lose 1 Million Members in a Day

Science:

*** The Sorcerer’s Apprentices

*** Trust The “Science”…That Just Retracted 11,000 “Peer Reviewed” Papers

China’s High-Tech War Steals U.S. Innovation Advantage

Big Science, the Enemy of Great Science

Health:

*** Why Most People Can’t Think Critically Since COVID

*** Dr. McCormick Grills Fauci on Audio of Him Discussing Vaccine Requirements

*** WHO pandemic treaty defeated, at least for now

Climate Policy Should Not Be Used To Determine Limits on Hospital Emissions

Israel/Ukraine:

Pray for the safety of the Israeli people

Latest Developments in Israel

Pray for the safety of the Ukrainian people

A well-rated source to make a Ukraine donation

Latest Developments in Ukraine

COVID-19 — Misc:

*** HUGE COVID Legal Victory – HFDF Wins Appeal in Ninth Circuit

*** Dr. Kory’s Expert Testimony for Dr. Mary Talley Bowden Against the Texas Medical Board

Fauci: “I am a scientist who uses the Scientific Method to gain information.” (!)

Please use social media, etc. to pass on this Newsletter to other open-minded citizens…If you’d like to be added to (or unsubscribe from) the distribution of our popular, free, worldwide Media Balance Newsletter, simply send me an email saying that.

Note 1: We recommend reading the Newsletter on your computer, not your phone, as some documents (e.g., PDFs) are much easier to read on a large computer screen… We’ve tried to use common fonts, etc. to minimize display issues.

Note 2: For past Newsletter issues see the archives from 2021, 2022,  2023 & 2024. To accommodate numerous requests received about prior articles over all thirteen plus years of the Newsletter, we’ve put this together — where you can search ALL prior issues, by year. For a background about how the Newsletter is put together, etc., please read this.

Note 3: See this extensive list of reasonable books on climate change. As a parallel effort, we have also put together a list of some good books related to industrial wind energy. Both topics are also extensively covered on my website: WiseEnergy.org.

Note 4: I am not an attorney or a physician, so no material appearing in any of the Newsletters (or any of my websites) should be construed as giving legal or medical advice. My recommendation has always been: consult a competent, licensed attorney when you are involved with legal issues, and consult a competent physician regarding medical matters.

Copyright © 2024; Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions (see WiseEnergy.org).

Virginia To Exit California EV Mandate By End Of 2024 thumbnail

Virginia To Exit California EV Mandate By End Of 2024

/in , , , , /by

By Gabriella Hoffman

Yesterday, Governor Glenn Youngkin and Attorney General Jason Miyares announced Virginia will exit the California Air Resources Board (CARB)’s Advanced Clean Cars Program (ACC) electric vehicle mandate on December 31, 2024. 

“Once again, Virginia is declaring independence – this time from a misguided electric vehicle mandate imposed by unelected leaders nearly 3,000 miles away from the Commonwealth,” Governor Glenn Youngkin said in a press release. “The idea that government should tell people what kind of car they can or can’t purchase is fundamentally wrong. Virginians deserve the freedom to choose which vehicles best fit the needs of their families and businesses. The law is clear, and I am proud to announce Virginians will no longer be forced to live under this out-of-touch policy.”

In March 2021, Virginia entered the Advanced Clean Cars I (ACC I) iteration of CARB when then-Governor Ralph Northam signed a bill into law initiating membership. This meant that 22% of new cars sold by 2024 must be EVs.Seventeen states—including Virginia—and Washington, D.C. currently adhere to California’s vehicular standards.

A memo from Virginia Secretary of Natural Resources Travis Voyles explained ACC II, adopted after Virginia’s 2021 entry into ACC I, mandates that 35% of new vehicles sold in Virginia, starting with Model Year 2026, be EVs and a failure to comply would incur $20,000 in penalties per car sold—up from the $5,000 penalty under ACC I.

As laid out in the Attorney General’s opinion, Virginia can formally exit the program by year’s end because the Virginia Air Resources Board didn’t adopt ACC II standards.  This means Virginia will solely comply with federal standards—not California’s—starting January 1, 2025.

Under existing CARB ACC II standards, 100% of vehicles sold by 2035 must be EVs. This standard is stricter than the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s finalized tailpipe rule which mandates 67% of new cars sold in 2023 to be electric.

Virginians, like other Americans, aren’t warming up to EV mandates—whether they originate from California or the EPA’s rule for light and medium-duty cars. A January 2024 poll found most Virginia residents—almost 60%—oppose remaining tied to California’s EV mandate. And the Department of Energy reports there are only about 56,000 EVs on the road here in the Old Dominion State.

As I recently noted here at IWF, the Left’s EV agenda—especially on the federal level—has hit major roadblocks.

In 2021, the Federal Highway Administration was given $7.5 billion to construct 500,000 electric vehicle (EV) charging stations by 2030. But only eight have been built as of May 2024.

…

The $7.5 billion grant originates from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law passed in November 2021. $5 billion of that $7.5B reportedly was awarded to “states as ‘formula funding’ for the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure program.”

In November 2023, POLITICO reported that zero charging stations had been built. In March 2024, it was reported that a mere seven charging stations across four states had gone online.

The Golden State and the Biden administration would be wise to pump the brakes on their respective EV mandates. Yet they continue to double down here despite opposition from over 5,000 car dealers and polling consistently showing most Americans aren’t ditching their gas-powered cars for environmentally questionable EV alternatives.

Consumers, including those here in Virginia, should ultimately decide the best cars for them and their families. IWF Center for Energy and Conservation applauds this decision from the Youngkin administration.

*****

This article was published by The Independent Women’s Forum and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

The Prickly Pear’s TAKE ACTION focus this year is to help achieve a winning 2024 national and state November 5th election with the removal of the Biden/Obama leftist executive branch disaster, win one U.S. Senate seat, maintain and win strong majorities in all Arizona state offices on the ballot and to insure that unrestricted abortion is not constitutionally embedded in our laws and culture.

Please click the TAKE ACTION link to learn to do’s and don’ts for voting in 2024. Our state and national elections are at great risk from the very aggressive and radical leftist Democrat operatives with documented rigging, mail-in voter fraud and illegals voting across the country (yes, with illegals voting across the country) in the last several election cycles.

Read Part 1 and Part 2 of The Prickly Pear essays entitled How NOT to Vote in the November 5, 2024 Election in Arizona to be well informed of the above issues and to vote in a way to ensure the most likely chance your vote will be counted and counted as you intend.

Please click the following link to learn more.

It’s Time to Make a Strategic PR Pivot in Dealing with the Climate Change Issue thumbnail

It’s Time to Make a Strategic PR Pivot in Dealing with the Climate Change Issue

/in , , , , /by

By John Droz, Jr.

Nothing short of Traditional Science is at stake here.

This is a follow-up to my post: Who is Winning the Climate Change War?

There have been numerous twists-and-turns regarding the Climate Change/Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) matter over the last 35± years. For those of us immersed in this fight on a daily basis, the danger is that (without periodically stepping back), we can easily lose track of the forest through the trees. Let’s pause for a minute and consider the big picture here…

There are two fundamentally different parts to the AGW fight:

  1. the scientific facts, and
  2. how these facts are communicated to the public.

The latter is Public Relations (PR). The evidence indicates that realists are doing well with #1, but not with #2. The reality is that ultimately this is a PR fight!

Most of the people leading the realists are scientists or other technical experts. Science deals with facts, so most scientists believe that the facts will win the day.

The problem is: that belief is FALSE! Just having the facts will not win a PR fight.

Unless we incorporate sophisticated communication techniques and effective PR strategies, we will lose the AGW war — and that’s the direction we are heading.

Why are we losing this PR war? Because:

a) most scientists are not proficient with communication or PR,

b) the whole AGW issue crept up on us, starting 35± years ago, and from the beginning, no one formulated a communication/PR plan — it just evolved,

c) to date, no one has critically analyzed our AGW communication/PR, and

d) no one has proposed an updated, sophisticated communication/PR plan.

Clearly what’s needed are items “c” and “d”. Ideally, an updated, advanced PR plan will not only be more communicable, but will also put us on stronger, more defendable ground. If nothing else it will be a fresh tactic.

Briefly regarding “c”: to date, we have employed a shotgun strategy — i.e., we have fought the AGW hypothesis on a wide variety of fronts. There are some PR advantages to a shotgun strategy, but it can also run its course and gradually become less effective. That’s where we appear to be today.

An alternative strategy is the rifle tactic. This amounts to a unified approach where we all focus on a narrowly defined target. With everyone aiming at the same vulnerable spot, the chance for success is much better than with a scattershot strategy.

The important question is: what spot should we focus on? There are a few possibilities, but let me recommend one for serious consideration: Scientific protocol.

In other words, rather than debate AGW proponents about the dozens of technical details of the AGW hypothesis (clouds, feedback loops, solar influences, etc., etc.), that instead we zero in on their adherence to traditional scientific methodology.

AGW advocates have NOT followed traditional scientific methodology, and they have used multiple justifications to rationalize their disconnect. For example, they say: a) it’s too time-consuming to follow Science protocol, b) AGW is too complicated to be analyzed by traditional Science, c) AGW is not falsifiable, etc., etc.

All these are debatable excuses, but the REAL reason they object to following traditional scientific methodology, is that it does not support their hypothesis. We should be focused on objecting to this scientific deviance, which is an attempt to disguise the reality that their AGW arguments are scientifically weak.

The Left has become so enthused by their success at disavowing scientific methodology — particularly by the lack of a cohesive response — that they have moved onto the next step: attacking the Scientific Method! For example, the K-12 Science curriculum of 48 states now has scrapped the traditional Scientific Method.

What’s worse is that since this started 10+ years ago, almost no teachers, parents, scientists, conservative organizations, etc. have publicly objected to this. (See my Report that goes into more details about this audacious travesty.)

BTW, note that their calling the Climate matter a “theory” is another of numerous examples where the Left is superior at manipulating the words in the public conversation, but also where they have discarded scientific tradition.

The fact is the AGW matter is a scientific hypothesis, and we should strongly object to it being inappropriately elevated to the status of being a scientific theory.

  1. It’s much easier for citizens and legislators to understand the methodology issue, as compared to the numbing complexities of the AGW hypothesis.
  2. This changes the battlefield to where we have the high ground. It’s irrefutable that alarmists have short-circuited traditional scientific protocol.
  3. This position makes it clearer to our opponents what they need to do to win us over — so they may actually welcome this position.
  4. We won’t know for sure about the AGW facts for 30± years. However, we can be sure about whether AGW advocates followed scientific protocol, today.
  5. We can no longer be labeled as deniers. Our position should be: “I’m 100% open to the possibility that the AGW hypothesis might be true — but I can not accept it until it has been fully and objectively subjected to the rigors of traditional Science.”

An example of how this works is the exchange I had with a climatologist. Here is an article where he makes his Climate claims. Here is my response — which focuses on his departure from traditional science methodology. {Note: he had no rejoinder.]

A suggested soundbite is Science, not Political Science.

Another possible soundbite is: Show me the Science!

For example, what’s going on in our K-12 schools (particularly in Science) is simply atrocious. EVERY YEAR some four million propagandized, non-critical thinking students graduate from US high schools.

The really petrifying part is that these individuals will soon become voting citizens. This represents a tsunami rapidly bearing down on us.

It should be crystal clear that regarding Climate Change and K-12 education, business as usual is the height of folly, if not suicidal.

©2024. John Droz, Jr. All rights reserved.

Here are other materials by this scientist that you might find interesting:

Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.

WiseEnergy.org: discusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.

C19Science.info: covers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.

Election-Integrity.info: multiple major reports on the election integrity issue.

Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from COVID to climate, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2024 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time – but why would you?

Who is Winning the Climate Change War? thumbnail

Who is Winning the Climate Change War?

/in , , , , , /by

By John Droz, Jr.

Also: proof that the Climate and COVID alarmists used the same tactics…

Believe it or not, there is actually disagreement with a few people as to who is winning the Climate Change war: Alarmists or Realists? An accurate response to that question will indicate the best strategy for the Realists (mostly Conservatives) to take today (e.g., active vs passive, aggressive vs laid-back, offense vs defense, etc.).

To properly answer that profoundly important question, we need to step back — way back — to see what is transpiring. (Note: one reason to have the correct perspective is to not confuse skirmish victories, with the results of the overall war.)

When we do step back sufficiently, it is clear that the alarmists are well along in the process of undermining the pillars of our current, successful society. Specifically they are purposefully doing all of the following (and more):*

  1. Creating divisiveness by pitting our own citizens against each other.
  2. Corroding our democratic form of government.
  3. Corrupting our academic system (to produce propagandized lemmings).
  4. Sabotaging genuine Science (as it is a barrier to their agendas).
  5. Subverting our economic system (Capitalism). [An effective and unexpected part of this strategy is to deliberately undermine our Electric Grid, a largely unrecognized foundation of our economy and national security.]
  6. Eroding the Judeo-Christian principles that America was founded on.

BTW, it may be that their most powerful tactic for pulling off their political agenda is to sow discord — so that we fight among ourselves. In this vile effort they are pitting:

men vs women, whites vs minorities, hard workers vs entitlement advocates, wealthy vs not-so-much, citizens vs immigrants, real science vs political science, young vs old, traditional religions vs secular religion, democracy vs socialism, etc.

How anyone can understand these realities, and still think that the alarmists are losing is baffling, to say the least.

Americans are always open to a fair fight, but what’s jarring to our values is that in all of these campaigns, our adversaries have no apparent standards regarding truth, fairness, rights, freedoms, etc.  — yet they speciously claim the moral high ground!

This is death by a thousand stings… No society can withstand such comprehensive, coordinated, corrosive assaults… Once one fully understands the nature of these attacks, it should be very clear that we are in the biggest war ever experienced in history.

Ultimately we are in a fight between two radically different world views.

The downsides of not immediately and effectively countering these sophisticated anti-American incursions are accurately spelled out in the two Agenda films (watch their two short trailers : Agenda: Grinding America Down and Agenda 2: Masters of Deceit).

Lastly, carefully study this brief overview of what the Russians and Chinese are currently doing to us — with the eager cooperation of “unsuspecting” internal allies (socialists, environmentalists, etc.). How successful have they been in this effort? Very!

As a professional scientist I’m not an alarmist, nor a person inclined to conspiracy theories. I deal with and carefully process empirical evidence.

There is massive evidence that we are losing — Big Time. That does not mean that we have lost, but rather that we are well on the way to defeat. The road to recovery starts with a full acknowledgment of the reality of our current situation — and then a well thought out Plan-Of-Action to effectively counter the assaults we are experiencing.

FYI, since the alarmists know that their Climate Change tactics have been successful, they adopted almost every one of them when it came to the COVID-19 war. To make this crystal clear, I made up a side-by-side comparison of the two.

Do we learn anything from this?

In my next commentary, I’ll discuss a suggested Plan-Of-Action.

* The evidence for each of these is overwhelming and in plain view. My field, Science, is representative. EVERY aspect of Science is under an insidious coordinated assault! Even a casual observer should be able to see the profound consequences of:

a) a major effort (e.g., via PNS) to remove Science as a gatekeeper for major societal issues (e.g. climate change),

b) the widespread, purposeful corruption of the peer-review process,

c) scientists (who are supposed to be professionally committed to objective, factual analysis) becoming promoters of undeclared political agendas (e.g., here),

d) responsible scientists (who provide evidence that what’s politically correct may be wrong) being publicly attacked, and/or losing their jobs,

e) in US K-12 schools, 49 states have adopted the progressive set of Science Standards, which disavow such things as the Scientific Method and Critical Thinking,

f) Universities are infusing Science education with political considerations such as cultural relativism, social justice and gender equality,

g) respected major scientific organizations have reverted to polls to advocate positions (as vs empirical evidence),

h) conversely, not a single large scientific organization has gone on record to oppose scientifically false solutions to major matters like climate change (e.g., that there is zero scientific proof that wind energy saves any consequential CO2),

i) the irreproducibility of scientific studies becoming epidemic,

j) etc., etc.

There is not a single aspect of what is going on in Science where we are winning.

©2024. John Droz, Jr. All rights reserved.

Here are other materials by this scientist that you might find interesting:

Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.

WiseEnergy.org: discusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.

C19Science.info: covers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.

Election-Integrity.info: multiple major reports on the election integrity issue.

Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from COVID to climate, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2024 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time – but why would you?

MAGA: The Revolt Against the Elites thumbnail

MAGA: The Revolt Against the Elites

/in , , , , , , /by

By Neland Nobel

“I would rather be governed by the first 2,000 people in the telephone directory than by the Harvard University faculty,”

William F. Buckley, Jr.

“Sometimes I think this country would be better off if we could just saw off the Eastern Seaboard and let it float out to sea.”

Barry Goldwater

The tension between America’s governing elites and the people has likely never been wider, although the quotes above suggest it did not begin with MAGA. However, the rift was not as huge as today, largely because our elites have drifted far to the extreme left and government power is now centered in an unelected bureaucracy which they dominate.

At one time, not that long ago, Progressives and Liberals prided themselves on associating themselves with the common man: industrial workers, farmers, miners, ranchers, and construction workers.  This was before they decided they were all deplorables defiling the environment.

Perhaps this was because they saw the world through a Marxist lens,  the workers versus the owners and they saw workers and unions as their supporters, as indeed some were.  Now they see things through the lens of race, class, and ethnicity.

As part of the New Deal’s emergency relief for the unemployed, millions were spent employing unemployed artists.  Franklin Roosevelt put his close aide Harry Hopkins in charge of PWAP or The Public Works of Art Project in 1934, which employed thousands of artists.

It is not quite the same as forgiving the debt of thousands of Gender Studies majors, but it is pretty close.

The New Deal made a big deal of subsidizing a distinctive style of art, a kind of American-tinged Soviet new realism.  Often this took the form of murals similar to what we created above.  Many of the works of art can still be seen today in older public buildings and older Post Offices.

The common feature was extolling the common man.  The New Deal collected songs of rural people and subsidized photographers to record the travails of the people.  As we noted before, the New Deal even tried an experiment in collective farming, with a big experiment here in Arizona.

Hopkins was a special character within the New Deal and later played a key role in advising Roosevelt on foreign policy.  He was more than just a tad left of center. He quickly advanced from running art projects to being FDR’s closest confident, even living with the President full time at the White House.  He evolved to become the most important advisor on important subjects like how to deal with Josef Stalin.  He reportedly got along great with Joe Stalin.

We now know why. The Venona Project dispatches, coupled with files from Soviet Intelligence that were open for just a few years after the Wall fell,  allowed scholars to tie both sides of encrypted wartime cables together for the first time.  This allowed historians to finally get hard evidence on the multitude of Americans working for the Democrat Administration willing to betray their country. This was at the time of Stalin.  We don’t mean the Stalin of the early years as a bandit. We mean the Joe Stalin of gulags and kulak liquidations, the mass starvation of the Ukraine, the Hitler-Stalin Pact, and proxy wars that killed Americans in Korea.  But still, many Americans supported the Communist cause, including Harry Hopkins.

It appears Mr. Hopkins was a Soviet agent who not only had the President’s ear, but apparently his mind, and policy. He was also in charge of art, extolling “the common man.”

But New Deal art was also part of the flavor of the times.  Besides government-subsidized murals, others such as American composer Aaron Copland was composing, “Fanfare For the Common Man”, “Appalachian Spring” and “Rodeo.” It was the time of the “Grapes of Wrath”, the great Oklahoma diaspora, and its journey to California.

Incidentally, Copland had his own flirtations with Communism. Although his membership in the party is still in question, it was not uncommon for important Communists not to join the party for tactical reasons.  Copland attended  Communist meetings, and conferences,  and was active in the Composers Collective.  If not a party member, he functioned as one would.

Talk to most “common men” today, travel Appalachia, or go to a rodeo,  and you will most likely find Trump supporters in great abundance.

How did the Progressives evolve to hate the common man?  The connecting thread seems to be education at a handful of elite Ivy League universities.

A recent study of elite opinion by the pollster Scott Rasmussen undertaken by the Committee To Unleash Prosperity is causing considerable commentary.  Elite opinion in the study is defined as someone making at least $150,000 per year, possessing at least one postgraduate degree, and living in a population-dense city.

The study starts with this perceptive analysis  from a famous novelist of an earlier era,  F. Scott Fitzgerald:

“Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me. They possess and enjoy early, and it does something to them, makes them soft where we are hard, and cynical where we are trustful, in a way that, unless you were born rich, it is very difficult to understand. They think, deep in their hearts, that they are better than we are because we had to discover the compensations and refuges of life for ourselves. Even when they enter deep into our world or sink below us, they still think that they are better than we are. They are different.”

Here are some salient findings from the study:

While most Americans are suffering economically, 74% of this elite say they are doing better, versus just 20% for the general population.

Almost 6 in 10 say there is too much freedom in the US.

More than 2/3 are ready to ration energy to combat climate change.

More than 70% say we should trust the government to do the right thing, most of the time.

Again, more than 2/3 say education professionals should decide what children are taught, not parents.

Between ½ to 2/3 favor banning SUVs, gas stoves, air conditioning, and non-essential air travel to protect the environment.

84% give Joe Biden a favorable job approval rating.

There is much more to the study, but it is clear that America’s elites are not only out of touch with common people of all types, their political leaders have gone out of their way to insult and degrade the common people.  Leftwing professors are even out with new books about the danger of rural people such as “White Rural Rage”, by Shaller and Waldman.

We are deplorables, clinging to our God and guns as Hillary and Obama put it,  and they have a strong feeling that they are our natural rulers.  The so-called pro-democracy crowd of the Democrat Party is not too different from a royal family supporting the divine right of kings.

Critics are correct that modern Conservatism now has a populist tinge to it.  The study shows that Republican elites are not quite as extreme, but share many of the same cultural attitudes, hence the existence of the Uni-Party and the resistance to that by the rank and file of the Republican Party.

Perhaps the most disturbing finding was that nearly 2/3 of politically active elites would be willing to cheat in an election to win, versus just 7% for the general public.

They believe they have a natural right to rule and are not about to let democratic processes get in their way.

We also saw their totalitarian instincts at play at the local level with all manner of unconstitutional restrictions on travel, speech, and assembly during the manufactured Covid crisis.

This underscores something we observed some time ago.  Progressives argue for “democracy”, and the common man, but by taking authority out of the hands of families and businesses to determine their own destiny, and by creating a giant unelected Administrative State that rules without Constitutional checks and balances, they undermine the freedom and democracy they say they are for.

They do this under the name of planning. Planning by “experts” like them. What that kind of planning really means is substituting their plans for your plans.  Your money does not belong to you, your property does not belong to you, your body does not belong to you, and your children are not yours.

They further claim they are not “racists” but recent survey data also shows they are willing to discriminate against white people, and Asians to a somewhat lesser extent.

This chart from a site called End Wokeness shows the stunning racial bigotry of Democrats at large, not just the veneer of elites.

Now the ultra-rich educated have a right to their views and can live the “green life” if they want to.  How they spend their own money and raise their children is their business. They can marinate in their white guilt and loathe the American Founding. However, they have no right to impose those views on the rest of us.  Bill Gates and George Soros have the means to attempt this, but they don’t have the right.  Political legitimacy only comes from the voluntary consent of those governed.

I don’t speak for others but I never voted for Bill Gates, George Soros, or the World Economic Forum.

This election is not so much about party affiliation anymore.  It will be about freedom, class, culture, and yes, prejudice against white people.  It will be about the freedom not to be dictated to and ruled by this bunch of presumptuous SOBs. It will be, in short, a revolt against the elites, their ideas, their policies, and their arrogance.

TAKE ACTION

The Prickly Pear’s TAKE ACTION focus this year is to help achieve a winning 2024 national and state November 5th election with the removal of the Biden/Obama leftist executive branch disaster, win one U.S. Senate seat, maintain and win strong majorities in all Arizona state offices on the ballot and to insure that unrestricted abortion is not constitutionally embedded in our laws and culture.

Please click the TAKE ACTION link to learn to do’s and don’ts for voting in 2024. Our state and national elections are at great risk from the very aggressive and radical leftist Democrat operatives with documented rigging, mail-in voter fraud and illegals voting across the country (yes, with illegals voting across the country) in the last several election cycles.

Read Part 1 and Part 2 of The Prickly Pear essays entitled How NOT to Vote in the November 5, 2024 Election in Arizona to be well informed of the above issues and to vote in a way to ensure the most likely chance your vote will be counted and counted as you intend.

Please click the following link to learn more.

Private Property Rights: A common issue when wind or solar projects are being proposed thumbnail

Private Property Rights: A common issue when wind or solar projects are being proposed

/in , , , , , , /by

By John Droz, Jr.

At public hearings about industrial wind and solar projects, the issue of private property rights frequently comes up. Almost always it is a claim that a potential leaseholder has the right to lease his property to a wind or solar developer.

Like many aspects of these contentious matters, this is a decoy: intentionally inserted by the wind or solar advocates to confuse things. (Remember that creating confusion is a major strategy used by those who want to control us: see here.)

Put another way, private property rights claims are a purposeful distraction from the real subject at hand: the net consequences to the community from the proposed wind or solar project.

We live in a democratic country with a long history of protecting private property rights, so very few of us are against them. But what are “Private Property Rights”?

In short, they are the property owner’s right to do what they are legally allowed to do with their property — as long as their actions have no material adverse impact on their neighbors, or the rest of the community.

A parallel concept is that you have a right to extend your fist — yet that right ends at the beginning of another person’s nose. In other words, your “right” ends when it infringes on another person’s rights.

This is also the principle behind zoning, which is in effect in many parts of the country. Without zoning, an adult club could operate next to a school, or a gas station could be built in a residential neighborhood. Zoning protects the rights of property owners while also protecting the general welfare of the community.

Further, if the focus is on “rights” what about the fundamental rights that nearby homeowners have regarding wind or solar projects? Who is protecting those? Should a leaseholder who wants to make a quick buck really have the right to undermine their neighbors’ peaceful use and enjoyment of their homes?

So how does this all apply to a person who wants to get paid for industrial wind turbines (or industrial solar panels) being on their property?

The leaseholder’s private property rights are important and should be carefully considered. However, as stated above, their rights have limits. For example, in most cases they do not have an entitled right to be a knowing causal agent:

  1. of adverse health effects to their neighbors,
  2. of devaluing proximate homes,
  3. of crop yield reductions to nearby farms,
  4. of causing pollution and other interference with aquifers,
  5. of harm to wildlife and livestock of the community,
  6. of degrading the ecosystem in the area,
  7. of impacting hunting in approximate lands,
  8. of reducing tourism to the area,
  9. of interfering with regional weather and navigation radar, or
  10. of raising electricity rates in the region.

Turbine or solar leaseholders are likely unaware of the magnitude and severity of these issues, because they certainly wouldn’t have been told about them by the wind or solar developer, or by our local legislators, or by state agencies.

However, there are studies that document every one of these ten problems. Further, they were done by independent experts — people who have no dog in the fight.

Now it’s likely that landowners (and their developer partner) will arbitrarily deny that these consequences can happen. If they are so sure, then the solution is easy: for them to provide a written, legal, financially-backed guarantee against all of these matters.

Ideally, this would be incorporated into a well-written wind ordinance (like this) that protects the rights of those who are not in this for personal financial gain.

For example, a wind or solar ordinance should include a Property Value Guarantee to protect the most valuable asset of citizens near these projects: their homes.

It is a statutory obligation that local legislators protect the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens in their community, so they usually have the authority to pass such a guarantee. If it turns out that the wind developer’s claims are accurate (that there is no devaluation), the cost to them will be trivial. So it’s fair to all.

Without proper wind and solar ordinances what we have is a situation where the profits are privatized (e.g., to select landowners and the developer), but the costs are borne by the community.

That is not fair or reasonable from any perspective.

PS — Often when wind or solar promoters lose the private property rights fight, they then try to play their trump card: the proposed development is really all about saving the planet! Not surprisingly that assertion is bogus as well (e.g., see here or here).

©2024. John Droz, Jr. All rights reserved.

Here are other materials by this scientist that you might find interesting:

Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.

WiseEnergy.org: discusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.

C19Science.info: covers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.

Election-Integrity.info: multiple major reports on the election integrity issue.

Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from COVID to climate, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2024 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time – but why would you?

Ted Cruz Introduces Bill To Scrap ‘Natural Gas Tax’ Wedged Inside Biden’s Climate Legislation thumbnail

Ted Cruz Introduces Bill To Scrap ‘Natural Gas Tax’ Wedged Inside Biden’s Climate Legislation

/in , , , , , , , /by

By The Daily Caller

Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz is introducing a Senate bill that would repeal a “natural gas tax” proposal enabled by the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), President Joe Biden’s signature climate bill.

The “Natural Gas Tax Repeal Act” would scrap IRA provisions that deputize the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to impose fines on energy companies that emit methane in amounts above government-dictated limits, according to its text. The rule will likely have a significant impact on producers of natural gas, the form of energy most commonly associated with methane emissions.

“Joe Biden and Biden officials have proven time and time again that they care more about their radical climate agenda than the needs of the American people,” Cruz said in a statement shared with the Daily Caller News Foundation. “They have driven up inflation and jeopardized American jobs and energy security, all of which would be made significantly worse by the methane emissions fee in the Inflation Reduction Act. This fee will particularly harm Texas by undermining producers in the Permian Basin and across the state.”

Natural Gas Tax Repeal Act by Nick Pope on Scribd

Cruz’s bill is supported by the Independent Petroleum Producers of America, the American Exploration and Production Council, the U.S. Oil and Gas Association and the American Petroleum Institute, among other organizations. House Republicans passed a similar bill in March to repeal the IRA’s natural gas tax.

The EPA’s proposal would require companies to pay a penalty of $900 for each ton of methane emitted above limits set by the government starting in 2024, with the penalty for every ton above the government’s benchmarks jumping to $1,200 in 2025 and increasing again to $1,500 in 2026 and after, according to the EPA. The agency describes the proposal as a means to reduce methane emissions, energy producers have criticized it for further complicating the regulatory environment and potentially increasing costs for consumers.

The EPA proposal also dovetails with a December 2023 EPA proposal to impose methane detection requirements, which independent oil and gas producers oppose because the additional compliance costs figure to disadvantage them relative to the major firms.

“President Biden’s tax on natural gas production does nothing but make it harder to produce American-made energy while driving up costs. Congress must take action to repeal this looming regulatory disaster,” Texas Rep. August Pfluger, who authored the House equivalent of Cruz’s bill, said in a statement shared with the DCNF. “The House has already passed my legislation to repeal the tax, and I am proud to work alongside Senator Cruz to get it to the President’s desk. Energy security is national security.”

The EPA and the White House did not respond immediately to a request for comment.

AUTHOR

NICK POPE

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Could Joe Biden’s Natural Gas Pause Cost Dems The Senate In November?

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

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Wind Turbines = Enormous ‘Unintended’ Consequences thumbnail

Wind Turbines = Enormous ‘Unintended’ Consequences

/in , , , , , /by

By John Droz, Jr.

The inevitable result when political science is substituted for real Science.

I have written about certain bad aspects of wind turbines before — like here and here.

This post is a brief, simple overview of the many widespread adverse consequences of industrial wind energy. To keep it simplified, I’ve even minimized the references — but they exist for each of the statements below.

These “side effects” are the 100% guaranteed results when our technical policies are written by lobbyists, and passed by virtue-signaling non-critical thinking Legislators.

Put another way, this is what happens when Science is replaced by political science.

  • Manufacture = Ecological Disaster (China re processing rare earths)
  • Installation = Ecological Disaster (trees killed, farmland lost, hydrological impacts)
  • Operation = Ecological Disaster (wildlife pillage, from whale deaths to eagle killings)
  • Indirect Health Consequences: Fentanyl Deaths (Chinese criminal gangs are heavily involved in the huge amount of rare earths needed by wind turbines)
  • Direct Health Consequences: very problematic infrasound
  • Indirect Financial Burden: reduced tourism, homes devalued, agricultural losses, etc.
  • Direct Financial Burden: electricity rate increase, etc.
  • Indirect Security Threat: its unreliability will cripple US Electric Grid
  • Direct Security Threat: weaker Military (due to radar interference, etc. See here.)
  • Delays Climate Change Progress (wasted money that could have been spent on meaningful items, like nuclear)
  • Makes Climate Change Worse: see my Report
  • Direct Loss of Rights: leaseholders are talked into giving up their civil rights, etc.
  • Indirect Loss of Rights: it is an excuse for legislators to extract US citizen rights. (E.g. in NY, citizens rights — home rule, etc. — have been profoundly eroded.)
  • Undermines our Society: as we totally depend on inexpensive, reliable electricity.

A good perspective on this is that while industrial wind energy promoters claims that we need more wind energy, the indisputable fact is that wind energy was abandoned for most commercial and industrial applications, well over a hundred years ago.

Even in the late 1800s it was totally inconsistent with our burgeoning, more modern needs for power. When we throw the switch, we expect that the lights will go on – 100% of the time. It’s not possible for wind energy, by itself, to EVER do this, which is one of the main reasons it was relegated to the junkyard of antiquated technologies (along with such other inadequate energy sources like horse and oxen power).

ALL those limitations are still true! Also, I listed twenty-five NEW liabilities of industrial wind energy some six (6) years ago… Since that time we have discovered numerous ADDITIONAL concerns (see above) that have monumental consequences.

Why do critical thinking citizens allow this travesty to happen?

Wind energy provides no Net Benefits to citizens. Lobbyists and their clients make billions as Legislators try to get donations and votes by imaginary virtue signaling.

©2024. John Droz, Jr. All rights reserved.

Here are other materials by this scientist that you might find interesting:

Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.

WiseEnergy.org: discusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.

C19Science.info: covers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.

Election-Integrity.info: multiple major reports on the election integrity issue.

Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from COVID to climate, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2024 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time – but why would you?

‘He’s Not Wrong’: Margaret Brennan Presses Buttigieg On Trump’s Stance Over Electric Vehicles Purchased thumbnail

‘He’s Not Wrong’: Margaret Brennan Presses Buttigieg On Trump’s Stance Over Electric Vehicles Purchased

/in , , , , , , , /by

By The Daily Caller

CBS host Margaret Brennan pressed Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg on former President Donald Trump’s stance on the amount of electric vehicles (EVs) purchased, noting Sunday that Trump’s take wasn’t “wrong.”

Buttigieg appeared on “Face the Nation” to discuss President Joe Biden’s current push for the adoption of electric vehicles in the U.S., as well as campaign strategies for climate change. Brennan questioned the Secretary of Transportation on Trump’s campaigning against electric vehicles, playing a clip of the former president calling out that, while millions have been spent on subsidizing electric cars, only a low number of purchases has resulted.

“I want to ask you about something that we hear quite a lot about on the campaign trail and that is electric cars, electric vehicles. Donald Trump repeatedly talks about President Biden’s decision to force the industry towards making 56% of car batteries electric by 2032, 13% hybrid,” Brennan stated before playing a clip of the former president. “He’s not wrong on the purchasing.”

“Oh, he’s wrong,” Buttigieg responded.

“He’s not. Of the 4 million vehicles purchased, 269,000 electric vehicles were sold in the U.S. market. It’s up like 2%,” Brennan stated.

“And every single year more Americans buy EVs than the year before. This is really important —” Buttigieg stated.

“But why aren’t we seeing it move more quickly —” Brennan jumped in.

“Every single year more Americans buy EVs than the year prior. There are two things that I think are needed for that to happen even more quickly. One is the price, which is why the Inflation Reduction Act acted to cut the price of an electric vehicle. The second is making sure we have the charging network we need across America. But I want to talk about the bigger point here, and I take this personally because I grew up in the industrial Midwest literally in the shadow of broken-down factories from car companies that did not survive into the turn of the century because they didn’t keep up with the times,” Buttigieg stated.

Brennan continued to push back on Buttigieg, stating “many of those autoworkers are concerned electric vehicles require fewer humans to manufacture,” to which Buttigieg responded that Biden was focused on making the “EV revolution” an “American-led” one.

“Because of these tariffs we’re talking about that President Biden says he’s going to roll out?” Brennan asked.

“Well, also just making sure we invest in America’s capacity. Making sure that we are on-shoring or friend-shoring the materials and the processing of what goes into these EVs — making sure that America masters these processes because, look, there’s no way that we’re going to get to the middle of this century with the technology that we counted on a century ago. Now there are, obviously, a lot of voices here in Washington who are interested in keeping the status quo,” Buttigieg stated.

“He says it’s going to be one of the first things he does, if he’s reelected,” Brennan responded.

“[Trump] would be happy to see Americans trapped with dirty and expensive fuels. The reality — and I know he’s made a lot of promises to the oil and gas CEOs about some of the favors that he believes his administration will deliver for them —” Buttigieg stated.

“But it obviously is resonating for him because he wouldn’t bring it up so frequently if there wasn’t some anxiety that he’s tapping into,” Brennan noted.

The Biden administration announced on May 14, 2024 that tariffs would be imposed on Chinese EVs. The move would quadruple levies to 100%, as well as raising certain rates for Chinese green energy and EV components such as minerals and batteries. The administration’s move follows the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) decision in late March 2024 to effectively require 67% of new models sold to be electric or hybrid by the end of 2032.

While recent data from Gallup shows the number of Americans who own electric vehicles has increased 4% from a year ago, fewer Americans are indicating they might consider buying an EV in the future. In 2023, 4% of Americans owned EVs, 12% stated they were “seriously considering buying” and 43% stated they “might consider in future” while 41% noted they would not be buying an EV, according to Gallup. Data from 2024. likewise, indicates that 7% currently own an EV, 9% are “seriously considering buying” and 35% “might consider in future” while 48% stated they would not buy one.

AUTHOR

HAILEY GOMEZ

General assignment reporter.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Biden’s Climate Agenda Is Running Headfirst Into A Wall Of His Own Making

EXCLUSIVE: Swing State’s Pension Funds Used To Advance ‘Racial Equity,’ Climate Initiatives, Report Finds

Buttigieg Can’t Explain Why Biden Has Only Built ‘Seven or Eight’ EV Charging Stations – The Savage Nation

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

Biden Regime’s EPA sent $50,000,000 to Climate Justice Alliance, which glorifies Oct. 7th massacre thumbnail

Biden Regime’s EPA sent $50,000,000 to Climate Justice Alliance, which glorifies Oct. 7th massacre

/in , , , /by

By Jihad Watch

The speaker is Senator Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV).

“What does the “Palestinian” jihad have to do with the alleged climate crisis? Nothing whatsoever, except that both are part of the left’s agenda and both, if successful, will result in the advance of internationalist authoritarianism.”

WATCH: Senator Shelly Capito Speaks about lack of EPA Oversight on Antisemitic Organizations receiving IRA funds.

AUTHOR

ROBERT SPENCER

RELATED ARTICLES:

Israel Must Not Trust Biden

Pro-Hamas leader Nerdeen Kiswani leads crowds in cheers for the death of Biden

Ilhan Omar berates UCLA top dog for not stopping video of Oct. 7 massacre from being shown at pro-Hamas encampment

Campus Pro-Hamas Protesters Knew They Would Face Scant Negative Consequences

Minnesota high school yearbook news timeline omits Oct. 7, implies Israel gratuitously ‘declared war on Hamas’

Toronto: Two men open fire at Jewish girls’ elementary school

Ireland, Spain, and Norway Reward Hamas Terrorism

France: Socialists assault women protesting sexual abuse by ‘asylum seekers’

Pakistan: Muslims murder Christian, vandalize churches and set homes on fire on Qur’an desecration allegations

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

Biden’s Impeachable ‘Foreign Oil’ Policy thumbnail

Biden’s Impeachable ‘Foreign Oil’ Policy

/in , , , , , , /by

By Jihad Watch

One long string of ‘quid-pro-quos’ that have led to international wars and terrorism.

Five years after Trump was impeached over accusations that he pressured Ukraine for political reasons, Biden is pressuring Ukraine for political reasons with no impeachment in sight.

Recent reports in the UK’s Telegraph and Financial Times suggest that Biden is demanding that Ukraine stop attacking Russia’s energy infrastructure because he’s afraid of the impact of high energy prices on the presidential election.

“Mr Biden reportedly raised concerns with Kyiv that the bid to damage Russia’s oil production capacity could have repercussions for his re-election campaign,” The Telegraph reported.

“Nothing terrifies a sitting American president more than a surge in pump prices during an election year,” The Financial Times quoted a former White House energy adviser as saying.

Similar reports have started to appear in other European media outlets including Politico.

Whatever one thinks of the Russia-Ukraine War, Joe Biden’s re-election prospects are an illegitimate and impeachable reason to be conducting a war or any foreign policy.

And this is not a unique event.

Many suspect that Biden’s turn against Israel was driven by a threat to his election prospects from Hamas supporting voters in Dearborn, Michigan, as well as radical leftists in his party.

And this is part of a pattern that has weakened America.

Biden emptied the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) ahead of the midterms to buy support for his party in the middle of the Russia-Ukraine war and ahead of what would become the Hamas war. Those actions left America vulnerable and potentially changed the course of both wars.

The decision to empty the Strategic Petroleum Reserve was not done for national reasons, but personal political ones, and while politicians routinely bribe voters with public money, this particular bribe could end up losing several wars while sending America into an energy crisis.

Biden’s obsession with the impact of oil prices on his time in office led him to provide sanctions relief to Iran even while suppressing domestic energy production. By propping up energy production in enemy nations like Iran and Russia, Biden was able to give his leftist environmentalist base what it wanted, crushing domestic energy production, while ensuring what he thought would be a cheap supply abroad that he could always rely on for elections.

But the Saudis responded to Biden’s sellout on Iran by goosing energy prices, and Russia and Iran took the influx of cash and used it to launch their own wars with disastrous results.

Biden’s support for Ukraine was premised on protecting the flow of Russian oil and gas. Russians and Ukrainians could die in large numbers on both sides, but energy prices couldn’t spiral too far out of control because that might actually affect Biden’s reelection campaign. But as Ukraine struggled on the battlefield, Russia’s energy infrastructure became an easy and obvious target, and Biden’s obvious political agenda became more easily apparent.

Now the European press is talking about it even if it’s still too explosive for the American media.

Democrats widely support both the Ukraine war and ending oil production which when taken together lead to high energy prices. Unable to find a way to combine low domestic production, low energy prices and the Russia-Ukraine war, Biden turned to an easier target: Israel.

Unlike Ukraine, Israel is less popular with Biden’s base. And the Biden administration may be hoping that forcing an end to Israel’s campaign against Hamas will also convince Iran to step down its regional attacks, including by the Houthis in Yemen, and simplify the process of talking the Iranians and even the Saudis into a nuclear deal that will lower energy prices.

Biden has already been negotiating to trade the Saudis nuclear capability for cheap oil.

The Wall Street Journal reported last year that “Saudi Arabia has told the White House it would be willing to boost oil production early next year if crude prices are high”.

This was not just a Saudi proposal, but an explicit request from the Biden administration.

“Two top White House officials, Brett McGurk and Amos Hochstein, flew late last month to Saudi Arabia, where they emphasized that soaring petroleum prices would make it harder to win support in Washington, the officials said,” the Journal reported.

Biden had previously demanded that the Saudis postpone a production cut ahead of the midterms. The Wall Street Journal had reported that, “the one-month delay requested by Washington would have meant a production cut made in the days before the election, too late to have much effect on consumers’ wallets ahead of the vote.”

And Biden had even tried to bribe the Saudis with a fortune in taxpayer money, promising to “buy oil on the market to replenish Washington’s strategic stockpiles if the price of Brent, the main international benchmark, fell to $75 a barrel”.

“There’s going to be some consequences for what they’ve done,” Biden had threatened Saudi Arabia on CNN for failing to go along with his demand for election day oil price rigging.

Biden’s foreign policy of bribing enemies is unnecessary because he has a simple and straightforward way to lower oil prices: restart domestic production.

Instead, Biden broke the law and illegally tried to block domestic energy production. When that failed, his administration deliberately sabotaged oil and gas lease auctions. After putting a former eco-terrorist in charge of the Bureau of Land Management, he tried to restrict offshore drilling to only three sites and his administration was then sued by the energy industry for using “every tool at its disposal” to stop drilling.

How do we square Biden’s militant campaign against domestic drilling with his obsession with low energy prices abroad? There’s no environmental argument for such an incoherent policy.

Biden isn’t acting out of any consistent set of political principles, but personal election needs.

“I can guarantee you if I am president, there will be no offshore drilling,” Biden promised during his presidential campaign. His leftist backers demand an end to domestic energy production.

And yet he also knows that if energy prices are high, American voters will turn on him.

Biden sold out the American energy industry to win over environmentalists and then sold out our national security to get cheap oil. Rather than just a single ‘quid-pro-quo’, Biden’s foreign policy has been one long string of ‘quid-pro-quos’ that have led to international wars and terrorism.

Once Biden had given away our best leverage in the energy market, domestic production, Iran, Russia, the Saudis and other players used that to their advantage to create the crisis we’re in.

This mess is not simply the result of “misguided idealism”, “incompetence” “naivete” or any of the other excuses used to downwardly define this foreign policy deviancy, but the personal political calculations of a corrupt and greedy president who wanted to lie to everyone.

Biden thought that he could trick, appease and use everyone all at the same time. That he could have his energy cake and eat it too. Instead, Americans are stuck with high energy prices, low reserves and two wars that are not likely to end any time soon. All of this happened because the man who wanted to be president lacked the courage to tell his party that they couldn’t have it all.

The Biden presidential campaign was a contradictory mess. It promised Democrats that they could have a version of Obama who would appeal to older white moderate Democrats. It claimed that two incompatible versions of the party could be fused together uniting traditional Democrats and leftist socialists in one man who would combine the best of FDR and JFK.

Biden’s hypocritical corrupt energy policy shows how he tried to make that work and the price that America and the world are paying for it.

AUTHOR

DANIEL GREENFIELD

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

Young adults losing the climate faith in the U.S. and only one third of voters think the IPCC experts are right thumbnail

Young adults losing the climate faith in the U.S. and only one third of voters think the IPCC experts are right

/in , , , , , , /by

By Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow

Good news: despite 2023 being the hottest year since Homo Erectus, there was a 17% fall in the number of 18 to 34-year-olds who call “Climate change”  a very serious problem. Even though there were hottest-ever-headlines month after month, the punters lost the faith.

No one is cracking champagne because 50% of young adults still tell pollsters they think it is a “very serious problem”. But when all is said and done, at least half the generation that was drip-fed the dogma since kindergarten can not only see through the catastrophism but they are brave enough to tell a pollster that, too.

For the most part, after a few hot El Nino years, “climate fear” is back where it was in 2016 or so. Most people still want the government to solve the weather with someone else’s money. But where younger people were once much more enthusiastic about a Big Government fix than older people were, now that gap is almost closed. What was a 21% difference between those age groups is now only 2%. That’s a whopping fall in faith in the government to do something useful, or probably, a recognition that whatever the government does will cost too much.

Looks like young adults are learning to be cynical adults faster?

The Monmouth University group polled 804 people in late April:

Climate Change Concerns Dip:  Younger adults express less urgency than in prior polls

The percentage of Americans between the ages of 18 and 34 who see climate change as a very serious problem has fallen by 17 points in the past three years (50%, down from 67% in 2021), compared with smaller declines among those who are 35 to 54 years old (44%, down from 48%) and those age 55 and older (44%, down from 54%).

Click here to the infographic: American Attitudes on Climate Change by Age.

But what does “a very serious problem” even mean?

Anyone can say, “It’s serious,” but only 1 in 6 people can even be bothered pretending to a pollster that climate change influences their vote:

A Monmouth poll released last month found only 15% of voters view climate change as a determinative issue in how they will vote in the 2024 presidential election, ranking far lower than inflation, immigration, and abortion.

People used to lie to pollsters and say they cared and it would affect their vote, but now most don’t even pretend. In 2019, in the UK, two-thirds of people agreed climate was the biggest issue facing humankind. The Guardian writers were sure that climate change would determine how most of the voters would vote, but the party promising to give them better weather lost in a landslide.

In 2015, when nearly half of US voters said climate was a “very serious problem”, other surveys showed only 3% ranked climate change as the most important issue.

If a twenty-something really believed the Antarctic ice cap was about to melt, wouldn’t it rate as a voting issue?

So let’s be clear, year after year, we see the same results. The voters don’t want to spend money on climate change and won’t change their vote, but the politicians act as though their career depends upon it, and the public is “demanding action”.

After years of surveys like this, we know the politicians know the voters don’t care, but they go and force climate action on the voters anyway. Who are they really working for? Their donors? The people who give them “jobs” after they leave office, or the people who employ their children now? Or are they working to appease “the media” — cowed into submission because someone might call them a denier if they don’t grovel before the Climate Demi-God?

Last year, a survey showed more then half of the US are wondering the same question and agree that the people who really “run” the country are not known to voters.

Fully 92% of Democrat voters say they think climate change is real. (What else could they say; they’d be excommunicated from friends and family if they said anything else.) Only 51% of Republicans tell pollsters they think climate change is real. But imagine how fast that would plummet if skeptical professors were interviewed on TV, and half of Republican politicians spoke for half the Republican voters?

Only a third of voters agree with the UN Experts that climate change is mainly a human-driven thing

Despite the UN experts being 97% certain, only one-third of voters completely agree with them. That’s really quite astounding.

Public opinion remains mixed on the degree to which human behavior contributes to change in the climate. Just over one-third (34%) say climate change is caused mainly by human activity, while 31% say human activity and natural changes in the environment play equal roles. Another 7% put climate change down mainly to natural causes, with the remainder saying climate change is not happening (23%) or are not sure if it is happening (4%). Just over half of Americans (51%) say there is still time to prevent the worst effects of climate change, while just 17% say it is too late.

After thirty years of scientific and media purity, only one-third think climate change is “mostly human”. Another third thinks the UN must be exaggerating, and the last third knows the UN is wrong.

AUTHOR

Joanne Nova

REFERENCES

The Monmouth University poll, Climate Change Concerns Dip, May 6th, 2024

CFACT Monthly Climate Fact Check

RELATED ARTICLE: POLL: 47% of Voters Believe the American Republic Has Fallen

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

Carbon Capture Doesn’t Work, So Why Are They Doing It? thumbnail

Carbon Capture Doesn’t Work, So Why Are They Doing It?

/in , , , , , , /by

By John Droz, Jr.

This is yet again another VERY bad idea…

BY: REBECCA TERRELL

Rebecca Terrell is an editor of the New American magazine and has written about unscientific foolishness for a long time. As such, I am honored for her to write this Critical Thinking Substack commentary.

Carbon dioxide harvesting is the Establishment’s latest eco-darling initiative and a big part of the Biden administration’s net-zero fantasies. The 2021 Infrastructure Bill included a mind-blowing $12 billion in carbon capture technology funding and the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act increased government subsidies for capturing CO2 from $50 to $85 per metric ton.

“Carbon capture and storage” (CCS) aims to trap CO2 as it is produced by refineries and power plants. “Carbon dioxide removal” (CDR) involves large machines that extract CO2 directly from the atmosphere. The trapped gas is liquified and transmitted at extremely high pressure to underground reservoirs. Sometimes it is used to extract oil and gas from deep, otherwise-depleted wells, in a process known as Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR).

Around 5,000 miles of CO2 pipeline already exist in this country, but experts estimate that up to 65,000 miles will be added if Biden’s government’s plans are realized.

Of course, all these exorbitant expenditures are based on the lie that CO2 is a pollutant, when carbon dioxide is actually the “gas of life,” as plants require it to survive, and as we rely on plants to survive. Every 8th grader knows this.

But here’s an interesting twist about CCS and CDR. Even environmentalists are against it as a “false solution”! As radical an activist as Al Gore calls it “nonsense.”

Why? Because it doesn’t work, plus it is net carbon additive!

Take, for example, a CDR module from the Swiss manufacturer Climeworks AG. Its energy consumption is approximately 2,650 kilowatt-hours per metric ton captured. In order to generate that amount of electricity, a coal power plant emits 2.4 metric tons of CO2. That’s a net add of 1.4 metric tons. In the case of natural gas plants, the net add is approximately 0.5 metric tons.

And though it is rare that you can make such an absolute statement as this, every single carbon capture project in existence today has missed its forecasted CCS goals. Every. Single. One.

At this point, the critical thinker in you is probably asking, “If the technology doesn’t work, and if it adds carbon instead of removing it from the atmosphere, why are they using it?”

It’s part of the ongoing global land-grab masked behind the virtue-signalling “Save Mother Earth” narrative. We’ve seen the same in regard to wind and solar projects, which gobble up otherwise arable land for wasteful “renewable” energy sources that could not compete in the level playing field of a free market, but depend upon hefty government subsidies for their very existence.

This global land grab has been in the works for years. The Action Plan from the 1976 UN Conference on Human Settlements spelled it out in clear words:

Land, because of its unique nature and the crucial role it plays in human settlement, cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership … contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes… Public control of land use is therefore indispensable to its protection as an asset and the achievement of the long-term objectives of human settlement policies and strategies.

These dystopian ideals have been built into most major UN declarations and conventions, most notably Agenda 21, which then-President George H.W. Bush signed us to at the 1992 UN Earth Summit in Brazil. Its latest update is known as Agenda 2030. The goals are best summed up in the World Economic Forum’s video, “8 Predictions for the World in 2030,” which promises that we modern feudal serfs will “own nothing” and “be happy.”

Owning nothing would most certainly not make me happy, and I hazard a guess it would not tickle your fancy either. The solution? Fight tooth and nail against these encroachments on our God-given rights. Educate yourself, your family and friends, and especially public officials within your reach.

Learn that code words such as “sustainability,” “carbon footprint,” and “renewable” really mean slavery to ever-increasing government overreach. It’s easier than you think to expose the plot to steal our rights, when you can point to the proof playing out in your own backyard.

©2024. John Droz, Jr. All rights reserved.

Here are other materials by this scientist that you might find interesting:

Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.

WiseEnergy.org: discusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.

C19Science.info: covers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.

Election-Integrity.info: multiple major reports on the election integrity issue.

Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from COVID to climate, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2024 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time – but why would you?

Red States Slap California, Biden Admin With Lawsuits To Halt Electric Truck Push thumbnail

Red States Slap California, Biden Admin With Lawsuits To Halt Electric Truck Push

/in , , , , , , /by

By The Daily Caller

Large coalitions of red states are suing regulators in Washington, D.C., and California over rules designed to effectively require increases in electric vehicle (EV) adoption.

Nebraska is leading a 24-state coalition in a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) recently-finalized emissions standards for heavy-duty vehicles in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and a 17-state coalition suing the state of California in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California over its Advanced Clean Fleet rules. Both regulations would increase the number of heavy-duty EVs on the road, a development that could cause serious disruptions and cost increases across the U.S. economy, as supply chain and trucking sector experts have previously told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

“California and an unaccountable EPA are trying to transform our national trucking industry and supply chain infrastructure. This effort—coming at a time of heightened inflation and with an already-strained electrical grid—will devastate the trucking and logistics industry, raise prices for customers, and impact untold number of jobs across Nebraska and the country,” Republican Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers said in a statement. “Neither California nor the EPA has the constitutional power to dictate these nationwide rules to Americans. I am proud to lead our efforts to stop these unconstitutional attempts to remake our economy and am grateful to our sister states for joining our coalitions.”

Heavy Duty Complaint by Nick Pope on Scribd

ACF Complaint by Nick Pope on Scribd

While specifics vary depending on the type of heavy-duty vehicle, EPA’s emissions standards will effectively mandate that EVs make up 60% of new urban delivery trucks and 25% of long-haul tractors sold by 2032, according to The Wall Street Journal. The agency has also pushed aggressive emissions standards for light- and medium-duty vehicles that will similarly force an increase in EVs’ share of new car sales over the next decade.

California’s Advanced Clean Fleet rules, meanwhile, will require that 100% of trucks sold in the state will be zero-emissions models starting in 2036, according to the California Air Resources Board (CARB). While not federal, the California rules are of importance to other states because there are numerous other states who follow California’s emissions standards, which can be tighter than those required by the EPA and other federal agencies.

Critics fear that this dynamic will effectively enable California to set national policies and nudge manufacturers in the direction of EVs at a greater rate and scale than the Biden administration is pursuing.

Trucking industry and supply chain experts have previously told the DCNF that both regulations threaten to cause serious problems for the country’s supply chains and wider economy given that the technology for electric and zero-emissions trucks is simply not yet ready to be mandated at scale, among other issues.

Neither CARB nor the EPA responded immediately to requests for comment.

AUTHOR

NICK POPE

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

New Analysis Shows Just How Bad Electric Trucks Are For Business

EXCLUSIVE: GOP Lawmakers Press Biden EPA For Details About Massive Payouts To Orgs Laden With Dem Insiders

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

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

STAY INFORMED

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

POWERED BY

DrRichSwier.com | ThePricklyPear.org

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.