STEPHEN MOORE: The Left’s Green Dreams Are Going Up In Smoke thumbnail

STEPHEN MOORE: The Left’s Green Dreams Are Going Up In Smoke

By The Daily Caller

One of the textbook marketing flops of all time was the Ford Edsel sedan, which was heralded as the hot new car in the late 1950s.

All the automotive experts and Ford executives said it was a can’t miss. Henry Ford (the car was named after his son) guaranteed hundreds of thousands of sales. But one big thing went wrong. Nobody ever bothered to ask car buyers what THEY thought of the new car.

Turns out: they hated it. So instead of sales of 400,000 Americans bought 10,000 and the model was embarrassingly discontinued.

The obvious lesson for the industry: you can’t bribe Americans to buy cars they don’t want. Given the all-in approach mentality for EVs at Ford and GM, it’s clear that Detroit never got this message.

Last week, Honda and General Motors announced an end to their two-year collaboration in building a platform for lower-cost EVs. Honda execs said it was “too hard.”

Amazingly, less than 10% of all new car sales are EVs over the last two years. This despite the fact that the U.S. government is writing a $7,500 check to people for buying an EV and some states are kicking in $5,000 more.

The Texas Policy Foundation calculates that all-in EV subsidies can reach $40,000 per vehicle. It would practically be cheaper for the government to purchase a new gas vehicle for every American car-buyer.

Meanwhile, the news is even worse for wind and solar power. The Wall Street Journal reported last week that “clean energy” investment funds are tanking with some down as much as 70% in recent months. Solar has been one of the worst performing industry stocks this year.

This collapse is happening right when Exxon and Chevron have engineered a combined $110 mega — acquisitions to expand oil and gas drilling in the Permian Basin in Texas — one of the biggest oil fields in the world. They both just reported their largest profits ever.

They and their investors are looking at the real world data not green energy propaganda. In 2023 the world has used more fossil fuels than any time in human history even as the developed countries spend hundreds of billions of dollars trying to stop oil, gas and coal.

All of this is to say that there in NO “global energy transition” going on. If there is one, it’s away from green energy, not toward it.

COPYRIGHT 2023 CREATORS.COM

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.

AUTHOR

STEPHEN MOORE

Stephen Moore is a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation and chief economist at Freedom Works.

RELATED ARTICLES:

DAVID BLACKMON: Energy Companies Are Laughing At Predictions Of ‘Peak Oil’

‘Global Shakedown’: Experts Throw Cold Water On International ‘Climate Reparations’ Fund

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.

Zero Net by 2050 Has Zero Chance Of Succeeding thumbnail

Zero Net by 2050 Has Zero Chance Of Succeeding

By Dr. Thomas Patterson

Arizona State University President Michael Crow believes we are in such danger that we should amend the US Constitution to empower the government to deal more expansively with climate change. Dr. Crow’s view that constitutional protections of our liberties should be eliminated when they become inconvenient wouldn’t square with the founders’, but his estimate of the dangers and required remedies for our changing climate are quite mainstream.

“Net-zero by 2050” has become an article of faith among our corporate and academic elites, no longer requiring proof or intellectual defense. The notion that we must eliminate all carbon emissions by mid-century if we want to save the planet is the organizing principle for environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) investing.  In 2022, it was mentioned more than 6,000 times in filings with the Securities and  Exchange Commission.

The SEC has helpfully proposed climate disclosure rules to help investors “evaluate the progress in meeting net-zero emissions and assessing any associated risk“. Skeptics are sidelined as “climate deniers”.

But mounting scientific evidence suggests that net zero is wildly impractical and probably not even achievable. In September, the Electric Power Research Institute, the research arm of the US electric power industry (which would seem to be naturally inclined to support proposals that increase reliance on electricity), released a sober report on the practicality of net zero.

Their study concluded that “clean electricity plus direct electrification and efficiency…are not sufficient by themselves to achieve net-zero economy-wide emissions”. Translation: it can’t be done. No amount of wind turbines, solar panels, battery power, fossil fuel, or other available technologies will achieve net zero by 2050.

Furthermore, even “deep carbonization”– drastic reductions in atmospheric carbon levels – is an impossible dream. With natural gas and nuclear generation forced to the sidelines, that would require options like carbon removal technologies, which would cost a quadrillion (million billion) dollars, which would…well, you get the picture.

Finally, the report concludes living in a net-zero world may not be all that great. Supply chains operating only on electricity and the reliability and resiliency of a net-zero electricity grid could be highly problematic.

The response to this nonpartisan and obviously consequential report was silence. There has been essentially no media coverage. No climate activists rushed to dispute the methodology nor challenge the conclusions.

This is a significant tell.  You could assume if the eco-activists were genuinely concerned about our climate future, they would have some interest in responding to this major challenge to their assumptions. But they ignored it to cling to their groupthink.

Yet other indications that the transition to renewable fuels is already off the track keep coming. The government-certified North American Electric Reliability Corp recently issued its 2022 Long-Term Reliability Assessment. NERC concluded that fossil fuel plants were being removed from the grid too quickly to meet electricity demand, putting us at risk for energy shortages and even blackouts during extreme weather.

But wait, there’s more. PGM International, a large grid operator in the Northeast, recently released projections indicating it will soon lose 40,000 MW, 21% of its generation capacity. The looming plant closures are mostly “policy-driven” by onerous EPA regulations and mandatory ESG commitments.

Renewables, although lavishly subsidized to replace the lost electricity, consistently underperform and will be able to produce at most half of the electricity lost.  Meanwhile the government is perversely mandating electric vehicles, appliances and whatever.

Finally, the repeated assertions of settled science were unsettled by 1,609 scientists and professors worldwide signing a “No Climate Emergency” declaration. The document was issued by Climate Intelligence or Clintel, a nonpartisan self-funded, independent organization of scholars whose only agenda is “to generate knowledge and understanding of the causes and effects of climate change and climate policy”.

They point out that there is no basis for claiming an upcoming existential crisis.  Carbon dioxide is not primarily a pollutant but a necessary basis for life. Moreover, there is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying natural disasters. Panic is dangerous, with the potential to plunge us into perpetual poverty.

They charge that climate science has degenerated into a discussion based on beliefs, not on “self-critical science”. Historians of the future, reflecting on our era of hyper-politicized science, will undoubtedly agree.

*****

Image Credit: Pixabay

TAKE ACTION

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

Investors Abandoning “green” Energy As They Realize It’s Never Going To Be Cheap thumbnail

Investors Abandoning “green” Energy As They Realize It’s Never Going To Be Cheap

By Joanne Nova

Kathryn Porter in The Telegraph, has compiled quite the list of failures as offshore wind projects get frozen around the world.  Decisions are being delayed, contracts abandoned, auctions left without bidders and almost no new projects started. The awful truth of inflation, the maintenance cost shocks, and cable failures is all too much. Then there was the problem of needing 100 years of copper, nickel and lithium production before Christmas.

It’s all been kept quiet. Who knew there were no offshore wind investments in the EU last year, apart from a few floating projects?

After years of subsidies, wind power was meant to get cheap enough to be profitable and competitive all by itself, instead, 25 years later, it just needs bigger subsidies. When the great oil and coal price crunch came, wind power was supposed to rise through the ashes, instead, we discovered that wind turbine and battery factories needed cheap coal and oil like the rest of the economy.

Right now Australia has no offshore wind turbines and is about to jump onto a burning ship:

The myth of affordable green energy is over

Kathryn Porter in The Telegraph,

Progress is stalled around the world as nobody wants to admit the real costs

Turbine manufacturers have been losing money hand over fist in recent years. Collectively over the past five years the top four turbine producers outside China have lost almost US$ 7 billion – and over US$ 5 billion in 2022 alone.

But the losses have also been driven by pricing structures designed to win market share, and aggressive windfarm developers who have refused to pay up, often while pocketing billions in subsidies. The market has started to look, if not like a Ponzi scheme, then like a house of cards built on the shakiest of foundations.

Offshore wind projects have been drying up around the world. During the whole of 2022, there were no offshore wind investments in the EU other than a handful of small floating schemes. Several projects had been expected to reach financial close last year, but final investment decisions were delayed due to inflation, market interventions, and uncertainty about future revenues. Overall, the EU saw only 9 gigawatts worth of new turbine orders in 2022, a 47 percent drop on 2021.

Over in the United States, despite the massive support offered by the Inflation Reduction Act, windfarm projects are also struggling. Orsted, the global leader in offshore wind, has indicated it may write off more than US$2 billion in costs tied to three US-based projects – Ocean Wind 2 off New Jersey, Revolution Wind off Connecticut and Rhode Island, and Sunrise Wind off New York – that have not yet begun construction, saying it may withdraw from all three if it can’t find a way to make them economically viable.

Meanwhile, projects off New York are asking for an average 48 percent increase in guaranteed prices that could add US$ 880 billion per year to electricity prices in the state.

Investors are starting to run

The S&P Global Clean Energy Index is down by 30% this year and most of that is in the last three months:

The S&P Global Clean Energy Index, comprised of major solar and wind power companies and other renewables-related businesses, has lost 30 percent in 2023, with nearly all of the decline since July.

By contrast, the oil and gas-heavy S&P 500 Energy Index is up slightly this year.

In the last three years, the real S&P energy sector is up 287% (white line below), but the clean energy sector (the green line) is down 32%.

Energy Sector Index growth (white) compared to the Global Clean Energy Sector (green) in the last three years.

“The energy sector has been the best-performing market segment so far this month, with oil prices surging 30% over the past three months.” — Globe and Mail

Yahoo Finance graphs the extraordinary growth of the S&P 500 Energy Index since 1994.

*****

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

Image Credit: Pixabay

TAKE ACTION

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

The Religion of Global Climate Change thumbnail

The Religion of Global Climate Change

By The Catholic Thing

Michael Pakaluk: Laudate Deum consistently turns qualified statements about the world into certainties appropriate only for articles of faith.  Unlike a truly scientific discussion, it does not review counter-objections or conflicting evidence.  


My worry about Laudate Deum (“all you praise God”), the recent Apostolic Exhortation “to all people of good will on the climate crisis,” is that because it represents an incursion into the domain of the laity, it implicitly converts a matter of prudence, which always involves an awareness of trade-offs, into a matter of faith.

I take my doctrine on the laity from Vatican II.  In Lumen gentium, bishops are accorded the role of defining doctrine in faith and morals.  Their specific competence in this task “extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends.” (n. 25)  The laity in contrast are tasked with applying these principles to the world: “laity, by their very vocation, seek the kingdom of God by engaging in temporal affairs and by ordering them according to the plan of God.” (n. 31)  “By divine institution Holy Church is ordered and governed with a wonderful diversity,” the Council Fathers exclaim. (n. 32)

One would think that this genuine diversity, in the matter of the climate, would imply a division of labor: the bishops set down general principles drawn from the deposit of faith; and the laity, using their specific competencies, consider how most prudently to apply them.  Lumen gentium imagines teamwork in the Church, in outline working like this.

But in Laudate Deum the Catholic laity do not make an appearance.  What one finds instead is teamwork between the Holy See and an association of scientists, the “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” (IPCC), with a short-circuiting of the laity.  (Perhaps teamwork is not propitious in the face of emergencies.)

At the same time, the relatively cautious statements of that quasi-scientific body are converted into certainties.  Consider the contrasts.  The Exhortation at one place asserts this:

we know that every time the global temperature increases by 0.5° C, the intensity and frequency of great rains and floods increase in some areas and severe droughts in others, extreme heat waves in some places and heavy snowfall in others.

“We know.” What I know, I cannot be wrong about.  It makes no sense to say, “I know that my keys are on the nightstand, but I may be wrong.”  Rather, one should say, “I believe.” Thus, “we know” implies certainty and the exclusion of doubt.

So on what basis do we “know” this? The Exhortation cites the 2021 IPPC report (B.2.2), which reads:

every additional 0.5° C of global warming causes clearly discernible increases in the intensity and frequency of hot extremes, including heatwaves (very likely), and heavy precipitation (high confidence), as well as agricultural and ecological droughts in some regions (high confidence). Discernible changes in intensity and frequency of meteorological droughts, with more regions showing increases than decreases, are seen in some regions for every additional 0.5°C of global warming (medium confidence). Increases in frequency and intensity of hydrological droughts become larger with increasing global warming in some regions (medium confidence). There will be an increasing occurrence of some extreme events unprecedented in the observational record with additional global warming, even at 1.5°C of global warming. Projected percentage changes in frequency are larger for rarer events (high confidence).

In IPCC lingo, “very likely” means a probability of at least 90 percent based on their models.  The number has no validity beyond the validity of their models.  We do not know the probability that their models are correct.  While “medium confidence” is a qualitative term meaning some (but not all) experts agree, and there is moderately strong evidence in favor.   Thus, we see that a measured statement in the IPCC report, which certainly leaves room for doubt, is converted by Laudate Deum into a certainty.   And the IPCC paragraph says nothing about snow, and it says that heat waves might be more frequent, not more extreme.

Quibbles, these last, perhaps – but why cite an authority to support you, if it doesn’t support you?

The tone of impending crisis in Laudate Deum is driven by an anticipation of tipping points, that is, approaching boundaries of irreversible loss.  It declares without any qualification that if global temperatures “should rise above 2 degrees, the icecaps of Greenland and a large part of Antarctica will melt completely, with immensely grave consequences for everyone.”

It again cites the IPCC, this time their 2023 report (B.3.2).  In the report one indeed finds the claim that “At sustained warming levels between 2°C and 3°C, the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets will be lost almost completely and irreversibly over multiple millennia.” That is, irreversible, if lost over multiple millennia.  But the IPCC qualifies and says there is only “limited evidence” to support even this claim.   “Limited evidence” is their lowest level of support.

One can go on and on.  Laudate Deum consistently turns qualified statements about the world into certainties appropriate only for articles of faith.  Unlike a truly scientific discussion, it does not review counter-objections or conflicting evidence.  Apparently, in the face of an emergency, one difficulty would indeed make one doubt.  Doubts must be avoided, like vaccine hesitancy.

At the same time it speaks derisively of anyone who would disagree with its assertions.  Such people are attempting “to deny, conceal, gloss over or relativize the issue.”  Scientists, too, who disagree only “seek to deny the evidence.” (n. 13)

That global warming would be a net harm is also taken for granted: “it is indubitable that the impact of climate change will increasingly prejudice the lives and families of many persons.”  Perhaps, but what is the net effect?   And are proposed remedies, all things considered, prudent?  Who can say? We face an emergency; apparently trade-offs are excluded.

In a concluding section on “Spiritual Motivations,” the Exhortation cites a book by a particularly disturbed feminist and anti-natalist professor, Donna Haraway, as the source of the idea of “contact zones” where diverse living things meet.  Ah, but it was Mary Louise Pratt who famously came up with that concept, not Donna Haraway.   But why worry about footnotes? Or sources?

You may also enjoy:

Hadley Arkes’ The Magical World of “Climate Change”

Robert Royal’s Living through an Apocalypse

AUTHOR

Michael Pakaluk

Michael Pakaluk, an Aristotle scholar and Ordinarius of the Pontifical Academy of St. Thomas Aquinas, is a professor in the Busch School of Business at the Catholic University of America. He lives in Hyattsville, MD with his wife Catherine, also a professor at the Busch School, and their eight children. His acclaimed book on the Gospel of Mark is The Memoirs of St Peter. His most recent book, Mary’s Voice in the Gospel of John: A New Translation with Commentary, is now available. His new book, Be Good Bankers: The Divine Economy in the Gospel of Matthew, is forthcoming from Regnery Gateway in the spring. Prof. Pakaluk was appointed to the Pontifical Academy of St Thomas Aquinas by Pope Benedict XVI.

RELATED ARTICLE: Symptoms of the Synod 2023 III – 25 October 2023

EDITORS NOTE: This Catholic Thing column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. © 2023 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.org. The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

Outsmarting Wind & Solar Lobbyists thumbnail

Outsmarting Wind & Solar Lobbyists

By John Droz, Jr.

Most people know that lobbyists are paid shills (for a product, industry, or cause). However, few citizens are aware that almost all state and federal laws are written by lobbyists. That said, this commentary is just on one subject area: wind and solar energy. Since lobbyists’ objectives (e.g., their client’s financial gain) are in direct conflict with what is in the best interests of citizens, this is a deplorable situation.

This travesty will continue until lawsuits expose how such laws contradict other statutes on the books. For example, most states require that state utility boards approve energy projects based on two paramount criteria: cost and reliability.

But wind and solar projects are high cost and low reliability — so how could any of them ever be approved? Because: 1) of the undue influence of lobbyists, 2) state utility boards are acting to support political agendas (instead of their own statutes), and 3) no one is suing them for their lack of adherence to state laws, etc..

One way around this has been citizens getting their community to impose reasonable (science-based) rules and regulations on local wind or solar projects (e.g., regarding setbacks, etc.). Of course, lobbyists and political virtue signalers find that citizens restricting non-sensical industrialization in their own community, to be unacceptable.

In response lobbyists got state legislators to pass state laws that limited what local legislators could do regarding the regulation of such projects in their community. For example, local communities are not allowed to make setbacks more than a “state approved” amount — regardless of what scientific information they have.

A major problem here is that in some cases, these new state restrictions are a violation of Home Rule rights. See here for a basic definition of what this means, and the numerous states that have Home Rule. Again, they get away with this extraction of citizens’ rights, because no one is properly suing them for this infringement.

The choice for citizens here is very simple: a) roll over and continue to be beaten down, or b) decide that they have had enough and then take meaningful action.

The good news is: if citizens are finally ready to pay hardball, they have several effective options. I’ve mentioned one already: sue state agencies for not complying with their statutory obligations. The most powerful lawsuit is to sue state agency members individually using the Federal 1983 Statute. This is to sue them personally for violating your civil rights, but it requires a sympathetic, aggressive attorney.

Note: I am not an attorney, so I am not giving legal advice here. Instead, I am simply letting you know some options available. Consult with a competent lawyer.

Another effective strategy against lobbyist influence is to outsmart them. For example, state laws that restrict how communities can regulate wind and solar are almost always about not allowing stricter setbacks, etc. than the state specifies. (Of course, the state has no scientific basis for the setbacks they allow — and, again, a proper lawsuit would expose that major deficiency.)

To effectively fight lobbyists it is essential to know the key factors needed to be properly regulated for industrial wind projector solar projects. A clever way to outsmart them is to pass local regulations that are not specifically identified (limited) in a state law.

For example, pass a Property Value Guarantee. My energy website has a document about PVG, which also shows the scientific justification for it. PVGs are also incorporated into our model local wind and solar ordinances.

Some other clever tactics are:

  1. Pass zoning laws that limit where wind or solar projects are allowed,
  2. Pass an ordinance prohibiting any wind energy-related PILOT program,
  3. Assess wind or solar projects at their FULL value,
  4. Pass a General Zoning Ordinance listing a wide variety of things (including industrial wind energy) that would be inconsistent with your Town’s character, objectives, etc. [e.g., what the Town of Dryden did, which was upheld in court],
  5. Require that the wind or solar facility developer not impose any confidentiality clauses on any landowners, in their lease or easement agreements, and
  6. Declare your community to be a Sanctuary Community (opting out of certain regulations imposed on it by the State). [Note: to date, this has been done regarding immigrationgun laws, etc., so no good reason why not a renewable sanctuary!]

The bottom line is that if citizens are determined and creative (i.e., use critical thinking), they can outsmart lobbyists and lapdog politicians.

Here is a 100% guarantee: if you don’t properly defend your rights, they will take more of them away!

©2023. John Droz, Jr. All rights reserved.

Eat Meat and You Will Kill the Planet thumbnail

Eat Meat and You Will Kill the Planet

By Karen Schoen

C40 Cities – A global network of mayors taking urgent climate action is group of mayors that are united in action to address the Climate Crisis. There is no climate crisis. It is a hoax devised to control all land and food.  Through years of clever marketing in schools the Globalists have indoctrinated the Affirmative Action graduates that if they give up their rights and ownership of private property they will save the planet. Using food as a weapon they have convinced the students to live in a world without CO2 and any other “greenhouse gas” in order to benefit the common good. A world without CO2 and greenhouse gases will have no life. Basically graduates now in government and bureaucratic positions are being coached to kill off the human race.  The Globalist goal is always depopulation.

Globalists have convinced the masses that living a sustainable lifestyle, a life under strict control of elites will save the planet from extreme weather (a lie).  What easier way to force farmers off their land than to condemn cows as the culprit claiming cows are destroying the planet by expelling greenhouse gases.  Of course they never mention that 95% of greenhouse gas is water vapor. 5% of the rest of the gases left can not  affect anything but students without a math or science background will never understand that.

Picking on the very food, meat, that supplies much needed protein to the human race is the problem globalists claim. More than 1,600 scientists and other scholars sign ‘No Climate Emergency’ declaration | The College Fix.  Eliminating protein from the diet weakens the body.  You have less energy, ambition, confidence and patience.  You will comply which is the goal. The purpose of the Climate Hoax is nothing more than to convince you to do more for less, redistribute wealth out of the hands of the middle class into the hands of the elite and to make sure you will own nothing and they will be happy.

Because of the American focus on the god of money, mayors of 14 American cities have jumped on the bandwagon and will follow the restrictions of UN Agenda 2030 and ban meat.  Mayor of NYC, Eric Adams, has already started banning meat in public governed agencies like schools and prisons.

These 14 US Cities Have A ‘Target’ Of Banning Meat By 2030

Today foreign countries own and control much of the food source in America. Who knows what we are eating or how it is made?  China controls the world’s largest pork processor and hog producer, Smithfield Foods. After China knowingly gave us Covid, how do we know what is in our bacon?  However some states are waking up to the dangers of foreign countries with the destruction of Americans as their goal, owning American farmland. It is a bad idea all around.  George Bush 41, allowed foreign countries to “buy” America with Executive Order 12803. An Executive Order IS NOT a law. Time to repeal that one.

Governor Sanders is the first to sign such a bill. The bill tells China they have 2 years to divest of the farmland of Arkansas.

Arizona Governor Hobbs just blocked Saudi Arabia from pumping water for their farmland while Arizona suffered a 15 year drought. The problem I have is with the lies in the last paragraph of the article which guides the reader into thinking they can fix the drought by giving up fossil fuel and meat.

“Human-related air pollution is one of the key drivers of global heating, so moving away from dirty fuel, cutting meat consumption, and recycling are small but helpful ways to prevent the volumes of harmful, planet-warming gases we produce annually.”

Scientist need grants to survive so they publish articles that leave out facts in order to  tow the line of the Globalists narrative.   The media then carries the false narrative.  Lying about meat is one of those lies.  Once farmers are restricted enough their land becomes useless and the Globalists get to buy the land for pennies on the dollar.

Control the food, control the people. Hungry people are not interested and have no energy for fighting the very government who will feed them.

Learn the truth. Sustainability means control.

Will you comply?

©2023. Karen Schoen. All rights reserved.

Zero Net EV Economic Or Climate Benefits And Government Admits It thumbnail

Zero Net EV Economic Or Climate Benefits And Government Admits It

By Larry Bell

Buried deeply in the bowels of a 56,342-page Federal Register Volume 88 — along with an environmental assessment accompanying the Department of Transportation’s newly proposed fuel standards — are some candid admissions that electric vehicle- (EV) promoting bureaucrats and subsidy beneficiaries aren’t anxious for any of us to know about.

One is that “Net [social-economic] benefits for passenger cars remain negative across alternatives.”

After factoring in a 2% increase in mandated requirements each year with an estimated $5.8 billion reduction in public welfare spread across the life of total drivers’ cars —  including wildly speculative climate change benefits — net costs of transportation “alternatives” proposed by DOT are estimated at very nearly twice that amount ($11 billion).

Another revelation is that even by DOT’s estimates, the proposed legislation would reduce average global temperatures in 2060 by 0.000%.

What a deal … a humongously expensive and disruptive net-zero carbon climate change thwarting goal with net-zero influence!

As pointed out in The Wall Street Journal, “The predictions are full of gimmicky assumptions designed to understate costs.”

Included are omitted opportunity costs, whereby to improve the economy, other popular improvements drivers including structural safety features, trunk space, acceleration, and increasingly rare spare tires to reduce weight are sacrificed.

Meanwhile, as the Journal points out, the costs of paying for any EV “benefits” are now so comically high “that regulators can no longer pretend that mandating greater fuel economy for passenger cars is good for society.”

So, let’s look at that so-called “economy.”

Forgo any illusions that according to Kelley Blue Book, paying an average $11,000 more to buy an EV than a full-sized gas-powered car and nearly $30,000 more than the average compact will be made up in net mileage efficiency advantages, or imagine it as any sort of longer-term trade-in investment.

Forget any notion that all that “green energy” needed to recharge them grows on trees, or that the costs of that electricity won’t escalate as the Biden administration, or any Democrat successor, continues to put the kibosh on fossil fuel that supply more than 80% of U.S. and world energy, replacing it with seasonal and weather-dependent electricity from friendly breezes and sunbeams that produce about 3% combined.

Then try to contemplate how much more of that unreliable, intermittent electricity would be needed to grow currently less than 1% of the 250 million EVs in the U.S. including SUVs and light-duty trucks to fulfill EPA’s de facto mandate for those magical “free energy” plug-ins to make up 17% of the market by 2026.

On top of that, think for a moment about the consequences of adding all those new EV electricity demands to already overloaded power grids, plus depend on China which controls 85% of the world supply of rare earth minerals required for all those solar, wind and EV batteries.

On the resale end, an average on-the-road 12-year-old used EV will be on its second or third new battery before an owner can sell it.

With a Tesla battery typically costing about $10,000, the resale price will likely have to be significantly higher than that of a comparably aged and sized internal combustion model in similar condition.

Expect those battery costs to increase in concert with global demands for nickel — a primary component of lithium-ion cathodes — having already about doubled over the past six years from $10,336 per metric ton in August 2016 to $21,091 in July.

The National Bureau of Economic Research estimates that EV drivers not only pay more but also put about half as many miles on their cars as the average driver.

The research suggests EVs’ limited range along with prolonged and limited recharging options have resulted in their use as secondary — not primary — household vehicles.

There’s little wonder then why most EV purchasers are wealthy enough to afford them as second cars, retaining a petroleum-fueled model for long single-day highway trips.

Imagine, for example, the time required to drive farther than 270 miles — the range of a Tesla on a single charge — necessitating at least one stopover at an assumed available interim recharging location.

In this case, estimate that while it will take only 4.5 hours to travel that first 270-mile link, plan for up to an additional hour for a battery recharge … assuming an available supercharge station will be open where and when needed.

That average EV recharging time and range will depend upon seasonal locale temperatures.

Batteries yield about 20% less energy in cold conditions, explaining why most EV owners live in temperate and semi-tropical climates … half in California alone.

According to AAA, cold weather can cut EV range by 12%, a loss that leaps to 41% with the heater on full blast. Running the air conditioner in hot weather takes a similar toll on trip efficiency.

Since EVs cost more to build, automakers jack up the prices of gasoline vehicles to cover production losses.

As CEO Jim Farley of Ford admitted last year, he conspicuously trimmed back Ford’s commitment to EVs, saying the company was losing too much money on them.

Nevertheless, if you like the idea of owning an electric vehicle and can afford one, then go for it!

And if luxuriating on virtue signaling or shaming points with neighbors and friends brightens your day — well, that’s okay too, even though they’re helping you pay for it.

*****

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

TAKE ACTION

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

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

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

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 2023, 2022, 2021 & 2020 archives, plus asterisked items below.

If you like the Newsletter, signup for my free Critical Thinking substack

— This Newsletter’s Articles, by Topic —

If You Only Have Time to Read a Few Select Articles:

*** Pollster Rasmussen Says “Election Fraud Renders Scientific Election Forecasting Worthless” – Will Start Sharing Evidence

*** What If We Excused Other Crimes the Way We Do Election Fraud?

*** There Is No Election Integrity, It’s up to Us

*** Ken Paxton Delivers the Best Explanation of Mail-In Voter Fraud You’ll Ever Hear

*** Tucker Carlson’s Full Speech at ISI’s 70th Anniversary Gala

*** A request for help from John Eastman

*** In Defense of John Eastman — Part 1

*** In Defense of John Eastman — Part 2

*** Short video: Woke Curriculums Have Got to Go!

*** NC Sets Hearing Guidelines for Disgruntled K-12 Parents

*** Wind Blows

*** Windbaggery: The wind energy sector’s days are numbered

*** The Energy Transition is Social Vandalism

*** The electric grid needs good failure mode analysis

*** Report: Six Ways Renewables Increase Electricity Bills

*** The Speech that Everyone is Talking About

*** Rishi Sunak speaks sense on Net Zero

*** Climate scientist: I designed my research to sound catastrophic

*** On the Eve of the Catholic Synod, Five Cardinals Release Five Concerns to Pope Francis

*** America’s Armageddon

*** Israel’s military says force is ‘at war’ with Hamas as IDF hits back at terror targets

*** How Big Pharma Blocks Accountability

Secondary Education Related:

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

*** Short video: Woke Curriculums Have Got to Go!

*** California’s Math Misadventure Is About to Go National

*** NC Sets Hearing Guidelines for Disgruntled K-12 Parents

*** Elections for NC Board of Education Could Be Coming

Students at 40% of Baltimore high schools failed math proficiency exam: ‘Educational homicide’

Video: “New” Science Is Marxist Indoctrination

Florida ranked number one for education freedom and leftists are losing their minds

Report: School Districts With DEI Officers Not Improving Education for Black and Hispanic Students

Higher Education Related:

*** Just Pass Everyone: Australian universities face a govt prohibition on failing grades

How to Control College Costs in 2023 and Beyond

The Utopianism of ‘Mental Health’

Why Are Universities so Left?

For Just $83,140, Princeton Will Train Your Son to Be a Drag Queen

Artificial Intelligence:

The AI Revolution Is Bad News for Net Zero

Microsoft CEO testifies against Google in antitrust trial

Sam Altman Wants To Replace Normal People With AI

The Great AI Invasion: Technocracy’s Final Solution

Greed Energy Economics:

*** Report: Six Ways Renewables Increase Electricity Bills

Solar Is Getting 302 Times More In Federal Subsidies Than Nuclear

Unreliables (General):

*** The Energy Transition is Social Vandalism

*** The electric grid needs good failure mode analysis

Kansas Republican Party Resolves to Protect Kansans from Unreliable and Foreign-Sourced ‘Renewable’ Wind and Solar Energy

Wind Energy — Offshore:

Environmentalists Seek to Save the Whales from Offshore Wind Energy

Desperate governors beg for offshore wind cost relief

Four NY offshore projects ask for almost 50% price rise

Wind Energy — Other:

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

*** Wind Blows

*** Windbaggery: The wind energy sector’s days are numbered

Too cute by half

Turbine graveyards’ sprawled across Texas

Nuclear Energy:

Russia and China Dominating the Race for Nuclear Electricity Generation

Are Small Nuclear Reactors The Answer To Big-Tech’s Energy Crisis?

Rolls-Royce among six firms shortlisted for British small nuclear plants

After closing its nuclear plants, Germany turns to coal to survive the winter

Fossil Fuel Energy:

Unintended Consequences: The California Electric Truck Mandate

Biden’s war on energy continues with unprecedented restrictions on offshore oil and gas lease sales

How today’s global anti-fossil-fuel agenda is crippling American small businesses

Bryan Caplan teaches Fossil Future

Report: European Fossil Fuels: Resources and Proven Reserves

Electric Vehicles (EVs):

AAF Applauds Ford for Pausing EV Battery Production

Fossil Fuels are Needed to Create and Charge EV Batteries—Who Knew?

Switzerland to BAN Electric Cars to Reduce Energy Consumption

Government Admits: No Net Benefit To EV Mandates

Town Falls Back on Diesel Fleet After None of Its Electric Buses Work

10 Reasons Not To Own An EV

Misc Energy:

*** Soviet-era tech could change the geothermal industry

Public Need to be Able to Scrutinize the True Costs on Net-Zero Energy Policy

Could big U.S. subsidies for Hydrogen create perverse incentives, raise emissions?

The dangerous delusion of a global transition to “just electricity”

Manmade Global Warming — Some Deceptions:

*** Climate scientist: I designed my research to sound catastrophic

CO2 and Sea Level DO NOT Correlate

Climate extremists are afraid to debate. Maybe they should be

Scientific American Wants To “jeopardize rain and crops”

Macron rules out ban on gas boilers and attacks ‘climate alarmism’

Climate extremists are afraid to debate. Maybe they should be

Manmade Global Warming — Misc:

*** The Speech that Everyone is Talking About

*** Rishi Sunak speaks sense on Net Zero

*** Truth and Science: A Nobel Laureate’s Advice to Students

*** The FULL Judith Curry Interview: Climate Scientist Says World Won’t End

*** Dr William Happer’s excellent Australian talk

The Jupiter Effect: Climate Change Policy From On High

Turning Up The Heat Index

Canada will soon be Alone and Ignored in its Climate Obsession

Climate Change Lies

What Oregon Teaches Us About The “Climate Crisis”

Biden’s Net-Zero Policies Will Invite Actual Environmental Crises

US Election:

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

*** Pollster Rasmussen Says “Election Fraud Renders Scientific Election Forecasting Worthless” – Will Start Sharing Evidence

*** What If We Excused Other Crimes the Way We Do Election Fraud?

*** There is No Election Integrity — It’s Up to Us

*** Conservatives Should Look More Closely at Systemic Election Reforms

*** Rome wasn’t built in a day, and neither was election integrity

Stunning: “40 Million US Christians Do Not Vote”

Second Republican debate: Here’s the biggest winner and the biggest loser

Legislator election lawsuit: Not your run-of-the-mill federal case

RFK Jr. Could Make Dem ’24 Election Odds Worse

The Real Motive for Jan. 6

US Election — John Eastman:

*** A request for help from John Eastman

*** In Defense of John Eastman — Part 1

*** In Defense of John Eastman — Part 2

*** Physicist Testifying at Disbarment Trial of Trump’s Attorney Former John Eastman Discusses Report That Found 130,000 Instances of ‘Voter Fraud’ in Nevada

*** In Disbarment Trial Of Trump’s Former Attorney John Eastman, Retired DoD Analyst Reveals Biden Got Fewer Votes Than Hillary In Philadelphia

Election Audits Across the United States

US Election — State Issues:

*** Ken Paxton Delivers the Best Explanation of Mail-In Voter Fraud You’ll Ever Hear

After acquittal, Texas Attorney General sits down with Tucker Carlson for interview

RITE Letter to Maryland’s Board of Elections

Dems flood Virginia with cash ahead of off-year elections

Fed lawsuit claims violations of Michigan legislators’ civil rights

Automatic voter registration will lead to foreign nationals getting on voter rolls

NY Citizens Audit Director’s Presentation

US Politics — House Speaker:

*** House votes to remove Kevin McCarthy as speaker in a historic first

*** It’s time: Devin Nunes, 56th House Speaker

Fool’s Errand’: McCarthy Removed as Speaker

These are the Things the New Speaker of the House MUST Believe In, or they will Fail Miserably

Rep. Jordan to Newsmax: I Can Unify Republicans as Speaker

McCarthy is Done and Now, the Real Story Begins

Misc US Politics:

*** Donald Trump Followers Targeted by FBI as 2024 Election Nears

*** The 2024 Election: A Battle Between the 7 Deadly Sins and 7 Heavenly Virtues

*** Here’s How Biden Admin Destroyed Our Immigration Law

Hillary wants to send you to the nuthouse

Why I Had to Leave the Democratic Party

New Documents Link Biden Family Influence Peddling Scheme to 23 Countries, Four Continents

Here’s All The Evidence Connecting Joe Biden To Hunter Biden’s Foreign Business Dealings

Censorship US:

Censorship and the Costs & Casualties of our Government’s Information Total War

Third Party Validation — The PR Trick Fueling Censorship

Facebook Censors Our Accurate Story on Covid Vaccine mRNA in Breast Milk

Censorship and the Costs & Casualties of our Government’s Information Total War

Societally US:

Thunderstruck! (An important civil rights court case) Also see this.

*** Washington’s blunders create a ‘Duck Soup Windfall’ for savers

US Politics and Socialism:

*** Tucker Carlson’s Full Speech at ISI’s 70th Anniversary Gala

Timeline: What Did the Feds Not Do About Alleged Biden Family Corruption and When Did They Not Do It?

A Case of Tax Fraud—at the IRS

Globalism:

The Malignant Narcissism Of Justin Trudeau

Technocracy: Digital Public Infrastructure For “One Earth, One Family, One Future”

Religion Related:

*** On the Eve of the Catholic Synod, Five Cardinals Release Five Concerns to Pope Francis

*** America’s Armageddon

Biden admin fights tooth and nail to deport Christian refugees while millions cross the border

Either You’re Serious Or You’re Not

Sinners in the Hands of an Angry Goddess

How the Gov’t Used Cell Phone Data to try to Drive Calvary Chapel Out of Business

The Pope has gone full Greta Thunberg

Science:

Modern Medicine’s Great Controversy | Dr. Peter McCullough

How ‘Preapproved Narratives’ Corrupt Scientists

Health:

9 health benefits of dark chocolate

House Cuts WHO Funding Through 2024

Top med school promoting curriculum that Body Mass Index is steeped in racism, promotes puberty blockers

Israel:

*** Israel’s military says force is ‘at war’ with Hamas as IDF hits back at terror targets

Iran-funded terror proxies launch war against Israel

Did the Biden administration withhold intel from Israel?

Israel Hamas battle for second day after surprise Hamas attack

Ukraine:

Pray for the safety of the Ukrainian people

A well-rated source to make a Ukraine donation

Zelenskyy: Ukrainians ‘Sensitive’ to Attacks on Israel

COVID-19 — Injections:

*** Overall deaths in unvaccinated lower

*** CDC Data Reveals COVID Vaccine Could Shave Off 24 Years from Men’s Lives!

*** Dr. John Campbell: Vaccine manufacture full interview

CDC Confessions: the government tried to quash discussion about the ineffectiveness – and danger of vaccinesCOVID Vaccines Damage ALL Hearts, Study Finds

Video: Why the COVID “mRNA” vaccines are actually DNA gene therapies that must be removed from the market

Excess Cardiovascular Deaths Soar 44% in Teens & Young Adults, Official Data Shows

The Devolution of Zelensky

COVID-19 — Misc:

*** Mask or No Mask — a Clear Answer

*** Class-Action Lawsuit Filed Against Remdesivir Manufacturer Over Alleged Deceptive Practices

*** Overall deaths in unvaccinated lower

*** Dr. John Campbell: Vaccine manufacture full interview

Now Biden Admin Says “We Didn’t Force Anyone To Do Anything… Didn’t Demand Anyone Be Fired”

COVID-19 — Repeated Important Information:

My webpage (C19Science.info) with dozens of Science-based COVID-19 reports

*** Free, At-Home COVID Tests (from US Govt)

*** Study: Measuring the COVID Mandates

*** World Council of Health: Early COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines

*** FLCCC Long COVID Treatment Protocol

*** COVID-19: What You Need To Know (Physicians for Informed Consent)

*** If you have received a COVID-19 injection, here’s how to Detox

*** Status of US At-Home COVID-19 Tests


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


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

Note 2: For past Newsletter issues see the archives from: 2020 & 2021 & 2022 & 2023. To accommodate numerous requests received about prior articles over all thirteen plus years of the Newsletter, we’ve put this together — where you can search ALL prior issues, by year. For a background about how the Newsletter is put together, etc., please read this.

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

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

Copyright © 2023; Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions (see WiseEnergy.org).

The Dangerous Delusion Of A Global Transition To “just electricity” thumbnail

The Dangerous Delusion Of A Global Transition To “just electricity”

By Ronald Stein

World leaders continue experiencing a “dangerous delusion” of a global transition to “just electricity” that they believe will eliminate the use of the crude oil that made society achieve so much in a few centuries.

Crude oil is the basis of our materialistic society, as discussed in an educational and entertaining 27-minute podcast interview between Ronald Stein and Armando Cavanha in Brazil.

  • All the components and equipment for generating electricity by wind, solar, coal, natural gas, nuclear, and hydro are all made from the oil derivatives manufactured from crude oil!

It’s shocking that the public has bought into the current rhetoric “lock, stock, and barrel” to STOP THE USE OF FOSSIL FUELS, which simulates the resurrection of the 1978 mass murder-suicide of religious cult members of the Peoples Temple, led by Jim Jones, Jonestown, Guyana?

In September 2023, 45 years after the Jim Jones tragedy in Jonestown, President Biden used his executive power to establish the American Climate Corps, which will employ and train 20,000 young people in the work of climate resilience without fossil fuels.

When this author watches the TV coverage of protesters, both politicians and teenagers, carrying signs to STOP THE USE OF FOSSIL FUELS, what he SEES on those posters is:

RID THE WORLD OF AIRPORTS, JETS, SHIPS, SPACE PROGRAMS, and STOP SOCIAL MEDIA, and THE PRODUCTION OF CELLPHONES, COMPUTERS, and PORCELAIN TOILETS that are dependent on the derivatives manufactured from crude oil!! 

Shockingly, very few parents, teachers, students, politicians, and those in the media have any clues or understanding about the basis of the products in our daily lives! Energy Literacy at its best!!!

As John Stossel so often said, “give-me-a-break”!

The proverb “you can’t have your cake and eat it too” tells us that:

  1. you can’t rid the world of crude oil
  2. and continue to enjoy the products and fuels that are currently manufactured from crude oil.

Just a few hundred years ago, before oil, when the world’s population was around just one billion, the world was unspoiled, decarbonized, and dominated by Mother Nature and the wild animal kingdom. In the 1800s, there were no airports, automobiles, trucks, planes, cruise ships, coal-fired power plants, natural gas power plants, electronics, or space programs, as the Beverly Hillbillies had not yet discovered oil!

Fossil fuels make products for humanity and support more bountiful harvests and a measure of food security that allowed time and energy for innovation and the onset of the Industrial Revolution that allowed the world to populate from 1 to 8 billion in 200 years because oil can be manufactured into thousands of usable, life-enhancing and life-saving products.

On the other hand, renewables can only generate occasional electricity but cannot manufacture anything for humanity, while fossil fuels manufacture everything for humanity.

A couple of centuries ago, there were fewer humans competing with animals due to humanity’s limited ability to survive what mother nature provided. Before oil, life was hard and dirty, with many weather and disease-related deaths.

World leaders are not cognizant enough to recognize that there are no plans for the replacement of the products and fuels now manufactured from fossil fuels, which are the basis of every infrastructure segment supporting the 8 billion on this planet! The three fossil fuels, crude oil, coal, and natural gas, do different things for society. Crude oil is the only one seldom used to generate electricity as it is primarily used to manufacture fuels and products for society that are the basis of the worldwide economy.

  • Crude oil: primarily used for transportation fuels, road asphalt, and aviation fuel, but less than one percent for electricity generation.

  • Coal:  primarily used as fuel to generate electricity, coal also has a myriad of other uses, including in cement production, carbon fibers and foams, medicines, tars, synthetic petroleum-based fuels, and home and commercial heating.

  • Natural Gas: generates electricity, heating, and industrial uses for producing chemicals, fertilizers, hydrogen, etc.

Eradicating the world of crude oil usage without first having a replacement in mind would be immoral and evil, as extreme shortages of the products now manufactured from fossil fuels will result in billions of fatalities from diseases, malnutrition, and weather-related deaths and could be a greater threat than climate change to the world’s eight billion population.

This Epoch Times TV 1-minute video about the lack of a backup plan to replace oil is short, educational, and entertaining. The video has already been viewed by more than 834,000 on social media at https://www.youtube.com/shorts/stf2YrznkZU.

By contrast, “transitioning” humanity to just electricity means converting to wind and solar systems that can manufacture none of the vital products now being used by humanity. That will very likely cause the death of BILLIONS of people from diseases, malnutrition, lowered living standards, and weather-related disasters, whereas projections of millions of fatalities from “carbon emissions” and climate change are based on computer models that take none of these realities into account.

Vladimir Putin and China’s Xi Jinping are great World War I and II historians. They both know there is no substitute for fossil fuel product dominance in the foreseeable future, even on a longer-term horizon. To believe a transition to just electricity from renewables is possible from the products now manufactured from fossil fuels and act accordingly is suicidal for humanity. As former Congressman Don Ritter of Pennsylvania wrote, “It’s the real “existential threat.”

Occasional electricity from renewables cannot run modern civilizations’ households, businesses, hospitals, militaries, space programs, jets, and cruise ships, and no products and fuels [that] are now based on crude oil!

The silence is deafening from billionaires like Bill Gates, John Kerry, Mark Zuckerberg, George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, President Biden, and the media that continues to refrain from asking a John Stossel-styled “give-me-a-break” question: Can you imagine our world without jets, airports, merchant ships, cruise liners, militaries, hospitals, social media communications, space programs, and toilets?

*****

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

Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons

TAKE ACTION

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

NYC Climate Ignorati March Against ‘Fossil’ Fuels – Again thumbnail

NYC Climate Ignorati March Against ‘Fossil’ Fuels – Again

By The Geller Report

Another far left march against civilization. These evil clowns will be the death of us.

Climate Change is another Marxist hoax. AMERICA WAKE UP!

”The goal of scientific research should be to pursue the truth, not confirm a personal or institutional bias. But many analyses of the global warming hypothesis begin with the assumption that man has caused global warming and then proceed to try to prove the thesis, employing pseudoscience in the effort.”  [American Thinker- 1]

Agenda 2030 Is In Peril, Globalists Are Becoming Desperate. [The Great Climate Con – 2 ]

Even Bill Gates is backtracking — the air’s gone out of the climate-crisis balloon.[NY Post-3]

“It would be nice to see the New York City government emphasize crime control, subway maintenance and pothole-fixing instead of trendy (and grift-filled) social justice projects.”

Video Part 1 – Climate March NYC was huge with the usual hard -core leftards and do-gooders who still think dinosaurs are the source of oil. (so many FOSSIL FUEL signs.) Lots of Street Theatre when they get together that always entertains and of course, kids (and adults) with dino-hats as the Ignorati happily marched to First Avenue and speakers and music and FUN.

Video Part 2 – Lots of Street Theatre when they get together that always entertains and of course, kids (and adults) with dino-hats as the ignorati happily marched to First Avenue and speakers and music and FUN.

Video Part 3- Chose to avoid the end of the march….there’s only so much silliness to be endured …

Flickr Slideshow — Part 1. Always a lot of pictures to post of the climate warnings, the costumes and the banners.

Flickr Part 2 — Everyone was VERY happy, even though the end of the world is near.

Flickr Part 3 — Families. young and old. politicians. Communists and LOTS of Socialists.

Flickr Part 4 — And it seemed out of state as well, based on some of the t-shirts

Think Manhattan is a mess this Climate Week? Wait until the UN-led movement bans fossil fuels [NY Post-4]

[American Thinker-5]

In legitimate scientific research, the data obtained by experimentation or observation are never adjusted; adjustments corrupt the data and invalidate the results. If the methodology used in an experiment or observation is faulty, one adjusts the methodology, not the data obtained from the investigation.

In effect, adjustments to temperature readings have artificially “created” global warming.

…. the Earth has no average temperature to measure or calculate,

…. CO2 does not cause global warming.  I use publicly available data from the world’s temperature databases to prove that there has been no statistically significant global warming of the Earth’s atmosphere, oceans, or land mass as the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increasedthereby falsifying the global warming hypothesis.

…. It is all about the money and political power. Science has been sacrificed on the altar of political opportunism for economic and political gain.

.. “why do the UN IPCC and certain US and world politicians continue to promote the man-made global warming hypothesis when the science and data prove it to be false?”

The legal definition of fraud is intent to deceive….

Guy K. Mitchell, Jr. is the author of a book titled Global Warming: The Great Deception — The Triumph of Dollars and Politics Over Science and Why You Should Care

AND NOW LET’S DISCUSS:

Why do people always reference dead dinosaurs when discussing oil and other fossil fuels. How did dinosaurs turn into oil? [NY Post- 6]

Jacob Hall 3y  [QUORA-7] Unfortunately a large percentage of people in modern times are ignorant in the majority… and seemingly have absolutely no intention of ever changing that. Most people around 45 years old or younger were actually taught the truth back in school… but I guess most were not paying attention.

Originally the concept of “fossil fuels” was brought about by some misinformation from the 1700’s.

This term was apparently first used by German chemist Caspar Neumann in 1759. It was subsequently used in the early 1900s to give people the idea that petroleum, coal and natural gas come from “ancient living things”, as a way to promote them as a “natural substance” within the public’s consciousness of those times.

Even as recently as the 1970’s some oil companies still inaccurately referred to their products as “dead dinosaurs” (you really would think that these kinds of specialised companies would at least understand the product they are selling).

The term “fossil fuel” is just a misnomer that caught on and has continued to persist into modern times. But oil and natural gas do not actually come from “fossilized dinosaurs” (hence they are not actually “fossil fuels” at all).

Petroleum, natural gas and coal come from ancient pressurised and “cooked” BIOMASS, primarily from plankton and decaying marine organisms, and single-celled bacteria that evolved in the Earth’s oceans about three billion or so years ago.

Therefore, oil and gas are still “organic” BUT contain no actual “fossils”.

Coal on the other hand was mainly laid down during the Carboniferous period, about 300 million years ago (which was still a good 75 million or so years before the rise of the first dinosaurs). Coal was formed when the dense forests and jungles were buried beneath layers of sediment, and their unique fibrous chemical structure caused them to be ‘cooked’ intsolid coal rather than liquid oil.

I guess “Ancient Dead Biomass” Fuels just isn’t a “sexy” enough term to have ever caught on… and as a consequence inaccurate terms and concepts like “fossil fuels” continue to persist.

Is the oil we are burning today the corpses of dinosaurs?

No, virtually none of the oil we are burning today came from dead dinosaurs. This is a popular misconception, similar to the cartoons of cave men living among the dinosaurs. Neither is true, they are just memes that are propagated by people who are trying to be funny, or people who don’t know any better.

In reality, the vast majority of oil on earth today originated as marine plankton that lived in shallow seas. As the plankton died, it sank to the bottom and was buried in the mud under anaerobic conditions where it did not decay. Over time, the increasing sediment from above buried this organic mud deeper and deeper. [https://qr.ae/pKXolu….regardless of where it is found, virtually none of the oil comes from dinosaurs, nearly all of it comes from marine plankton.

IN CONCLUSION:

[Although it may seem contradictory, the cornerstone of the scientific method is the ability to falsify, not prove, a hypothesis.If there is no means to disprove a hypothesis, there is no means to verify its validity.

As Einstein famously stated, “no amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.“] [American Thinker -9]

LINKS used:

  1. [https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/10/global_warming_and_the_earths_land_mass.html]
  2. [https://thegreatclimatecon.com/agenda-2030-is-in-peril-globalists-are-becoming-desperate/]
  3. [https://nypost.com/2023/09/25/even-bill-gates-is-backtracking-the-airs-gone-out-of-the-climate-crisis-balloon/]
  4. [https://nypost.com/2023/09/21/think-manhattan-is-a-mess-this-climate-week-wait-until-the-un-led-movement-bans-fossil-fuels/]
  5. [https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/10/global_warming_and_the_earths_land_mass.html]
  6. [https://nypost.com/2023/09/25/even-bill-gates-is-backtracking-the-airs-gone-out-of-the-climate-crisis-balloon/]
  7. [https://www.quora.com/Why-do-people-always-reference-dead-dinosaurs-when-discussing-oil-and-other-fossil-fuels-How-did-dinosaurs-turn-into-oil/answer/Jacob-Hall-9]
  8. [https://qr.ae/pKXolu]
  9. [https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/10/global_warming_and_the_earths_land_mass.html]

FOR Reference:

Monarch EXTINCTION and other Climate Claims:

https://lamag.com/news/the-monarch-butterfly-beats-extinction-in-triumphant-california-comeback

Defend the Planet : [https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/festival/nyc/2023/]

The world’s poorest people contribute the least but suffer the most from the climate crisis. Climate change impacts people’s health, ability to access nutritious food, and livelihoods.

YET: the Hypocrisy of the Greenies jumps to the FRONT:
[https://nypost.com/2023/10/04/another-green-failure-global-citizens-ruin-our-local-park-to-save-the-planet/]

Sept 23 Global Citizen Festival destroys Great Lawn Central Park

[https://www.westsiderag.com/2023/10/03/large-section-of-great-lawn-closed-until-at-least-april-following-damage-from-global-citizen-festival]

Never Mind: The Carbon loons who justify their personal JETS with CARBON CREDITS ….A world controlled by the ELITES …. We are just along for the ride.

[Pictures and Videos where indicated property of Pamela Hall-VSB]

Will the UAW Strike Perpetuate the Death Spiral Already Mandated for the Automobile Industry? thumbnail

Will the UAW Strike Perpetuate the Death Spiral Already Mandated for the Automobile Industry?

By Ronald Stein

Increased labor costs are potentially insurmountable and uncontrollable challenges facing the automobile industry for the government mandates in wealthy countries for lower emission EVs.

The UAW strike that began September 14th by 146,000 UAW union members seeking a 46 percent pay raise, a 32-hour week with 40 hours of pay, and restoration of traditional pensions will most likely have one of two outcomes, both of which say perpetuate the death spiral for the automobile industry.

  1. The increased cost of American manufacturing, which will further increase the cost of EVs that are already unaffordable to most, and/or,
  2. Increasing the cost of U.S. manufacturing may result in more offshore manufacturing needed, which may decimate U.S. stateside manufacturing.

The UAW members are not fazed by the death spiral already mandated for the automobile industry. The few healthy and wealthy countries of the United States of America, Germany, the UK, and Australia, representing 6 percent of the world’s population (505 million vs. 7.8 billion), are mandating social changes to achieve zero emissions via EVs that may be fueling (no pun intended) a death spiral for the automobile industry.

Simply put, in those healthy and wealthy countries, every person, animal, or anything that causes emissions to rise harmfully could vanish off the face of the earth or even die off, and global emissions will still explode in the coming years and decades ahead over the population and economic growth of China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Vietnam, and Africa.

The UAW wants a more lucrative package and is not concerned with the “pieces of the EV puzzle” that may be the formula for an automobile industry death spiral:

  1. Extremely limited supply chain for lithium to make current technology EV batteries.
  2. Lack of a sufficient number of buyers outside the elite profile of existing EV owners.
  3. Shortage and inflation for all the material supplies to make vehicles.
  4. Due to EV battery fire potentials, questionable means of transporting EVs from foreign manufacturers to the USA consumers.
  5. Concern about renewable electricity being able to charge EV batteries.
  6. The Government’s lack of ethical, moral, and social responsibilities encourages the exploitation of people with yellow, brown, and black skin who are mining for exotic minerals and metals in poorer developing countries to support the green movement in wealthy countries.

Where are the batteries?

The UAW race is on for a better contract, while the race is on to produce more lithium in the United States as the supply chain for the major component of EV batteries, lithium, is already being compromised internationally. The following international dark clouds on the lithium supply chain may be a prelude to an American rejection of strip mining in the most environmentally regulated and controlled communities in the world:

The Chilean Supreme Court stopped the mining of lithium in Salar de Atacama, Chile – a massive chunk of terrain that holds 55 percent of the world’s known lithium deposits.

  • Initiatives around the world to open mines and ore processing plants have caused a public uproar as environmentalists and the local population are fearful about the impact on nature and people’s livelihoods.
  • The European Chemicals Agency’s (ECHA) risk assessment committee is aiming to label three lithium compounds as dangerous for human health.

Where are the buyers?

Fair wages are number one to UAW, while EVs are already unaffordable to most. The current EV ownership profiles are reflected in the oligarchic elite that are highly educated, highly compensated, multi-car families with low mileage requirements for the family’s second car, are dramatically different from most vehicle owners that are single-car owners, not highly educated, nor highly compensated. Mandating a change to EV ownership and further austerity may face a rebellion from those who need transportation.

Where is the transportation from the foreign manufacturers to the car dealers?

Increasing production costs in the U.S. may increase manufacturing outside the borders of America. In 2019, China, Japan, India, Germany, and South Korea were manufactured more than 50 million vehicles compared to the 11 million manufactured in the USA.

Bringing those foreign-built cars to America may be an insurmountable insurance problem. The Felicity Ace, a 650-foot-long cargo ship carrying hundreds of millions of dollars worth of luxury cars sunk in March 2022. The salvage crew working on the burning ship said electric vehicle batteries were part of the reason it was still aflame after several days. The estimated market value of the Felicity Ace was $24.5 million, while the total value of the 3965 vehicles was over $500 million.

With potential fires from the EV batteries in vehicles, who is going to take the insurance responsibility for their safe passage from the foreign manufacturers to American ports, the cargo ships, or the manufacturers?

Where are the vehicle materials?

Most people, as well as UAW members, do not know that crude oil is useless unless it can be manufactured into something usable. All the materials for the EV, from electronics, plastics, glass, leather, tires, etc., are all made from the oil derivatives manufactured from crude oil.

Today’s Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) divesting in fossil fuels are all the rage to divest in all fossil fuels. ESG is working but will result in shortages and inflation as the new norm as society’s demands for the products from crude oil exceed the supply from the diminishing number of manufacturers.

There were almost 700 oil refineries in the world as of January 2020, but as a result of continuous over-regulations, permitting delays, and aging equipment, over the next five years, 20 percent of them are projected to close. That is a whopping 140 manufacturers that will close. Shortages and inflation in perpetuity may be the new norm as society’s demands for the products manufactured from crude oil continually exceed the supply from the diminishing number of manufacturers.

Where is the electricity?

The government’s zest for zero-emissions electricity in favor of intermittent electricity from breezes and sunshine is eliminating coal-fired and natural gas power plants that have been generating continuous uninterruptable electricity.

We have all read about the concerns toward “grid stability” to be able to charge those EV batteries. Well, the UK may have given the world a heads-up on why electricity rates may be rising in perpetuity.

In the UK, their concerns for grid stability with fewer and fewer continuous uninterruptible power generation facilities have implemented regulations that went into force in June 2022 that restrict charging times.

In the UK, new chargers in the home and workplace now automatically switch off in peak times to avoid potential blackouts. New UK chargers are pre-set to not function during 9 hours of peak loads, from 8 am to 11 am (3 hours) and 4 pm to 10 pm (6 hours).

In addition, all home-installed UK electric vehicle chargers are required to be separately metered and sent this information to a Smart meter data communications network. Potentially, this UK legislation allows the electricity used for charging EVs to be assessed and taxed at a higher rate than domestic electricity. Obviously, the EV electricity users are the ones who will be paying to upgrade and maintain the grid.

Where is the ethical, moral, and social responsibility for the lithium supplies to meet the mandate toward EVs? 

The Pulitzer Prize-nominated book “Clean Energy Exploitations – Helping Citizens Understand the Environmental and Humanity Abuses That Support Clean Energy does an excellent job of discussing the lack of transparency regarding the environmental degradation and humanity atrocities occurring in developing countries mining for those exotic minerals and metals to support the “green” movement.

The subsidies to purchase EVs are financial incentives encouraging further exploitation of yellow, brown, and black-skinned residents in developing countries. Are those subsidies ethical, moral, and socially responsible to those being exploited?

In summary, the UAW strikers want more compensation and are not influenced by the passion of the few wealthy countries to achieve zero emissions at any cost. They will face major supply chain issues of lithium and all body parts, affordability, safety from spontaneous fires, availability and affordability of electricity from breezes and sunshine, and the ethical challenges that are exploiting folks in poorer countries just for the elites to drive an EV manufactured by the few that survive the government mandated death spiral.

*****

This article was published at The Heartland Institute and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

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

Switzerland to BAN Electric Cars to Reduce Energy Consumption thumbnail

Switzerland to BAN Electric Cars to Reduce Energy Consumption

By The Geller Report

It’s to laugh, it’s to cry. The real world consequences of leftists hoaxes and lies.

Switzerland plans to BAN electric cars from the roads and order games consoles turned off during power shortages in a bid to reduce energy consumption

  • Swiss have drawn up emergency plans to deal with energy shortages this winter
  • In emergency situation, electric vehicles will be banned for all-but essential trips
  • ‘Crisis’ restrictions could see all sports stadiums and leisure businesses closed

By Chris Pleasance for MailOnline, 2 December 2022

Switzerland will ban the use of electric cars for ‘non-essential’ journeys if the country runs out of energy this winter, the government has announced.

Emergency plans drawn up in the event the Swiss are hit by blackouts also call for shop opening hours to be reduced by up to two hours per day, heating systems in nightclubs to be turned off, and other buildings to be heated to no more than 20C.

Crisis measures could see streaming services and games consoles banned, Christmas lights turned off, and all sports stadiums and leisure facilities closed.

Keep reading.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLES:

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

Largest Electric Vehicle Charging Station In World Powered By Diesel-Powered Generators

As Other Automakers Push EVs, This Luxury Brand Drove Laps Around Them In 2022

The Green Agenda’s Dark Side: Evicting You From Your Home?

RELATED VIDEO: Grant’s Story from EnergyCitizens

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

‘They Don’t Care About Our Rules’: Locals Reject Chinese-Tied Battery Factory’s Construction In Their Community thumbnail

‘They Don’t Care About Our Rules’: Locals Reject Chinese-Tied Battery Factory’s Construction In Their Community

By The Daily Caller

Residents of a small country town in Michigan have rejected the planned construction of a Chinese Communist Party (CCP)-tied “gigafactory” in their community, The New York Times reported Tuesday.

Gotion Inc., a subsidiary of the Chinese parent company, Gotion High-Tech Power Energy Co., plans to build a $2.4 billion electric vehicle(EV) battery factory spanning hundreds of acres in Green Charter Township, Michigan, which is largely made up of rural farmland, according to the NYT. Residents have opposed elected local leader’s decision to allow Gotion into their community, as the parent company is led by a CCP member and employs hundreds more.

“It’s the Communist influences that I’m bothered by, because they have shown repeatedly that they don’t care about our rules, our laws or anything,” Lori Brock, a resident living near the planned site of the factory, told the NYT. “They shouldn’t be able to buy here.”

🚨EXCLUSIVE🚨 from @LenczyckiPhilip

Chinese Parent Behind Company Building Michigan Battery Plants Employs 923 CCP Membershttps://t.co/UhjQLNKTul

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) August 31, 2023

Gotion High-Tech plans to build multiple factories throughout the U.S. in addition to the factories they have already established in California and Ohio. Fears of CCP influence spreading through regions where Gotion High-Tech plans to build has been brushed off by the company, who denies its ties to the CCP, and democratically elected leaders who have green lit their construction.

Despite its denial, the Daily Caller News Foundation previously reported that Gotion High-Energy’s CEO has worked directly with the CCP and employs 923 party members. Further questions were raised after it was reported that Gotion High-Tech’s “Articles of Association state that: “The Company shall set up a Party organization and carry out Party activities in accordance with the Constitution of the Communist Party of China. The Company shall ensure necessary conditions for carrying out Party activities.”

The DCNF previously reviewed footage of multiple Gotion High-Tech field trips to communist revolutionary memorials in China, in which employees can be seen wearing matching Red Army uniforms and pledging an oath to the CCP.

Republican lawmakers have criticized elected leaders like Democratic Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker and Democratic Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, for allowing Gotion to build in their states. Republican Presidential candidates like Vivek Ramaswamy and Nikki Haley have been equally critical; Haley called Whitmer “a comrade” for backing the factory, and Ramaswamy plans to hold a campaign rally at Brock’s Township horse farm in protest.

Hundreds of residents have cast blame on the Green Charter Township board of trustees, a group of local officials who voted to allow tax breaks for Gotion as it preps to build its factory.

“I will go to my grave and people will curse me for this project,” Jim Chapman, the Green Charter Township supervisor, said to the NYT. “What are they going to spy on us for in Big Rapids?”

Critics plan to oust Chapman in a November recall election, and residents have raised money to file lawsuits and stonewall permits Gotion will need for construction, according to the NYT. A “No Gotion” group has been started on Facebook with over 1,000 members.

“We haven’t even started,” Brock said. “We haven’t even hit them with one lawsuit yet, and it’s coming.”

Gotion did not immediately respond to the DCNF’s request for comment.

AUTHOR

JAKE SMITH

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLE: ‘Not Good For Us’: Locals Furious Over Secretive Deal With CCP-Linked Battery Firm

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.

Fossil Fuels Aren’t a Bad Habit We Can Just Kick. They’re a Critical Part of the Economy thumbnail

Fossil Fuels Aren’t a Bad Habit We Can Just Kick. They’re a Critical Part of the Economy

By David Brady,Jr.

Editors Note: Portions of an excellent documentary series on energy created by Erik Townsend called Energy Transition Crisis have been presented in The Prickly Pear video section. You should take the time to view the series. Townsend, an accomplished energy futures trader and the producer of the excellent podcast Macrovoices believes that mankind is causing climate change, and much like Bjorn Lomborg, believes we are going about facing the challenge all wrong. There are many cheap ways to mitigate climate change, whatever its cause, without destroying both our freedom and prosperity.  However, we disagree on two fronts having to do with initial assumptions: We don’t think the case has been made when .04% of the atmosphere is CO2, with humans contributing 3% of that. There have to be other variables at play. As Ian Plimer has pointed out, the most recent ice ages began with CO2 levels higher than they are today. If that is true, the connection between CO2 and climate has not been established. Secondly, Townsend and others say we are “addicted” to oil. The word “addicted” has pejorative connotations, i.e., a dependence on an unnecessary substance for the purposes of fulfilling uncontrollable urges. That is not how energy use evolved. Humans have burned dung, wood, coal, and oil, and maybe in the future, we should be using nuclear energy. But that is sort of like saying we are “addicted” to food. We need food to survive and we need energy to survive. It is the transference of energy embedded in hydrocarbons that drives our machines and produces our standard of living. The least we should demand of our leaders is they are not only unequivocally correct in making their case, but in addition that they also have realistic plans to replace the system that has evolved naturally. We should not sacrifice our freedom and standard of living to satisfy some people’s hysteria. If some people wish to do so, that is their prerogative, but they have no right to force others, for that is the essence of dictatorship.  The history of central planning, however, is force, strewn with failures of government having the ability to plan from the top down and determine what companies and what technologies should succeed. No one forced the use of oil, it evolved naturally out of the alternatives. To his credit, Mr. Townsend only asks the government for a reasonable regulatory regime while he wants to go raise the money and take the risks to bring the new modular nuclear technology to the market economy.

Calls for the elimination of fossil fuels suffer from much the same problem as central planning.

If one is on social media, they are likely already acquainted with the fear-mongering that is the “climate crisis.” While many rightly regard it as a manufactured crisis for government overreach, it also lacks an understanding of the structure of production in its demands.

The claim for this crisis rests on the supposed destruction of the planet that will come to be if humanity continues in its current industrial capacity. The common demands of the activists are the halting of fossil fuel contracts, the creation of federal agencies to address it, or legislation like that of the “Green New Deal.”

It’s not simply the cries of anxiety-ridden college students, though they certainly act as the foot soldiers for this cause. Political interests in the United States and Europe have expressed their care for this issue as well. President Joe Biden established an Office of Climate Change as a part of the DHS. Prominent progressive politician Alexandria-Ocasio Cortez (AOC) has made climate change one of her pet issues, accusing the President of not doing enough to tackle the issue. In Europe, even the monetary authorities have made it their role to play policymaker. Christina Lagarde, the president of the European Central Bank, has made a pledge to use monetary policy to reduce carbon emissions before the ever-touted 2030 deadline. Fortunately, her American counterpart—Jerome Powell—has so far rebuked the same demands of the Federal Reserve.

How feasible are their demands? Just for the sake of argument, let’s assume the science is correct in terms of function: that human action is the largest contributor to changes in weather patterns and the atmosphere. So, what of the demands? Is it feasible to eliminate all fossil fuel use? The short answer: no. The long answer demands an understanding of the structure of production and the complexity of getting common goods into our hands.

Fossil fuels are not simply used for gasoline and diesel fuel in vehicles. Fossil fuels typically include oil (or petroleum for those in the Old World) and natural gas (such as methane and fracked gas deposits). 80% of energy globally is produced by some form of fossil fuels. “Renewable energies” marketed by climate activists are simply unable to provide the energy needed to combat the elements—evidenced by the power failures of Texas.

But fossil fuels’ involvement in the economy hardly stops there. Oil is a primary ingredient in the creation of plastics, and not simply the single-use plastics that are so often decried. The interior of vehicles, for example, are made of plastic. Even the exterior of many vehicles as well. This is done not for style, but for safety. When cars are made of plastic that crushes during impact, they absorb much more of the force and save lives.

Simply think of Leonard Read’s classic essay “I, Pencil. How many of the goods, and components for those goods, are transported by these vehicles every day? How many laborers create those goods? Those laborers need to be transported as well. If we eliminated the use of fossil fuels, how many lives would be lost because of the increased danger of vehicles?

Just from this one example alone, it can be understood just how critical even one product made by fossil fuels can be in the economy. And this is just scratching the surface. There are so many consumer goods and producer goods made with oil: tires, lipstick, synthetic rubber, crayons, fishing rods, dyes, anesthetics, fertilizers, and so much more. Many of these goods are valued in their direct service of human desires, others have value in their service of producing consumer goods, and some for both uses.

To remove fossil fuels from the economy would thus remove hundreds of kinds of consumer and producer goods from the marketplace. If one was to trace any given good backwards from its components to eventually land and labor, practically every single good in any advanced economy would intersect with fossil fuels at some point. Even the famed “I, Pencil” will eventually touch fossil fuels.

Fossil fuels are so ingrained into the production process that it would be simply impossible to remove them from the global economy without making everyone drastically poorer. Every attempt would result in the destabilization of the market process. So, what should be done? There is a good case that private property rights could be the key to protecting the environment. Markets deliver innovation and efficiency, and if the goal is to protect the environment, then they will deliver. We should not overthrow the standard of living provided by fossil fuels. Rather we should let the market do its work. To slightly modify a quote from 1993’s Jurassic Park: The market [uh] finds a way.

*****

This article was published by FEE, The Foundation for Economic Education, and is reproduced with permission.

Image Credit: Shutterstock

TAKE ACTION

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

Largest Electric Vehicle Charging Station In World Powered By Diesel-Powered Generators thumbnail

Largest Electric Vehicle Charging Station In World Powered By Diesel-Powered Generators

By The Geller Report

The de-civilization and dismantling of the West is due in large part to an increasing lack of intellectual curiosity by the body politic, propaganda by an immense, unfathomable left wing machine, laziness and downright stupidity.

Largest EV Charging Station In World Powered By Diesel-Powered Generators

The Harris Ranch Tesla Supercharger station is an impressive beast. With 98 charging bays, the facility in Coalinga, California, is the largest charging station in the world. But to provide that kind of power takes something solar can’t provide — diesel generators.

By: Kevin Killough, Cowboy State Daily, September 30, 2023:

The Harris Ranch Tesla Supercharger station is an impressive beast. With 98 charging bays, the facility in Coalinga, California, is the largest charging station in the world.

In 2017, Tesla CEO said that all Superchargers in the automaker’s network were being converted to solar.

“Over time, almost all will disconnect from the electricity grid,” Musk posted on X, formally known as Twitter.

Superchargers charge vehicles up to the 80% sweet spot in as little as 20 minutes, but to provide that kind of power for nearly 100 bays takes something solar can’t provide — diesel generators.

Investigative journalist Edward Niedermeyer discovered that the station was powered by diesel generators hidden behind a Shell station. Reporters at SF Gate tried to find out how much of the station’s electricity was from the generators, but couldn’t get a response from Tesla.

The station isn’t connected to any dedicated solar farms, which means that absent the diesel generators, the station is powered by California’s grid.

According to the U.S. Energy and Information Administration, in June 2023, natural gas supplied nearly 5,000 megawatt hours of electricity in California, whereas non-hydroelectric renewables supplied about 7,250 megawatt hours.

Another Case

Energy analyst and writer David Blackmon, author of the “Energy Transition Absurdities,” told Cowboy State Daily that the use of diesel-powered generators is not limited to the Harris Ranch station.

He used to shop at a Whole Foods in Houston. The company had installed a charging station in front of the store for its customers.

“It was the best parking spot in the lot, and it crowded out a bunch of handicap spaces,” Blackmon said.

He said there were diesel generators behind the store and whenever someone was using the chargers, the generators would kick on.

Keep reading.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

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

‘Simple Econ 101’: Here’s How California’s E-Truck Push Could Hamstring The American Economy thumbnail

‘Simple Econ 101’: Here’s How California’s E-Truck Push Could Hamstring The American Economy

By The Daily Caller

  • California’s push to electrify the heavy-duty trucking fleet in the state is likely to hurt independent trucking operators and drive up costs for goods across the entire American economy, experts on California policy and the trucking industry told the Daily Caller News Foundation.
  • California will ban the sale of new diesel-powered heavy-duty trucks starting in 2036, and trucking companies that move products between state’s ports and distribution hubs will not be allowed to register new diesel trucks with the state starting in 2024, according to the California Air Resources Board (CARB).
  • The state’s policies will require more trucks “to haul the same amount of freight” and “have a real impact on the supply chain and the cost and reliability of transportation for the goods that consumers depend on every day,” Jeremy Kirkpatrick, a spokesperson for the American Trucking Association, told the DCNF.

California’s push to transition diesel trucks to electric models in the coming years is likely to damage the state’s trucking industry as well as the larger American economy, experts on California policy and the trucking industry told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

California law will ban the sale of new diesel-powered heavy-duty trucks in the state starting in 2036, and trucking companies that move products between the state’s ports and distribution hubs will not be allowed to register new diesel trucks starting in 2024, according to the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The policies could drive up costs for operators and consumers, an outcome that would hurt the overall U.S. economy, given that California’s 12 ports handle approximately 40% of all imported containers to the U.S. and 30% of all of its shipping container exports, according to the California Legislative Analyst’s Office.

“There are serious issues with range and charge times, operability in cold weather environments and reduced payloads because of the battery weight,” Jeremy Kirkpatrick, a spokesperson for the American Trucking Association, told the DCNF. “That means more trucks will be needed to haul the same amount of freight. All of this will have a real impact on the supply chain and the cost and reliability of transportation for the goods that consumers depend on every day.”

The state’s policies effectively mandate that nearly all of the state’s freight hauling, package delivery and box trucks would be zero-emission vehicles by no later than 2045, according to the office of Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom. Without incentives, electric trucks are nearly three times more expensive up front than a diesel powered rig, according to the Environmental and Energy Study Institute.

VP HARRIS: “When we invest in clean energy and electric vehicles and reduce population, more of our children can breath clean air and drink clean water.” pic.twitter.com/yhZzDmkeAM

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) July 14, 2023

The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), President Joe Biden’s signature climate bill, provides incentives that can cover about $40,000 of the overall cost of electric trucks, which have an average cost of about $400,000, according to the International Council on Clean Transportation.

“Electric trucks in particular have limited range based on numerous factors (weight, outside air temperature, etc.), and many cannot operate much over 250 miles before needing to be recharged (diesels can operate well over 1,000 miles depending on fuel tank size),” Joe Rajkovacz, director of governmental affairs and communications for the Western States Trucking Association, told the DCNF. “The recharging times (supposing there are sufficient charging points), can take hours, not minutes as with diesel. This takes away significantly from the hours of service drivers are allowed daily under both state and federal regulations.”

“As trucks time out, many will not be replaced, reducing the required number of available trucks to California ports and rail yards,” Rajkovacz continued. “It is simple Econ 101; when a shortage hits, prices go up.”

California’s policies on truck emissions are the strictest in the nation and are oriented around the state’s goal to achieve an overall emissions reduction of 85% by 2045, according to Newsom’s office.

“These vehicles are far more expensive and cost-prohibitive for most truckers,” Kirkpatrick told the DCNF. He added that “96% of trucking companies in this country are small businesses operating ten trucks or fewer. The charging infrastructure is nowhere near in place, and even if it was, there’s not electricity on the grid to power the fleet.”

There were less than 700 electric truck chargers across the entire state as of July, and the state estimates that more than 150,000 new chargers will be required in order to power the fleet of the future, according to The Wall Street Journal. California’s grid already struggles to comfortably meet periods of peak demand, as the state’s grid operator issued “Flex Alerts” over a 10-day period in September 2022 urging residents to turn up their thermostats during the late afternoon and evening hours to conserve energy amid a heatwave.

The potential problems of an electrified trucking fleet will not be exclusive to California, as eight other states have opted into at least some of California’s rules for truck emissions. Those states are Oregon, Washington, Colorado, New Jersey, New York, Maryland, Massachusetts and Vermont, according to CARB.

“There are new technologies coming fast and mandating pure electric vehicles closes off innovation and creates obsolete trucks within a few years,” Edward Ring, senior fellow for the California Policy Center. told the DCNF. “Meanwhile, our entire fleet gets sidelined and countless independent truckers are wiped out.”

AUTHOR

NICK POPE

Contributor

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘Americans Had Better Wake Up’: Biden Admin Fires Next Regulatory Salvo In Its Push For EVs

Unintended Consequences: The California Electric Truck Mandate

The US Is Starting To Feel The Pain Of Years Of Massive Deficit Spending

RELATED TWEET:

You can’t make this up.🤡 pic.twitter.com/mzt1LfxETm

— Dr. Anastasia Maria Loupis (@DrLoupis) October 1, 2023

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.

Even Bill Gates [!] is Backtracking on Climate Change thumbnail

Even Bill Gates [!] is Backtracking on Climate Change

By The Geller Report

For years no one with access to major media platforms would speak up and out against the greatest political fraud of the modern age.

The immense power and machinery of the left will destroy you. The idea that idiot savants like Bill Gates ((basically he had a genius for writing code) should dictate global policies based on his wacky notions speaks to the low state of the world.

Even Bill Gates is backtracking — the air’s gone out of the climate-crisis balloon

By Glenn H. Reynolds, NY Post, September 25, 2023:

Excerpt:

Speaking at a New York Times event, he observed that heavy-handed policies won’t work: “If you try to do climate brute force, you will get people who say, ‘I like climate but I don’t want to bear that cost and reduce my standard of living.’”

As Gates noted, many of these people are in middle-income countries, like China and India, that are the biggest contributors to carbon emissions today and whose emissions (unlike those of the United States) have been growing.

He also rained on the greens’ apocalyptic parade, saying “no temperate country is going to become uninhabitable.”

And he cautioned against untested approaches like massive tree planting: “Are we the science people or are we the idiots? Which one do we want to be?”

Well, the climate policies the political system supports are mostly the ones likely to yield the most graft, and those the corporate world supports are mostly the ones involving massive government subsidies.

But it’s interesting to see Gates softening his tone; it feels as if climate outrage has passed its sell-by date.

Oh, sure, there are still kooks in Europe gluing themselves to roadways and the occasional nut throwing oil on famous works of art, but it’s all started to seem rather forced.

When you see a shift in a social trend like this, it’s almost always happening for the same reason: The people behind it have figured out it’s doing the left more harm than good.

It’s of a piece with the sudden de-emphasis of ESG (environmental, social, governance) as a tool of corporate management.

In both cases, the detached, well-off white people who mostly run the left dreamed up causes and slogans, which their follow-the-herd peers uncritically adopted until they ran into reality and the rest of the world noticed.

Keep reading

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLES:

Nobel Prize Winner Canceled By IMF After Announcing There Is No Climate Crisis

The ‘Climate Emergency’ Is a Hoax

Over 1,600 Scientists Declare There is No Climate Emergency

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

DOT Invests $100 Mil to Help Disadvantaged Communities by Fixing Broken EV Chargers thumbnail

DOT Invests $100 Mil to Help Disadvantaged Communities by Fixing Broken EV Chargers

By Judicial Watch

Besides subsidizing the electric vehicle (EV) industry with a staggering $15.5 billion, the Biden administration is investing an additional $100 million in federal funding to prioritize the repair and replacement of EV charging stations throughout the U.S. The venture will “ensure disadvantaged communities benefit from upgraded charging infrastructure,” according to the Department of Transportation (DOT), which is doling out the money. The costly EV charger project is part of the administration’s Justice40 Initiative which requires 40% of all federal government investments to flow to “disadvantaged communities that are marginalized, underserved, and overburdened with pollution.” The president signed an executive order within days of taking office to allocate unprecedented public funds to poor minority communities in the name of environmental justice.

The multi-million-dollar EV charger restoration project will operate under a Justice40 initiative known as National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Formula Program that provides states with money to strategically deploy charging stations and establish an interconnected network to facilitate data collection, access and reliability. “The Biden-Harris Administration has set a goal of building a convenient, affordable, reliable, equitable, and Made-in-America electric vehicle (EV) charging network along the Nation’s highways and within our communities,” according to the grant announcement issued this month by the DOT. Because it is a Justice40 program the feds will use a White House Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool to track how assisted chargers aid needy communities. “Recipients of awards under this program can also use the tool to ensure disadvantaged communities benefit from upgraded charging infrastructure,” the grant document states, adding that “the tool can be used to help prioritize and sequence projects to maximize benefits to disadvantaged communities.”

The White House launched the Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool in response to the president’s January 2021 order to tackle the “climate crisis at home and abroad.” The directive includes an extensive section dedicated to securing environmental justice for disadvantaged, historically marginalized and overburdened communities, by among other things, creating a White House Environmental Justice Interagency Council consisting of top government leaders. The heads of key federal agencies—including the attorney general, secretaries of defense, labor, transportation and energy—were essentially ordered to address environmental justice in minority and low-income populations. “Agencies shall make achieving environmental justice part of their missions by developing programs, policies, and activities to address the disproportionately high and adverse human health, environmental, climate-related and other cumulative impacts on disadvantaged communities, as well as the accompanying economic challenges of such impacts,” according to Biden’s order.

It is not clear what the EV ownership rate is in marginalized or overburdened communities or the demand for chargers because the government has failed to provide that information. However, the administration does reveal that as of this month, 6,261 public charging ports out of 151,506 nationwide were identified as being temporarily unavailable. California has the largest number (1,707) of broken chargers followed by New York (541), Texas (379), Florida (356) and Massachusetts (265). The objective of the administration’s $100 million investment is to enhance and maintain the reliability of the charging network by focusing on the repair or replacement of existing chargers that are currently non-operational, a goal it asserts “will be aligned with the Biden-Harris Administration’s Justice40 Initiative.” The connection is not fully explained.

Just weeks before the charger allotment the administration announced that, as part of the president’s Investing in America agenda, the Department of Energy is disbursing $15.5 billion to “support a strong and just transition to electric vehicles.” The money will focus on “retooling existing factories for the transition to electric vehicles,” according to the agency. Jennifer Granholm, Biden’s energy secretary, claims the funding shows that the president “understands that building the cars of the future also necessitates helping the communities challenged by the transition away from the internal combustion engine.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘Wipe Us Out’: Striking UAW Workers Rip Biden’s Push To Force Americans Into EVs

‘A Hit Job On Michigan And On Detroit’: Trump Calls Biden EV Push A ‘Government Assassination’ Of Auto Jobs

E-Buses Bought From Now-Bankrupt Manufacturer By Blue Enclave Are Now All Out Of Commission

Energy Firms Unload On Biden’s ‘Attack’ On Fossil Fuels In Anonymous Survey

‘Workers Of America Are Getting Screwed’: Here’s What To Expect From Trump’s Visit To Detroit On Debate Night

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

Desperate Governors Beg For Offshore Wind Cost Relief thumbnail

Desperate Governors Beg For Offshore Wind Cost Relief

By David Wojick

Six Atlantic shore Governors are begging the Feds to bail them out of a huge looming offshore wind cost overrun. They sent Biden a joint letter asking for a list of relief measures ranging from tax breaks to revenue sharing.

The outcome is far from clear but my guess is the largess is unlikely to appear, especially given the ongoing federal budget battles. Maybe later. However most of the requests also likely require major regulatory changes, which could take years. They might even take legislation which could be never.

But the need is urgent as the offshore developers are demanding immediate power price increases of around 50% lest they leave for better opportunities elsewhere. They can do this because offshore wind is a global boom. Even mid-income developing countries like Indonesia are talking big offshore numbers.

Ironically, it is this boom that is driving some of the sticker-shocking price increases. There is even a shortage of highly specialized crane ships to erect these huge towers. The supply chain is a seller’s market, at least on paper. Rising interest rates are another big driver.

The letter is pretty vague, but there are basically three kinds of federal relief requested. These are tax credits, revenue sharing, and streamlined permitting. I am sure there is lots of lobbying going on by the developers, as well as the Governors. Unfortunately, it is all secret so the specific issues are well hidden, making the following brief analysis somewhat speculative.

The letter is here: https://cleanpower.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Governors-Offshore-Wind-Letter_ACP.pdf

There look to be two tax credit issues. The first, which the IRS might actually be able to do something about, involves the definition of the renewable energy project that gets the investment tax credits. At present, probably only the generating assembly counts. This likely includes the tower and monopile foundation as well as the turbine generator and enormous blades.

But it may not include the extensive undersea connector cabling, the massive offshore substations, the huge export cabling, and the costly onshore transmission upgrades. These system components make up a sizable fraction of the project cost.

The second issue is the bonus tax credits awarded under the so-called Inflation Reduction Act. This is a 10% credit bump that developers get if they meet certain domestic content specs. Offshore wind already gets a big break under IRA because their content requirement is just half that of all other renewable projects.

As far as I can tell, they want the presently measly requirement to be even less. This is likely because most of the components come from overseas. America has very little specialized offshore component production capability since we have never built any here. Building this kind of industrial capacity will take a long time.

However, since the specific domestic component requirements are in the law, the IRS may have very little leeway, and what they have should require rulemaking. How this works out will be very interesting to watch. It might take legislation, which is uncertain, to say the least.

On revenue sharing, the States want a piece of the billions of dollars developers are paying the Feds in offshore site lease payments. Single sites have paid over a billion. Some sites are at least partially within State waters, but most are not.

Here the question is why taxpayers in, say, Wyoming should, in effect, pay to lower electricity bills in New Jersey? The agency in charge of offshore leasing is the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) in the Interior Dept. They are gung ho for offshore wind, so might not mind sharing revenue if it keeps the project coming.

I have no idea what the legalities are here except they are likely to be complex. BOEM has been doing offshore oil and gas leasing in the Gulf for a long time, so there should be a big body of law to deal with.

Who gets how much is an interesting question, especially for projects set to sell juice to several States. Plus, the States expect to sell some to other States. Given that many of the power purchase contracts at issue are with utilities, not States, maybe they should get the money.

For that matter, if this revenue sharing happened, the Gulf states might want a piece of the oil and gas action. None of this is simple, for sure. (Aside: maybe the Feds should collect royalties on the harvested wind power, like the 18.75% they get on offshore oil production.)

As for speeding up permitting, that is already a hot topic in Congress, but there is no consensus on what it even means, much less how to do it. I think BOEM is already going as fast as it can, ignoring many issues in the process, such as whale deaths. And, of course, the Biden Executive Branch cannot speed up the Judiciary, where a lot of the project delay lies in litigation.

In short, this seemingly simple letter is pointed at some really hairy issues. The talks are going on in secret, and I have yet to see any detailed analysis of the potential policies and ramifications thereof. If the fate of Atlantic offshore wind really depends on taking these hairy steps, then we are in “Nobody knows land” for sure. This cannot be good from the investment point of view so more stocks may drop.

Stay tuned to CFACT to see how this wacky offshore drama plays out. It might be a while.

*****

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

Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons

TAKE ACTION

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

VIDEO: UK’s Prime Minister Rishi Sunak Speaks Sense on Net Zero thumbnail

VIDEO: UK’s Prime Minister Rishi Sunak Speaks Sense on Net Zero

By Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow

Britain’s prime minister, Rishi Sunak, was denounced before he’d uttered a word on net zero ahead of his short remarks on Wednesday.

WATCH: Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s Net Zero press conference

Lord Deben, the recently departed chair of the statutory Climate Change Committee, took to the airwaves to accuse the government of stupidity. Lord Zac Goldsmith, son of the billionaire Sir James Goldsmith, who resigned from the government earlier this summer, said the prime minister had no mandate to change any net zero commitments and should call an immediate election.

As it turned out, Sunak’s remarks did not substantively change very much. “I’m absolutely committed to reaching Net Zero by 2050,” the prime minister insisted. True, the prime minister pledged that the government wouldn’t force families to rip out their gas-fired boilers and replace them with expensive heat pumps. And, he announced that the ban on sales of petrol and diesel cars would be pushed back to 2035, which former prime minister Boris Johnson had brought forward to 2030 in one of his periodic fits of climate jingoism. What Sunak didn’t say was whether the rising quota of electric vehicle (EV) mandates squeezing out sales of conventional vehicles would remain in place.

This, though, would be to miss what the prime minister had done: politically, everything has changed. “No one in politics has had the courage to look people in the eye and explain what that involves,” Sunak said of net zero. “That’s wrong – and it changes now.” He promised that his approach to net zero would be pragmatic, proportionate, and realistic.

Of course, net zero by 2050 is none of those things. It is ideological, disproportionate, and unachievable. So why the vehemence of the climate lobby’s attacks on Sunak? In their eyes, Sunak has committed the worst crime of all: he has broken the net zero omertà, which enforces a pact of silence on discussing the policy’s true costs. In public, net zero should only be spoken of as the growth opportunity of the century, something that’s good for the economy as well as the planet. That it might inflict cost and hardship must never be said.

Sunak has destroyed this silent agreement. He has made it possible for mainstream political discourse to mention possible downsides to net zero. In this respect, he’s been assisted by his opponent’s reaction. Labor could have closed the issue down by saying it would be counter-productive to bring forward the ban. Instead, Labor leader Sir Keir Starmer immediately pledged to reverse Sunak’s reversal of the 2030 ban on selling new petrol and diesel cars. With EV sale mandates still in place, there is very little before and after difference – except Sir Keir now owns the downsides of the net zero anti-car policy.

Commentary on EVs focuses on the user experience – the vehicles’ cost premium, for example, or problems such as range anxiety and the inconvenience of re-charging them compared to filling up with a tank of fuel. These issues make EVs either a luxury purchase for individuals or a tax-efficient purchase made by businesses on behalf of their employees. There’s been much less focus on the implications for the electrical grid of mass EV adoption. As Manhattan Institute senior fellow Mark Mills discusses in a recent paper, “Electric Vehicles for Everyone? The Impossible Dream,” transitioning automotive energy derived from molecules to electrons has enormous implications for the grid and local distribution networks.

It’s not solely about the relative costs of electricity versus liquid hydrocarbons. (Electricity is much more expensive before taxes, a net zero fiscal hole Labor also needs to address.) According to Mills, transporting a unit of electrical energy using wires and transformers is about 20-fold more expensive than transporting the same quantity of energy as oil in pipelines and tankers. When you fill up your tank with gasoline, the same amount of energy per second is going into your car as being generated by four 5-megawatt wind turbines. The electrical grid and local distribution networks are simply not designed to accommodate the enormous increase in electrical power required for mass EV adoption – and the faster the EV charger, the more power it needs.

Upgrading Britain’s electrical network for EVs will cost many tens of billions of pounds. Who pays? That’s now a question for Sir Keir and Labor to answer. Will electrical utilities discriminate between electricity used to charge an EV and boil a kettle? Some 55% of British households don’t own a car. Does Labor expect the 55% of non-car owners to subsidize the cost of grid and local network upgrades for the benefit of the small proportion of the 45% of car owners who have EVs? Labor’s green socialism inverts traditional socialism. It envisions less well-off community members subsidizing better-off EV owners through their electricity bills.

The prime minister can have had few illusions about the consequences of breaking with the climate consensus to speak of costs and downsides. The climate lobby is well-funded and deeply networked throughout politics and the media. It required courage and conviction for Sunak to have taken this step. Thanks to him, Britain’s climate policy debate will never be the same.

This article originally appeared at Real Clear Energy

Rupert Darwall

Rupert Darwall is a Senior Fellow at the RealClear Foundation.

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