climatechangedispatch--2020-08-27--California’s Blackouts Showcase Biden-Harris’ Radical Green Agenda

Written by Daniel Turner on .
Posted in Latest news This past week , the nation has watched California experiencing its first intentional rolling blackouts since the state ’ s 2001 energy crisis .
Governor Gavin Newsom , pointing out that solar panels don ’ t work at night and acknowledging the unusually calm winds which don ’ t move turbines , called the situation “ unacceptable.
” That situation , the one created by government leaders supplanting reliable , inexpensive , domestic , abundant fossil fuels for the en vogue yet inadequate green energy , isn ’ t getting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demand is only increasing and likely to exceed the record reached in 2006 .
The Wall Street Journal ’ s Editorial Board referred to this as “ California ’ s green new normal.
” If Democratic vice presidential nominee and California Senator Kamala Harris is given the reigns to America ’ s energy policy , rolling blackouts , a consistent lack of energy , and much worse will become a nationwide norm .
Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has been inconsistent regarding his energy policy platform throughout the campaign trail .
During one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year , Biden was very explicit in saying that he “ would make sure it ’ s [ fracking ] eliminated and no more subsidies for either one of those [ fracking and coal ] , either… ” Since then , his campaign team has stated that he does not support a nationwide fracking ban but still wants to stop all oil and gas drilling on federal lands .
A recent study found that this plan – which the continuously left-moving Democrats are labeling as “ moderate ” – would “ cost almost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ billions of revenue dollars , and push offshore production to other countries.
” Relative to the agenda of Biden ’ s new running mate , that policy and those losses are moderate .
Senator Harris has been remarkably consistent in her stance on fracking .
Harris has repeatedly bragged about her intention to ban fracking and enforce a series of restrictions on the natural gas and oil industry .
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ’ s ( D-NY ) Green New Deal is a codification of the eco-Left ’ s radical agenda – Harris is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Green New Deal would impose a large and recurring cost on American families .
According to a Power The Future study , it would cost a typical household at least $ 74,000 in the first year of implementation and more than $ 40,000 every year thereafter .
Another report by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ’ s Global Energy Institute estimates that a ban on fracking in 2021 would lead to the loss of 5.9 million jobs in seven states within the next five years .
About 600,000 of these job @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a key swing state .
The majority of voters doubt that Biden would be able to serve out a full term in office – that makes Harris ’ radical agenda even more substantial .
California , under Harris ’ watch , has come closer than any other state to actually implementing the sweeping , radical Green New Deal .
As a result , for the privilege of not being able to turn on their lights or use air conditioning , Californians pay 61 percent above the national average for electricity .
California ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for years that the state ’ s increasing dependence on intermittent renewables , especially solar , is making it harder to ensure reliable power .
California ’ s Governor Newsom even acknowledged “ gaps ” in reliability while the state continues to rely more and more on renewable energy .
Still , he said that the state remains “ committed to radically changing the way we produce and consume energy.
” That ’ s a warning .
Radically changing how we consume energy means government rationing .
Will electricity use be illegal between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thermostats not go below 78 degrees ?
Will the electric meter turn-off after a homeowner hits the limit ?
Can the rich pay for more energy ?
I don ’ t think California elites , be they Hollywood celebrities or Silicon Valley moguls , are going dark anytime soon .
If these seem implausible , you ’ re wrong : they are inevitable .
Remember Newsom said the state ’ s energy consumption must “ radically change.
” We should take him at his word .
If the Biden-Harris ticket wins , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Deal and other radical , illogical , unscientific environmental proposals are advanced nationally , California ’ s misery will be expanded on a national scale .
Biden has long been pandering to the eco-Left to gain the support of Bernie Bros , but choosing Harris as a running mate cements this Democratic ticket as the most radical we ’ ve ever seen .
And , if you ’ re curious about how that experiment might end , look no further than Harris ’ home state .
Look now while you still have light @

Written by Daniel Turner on Aug 27, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
This past week, the nation has watched California experiencing its first intentional rolling blackouts since the state’s 2001 energy crisis.
Governor Gavin Newsom, pointing out that solar panels don’t work at night and acknowledging the unusually calm winds which don’t move turbines, called the situation “unacceptable.”
That situation, the one created by government leaders supplanting reliable, inexpensive, domestic, abundant fossil fuels for the en vogue yet inadequate green energy, isn’t getting better, either, as the energy demand is only increasing and likely to exceed the record reached in 2006.
The Wall Street Journal’s Editorial Board referred to this as “California’s green new normal.”
If Democratic vice presidential nominee and California Senator Kamala Harris is given the reigns to America’s energy policy, rolling blackouts, a consistent lack of energy, and much worse will become a nationwide norm.
Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has been inconsistent regarding his energy policy platform throughout the campaign trail.
During one of the Democratic presidential debates earlier this year, Biden was very explicit in saying that he “would make sure it’s [fracking] eliminated and no more subsidies for either one of those [fracking and coal], either…”
Since then, his campaign team has stated that he does not support a nationwide fracking ban but still wants to stop all oil and gas drilling on federal lands.
A recent study found that this plan – which the continuously left-moving Democrats are labeling as “moderate” – would “cost almost 200,000 jobs, deny the U.S. government billions of revenue dollars, and push offshore production to other countries.”
Relative to the agenda of Biden’s new running mate, that policy and those losses are moderate.
Senator Harris has been remarkably consistent in her stance on fracking. Harris has repeatedly bragged about her intention to ban fracking and enforce a series of restrictions on the natural gas and oil industry.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s (D-NY) Green New Deal is a codification of the eco-Left’s radical agenda – Harris is a proud co-sponsor.
At a minimum, the Green New Deal would impose a large and recurring cost on American families.
According to a Power The Future study, it would cost a typical household at least $74,000 in the first year of implementation and more than $40,000 every year thereafter.
Another report by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Global Energy Institute estimates that a ban on fracking in 2021 would lead to the loss of 5.9 million jobs in seven states within the next five years.
About 600,000 of these job losses would take place in Pennsylvania, a key swing state.
The majority of voters doubt that Biden would be able to serve out a full term in office – that makes Harris’ radical agenda even more substantial. California, under Harris’ watch, has come closer than any other state to actually implementing the sweeping, radical Green New Deal.
As a result, for the privilege of not being able to turn on their lights or use air conditioning, Californians pay 61 percent above the national average for electricity.
California’s Independent System Operator has been warning for years that the state’s increasing dependence on intermittent renewables, especially solar, is making it harder to ensure reliable power.
California’s Governor Newsom even acknowledged “gaps” in reliability while the state continues to rely more and more on renewable energy.
Still, he said that the state remains “committed to radically changing the way we produce and consume energy.” That’s a warning.
Radically changing how we consume energy means government rationing. Will electricity use be illegal between 2 am to 6 am? Will thermostats not go below 78 degrees? Will the electric meter turn-off after a homeowner hits the limit? Can the rich pay for more energy?
I don’t think California elites, be they Hollywood celebrities or Silicon Valley moguls, are going dark anytime soon. If these seem implausible, you’re wrong: they are inevitable.
Remember Newsom said the state’s energy consumption must “radically change.” We should take him at his word.
If the Biden-Harris ticket wins, and even a fraction of the Green New Deal and other radical, illogical, unscientific environmental proposals are advanced nationally, California’s misery will be expanded on a national scale.
Biden has long been pandering to the eco-Left to gain the support of Bernie Bros, but choosing Harris as a running mate cements this Democratic ticket as the most radical we’ve ever seen.
And, if you’re curious about how that experiment might end, look no further than Harris’ home state. Look now while you still have light.
Read more at RealClearEnergy
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-27--German Drs: Global Warming Could Make Men Infertile, Affect Sperm

Written by Pierre Gosselin on .
Posted in Latest news From the ‘ Every Sperm Is Sacred ‘ Dept : German scientists claim that global warming could lead to higher male infertility as higher temperatures might reduce sperm quality – but conclude further studies are needed .
Testicular problems due to climate change : Urologists worry about sperm quality in a hotter atmosphere Because of the already unbelievably and noticeably hotter atmosphere , us men could soon all become impotent , suggests a statement by Professor Joachim Steffens , head physician of the Clinic for Urology and Pediatric Urology ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Eschweiler , Germany .
The German Society for Urology also fears something similar .
The testicles of most male mammals are located in the scrotum outside of the torso because the sperm stem cells can not withstand 37°C ( elephants are an exception ) .
If men wear overly tight underpants for too long , the stem cells can be damaged .
The result can be a tumor or an inability to procreate .
If the temperature of the earth ’ s atmosphere rises by 2-3°C close to the ground , this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tight underpants .
This is what Professor Steffens seriously claims in the introduction and the DGU .
What more can one say to this ?
Is it satire ?
Should one really give a scientific answer to this ?
The answer is provided unanimously by commentators of Facebook groups Facts Against Climate Hysteria and Climate Truth : In Africa and the Middle East , where it is usually at least 2-3°C hotter than in Europe , the number of children has been rising unabated for 40 years .
Shouldn ’ t the problem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since become apparent there ?
” Yes , of course .
But the German RP reports : So why all the urgency ?
Very simple : Do you get it ?
He wants public funding !
Then they will “ research ” and the result will be – presto !
– heat is bad for testicles .
You don ’ t need climate research for that ; but it does well when it comes to research proposals , which this year must contain the signal words “ gender ” , “ rightwing ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t play the game loses money and influence .
Read more at No Tricks Zone

Written by Pierre Gosselin on Aug 27, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
From the ‘Every Sperm Is Sacred‘ Dept:
German scientists claim that global warming could lead to higher male infertility as higher temperatures might reduce sperm quality – but conclude further studies are needed.
Testicular problems due to climate change: Urologists worry about sperm quality in a hotter atmosphere
By A.R. Göhring
(Translated, edited by P. Gosselin)
Because of the already unbelievably and noticeably hotter atmosphere, us men could soon all become impotent, suggests a statement by Professor Joachim Steffens, head physician of the Clinic for Urology and Pediatric Urology (DGU) at the St. Antonius Hospital in Eschweiler, Germany.
The German Society for Urology also fears something similar.
The testicles of most male mammals are located in the scrotum outside of the torso because the sperm stem cells cannot withstand 37°C (elephants are an exception).
If men wear overly tight underpants for too long, the stem cells can be damaged. The result can be a tumor or an inability to procreate.
If the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere rises by 2-3°C close to the ground, this phenomenon could perhaps also occur without overly tight underpants. This is what Professor Steffens seriously claims in the introduction and the DGU.
What more can one say to this? Is it satire? Should one really give a scientific answer to this? The answer is provided unanimously by commentators of Facebook groups Facts Against Climate Hysteria and Climate Truth:
In Africa and the Middle East, where it is usually at least 2-3°C hotter than in Europe, the number of children has been rising unabated for 40 years. Shouldn’t the problem of damage caused by heat have long since become apparent there?”
Yes, of course. But the German RP reports:
So why all the urgency? Very simple:
Steffens sees an urgent need: ‘There is still no systematic research on the effects of global warming on diseases of the urinary tract and the male reproductive organs. He encourages interdisciplinary research networks to learn more about the urological consequences of climate change.’”
Do you get it? He wants public funding! Then they will “research” and the result will be – presto! – heat is bad for testicles.
You don’t need climate research for that; but it does well when it comes to research proposals, which this year must contain the signal words “gender”, “rightwing” or “climate.”
Anyone who doesn’t play the game loses money and influence.
Read more at No Tricks Zone
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-27--Turns Out Green Energy Is A Dirty Business

Written by I & I Editorial on .
Posted in Latest news We argued last week that California ’ s blackouts offered a grim preview of the left ’ s energy agenda .
But that ’ s only part of the carefully concealed truth about renewables .
Those solar panels so precious to the you-must-conform green-shirts are a particularly nasty environmental menace .
“ The state , once known for its plentiful , cheap and reliable energy supplies , is now dealing with rolling blackouts as its green energy infrastructure buckles under the strain of summer heat , ” we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to blow and the sun isn ’ t always shining , not even in California .
Of course , a few virtue-signaling commenters charged to the table in their electric vehicles to praise the virtues of renewable energy , which in California will be limited primarily to the wind and solar .
Hydro sources , responsible for more than 12 % of the state ’ s electricity , won ’ t be included in the portfolio in 2045 , the year power is to be by decree generated by renewables only .
Other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 5 % , and biomass , not much more than 2 % , provide such minute portions of California electricity they are hardly worth mentioning .
Left out of the often mistaken , never-in-doubt assertions of renewables ’ unalloyed goodness is the fact that the hardware used is hardly renewable .
It wears out and needs to be replaced .
Then what ?
“ The problem of solar panel disposal ‘ will explode with full force in two or three decades and wreck the environment ’ because it ‘ is a huge amount @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to recycle , ’ ” writes energy analyst Michael Shellenberger , quoting a Chinese recycling official .
In his 2018 Forbes column headlined “ If Solar Panels Are So Clean , Why Do They Produce So Much Toxic Waste ?
” , Shellenberger also quotes a four-decade veteran of America ’ s solar industry , who said : “ The reality is that there is a problem now , and it ’ s only going to get larger , expanding as rapidly as the PV industry expanded 10 years ago ” ; and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Stuttgart , Germany , who found that “ contrary to previous assumptions , pollutants such as lead or carcinogenic cadmium can be almost completely washed out of the fragments of solar modules over a period of several months , for example by rainwater.
” More recently , Hazardous Waste Experts reported worn-out solar panels are “ a potent source of hazardous waste , ” producing a “ dilemma ” that “ is especially virulent in California , Oregon , and Washington , as those states started adopting solar energy earliest in the game @ @ @ @ @ @ @ necessarily be its own reward.
” And just as solar and wind chew up immense tracts of real estate , so , too , will the retirement of solar energy ’ s constituent parts .
“ If solar and nuclear produce the same amount of electricity over the next 25 years that nuclear produced in 2016 , and the wastes are stacked on football fields , the nuclear waste would reach the height of the Leaning Tower of Pisa ( 52 meters ) , while the solar waste would reach the height of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) , ” says Environmental Progress , which also tells us that “ solar panels create 300 times more toxic waste per unit of energy than do nuclear power plants.
” Even Grist , a magazine that is surely read out loud in late-evening group sessions at Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ’ s congressional office , notes “ solar panels are starting to die ” and ponders “ what will we do with the megatons of toxic trash.
” The environmental risk of renewables isn ’ t limited to solar , either .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , bird-killing windmills have to be retired , too .
“ Researchers estimate the U.S. will have more than 720,000 tons of blade material to dispose of over the next 20 years , a figure that doesn ’ t include newer , taller higher-capacity versions , ” National Public Radio reported last year .
“ It ’ s a waste problem that runs counter to what the industry is held up to be : a perfect solution for environmentalists looking to combat climate change.
” Of course , we haven ’ t even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ renewables before they ’ ve even produced a single watt of energy .
We ’ ll cover that later .
For now , we ’ ll let stand as our argument the comment left by energy consultant Ronald Stein , who helpfully pointed out that much of the raw material used to build our “ clean ” energy equipment “ comes from foreign countries ” that mine “ with no environmental regulations , ” which leads “ to unrecoverable environmental degradations .
”

Written by I&I Editorial on Aug 27, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
We argued last week that California’s blackouts offered a grim preview of the left’s energy agenda. But that’s only part of the carefully concealed truth about renewables.
Those solar panels so precious to the you-must-conform green-shirts are a particularly nasty environmental menace.
“The state, once known for its plentiful, cheap and reliable energy supplies, is now dealing with rolling blackouts as its green energy infrastructure buckles under the strain of summer heat,” we said Thursday because the wind sometimes refuses to blow and the sun isn’t always shining, not even in California.
Of course, a few virtue-signaling commenters charged to the table in their electric vehicles to praise the virtues of renewable energy, which in California will be limited primarily to the wind and solar.
Hydro sources, responsible for more than 12% of the state’s electricity, won’t be included in the portfolio in 2045, the year power is to be by decree generated by renewables only.
Other renewables, such as geothermal, maybe 5%, and biomass, not much more than 2%, provide such minute portions of California electricity they are hardly worth mentioning.
Left out of the often mistaken, never-in-doubt assertions of renewables’ unalloyed goodness is the fact that the hardware used is hardly renewable. It wears out and needs to be replaced. Then what?
“The problem of solar panel disposal ‘will explode with full force in two or three decades and wreck the environment’ because it ‘is a huge amount of waste and they are not easy to recycle,’” writes energy analyst Michael Shellenberger, quoting a Chinese recycling official.
In his 2018 Forbes column headlined “If Solar Panels Are So Clean, Why Do They Produce So Much Toxic Waste?”, Shellenberger also quotes a four-decade veteran of America’s solar industry, who said: “The reality is that there is a problem now, and it’s only going to get larger, expanding as rapidly as the PV industry expanded 10 years ago”; and researchers from the Institute for Photovoltaics in Stuttgart, Germany, who found that “contrary to previous assumptions, pollutants such as lead or carcinogenic cadmium can be almost completely washed out of the fragments of solar modules over a period of several months, for example by rainwater.”
More recently, Hazardous Waste Experts reported worn-out solar panels are “a potent source of hazardous waste,” producing a “dilemma” that “is especially virulent in California, Oregon, and Washington, as those states started adopting solar energy earliest in the game – suggesting that eco-virtue mightn’t necessarily be its own reward.”
And just as solar and wind chew up immense tracts of real estate, so, too, will the retirement of solar energy’s constituent parts.
“If solar and nuclear produce the same amount of electricity over the next 25 years that nuclear produced in 2016, and the wastes are stacked on football fields, the nuclear waste would reach the height of the Leaning Tower of Pisa (52 meters), while the solar waste would reach the height of two Mt. Everests (16 km),” says Environmental Progress, which also tells us that “solar panels create 300 times more toxic waste per unit of energy than do nuclear power plants.”
Here’s more:
While nuclear waste is contained in heavy drums and regularly monitored, solar waste outside of Europe today ends up in the larger global stream of electronic waste. Solar panels contain toxic metals like lead, which can damage the nervous system, as well as cadmium, a known carcinogen. Both are known to leach out of existing e-waste dumps into drinking water supplies.
Even Grist, a magazine that is surely read out loud in late-evening group sessions at Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s congressional office, notes “solar panels are starting to die” and ponders “what will we do with the megatons of toxic trash.”
The environmental risk of renewables isn’t limited to solar, either. Those monstrous sails that spin on view-spoiling, bird-killing windmills have to be retired, too.
“Researchers estimate the U.S. will have more than 720,000 tons of blade material to dispose of over the next 20 years, a figure that doesn’t include newer, taller higher-capacity versions,” National Public Radio reported last year.
“It’s a waste problem that runs counter to what the industry is held up to be: a perfect solution for environmentalists looking to combat climate change.”
Of course, we haven’t even touched on the environmental damage caused by renewables before they’ve even produced a single watt of energy. We’ll cover that later.
For now, we’ll let stand as our argument the comment left by energy consultant Ronald Stein, who helpfully pointed out that much of the raw material used to build our “clean” energy equipment “comes from foreign countries” that mine “with no environmental regulations,” which leads “to unrecoverable environmental degradations.”
Clean energy sure is a dirty business.
Read more at Issues & Insights
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-27--Joe Biden’s Climate Plan Would Be An Environmental Disaster

Written by James Taylor on .
Posted in Latest news Imagine an America where mountaintop ridges , coastal seashores , open plains , and most of our undeveloped lands are developed with wind turbines from coast to coast .
Imagine an America where we are forced to transform two-thirds of the nation ’ s landmass into fields for industrial wind turbines , leaving little land left over for forests , open spaces , animal habitat , or anything else .
That is exactly what Joe Biden ’ s climate plan would require .
Under a Biden presidency , we must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Biden ’ s climate plan , America must run on 100 percent emissions-free power by 2050 , with enforceable milestones as early as 2025 .
But the problem with this is there is much more to environmental protection than merely carbon dioxide emissions .
A recent Harvard University study found that in order to meet America ’ s current electricity needs , it would require covering one-third of the nation ’ s landmass with wind turbines .
Furthermore , the Green New Deal , which Biden pledges to enact , would require @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The transportation sector produces more emissions than electricity , so that would require covering another third of America with wind turbines .
The wind turbines to replace current electricity plus the wind turbines to cover transportation needs would ultimately cover two-thirds of America ’ s land .
Of course , people will continue to exist .
People require housing , roads , commercial buildings , and land devoted to other human use .
Currently , because the footprint of land required for generating conventional energy is so small , there is plenty of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and energy generation .
Biden ’ s climate plan would change that .
Wind turbines require 360 times more land to generate the same amount of power as nuclear power .
The same discrepancy applies to coal and natural gas , as coal and natural gas land requirements are just as low as nuclear power .
Even worse , the mining of rare earth minerals that are necessary components of wind and solar equipment is perhaps the most environmentally destructive activity on the planet .
The environmental destruction caused by rare earth mining @ @ @ @ @ @ @ few nations freely allow it .
China is one of them , which why they dominate global rare earth production .
Under Biden ’ s climate plan , either America will have to introduce rampant and environmentally devastating rare earth mining here in our country , or , we will deliberately make ourselves almost completely dependent on China for the materials needed to build and maintain our energy infrastructure .
The choice is frightening and even dangerous .
Even if Biden breaks his promise and we only partially impose new wind and solar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ devastating .
The U.S .
Fish and Wildlife Service estimates wind turbines already kill between 140,000 and 500,000 birds each year , including many protected and endangered species .
Other studies put the number much higher .
Moreover , wind turbines kill even more bats than birds .
Increasing wind power from its current 7 % share of U.S. electricity production to 35 % would presumably increase bird and bat deaths five-fold ; up to a million-plus bird kills and a million-plus bat kills each year .
Compounding the environmental harm , this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thousands of square miles of land with wind turbines , devastating pristine lands , and the plants and animals that live there .
Adding Kamala Harris to the ticket makes the Biden climate plan worse .
Harris decommissioned her climate plan website last week after Biden picked her as his running mate .
Nevertheless , her plan called for 100 percent emissions-free power by 2030 , rather than Biden ’ s 2050 .
That calls for destroying just as much land , habitat , and wildlife three times more quickly than Biden .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t make Biden ’ s already devastating climate plan even more extremist .
At the end of the day , Joe Biden would either devastate America ’ s environment or pull a bait-and-switch on the American people and admit his climate plan is unworkable .
Perhaps it is unreasonable to think this , but can ’ t Biden speak honestly about his plans , not try to deceive the American people , and then keep his promises ?

Written by James Taylor on Aug 27, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Imagine an America where mountaintop ridges, coastal seashores, open plains, and most of our undeveloped lands are developed with wind turbines from coast to coast.
Imagine an America where we are forced to transform two-thirds of the nation’s landmass into fields for industrial wind turbines, leaving little land left over for forests, open spaces, animal habitat, or anything else.
That is exactly what Joe Biden’s climate plan would require. Under a Biden presidency, we must prepare for an environmental apocalypse.
According to Biden’s climate plan, America must run on 100 percent emissions-free power by 2050, with enforceable milestones as early as 2025.
But the problem with this is there is much more to environmental protection than merely carbon dioxide emissions.
A recent Harvard University study found that in order to meet America’s current electricity needs, it would require covering one-third of the nation’s landmass with wind turbines.
Furthermore, the Green New Deal, which Biden pledges to enact, would require an all-electric vehicle fleet as well.
The transportation sector produces more emissions than electricity, so that would require covering another third of America with wind turbines.
The wind turbines to replace current electricity plus the wind turbines to cover transportation needs would ultimately cover two-thirds of America’s land.
Of course, people will continue to exist. People require housing, roads, commercial buildings, and land devoted to other human use.
Currently, because the footprint of land required for generating conventional energy is so small, there is plenty of room for people, undeveloped lands, and energy generation. Biden’s climate plan would change that.
Wind turbines require 360 times more land to generate the same amount of power as nuclear power. The same discrepancy applies to coal and natural gas, as coal and natural gas land requirements are just as low as nuclear power.
Even worse, the mining of rare earth minerals that are necessary components of wind and solar equipment is perhaps the most environmentally destructive activity on the planet.
The environmental destruction caused by rare earth mining is so devastating that only a select few nations freely allow it. China is one of them, which why they dominate global rare earth production.
Under Biden’s climate plan, either America will have to introduce rampant and environmentally devastating rare earth mining here in our country, or, we will deliberately make ourselves almost completely dependent on China for the materials needed to build and maintain our energy infrastructure.
The choice is frightening and even dangerous.
Even if Biden breaks his promise and we only partially impose new wind and solar power, the environmental consequences will be devastating.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimates wind turbines already kill between 140,000 and 500,000 birds each year, including many protected and endangered species.
Other studies put the number much higher. Moreover, wind turbines kill even more bats than birds.
Increasing wind power from its current 7% share of U.S. electricity production to 35% would presumably increase bird and bat deaths five-fold; up to a million-plus bird kills and a million-plus bat kills each year.
Compounding the environmental harm, this would also require developing additional hundreds of thousands of square miles of land with wind turbines, devastating pristine lands, and the plants and animals that live there.
Adding Kamala Harris to the ticket makes the Biden climate plan worse. Harris decommissioned her climate plan website last week after Biden picked her as his running mate.
Nevertheless, her plan called for 100 percent emissions-free power by 2030, rather than Biden’s 2050.
That calls for destroying just as much land, habitat, and wildlife three times more quickly than Biden. We can only hope that Harris doesn’t make Biden’s already devastating climate plan even more extremist.
At the end of the day, Joe Biden would either devastate America’s environment or pull a bait-and-switch on the American people and admit his climate plan is unworkable.
Perhaps it is unreasonable to think this, but can’t Biden speak honestly about his plans, not try to deceive the American people, and then keep his promises?
Read more at Real Clear Energy
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-27--Including Laura, Louisiana Hurricanes Have Not Increased Since 1851

Written by Roy W. Spencer , Ph.D. on .
Posted in Latest news [ Hurricane Laura arrived on the Louisiana coast last night ] as a Category 4 hurricane somewhere south of Lake Charles .
There will be the inevitable fake news coverage claiming how U.S. landfalling hurricanes are getting worse , a subject which I addressed in my Amazon Kindle e-book Inevitable Disaster : Why Hurricanes Can ’ t Be Blamed on Global Warming .
Of course , hurricane damage has increased , as people flock to the nation ’ s coasts and associated infrastructure increases .
But we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Miami only had 444 residents when incorporated in 1896 , and now the Miami metroplex has over 6,000,000 inhabitants .
So , yes , storm damage will increase , but not because the weather has gotten worse .
Given the current event , which is sure to bring major damage to southwest Louisiana , I thought I would present the statistics for all documented hurricanes affecting Louisiana in the last 170 years ( 1851-2020 ) .
Neither Hurricane Numbers nor Intensities Have Increased in Louisiana If we examine all of the hurricanes affecting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the National Hurricane Center ’ s HURDAT database ( as summarized on Wikipedia ) we find that there has been no long-term increase in either the number of hurricanes or their intensity since 1851 .
Again , this is based upon official NOAA National Hurricane Center ( NHC ) statistics .

Written by Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D. on Aug 27, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
[Hurricane Laura arrived on the Louisiana coast last night] as a Category 4 hurricane somewhere south of Lake Charles.
There will be the inevitable fake news coverage claiming how U.S. landfalling hurricanes are getting worse, a subject which I addressed in my Amazon Kindle e-book Inevitable Disaster: Why Hurricanes Can’t Be Blamed on Global Warming.
Of course, hurricane damage has increased, as people flock to the nation’s coasts and associated infrastructure increases.
But we should remember that (for example) Miami only had 444 residents when incorporated in 1896, and now the Miami metroplex has over 6,000,000 inhabitants.
So, yes, storm damage will increase, but not because the weather has gotten worse.
Given the current event, which is sure to bring major damage to southwest Louisiana, I thought I would present the statistics for all documented hurricanes affecting Louisiana in the last 170 years (1851-2020).
Neither Hurricane Numbers nor Intensities Have Increased in Louisiana
If we examine all of the hurricanes affecting Louisiana in the last 170 years in the National Hurricane Center’s HURDAT database (as summarized on Wikipedia) we find that there has been no long-term increase in either the number of hurricanes or their intensity since 1851.
Again, this is based upon official NOAA National Hurricane Center (NHC) statistics.
Read more at Dr. Roy’s Blog
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-27--Leaked: Montana Gov. Bullock’s Climate Council Pushes For Carbon Tax

Written by Chris White on .
Posted in Latest news A climate council that Montana Gov .
Steve Bullock ( pictured ) established in 2019 suggested the Democratic governor implement a state carbon-tax plan to address climate change in a leaked draft of recommendations obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation .
A carbon tax could lower emissions and generate revenue for Montana ’ s economy , as well as expand the state ’ s private industry , a document from Montana ’ s Climate Solution Council reads .
The draft document , titled “ Montana Climate Solutions Plan ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been signed by Bullock but suggests several ways for the state to tackle climate change .
Four members of the 41-person council dissented to the recommendation to tax carbon emissions .
“ A carbon pricing mechanism – if structured thoughtfully and with appropriate stakeholder input – has the ability to both lower emissions ( through either a cap on emissions or through a price on carbon ) as well as generate revenues that can be invested back into the economy to expand Montana business and/or further reduce Montana [ greenhouse gas ] emissions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plan reads .
Bullock , a Democrat , is running in a tight Senate race against incumbent Republican Sen. Steve Daines .
“ Montana should consider both the mechanism for pricing carbon ( e.g.
, fee vs. cap ) , the efficacy of reducing carbon emissions , and how revenues generated from carbon pricing will be invested back into the economy , ” the document said .
Such a tax should also consider “ any disproportionate impacts to low-income and vulnerable communities , ” it adds .
The four dissenting council members raised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pricing , its potential disproportionate impacts on Montana businesses and low-income communities , and potential for carbon pricing to compound [ the ] known challenges facing the state ’ s fiscal health , ” according to the draft document .
The council has not responded to the Daily Caller News Foundation ’ s request for comment about the climate plan .
“ The governor has not formally received the recommendations , which are in draft form , and it would be inaccurate to say the governor supports any of the recommendations in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Loranger , press secretary for Bullock , said in a statement to the DCNF .
The draft noted that there is an “ important need for considering the impacts of federal legislation on the state and its economy .
The recommendation makes clear that any discussion at the federal level should include Montana stakeholders at the table , ” Loranger added .
“ This reckless proposal is a gut punch to the over 35,000 oil , gas , and coal jobs in Montana , not to mention the thousands of manufacturing and transportation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy , ” Daines wrote in a letter to Bullock .
“ Montanans rely on these jobs to support their families and revenues from these industries support our schools , communities , and essential services.
” The governor announced in February that the Montana Climate Solutions Council rolled out a set of draft recommendations for reducing carbon emissions .
The recommendations were issued for public review and comment through March 31 , 2020 .
“ We are excited to share the early recommendations of the Montana Climate Solutions Council with partners and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Montanans in the work of the Council as they identify and refine options to prepare our state and our economy for climate impacts , ” Bullock said in a statement in February .
Nearly one-third of the nation ’ s coal reserves are in Montana , and the northern and eastern areas of the state contain deposits of crude oil and natural gas , according to the Energy Information Administration .
The United States has dramatically reduced its dependence on coal power , with natural gas and other renewable energies taking the place @ @ @

Written by Chris White on Aug 27, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
A climate council that Montana Gov. Steve Bullock (pictured) established in 2019 suggested the Democratic governor implement a state carbon-tax plan to address climate change in a leaked draft of recommendations obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation.
A carbon tax could lower emissions and generate revenue for Montana’s economy, as well as expand the state’s private industry, a document from Montana’s Climate Solution Council reads.
The draft document, titled “Montana Climate Solutions Plan” and dated August 2020, has not been signed by Bullock but suggests several ways for the state to tackle climate change.
Four members of the 41-person council dissented to the recommendation to tax carbon emissions.
“A carbon pricing mechanism – if structured thoughtfully and with appropriate stakeholder input – has the ability to both lower emissions (through either a cap on emissions or through a price on carbon) as well as generate revenues that can be invested back into the economy to expand Montana business and/or further reduce Montana [greenhouse gas] emissions,” a section of the draft plan reads.
Bullock, a Democrat, is running in a tight Senate race against incumbent Republican Sen. Steve Daines.
“Montana should consider both the mechanism for pricing carbon (e.g., fee vs. cap), the efficacy of reducing carbon emissions, and how revenues generated from carbon pricing will be invested back into the economy,” the document said.
Such a tax should also consider “any disproportionate impacts to low-income and vulnerable communities,” it adds.
The four dissenting council members raised concerns “regarding the implementation of carbon pricing, its potential disproportionate impacts on Montana businesses and low-income communities, and potential for carbon pricing to compound [the] known challenges facing the state’s fiscal health,” according to the draft document.
The council has not responded to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment about the climate plan.
“The governor has not formally received the recommendations, which are in draft form, and it would be inaccurate to say the governor supports any of the recommendations in the report at this time,” Erin Loranger, press secretary for Bullock, said in a statement to the DCNF.
The draft noted that there is an “important need for considering the impacts of federal legislation on the state and its economy. The recommendation makes clear that any discussion at the federal level should include Montana stakeholders at the table,” Loranger added.
“This reckless proposal is a gut punch to the over 35,000 oil, gas, and coal jobs in Montana, not to mention the thousands of manufacturing and transportation jobs that would be crippled under such policy,” Daines wrote in a letter to Bullock.
“Montanans rely on these jobs to support their families and revenues from these industries support our schools, communities, and essential services.”
The governor announced in February that the Montana Climate Solutions Council rolled out a set of draft recommendations for reducing carbon emissions. The recommendations were issued for public review and comment through March 31, 2020.
“We are excited to share the early recommendations of the Montana Climate Solutions Council with partners and the public to encourage the engagement of all Montanans in the work of the Council as they identify and refine options to prepare our state and our economy for climate impacts,” Bullock said in a statement in February.
Nearly one-third of the nation’s coal reserves are in Montana, and the northern and eastern areas of the state contain deposits of crude oil and natural gas, according to the Energy Information Administration.
The United States has dramatically reduced its dependence on coal power, with natural gas and other renewable energies taking the place of coal.
Read rest at Daily Caller
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-26--PBS Blames Hurricanes, Wildfires On Climate Change, Defying UN ‘Consensus’

Written by H. Sterling Burnett on .
Posted in Latest news PBS News Hour attacked climate science this weekend , publishing alarmist claims about hurricanes and wildfires that defy findings of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ) .
In an interview between PBS reporter Hari Sreenivasan and Andrew Freedman , editor of Washington Post ’ s Capital Weather Gang , the two journalists blamed global warming for severe wildfires and hurricanes .
According to the IPCC , however , there is little or no evidence indicating global warming is impacting hurricanes or drought .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Climate change is driving wildfires , giving ‘ rocket fuel ’ to tropical storms.
” Sreenivasan prefaces the interview by stating , “ [ t ] he last two decades have seen an increase in the number and intensity of both wildfires–like those currently burning in California and tropical storms , with this year ’ s hurricane season on track to be one of the busiest on record.
” Freedman agrees , saying , “ Climate change is having a very clear and significant impact on wildfire size wildfire patterns … you ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than you did before.
” Regarding hurricanes , Freedman added , “ [ i ] t ’ s a record season for tropical storm season in the Atlantic already.
” Sreenivasan and Freedman get the facts wrong .
IPCC findings , confirmed by meteorological data provided by the U.S. government , show no increase in either the frequency or intensity of wildfires or hurricanes despite modestly rising temperatures over the past century .
Drought is the primary climate component that would affect wildfires .
As reported in Climate at a Glance : Drought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ high confidence ” that precipitation has increased over mid-latitude land areas of the Northern Hemisphere ( including the United States ) during the past 70 years .
Also , the IPCC has “ low confidence ” about any negative trends occurring globally .
Moreover , In 2017 and 2019 , the United States registered its smallest percentage of land area experiencing drought in recorded history .
Still , further , the United States is undergoing its longest period in recorded history with fewer than 40 percent of the country experiencing “ very dry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sources confirm the IPCC findings .
As reported in Climate at a Glance : Wildfires , long-term data from U.S. National Interagency Fire Center ( NIFC ) show wildfires have declined in number and severity in recent decades .
Using data on U.S. wildfires from as far back as 1926 , NIFC reports the number of acres burned is far less now than it was throughout the early 20th century .
As the Figure below shows , current acres burned run about 1/4th to 1/5th of the record values which occurred in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wildfires are just as clear .
In his book False Alarm , Bjorn Lomborg observes : There is plenty of evidence for a reduction in the level of devastation caused by fire , with satellites showing a 25 percent reduction globally in burned areas just over the past 18 years … In total , the global amount of area burned as declined by more than 540,000 square miles , from 1.9 million square miles in the early part of the last century to 1.4 million square miles today .
And the hurricane data @ @ @ @ @ @ @ IPCC reporting there is , “ only low confidence for the attribution of any detectable changes in tropical cyclone activity to anthropogenic influences.
” ( See the image below , courtesy of meteorologist Dr. Ryan Maue at http : //climatlas.com/tropical/ ) And , as explained in Climate at a Glance : Hurricanes , hurricane impacts have recently been an all-time low in the United States .
“ The United States recently went more than a decade ( 2005 through 2017 ) without a major hurricane measuring Category 3 or higher , which is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The United States also recently experienced the fewest number of hurricane strikes in any eight-year period ( 2009 through 2017 ) in recorded history , ” according to data from the National Hurricane Center .
If at the conclusion of this hurricane season , it proves to be busier than average for the year , it would just represent a return to normal from the 1970s and before .
With major hurricanes at historic lows and wildfires numbers and scope well below the 20th-century average , PBS is inventing fake news by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fuel ” on wildfires and hurricanes .

Written by H. Sterling Burnett on Aug 26, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
PBS News Hour attacked climate science this weekend, publishing alarmist claims about hurricanes and wildfires that defy findings of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
In an interview between PBS reporter Hari Sreenivasan and Andrew Freedman, editor of Washington Post’s Capital Weather Gang, the two journalists blamed global warming for severe wildfires and hurricanes.
According to the IPCC, however, there is little or no evidence indicating global warming is impacting hurricanes or drought.
The interview’s headline reads, “Climate change is driving wildfires, giving ‘rocket fuel’ to tropical storms.”
Sreenivasan prefaces the interview by stating, “[t]he last two decades have seen an increase in the number and intensity of both wildfires–like those currently burning in California and tropical storms, with this year’s hurricane season on track to be one of the busiest on record.”
Freedman agrees, saying, “Climate change is having a very clear and significant impact on wildfire size wildfire patterns … you’re seeing more extreme fire behavior now than you did before.”
Regarding hurricanes, Freedman added, “[i]t’s a record season for tropical storm season in the Atlantic already.”
Sreenivasan and Freedman get the facts wrong. IPCC findings, confirmed by meteorological data provided by the U.S. government, show no increase in either the frequency or intensity of wildfires or hurricanes despite modestly rising temperatures over the past century.
Drought is the primary climate component that would affect wildfires. As reported in Climate at a Glance: Drought, the U.N. IPCC reports with “high confidence” that precipitation has increased over mid-latitude land areas of the Northern Hemisphere (including the United States) during the past 70 years.
Also, the IPCC has “low confidence” about any negative trends occurring globally. Moreover, In 2017 and 2019, the United States registered its smallest percentage of land area experiencing drought in recorded history.
Still, further, the United States is undergoing its longest period in recorded history with fewer than 40 percent of the country experiencing “very dry” conditions.
Data from federal government sources confirm the IPCC findings. As reported in Climate at a Glance: Wildfires, long-term data from U.S. National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) show wildfires have declined in number and severity in recent decades.
Using data on U.S. wildfires from as far back as 1926, NIFC reports the number of acres burned is far less now than it was throughout the early 20th century.
As the Figure below shows, current acres burned run about 1/4th to 1/5th of the record values which occurred in the 1930s.
Globally, the data on wildfires are just as clear. In his book False Alarm, Bjorn Lomborg observes:
There is plenty of evidence for a reduction in the level of devastation caused by fire, with satellites showing a 25 percent reduction globally in burned areas just over the past 18 years … In total, the global amount of area burned as declined by more than 540,000 square miles, from 1.9 million square miles in the early part of the last century to 1.4 million square miles today.
And the hurricane data are just as powerful, with the IPCC reporting there is, “only low confidence for the attribution of any detectable changes in tropical cyclone activity to anthropogenic influences.” (See the image below, courtesy of meteorologist Dr. Ryan Maue at http://climatlas.com/tropical/)
And, as explained in Climate at a Glance: Hurricanes, hurricane impacts have recently been an all-time low in the United States.
“The United States recently went more than a decade (2005 through 2017) without a major hurricane measuring Category 3 or higher, which is the longest such period in recorded history. The United States also recently experienced the fewest number of hurricane strikes in any eight-year period (2009 through 2017) in recorded history,” according to data from the National Hurricane Center.
If at the conclusion of this hurricane season, it proves to be busier than average for the year, it would just represent a return to normal from the 1970s and before.
With major hurricanes at historic lows and wildfires numbers and scope well below the 20th-century average, PBS is inventing fake news by claiming climate change is pouring “rocket fuel” on wildfires and hurricanes.
Read more at Climate Realism
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-26--Senate Dems Unveil Costly, Ineffective ‘Green New Deal’ Plan

Written by Valerie Richardson on .
Posted in Latest news Senate Democrats on Tuesday rolled out an ambitious climate change plan that calls for spending $ 400 billion annually to achieve net-zero emissions no later than 2050 , even as California struggles with rolling blackouts under a comparable statewide renewable energy standard .
The 263-page report , the latest of the Democratic Green New Deal-style proposals , seeks to increase federal spending to address climate change by at least 2 % of U.S. gross domestic product annually , or about $ 400 billion , with a guarantee that 40 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and disadvantaged communities .
“ The climate crisis is not some distant threat .
It is here now , and it will be catastrophic if we don ’ t strike back immediately , ” said Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer , New York Democrat .
“ Over the next few decades , climate change will affect every part of American life : our health , our economy , our national security , even our geography.
” The plan would create “ at least 10 million new jobs ” with an aggressive transition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ energy .
It also would invest in electric vehicles , retrofit buildings , and expand public transportation .
Critics said the plan is unrealistic and wildly expensive , but the Senate Democrats ’ Special Committee on the Climate Crisis said in its report that “ there is no viable scenario in which our country avoids significant spending.
” “ We can wait and spend trillions of dollars in a disorderly , unproductive manner to continuously respond to our changing climate .
Or , we strategically invest in climate solutions now , ” the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while Californians were suffering through power outages during a heatwave .
The state hopes to convert its electrical grid to 100 % renewable energy by 2045 , five years before the Senate Democrats ’ goal , raising questions about the feasibility of such plans .
James Taylor , president of the Heartland Institute , said efforts to achieve net-zero emissions with current technology are “ simply pixie dust and wishful thinking with absolutely no basis in reality.
” “ It ’ s impossible to have net-zero energy electricity generation without frequent blackouts and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , just as a matter of science , ” Mr. Taylor said .
“ We don ’ t have the capacity to generate our electricity right now from unreliable intermittent sources and still have a reliable electricity grid , and that ’ s not going to change anytime in the near future.
” Last year , renewable energy represented about 11 % of U.S. total energy consumption and 17 % of electricity generation , according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration .
“ It ’ s just political grandstanding , ” Mr. Taylor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ destroy our reliable electricity grid or they would immediately need to break their campaign promise .
It has to be one or the other.
” Like the Green New Deal resolution proposed in 2017 by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , New York Democrat , the program laid out by Democrats on the Special Committee on the Climate Crisis includes a focus on environmental justice while adding a call to expose those who donate to “ groups trafficking in climate denial.
” Several pages of the report were devoted to blasting the free-market Competitive Enterprise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have challenged the “ climate crisis ” narrative , as well as trade associations such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce .
“ This report charts a smart path forward for climate action in Congress .
It includes the vital first step of exposing the fossil fuel industry ’ s decades-old covert operation to scuttle meaningful climate legislation , ” said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse , Rhode Island Democrat .
“ To move forward on major climate bills , we ’ ll need to execute on that recommendation.
” Steven Milloy , the publisher @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump EPA transition team , said the spending would “ accomplish nothing — but at great cost.
” “ Regardless of one ’ s views on climate science , U.S. emissions are an ever-shrinking part of global emissions , ” Mr. Milloy said .
Carbon dioxide emissions dropped 12 % in the U.S. from 2005 to 2018 , according to the EPA , and rose nearly 24 % worldwide .

Written by Valerie Richardson on Aug 26, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Senate Democrats on Tuesday rolled out an ambitious climate change plan that calls for spending $400 billion annually to achieve net-zero emissions no later than 2050, even as California struggles with rolling blackouts under a comparable statewide renewable energy standard.
The 263-page report, the latest of the Democratic Green New Deal-style proposals, seeks to increase federal spending to address climate change by at least 2% of U.S. gross domestic product annually, or about $400 billion, with a guarantee that 40% of the benefits would go to minority and disadvantaged communities.
“The climate crisis is not some distant threat. It is here now, and it will be catastrophic if we don’t strike back immediately,” said Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat.
“Over the next few decades, climate change will affect every part of American life: our health, our economy, our national security, even our geography.”
The plan would create “at least 10 million new jobs” with an aggressive transition from fossil fuels to solar and wind energy. It also would invest in electric vehicles, retrofit buildings, and expand public transportation.
Critics said the plan is unrealistic and wildly expensive, but the Senate Democrats’ Special Committee on the Climate Crisis said in its report that “there is no viable scenario in which our country avoids significant spending.”
“We can wait and spend trillions of dollars in a disorderly, unproductive manner to continuously respond to our changing climate. Or, we strategically invest in climate solutions now,” the report said.
The proposal was introduced while Californians were suffering through power outages during a heatwave.
The state hopes to convert its electrical grid to 100% renewable energy by 2045, five years before the Senate Democrats’ goal, raising questions about the feasibility of such plans.
James Taylor, president of the Heartland Institute, said efforts to achieve net-zero emissions with current technology are “simply pixie dust and wishful thinking with absolutely no basis in reality.”
“It’s impossible to have net-zero energy electricity generation without frequent blackouts and substantial economic pain from higher electricity costs, just as a matter of science,” Mr. Taylor said.
“We don’t have the capacity to generate our electricity right now from unreliable intermittent sources and still have a reliable electricity grid, and that’s not going to change anytime in the near future.”
Last year, renewable energy represented about 11% of U.S. total energy consumption and 17% of electricity generation, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
“It’s just political grandstanding,” Mr. Taylor said. “The Democrats would either destroy our reliable electricity grid or they would immediately need to break their campaign promise. It has to be one or the other.”
Like the Green New Deal resolution proposed in 2017 by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York Democrat, the program laid out by Democrats on the Special Committee on the Climate Crisis includes a focus on environmental justice while adding a call to expose those who donate to “groups trafficking in climate denial.”
Several pages of the report were devoted to blasting the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Heartland Institute, which have challenged the “climate crisis” narrative, as well as trade associations such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
“This report charts a smart path forward for climate action in Congress. It includes the vital first step of exposing the fossil fuel industry’s decades-old covert operation to scuttle meaningful climate legislation,” said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode Island Democrat. “To move forward on major climate bills, we’ll need to execute on that recommendation.”
Steven Milloy, the publisher of JunkScience.com and a member of the Trump EPA transition team, said the spending would “accomplish nothing — but at great cost.”
“Regardless of one’s views on climate science, U.S. emissions are an ever-shrinking part of global emissions,” Mr. Milloy said.
Carbon dioxide emissions dropped 12% in the U.S. from 2005 to 2018, according to the EPA, and rose nearly 24% worldwide.
Read rest at Washington Times
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-26--Elizabeth May: Portrait Of A Canadian Climate Zealot

Written by David Solway on .
Posted in Latest news As in many other countries , climate science in Canada has become both heavily politicized and cognitively polluted .
Our government , like our science community , has grown thoroughly infected with faddish assumptions about climate change , the nature of greenhouse gasses , the presumed disaster of energy extraction and delivery , and the impending fate of the planet .
Though not alone in the propagation of error and Pro-forma panic , former leader of the Green Party and still-parliamentary leader of a caucus of two MPs , Elizabeth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prominent doomsayer .
She is not only a climate zealot but a typically aspiring political autocrat who , according to CBC News , has been accused “ of consolidating her power within the party through her position as parliamentary leader , and through her husband ’ s new position on the party ’ s federal council.
” But as her husband suggests , nothing to see here , move on .
May seems to act with a self-assurance bordering on sanctimonious disregard .
She had no compunction about violating a court order against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for which she was charged with criminal contempt .
Equally , her kookiness seems to have no bounds .
May tweeted warnings about the possible dangers of WiFi which , she alleged , might be related to the “ disappearance of pollinating insects.
” With a degree in law and studies in theology , May has a provocative knack for the lectern and the pulpit , lecturing the lost and the fallen with pontifical fervor , whether in speech or screed .
Writing in Policy : Canadian Politics and Public Policy under the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Anyone ?
” May informs us that “ The alarm bells are ringing ever more loudly : We are in a climate emergency.
” A brief overview of her sources and authorities will help us put her deposition in a wider , evidentiary perspective .
May relies on what she dubs “ a clear and compelling warning from the world ’ s largest peer-reviewed science process , ” the United Nations IPCC ( Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ) , and summons the prestige of the UN ’ s General Secretary Antonio @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are running out of time ” to address an imminent climate cataclysm by reducing carbon emissions .
Following Guterres , she worries about the “ low-lying island states for whom failing to meet that goal is an existential threat ” —a charge that has been thoroughly rumbled , although neither Guterres nor May seems to know that—or if they do , they ’ re not letting on .
Even the pro-warmist site ResearchGate ( Global and Planetary Change ) admits to the contrary that “ the average change in island land area has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sinking Maldives has just built four new airports and proposes to build even more to accommodate the expanding tourist trade and the presumptively sinking atolls and reef islands of Tuvalu are actually growing larger .
As Energy Research Institute founder and CEO Rob Bradley , Jr. writes , “ [ The alarmist temperature and sea-level predictions ] constitute yet another exaggerated Malthusian scare.
” We recall the Club of Rome ’ s prediction of resource exhaustion , Paul Ehrlich ’ s population bomb , and M. King Hubbert ’ s Peak Oil scare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ m not sure Guterres is the best advocate to call upon .
There ’ s enough wind in the man to power a wind turbine all by his lonesome .
Guterres , who gives the impression of believing in “ climate change ” with holy zeal , is a Davos stalwart , an apologist for the corrupt , China-friendly W.H.O.
, and a China hack to boot .
Investigative journalist Matthew Russell Lee points to “ China Energy ’ s proven bribery at the UN , and bid to buy an oil company @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Indeed , Guterres ’ 2016 online disclosure “ omits… his listed role through 2018 in the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation.
” The arrangement is being concluded via Partex Oil and Gas , of which the Foundation holds 100 percent of the share capital .
Despite his melodramatic public pronouncements , Guterres is clearly untroubled by the ( ostensible ) impact of oil extraction on the environment .
As for May ’ s beloved IPCC , it is another apocryphal gospel .
In The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the IPCC “ has been recruiting 20-something graduate students ” as lead authors , many of whom had not even earned their degrees and some of whom were majoring in non-climate disciplines .
The IPCC relies heavily on non-peer-reviewed material ( so much for May ’ s erroneous contention regarding IPCC peer-reviewed authenticity ) , including newspaper items , press releases , magazine articles , unpublished graduate theses , and Green activist sources .
It is nothing less than a privileged lobbying organization for vested financial interests , and anyone who consults @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is either venal or ignorant .
Elizabeth May is a member of high standing in this troupe of contemporary climate fanatics .
But she has good company in our deeply uneducated prime minister Justin Trudeau and our new finance minister , the incompetent Chrystia Freeland , who argues that “ the restart of our economy has to be green ” —no surprise from the political maladroit and “ social justice ” evangelist who bungled our NAFTA negotiations with the U.S .
Many of the major figures in the Conservative Party are also Green @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but they are also Elizabeth ’ s children , all playing the dangerous game of climate politics .
As Charles Rotter writes introducing the new documentary film Global Warning , “ Canada is fast becoming the leading global example for what can happen when climate politics meet the traditional energy industry .
It has the third-largest known reserves of oil and gas on the planet and could provide affordable , reliable energy to many parts of the world… It is a country living a potentially tragic story of climate politics.
” May is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
She next informs us , parroting a host of predictions , that 2020 “ is on track to be the hottest year on record.
” The hottest year on record was , it appears , 1934—although the inevitable margin of error renders such predictions suspect .
May is also , as expected , a big fan of wind farms , urging the country to “ accelerate the rapid deployment of wind turbines.
” She would be better advised to consult the Members of the Ohio General Assembly , who have thoroughly exploded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reviewed the Icebreaker wind turbine project , placed before the Ohio Power Sitting Board , with a view to its costs , massive job losses , and multiple negative environmental effects , they affirm that they “ do not want this project to move forward in any form.
” To mention some of their concerns : The leakage of industrial lubricants from the 404 gallons per gearbox , the tendency to catch fire , the absence of full Environmental Impact Statements ( EIS ) ( which neither government nor industry is keen to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provide permanent jobs .
May ’ s glib deceptions , appeal to authority , and cynical indifference to indisputable facts is scrupulously anatomized in an email exchange with a knowledgeable opponent on the health problems associated with turbines , including sleep disturbance , depression , anxiety , exhaustion and various forms of “ sick building.
” May , of course , does not live in the vicinity of a wind farm and need not worry about this Aeolic species of neurological radiation .

Written by David Solway on Aug 26, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
As in many other countries, climate science in Canada has become both heavily politicized and cognitively polluted.
Our government, like our science community, has grown thoroughly infected with faddish assumptions about climate change, the nature of greenhouse gasses, the presumed disaster of energy extraction and delivery, and the impending fate of the planet.
Though not alone in the propagation of error and Pro-forma panic, former leader of the Green Party and still-parliamentary leader of a caucus of two MPs, Elizabeth May has become Canada’s most prominent doomsayer.
She is not only a climate zealot but a typically aspiring political autocrat who, according to CBC News, has been accused “of consolidating her power within the party through her position as parliamentary leader, and through her husband’s new position on the party’s federal council.”
But as her husband suggests, nothing to see here, move on.
May seems to act with a self-assurance bordering on sanctimonious disregard. She had no compunction about violating a court order against blocking access to a pipeline site, for which she was charged with criminal contempt.
Equally, her kookiness seems to have no bounds. May tweeted warnings about the possible dangers of WiFi which, she alleged, might be related to the “disappearance of pollinating insects.”
With a degree in law and studies in theology, May has a provocative knack for the lectern and the pulpit, lecturing the lost and the fallen with pontifical fervor, whether in speech or screed.
Writing in Policy: Canadian Politics and Public Policy under the rubric “Climate Apocalypse Now: Venus, Anyone?” May informs us that “The alarm bells are ringing ever more loudly: We are in a climate emergency.”
A brief overview of her sources and authorities will help us put her deposition in a wider, evidentiary perspective.
May relies on what she dubs “a clear and compelling warning from the world’s largest peer-reviewed science process,” the United Nations IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), and summons the prestige of the UN’s General Secretary Antonio Guterres, who claims that “we are running out of time” to address an imminent climate cataclysm by reducing carbon emissions.
Following Guterres, she worries about the “low-lying island states for whom failing to meet that goal is an existential threat”—a charge that has been thoroughly rumbled, although neither Guterres nor May seems to know that—or if they do, they’re not letting on.
Even the pro-warmist site ResearchGate (Global and Planetary Change) admits to the contrary that “the average change in island land area has so far been positive.”
The presumably sinking Maldives has just built four new airports and proposes to build even more to accommodate the expanding tourist trade and the presumptively sinking atolls and reef islands of Tuvalu are actually growing larger.
As Energy Research Institute founder and CEO Rob Bradley, Jr. writes, “[The alarmist temperature and sea-level predictions] constitute yet another exaggerated Malthusian scare.”
We recall the Club of Rome’s prediction of resource exhaustion, Paul Ehrlich’s population bomb, and M. King Hubbert’s Peak Oil scare.
All in all, I’m not sure Guterres is the best advocate to call upon. There’s enough wind in the man to power a wind turbine all by his lonesome.
Guterres, who gives the impression of believing in “climate change” with holy zeal, is a Davos stalwart, an apologist for the corrupt, China-friendly W.H.O., and a China hack to boot.
Investigative journalist Matthew Russell Lee points to “China Energy’s proven bribery at the UN, and bid to buy an oil company linked to Guterres through the Gulbenkian Foundation.”
Indeed, Guterres’ 2016 online disclosure “omits… his listed role through 2018 in the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation.” The arrangement is being concluded via Partex Oil and Gas, of which the Foundation holds 100 percent of the share capital.
Despite his melodramatic public pronouncements, Guterres is clearly untroubled by the (ostensible) impact of oil extraction on the environment.
As for May’s beloved IPCC, it is another apocryphal gospel.
In The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert, Donna Laframboise shows that the IPCC “has been recruiting 20-something graduate students” as lead authors, many of whom had not even earned their degrees and some of whom were majoring in non-climate disciplines.
The IPCC relies heavily on non-peer-reviewed material (so much for May’s erroneous contention regarding IPCC peer-reviewed authenticity), including newspaper items, press releases, magazine articles, unpublished graduate theses, and Green activist sources.
It is nothing less than a privileged lobbying organization for vested financial interests, and anyone who consults its findings for fiscal or ideological purposes is either venal or ignorant.
Elizabeth May is a member of high standing in this troupe of contemporary climate fanatics.
But she has good company in our deeply uneducated prime minister Justin Trudeau and our new finance minister, the incompetent Chrystia Freeland, who argues that “the restart of our economy has to be green”—no surprise from the political maladroit and “social justice” evangelist who bungled our NAFTA negotiations with the U.S.
Many of the major figures in the Conservative Party are also Green missionaries. They may be her competitors but they are also Elizabeth’s children, all playing the dangerous game of climate politics.
As Charles Rotter writes introducing the new documentary film Global Warning, “Canada is fast becoming the leading global example for what can happen when climate politics meet the traditional energy industry. It has the third-largest known reserves of oil and gas on the planet and could provide affordable, reliable energy to many parts of the world… It is a country living a potentially tragic story of climate politics.”
May is far from finished in her climate scaremongering. She next informs us, parroting a host of predictions, that 2020 “is on track to be the hottest year on record.”
The hottest year on record was, it appears, 1934—although the inevitable margin of error renders such predictions suspect.
May is also, as expected, a big fan of wind farms, urging the country to “accelerate the rapid deployment of wind turbines.”
She would be better advised to consult the Members of the Ohio General Assembly, who have thoroughly exploded the wind turbine scam.
After having reviewed the Icebreaker wind turbine project, placed before the Ohio Power Sitting Board, with a view to its costs, massive job losses, and multiple negative environmental effects, they affirm that they “do not want this project to move forward in any form.”
To mention some of their concerns: The leakage of industrial lubricants from the 404 gallons per gearbox, the tendency to catch fire, the absence of full Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) (which neither government nor industry is keen to furnish), and the inability to provide permanent jobs.
May’s glib deceptions, appeal to authority, and cynical indifference to indisputable facts is scrupulously anatomized in an email exchange with a knowledgeable opponent on the health problems associated with turbines, including sleep disturbance, depression, anxiety, exhaustion and various forms of “sick building.”
May, of course, does not live in the vicinity of a wind farm and need not worry about this Aeolic species of neurological radiation.
Read rest at The Pipeline
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-26--Al Gore: Burning Fossil Fuels ‘A Precondition’ For Higher COVID Death Rates

Former Vice President Al Gore said Tuesday that burning fossil fuels should be understood as a “ pre-condition ” for higher death rates from the Chinese coronavirus .
A transcript is as follows : STEPHEN ADLER : When we were talking about Zika way back , you saw a cause and effect relationship with the warming climate and the changes in climate and how it affected mosquitoes .
Do you see cause and effect relationship between the change in climate and extreme weather and other aspects of climate change and the advent of the virus ?
AL GORE : Well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two important ones .
First of all , we now know from multiple studies that the burning of fossil fuels should be understood as a precondition for higher death rates from COVID-19 .
A massive study of 324 cities in China showed a significant linear increase in infections and serious infections related to cities and communities where there is more particulate pollution in the air .
Of course , the principal source of that is burning fossil fuels .
We are encountering , now , five new infectious diseases every year .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which I now know it means they come from animals to humans .
And of course , that ’ s where SARS-CoV-2 , the virus that causes COVID-19 , came from , from bats in a region near Wuhan .
And that ’ s happening because we are steadily encroaching more into the wild , previously wild areas of the world where there are literally millions of viruses that human beings have not encountered .
Now , the consequences of the climate crisis in disrupting the water cycle , creating storms like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right now , creating the fires like those that are raging in California and Nevada right now and Oregon , actually shift the balance along — mainly , with the higher temperatures — in the relationship between humans and microbes , and they shift the balance in favor of microbes .
We ’ re seeing tropical diseases move pole-ward , north in the northern hemisphere , south in the southern hemisphere , and air travel has a lot to do with that .
But the places where they take root and become endemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate conditions where these viruses travel .

Former Vice President Al Gore said Tuesday that burning fossil fuels should be understood as a “pre-condition” for higher death rates from the Chinese coronavirus.
A transcript is as follows:
STEPHEN ADLER: When we were talking about Zika way back, you saw a cause and effect relationship with the warming climate and the changes in climate and how it affected mosquitoes. Do you see cause and effect relationship between the change in climate and extreme weather and other aspects of climate change and the advent of the virus?
AL GORE: Well, yes. I’d mention two important ones. First of all, we now know from multiple studies that the burning of fossil fuels should be understood as a precondition for higher death rates from COVID-19. A massive study of 324 cities in China showed a significant linear increase in infections and serious infections related to cities and communities where there is more particulate pollution in the air. Of course, the principal source of that is burning fossil fuels.
…
We are encountering, now, five new infectious diseases every year. And three-quarters of them are called zoonotic diseases, which I now know it means they come from animals to humans. And of course, that’s where SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, came from, from bats in a region near Wuhan. And that’s happening because we are steadily encroaching more into the wild, previously wild areas of the world where there are literally millions of viruses that human beings have not encountered.
Now, the consequences of the climate crisis in disrupting the water cycle, creating storms like the one headed to the U.S. coast right now, creating the fires like those that are raging in California and Nevada right now and Oregon, actually shift the balance along — mainly, with the higher temperatures — in the relationship between humans and microbes, and they shift the balance in favor of microbes. We’re seeing tropical diseases move pole-ward, north in the northern hemisphere, south in the southern hemisphere, and air travel has a lot to do with that. But the places where they take root and become endemic is very much affected by the changed climate conditions where these viruses travel.


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-26--The Racism Of Climate Change Alarmists

The Racism Of Climate Change Alarmists

Written by Duggan Flanakin on .
Posted in Latest news Climate alarmists now proclaim that climate change is racist .
What hypocrisy .
By this theory , the sun , our galaxy , and their creator are racist , since they have driven climate change throughout history .
Racism has certainly been a factor in many decisions about land use , zoning , education , and many other aspects of our lives .
But this began long before Europeans “ discovered ” America .
Tribalism , the most fundamental form of racism historically , has been around at least since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The new racism is a prime domain of environmental alarmists and a direct outgrowth of centuries of patronizing colonialism .
Many still believe today ’ s poor and indigenous people must be “ guided ” into a “ green ” tomorrow and not allowed to use the tools that Western and other countries employed to grow , create wealth , improve living standards , and remain free .
Many even seem OK that their “ solutions ” to “ climate change ” yield highly negative results for billions of people worldwide whose lifestyles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eco-elites – who don ’ t even enjoy the blessings of electricity , 24/7/365 or even at all .
Instead of recognizing their own role in sustaining energy poverty ( and its resultant misery , disease , and death ) , the alarmists berate the West for escaping generational poverty through technology .
Penn State meteorologist Gregory Jenkins ( who works for Dr. Michael Mann , co-creator of dangerous Mann-made climate change ) has linked racism to climate change “ because it dictates who benefits from activities that produce planet-warming gases and who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their “ solutions ” always deny African and other poor families access to fossil fuel “ activities ” – and blessings – while burdening their own societies with heavy taxes and mandates that would curtail affordable energy and living standards for billions .
Fifteen years ago , Cameroonian journalist Jean-Claude Shanda Tomme said environmentalists “ still believe us to be like children that they must save as if we don ’ t realize ourselves what the source of our problems is.
” Incredibly , this remains a prevailing attitude .
Nearly two decades @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Green Power , Black Death , Paul Driessen exposed the eco-colonialism ( and racism ) of European and American nongovernmental organizations , banking institutions , and governments .
In its introduction , Congress Of Racial Equality national spokesman Niger Innis said the green elites ’ policies “ prevent needy nations from using the very technologies that developed countries employed to become rich , comfortable and free of disease .
And they send millions of infants , children , men , and women to early graves every year.
” They insist that Africans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ DDT , which eradicated malaria throughout the developed world .
Nor may Africans rely on their abundant oil , coal , natural gas , nuclear or hydroelectric resources , the same technologies , and resources that built Western and Eastern societies .
Multiple voices have demanded that the West stop smothering Africans with money that fuels massive corruption .
A decade ago , in reviewing Dambisa Moyo ’ s brilliant 2009 book , Dead Aid , I recalled her litany of “ sins of aid with strings.
” It fuels corruption , encourages @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exports , causes civil unrest , frustrates entrepreneurship , and disenfranchises citizens .
In effect , foreign aid is also racist .
My colleagues and I pointed out that $ 500 billion in foreign aid had done little to improve the lives of ordinary Africans , who still had few highways , no real electric grid , little sanitation or clean water , few hospitals , and millions dying annually from diseases almost entirely wiped out elsewhere in the world .
At that time , OPEC Secretary-General Mohammed Barkindo pleaded with Western leaders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ development and social progress .
While the use of all forms of energy is welcome , it is clear that fossil fuels will continue to satisfy the lion ’ s share of the world ’ s growing energy needs for decades to come.
” But Africans are still routinely denied financing to develop those resources for their own citizens .
This is racism at its worst .
I also reviewed a World Bank Development Research Group proposal for building a 100,000-kilometer African highway system to connect all major African capitals and large cities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ billion , plus $ 2 billion a year in maintenance , but could generate $ 750 billion a year in overland trade among African nations .
But it quickly hit the environmentalist/development bank dustbin .
Pure racism .
The racism even extended to higher education , as European and American universities recruited Africa ’ s brightest and best African students and faculty , leaving their own fledgling institutions of higher learning in shambles .
Lydia Polgreen said this academic flight “ depriv [ ed ] dozens of nations of the homegrown expertise that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ More racism .
And so it continues .
African Energy Chamber Executive Chairman N.J. Ayuk recently criticized the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development ( OECD ) and International Energy Agency ( IEA ) for describing low oil prices caused by the COVID-19 pandemic as a “ golden opportunity ” for governments to phase out fossil fuels support– and thus better living standards .
He put it bluntly : “ The OECD and IEA don ’ t necessarily know what ’ s best for the people who live on this planet .
Pressuring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would not be good for the African oil and gas companies or entrepreneurs striving to build a better future .
And it could be downright harmful to communities looking at gas-to-power initiatives to bring them reliable electricity.
” “ Too often , ” Ayuk added , “ the discussion about climate change – and the call to leave fossil fuels in the ground – is largely a Western narrative .
It does not factor in the needs of low-income Africans who could reap the many benefits of a strategic approach to oil and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poverty , job creation , and entrepreneurship opportunities , to name a few.
” On the global stage , he concluded , the OECD and the IEA are “ dismissing the voices of many Africans who want and need the continent ’ s oil and gas industry to thrive.
” African energy entrepreneurs and Africans who care about energy poverty are struggling .
But their voices are ignored by these power brokers and the world .
Journalist Geoff Hill highlighted how many Africans still rely on increasingly scarce firewood to cook and heat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the environmental damage caused by stripping forest habitats to oblivion .
Of the world ’ s 50 countries with the least access to electricity , 41 are in Africa – despite abundant rivers , sunlight , and oil , gas , coal , and uranium reserves .
The chief reason , Hill explained , is corruption – traced back to the foreign aid Dambisa Moyo criticized .
Climate alarmists naturally say it ’ s someone else ’ s fault .
Thankfully , finally , says Hill , some Africans are admitting their own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them .
Nigerian neurosurgeon Dr. Sylvanus Ayeni ’ s 2017 book Rescue Thyself details the failure of African governments to serve their people .
He is saddened that , despite over a trillion dollars in aid to Africa from the U.S. alone , so much has been blown on palaces , private jets , and outright theft .
But who empowered these greedy leaders , who sought to do what donors wanted ?
Will the West finally recognize that it was their paternalistic racism that empowered this corruption ?
Will it change its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the eugenic practices that dehumanized Africans as “ unfit ” to reproduce ?

Written by Duggan Flanakin on Aug 26, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Climate alarmists now proclaim that climate change is racist. What hypocrisy. By this theory, the sun, our galaxy, and their creator are racist, since they have driven climate change throughout history.
Racism has certainly been a factor in many decisions about land use, zoning, education, and many other aspects of our lives.
But this began long before Europeans “discovered” America. Tribalism, the most fundamental form of racism historically, has been around at least since the dawn of the Iron Age.
The new racism is a prime domain of environmental alarmists and a direct outgrowth of centuries of patronizing colonialism.
Many still believe today’s poor and indigenous people must be “guided” into a “green” tomorrow and not allowed to use the tools that Western and other countries employed to grow, create wealth, improve living standards, and remain free.
Many even seem OK that their “solutions” to “climate change” yield highly negative results for billions of people worldwide whose lifestyles are far removed from the privileges of eco-elites – who don’t even enjoy the blessings of electricity, 24/7/365 or even at all.
Instead of recognizing their own role in sustaining energy poverty (and its resultant misery, disease, and death), the alarmists berate the West for escaping generational poverty through technology.
Penn State meteorologist Gregory Jenkins (who works for Dr. Michael Mann, co-creator of dangerous Mann-made climate change) has linked racism to climate change “because it dictates who benefits from activities that produce planet-warming gases and who suffer most from the consequences.”
But their “solutions” always deny African and other poor families access to fossil fuel “activities” – and blessings – while burdening their own societies with heavy taxes and mandates that would curtail affordable energy and living standards for billions.
Fifteen years ago, Cameroonian journalist Jean-Claude Shanda Tomme said environmentalists “still believe us to be like children that they must save as if we don’t realize ourselves what the source of our problems is.” Incredibly, this remains a prevailing attitude.
Nearly two decades ago, in his seminal book Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death, Paul Driessen exposed the eco-colonialism (and racism) of European and American nongovernmental organizations, banking institutions, and governments.
In its introduction, Congress Of Racial Equality national spokesman Niger Innis said the green elites’ policies “prevent needy nations from using the very technologies that developed countries employed to become rich, comfortable and free of disease. And they send millions of infants, children, men, and women to early graves every year.”
They insist that Africans not be allowed to combat malaria with DDT, which eradicated malaria throughout the developed world. Nor may Africans rely on their abundant oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear or hydroelectric resources, the same technologies, and resources that built Western and Eastern societies.
Multiple voices have demanded that the West stop smothering Africans with money that fuels massive corruption. A decade ago, in reviewing Dambisa Moyo’s brilliant 2009 book, Dead Aid, I recalled her litany of “sins of aid with strings.”
It fuels corruption, encourages inflation, increases debt loads, kills exports, causes civil unrest, frustrates entrepreneurship, and disenfranchises citizens. In effect, foreign aid is also racist.
My colleagues and I pointed out that $500 billion in foreign aid had done little to improve the lives of ordinary Africans, who still had few highways, no real electric grid, little sanitation or clean water, few hospitals, and millions dying annually from diseases almost entirely wiped out elsewhere in the world.
At that time, OPEC Secretary-General Mohammed Barkindo pleaded with Western leaders that “energy is fundamental for economic development and social progress.
While the use of all forms of energy is welcome, it is clear that fossil fuels will continue to satisfy the lion’s share of the world’s growing energy needs for decades to come.” But Africans are still routinely denied financing to develop those resources for their own citizens. This is racism at its worst.
I also reviewed a World Bank Development Research Group proposal for building a 100,000-kilometer African highway system to connect all major African capitals and large cities.
It would cost just $30 billion, plus $2 billion a year in maintenance, but could generate $750 billion a year in overland trade among African nations. But it quickly hit the environmentalist/development bank dustbin. Pure racism.
The racism even extended to higher education, as European and American universities recruited Africa’s brightest and best African students and faculty, leaving their own fledgling institutions of higher learning in shambles.
Lydia Polgreen said this academic flight “depriv[ed] dozens of nations of the homegrown expertise that could lift millions out of poverty.” More racism.
And so it continues. African Energy Chamber Executive Chairman N.J. Ayuk recently criticized the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and International Energy Agency (IEA) for describing low oil prices caused by the COVID-19 pandemic as a “golden opportunity” for governments to phase out fossil fuels support– and thus better living standards.
He put it bluntly: “The OECD and IEA don’t necessarily know what’s best for the people who live on this planet. Pressuring governments to stop supporting fossil fuels certainly would not be good for the African oil and gas companies or entrepreneurs striving to build a better future. And it could be downright harmful to communities looking at gas-to-power initiatives to bring them reliable electricity.”
“Too often,” Ayuk added, “the discussion about climate change – and the call to leave fossil fuels in the ground – is largely a Western narrative. It does not factor in the needs of low-income Africans who could reap the many benefits of a strategic approach to oil and gas operations in Africa: Reduced energy poverty, job creation, and entrepreneurship opportunities, to name a few.”
On the global stage, he concluded, the OECD and the IEA are “dismissing the voices of many Africans who want and need the continent’s oil and gas industry to thrive.”
African energy entrepreneurs and Africans who care about energy poverty are struggling. But their voices are ignored by these power brokers and the world.
Journalist Geoff Hill highlighted how many Africans still rely on increasingly scarce firewood to cook and heat their homes on cold nights, despite the environmental damage caused by stripping forest habitats to oblivion.
Of the world’s 50 countries with the least access to electricity, 41 are in Africa – despite abundant rivers, sunlight, and oil, gas, coal, and uranium reserves.
The chief reason, Hill explained, is corruption – traced back to the foreign aid Dambisa Moyo criticized. Climate alarmists naturally say it’s someone else’s fault. Thankfully, finally, says Hill, some Africans are admitting their own role in allowing corrupt cultures to rule them.
Nigerian neurosurgeon Dr. Sylvanus Ayeni’s 2017 book Rescue Thyself details the failure of African governments to serve their people.
He is saddened that, despite over a trillion dollars in aid to Africa from the U.S. alone, so much has been blown on palaces, private jets, and outright theft.
But who empowered these greedy leaders, who sought to do what donors wanted? Will the West finally recognize that it was their paternalistic racism that empowered this corruption? Will it change its ways? Or will it just continue the eugenic practices that dehumanized Africans as “unfit” to reproduce?
Read more at Townhall
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print