climatechangedispatch--2020-07-29--Dems Smear Enviro At House Hearing For Exposing Green Energy Costs

Written by Michael Shellenberger on .
Posted in Latest news Today , shortly after giving expert testimony to Congress about energy policy , I had the startling experience of being smeared by sitting members of the United States House of Representatives .
The context was a special House Committee hearing to evaluate a Democratic proposal similar to the one proposed by Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden , which would spend $ 2 trillion over four years on renewables and other climate programs .
Congressional interest in my testimony stems in part from the fact that I advocated for a Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s between 2002 and 2009 .
Back then , the Obama administration justified the $ 90 billion it was spending on renewables as an economic stimulus , just as Biden ’ s campaign is doing today .
But then , late in the hearing , Representatives Sean Casten of Illinois [ pictured ] and Jared Huffman of California , both Democrats , used the whole of their allotted time to claim that I am not a real environmentalist , that I am not a qualified expert , and that I am motivated by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chance to respond , I would have noted that : I have been a climate activist for 20 years ; my new book , Apocalypse Never , has received strong praise from leading environmental scientists and scholars ; the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently invited me to serve as an expert reviewer ; and that I have always been financially independent of industry interests .
But I wasn ’ t given the chance to say any of that .
After Casten and Huffman lied about me , Rep. Garret Graves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rep. Kathy Castor of Florida , to let me respond .
She refused and abruptly ended the hearing .
What , exactly , had I said that was so dangerous as to lead Democrats to engage in character assassination and undermine liberal democratic norms ?
Nothing I hadn ’ t already said last January when I testified before Congress about climate change and energy .
Back then , I testified that climate change is real but isn ’ t the end of the world nor even our most important environmental problem .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can ’ t power a high-energy industrial civilization .
And I noted that cheap and abundant natural gas and nuclear , not industrial solar and wind , have been the big drivers of emissions reductions .
I further made the case that climate change was distracting us from a far greater and more urgent threat , which is the global domination of nuclear energy by China and Russia , which could be disastrous for US interests and the future of liberalism and democracy around the world .
Nations that partner with Russia or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ absorbed into their sphere of influence .
The line between soft power and hard power runs through nuclear energy .
On the one side is cheap and clean electricity .
On the other , a stepping stone to a weapons program .
During today ’ s hearing , several Democratic members claimed that renewables today are cheaper than existing grid electricity .
But if that were true , I replied , why do solar and wind developers require hundreds of billions of dollars from American taxpayers in the form of subsidies ?
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what California did .
But California ’ s electricity rates since 2011 rose six times more than they did in the rest of the US , thanks mainly to the deployment of renewables and the infrastructure they require , such as transmission lines .
Instead of answering that question , Democrats claimed that solar and wind projects were somehow part of the battle for environmental justice .
In reality , I noted , solar and wind projects are imposed on poorer communities and successfully resisted by wealthier ones .
In fact , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of human rights violations when renewable energy projects were imposed on poor communities .
In Hawaii and Nebraska , indigenous leaders are resisting wind energy projects that threaten native bird species , including the nene and whooping crane , whose number one cause of mortality is transmission lines .
Renewables also hurt working people by raising the cost of electricity for industries that offer good jobs with high pay .
From 2011 to 2018 , California ’ s industrial electricity prices rose 32 percent , while the average price in the other 49 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ manufacturing jobs in renewables are mostly in China , which makes most of the world ’ s solar panels , including America ’ s , while the US is stuck with temporary low-wage service jobs installing solar panels and wind turbines , and doing energy efficiency retrofits .
By contrast , nuclear power plants , which can operate for 80 years or longer , require high-wage , high-skilled , and permanent jobs for multiple generations .
What ’ s going on ?
Why do Democrats , who imagine themselves to be on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , advocate for renewables and against nuclear ?
It ’ s hard not to notice that some of the Democrats ’ largest donors , including Tom Steyer and Mike Bloomberg , are renewable energy and natural gas investors .
Even one of my main antagonists , Rep. Casten , was a renewable energy investor before joining Congress .
Democratic interest in subsidizing renewables comes at a time when industrial renewable energy projects are being blocked around the world , as even their boosters now admit .
“ Biden plots $ 2tn green revolution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” read a Guardian headline a few days ago .
And just yesterday , a new coalition of community and environmental activists formed the Energy and Wildlife Coalition to block industrial renewable energy projects around the world .
The last time Democrats spent big on renewables , during the 2009 green stimulus , 10 members of former President Barack Obama ’ s finance committee , and more than 12 of his “ bundlers , ” benefited from $ 16.4 billion of the $ 20.5 billion in stimulus loans , as I note @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bloomberg , and many other renewable energy investors also donate hundreds of millions of dollars to groups like the Sierra Club , which turn around and lobby for more spending on renewables , and for the closure of nuclear power plants .
Killing nuclear plants is a lucrative business for competitor fossil fuel and renewable energy companies .
That ’ s because nuclear plants generate such large amounts of electricity .
In 2016 , two top former aides to New York Governor Andrew Cuomo worked with a major Cuomo campaign contributor , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to close the Indian Point nuclear plant .
A federal indictment on influence-peddling filed by Preet Bharara in 2016 alleged that Competitive Power Ventures and the Cuomo administration both recognized that if Indian Point were taken offline , it would be replaced by natural gas , not imported hydro and wind , as Democrats had claimed .
Democrats have worked to shut down nuclear plants and replace them with fossil fuels and a smattering of renewables , since the 1970s , as I note in my new book , Apocalypse Never .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ show that neither nuclear plants nor fossil fuels are needed to meet electricity demand , thanks to energy efficiency and renewables .
And yet , almost everywhere nuclear plants are closed , or not built , fossil fuels are burned instead .
Now , if the Democrats ’ $ 2 trillion climate proposal passes into law , a lot of very powerful people stand to make a lot of money , from winning the tender for industrial projects such as building wind turbines and transmission lines all the way to the outright cash @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s green stimulus .
In the end , the war on nuclear energy threatens more than political corruption and higher emissions .
At a time when China is committing a potential genocide against its Muslim citizens , and Russia ’ s president is expanding his domestic and international powers , the US should not allow these two nations to dominate nuclear power plant construction .
If the US keeps closing nuclear plants and fails to build new ones , we will cede our ability to compete with the Russians and Chinese in building @ @ @ @ @ @ @ undermine national security and good industrial jobs at home .
The threat posed by America ’ s illiberal , nuclear-building rivals will , like the crisis facing renewables , continue to grow , regardless of whether Democrats succeed in shutting me up .
Michael Shellenberger is a Time Magazine “ Hero of the Environment ” and president of Environmental Progress , an independent research and policy organization .
He is the author of Apocalypse Never : Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All .

Written by Michael Shellenberger on Jul 29, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Today, shortly after giving expert testimony to Congress about energy policy, I had the startling experience of being smeared by sitting members of the United States House of Representatives.
The context was a special House Committee hearing to evaluate a Democratic proposal similar to the one proposed by Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, which would spend $2 trillion over four years on renewables and other climate programs.
Congressional interest in my testimony stems in part from the fact that I advocated for a Democratic energy proposal very similar to Biden’s between 2002 and 2009.
Back then, the Obama administration justified the $90 billion it was spending on renewables as an economic stimulus, just as Biden’s campaign is doing today.
But then, late in the hearing, Representatives Sean Casten of Illinois [pictured] and Jared Huffman of California, both Democrats, used the whole of their allotted time to claim that I am not a real environmentalist, that I am not a qualified expert, and that I am motivated by money.
Had I been given a chance to respond, I would have noted that: I have been a climate activist for 20 years; my new book, Apocalypse Never, has received strong praise from leading environmental scientists and scholars; the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently invited me to serve as an expert reviewer; and that I have always been financially independent of industry interests.
But I wasn’t given the chance to say any of that. After Casten and Huffman lied about me, Rep. Garret Graves asked the committee’s chairperson, Rep. Kathy Castor of Florida, to let me respond. She refused and abruptly ended the hearing.
What, exactly, had I said that was so dangerous as to lead Democrats to engage in character assassination and undermine liberal democratic norms? Nothing I hadn’t already said last January when I testified before Congress about climate change and energy.
Back then, I testified that climate change is real but isn’t the end of the world nor even our most important environmental problem.
I pointed to the inherent physical reasons renewables can’t power a high-energy industrial civilization. And I noted that cheap and abundant natural gas and nuclear, not industrial solar and wind, have been the big drivers of emissions reductions.
I further made the case that climate change was distracting us from a far greater and more urgent threat, which is the global domination of nuclear energy by China and Russia, which could be disastrous for US interests and the future of liberalism and democracy around the world.
Nations that partner with Russia or China to build nuclear plants are effectively absorbed into their sphere of influence. The line between soft power and hard power runs through nuclear energy.
On the one side is cheap and clean electricity. On the other, a stepping stone to a weapons program.
During today’s hearing, several Democratic members claimed that renewables today are cheaper than existing grid electricity.
But if that were true, I replied, why do solar and wind developers require hundreds of billions of dollars from American taxpayers in the form of subsidies?
The Democrats are basing their climate agenda on what California did. But California’s electricity rates since 2011 rose six times more than they did in the rest of the US, thanks mainly to the deployment of renewables and the infrastructure they require, such as transmission lines.
Instead of answering that question, Democrats claimed that solar and wind projects were somehow part of the battle for environmental justice.
In reality, I noted, solar and wind projects are imposed on poorer communities and successfully resisted by wealthier ones.
In fact, a major new report found nearly 200 cases of human rights violations when renewable energy projects were imposed on poor communities.
In Hawaii and Nebraska, indigenous leaders are resisting wind energy projects that threaten native bird species, including the nene and whooping crane, whose number one cause of mortality is transmission lines.
Renewables also hurt working people by raising the cost of electricity for industries that offer good jobs with high pay.
From 2011 to 2018, California’s industrial electricity prices rose 32 percent, while the average price in the other 49 states fell one percent.
The good manufacturing jobs in renewables are mostly in China, which makes most of the world’s solar panels, including America’s, while the US is stuck with temporary low-wage service jobs installing solar panels and wind turbines, and doing energy efficiency retrofits.
By contrast, nuclear power plants, which can operate for 80 years or longer, require high-wage, high-skilled, and permanent jobs for multiple generations.
What’s going on? Why do Democrats, who imagine themselves to be on the side of working people and the poor, advocate for renewables and against nuclear?
It’s hard not to notice that some of the Democrats’ largest donors, including Tom Steyer and Mike Bloomberg, are renewable energy and natural gas investors. Even one of my main antagonists, Rep. Casten, was a renewable energy investor before joining Congress.
Democratic interest in subsidizing renewables comes at a time when industrial renewable energy projects are being blocked around the world, as even their boosters now admit.
“Biden plots $2tn green revolution but faces the wind and solar backlash,” read a Guardian headline a few days ago. And just yesterday, a new coalition of community and environmental activists formed the Energy and Wildlife Coalition to block industrial renewable energy projects around the world.
The last time Democrats spent big on renewables, during the 2009 green stimulus, 10 members of former President Barack Obama’s finance committee, and more than 12 of his “bundlers,” benefited from $16.4 billion of the $20.5 billion in stimulus loans, as I note in my new book.
Steyer, Bloomberg, and many other renewable energy investors also donate hundreds of millions of dollars to groups like the Sierra Club, which turn around and lobby for more spending on renewables, and for the closure of nuclear power plants.
Killing nuclear plants is a lucrative business for competitor fossil fuel and renewable energy companies. That’s because nuclear plants generate such large amounts of electricity.
In 2016, two top former aides to New York Governor Andrew Cuomo worked with a major Cuomo campaign contributor, the natural gas company Competitive Power Ventures, to close the Indian Point nuclear plant.
A federal indictment on influence-peddling filed by Preet Bharara in 2016 alleged that Competitive Power Ventures and the Cuomo administration both recognized that if Indian Point were taken offline, it would be replaced by natural gas, not imported hydro and wind, as Democrats had claimed.
Democrats have worked to shut down nuclear plants and replace them with fossil fuels and a smattering of renewables, since the 1970s, as I note in my new book, Apocalypse Never.
They created detailed reports for policymakers purporting to show that neither nuclear plants nor fossil fuels are needed to meet electricity demand, thanks to energy efficiency and renewables.
And yet, almost everywhere nuclear plants are closed, or not built, fossil fuels are burned instead.
Now, if the Democrats’ $2 trillion climate proposal passes into law, a lot of very powerful people stand to make a lot of money, from winning the tender for industrial projects such as building wind turbines and transmission lines all the way to the outright cash payments that we saw during Obama’s green stimulus.
In the end, the war on nuclear energy threatens more than political corruption and higher emissions.
At a time when China is committing a potential genocide against its Muslim citizens, and Russia’s president is expanding his domestic and international powers, the US should not allow these two nations to dominate nuclear power plant construction.
If the US keeps closing nuclear plants and fails to build new ones, we will cede our ability to compete with the Russians and Chinese in building new nuclear plants abroad, which will undermine national security and good industrial jobs at home.
The threat posed by America’s illiberal, nuclear-building rivals will, like the crisis facing renewables, continue to grow, regardless of whether Democrats succeed in shutting me up.
Michael Shellenberger is a Time Magazine “Hero of the Environment” and president of Environmental Progress, an independent research and policy organization. He is the author of Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All.
Read more at Quillette
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-07-29--Climate Cassandras Are About One Thing: Control

Written by Alexander Scipio on .
Posted in Latest news Remember “ Anthropogenic Global Warming ” ?
“ Global warming ” became “ climate change ” because the warming… didn ’ t exist .
It still doesn ’ t .
The global temperature has , since 1997 , flattened .
This is explained-away by the climate alarmists as a “ pause.
” However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time , when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of reversing .
Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive , for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age .
Added to the 1997 – 2014 “ pause , ” the global temperature has been cooling or flat for at least 47 of the past 76 years , or more than half the time .
And this as post-war prosperity accelerated and hundreds of millions of people increased their use of carbon-based fuels to enter into and prosper from the Industrial Age .
Exactly zero temperature datasets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Never have .
Sure – a few datasets exist by once-reputable climate science organizations ( NASA , East Anglia / CRU ) , but those are re-manipulated every few years to show whatever curve is required to support the climate alarmism-of-the-day .
This manipulation is of the original data sets , both at the upper end ( “ The Earth has a temperature !
” ) and at the lower end ( “ See how fast the temperature is increasing ?
!
” ) .
The original data did not show the temperature @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alarmists , so the data was … adjusted .
This is called many things , but “ science ” is not one of them .
Remember the “ Hockey Stick ” curve that started all this ?
This “ curve ” has been the subject of constant controversy since its creation , the foundation of Al Gore ’ s ridiculous film – and the basis for world governments to waste hundreds of billions ( trillions ? )
of our dollars .
MIT also rejected the ‘ hockey stick ’ and the algorithm that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provide a similar curve and fundamental mistakes are present in the underlying math .
A large body of “ science ” supports the AGW argument , though , right ?
Don ’ t 97 percent of scientists support “ Climate Change ” ?
Why , then , do so many researchers and academics support it ?
Here ’ s the answer from Dr. Richard Lindzen , the now-retired Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology : It was the narrative from the beginning .
In 1998 , [ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some vague remarks .
Newsweek ran a cover that says all scientists agree .
Now they never really tell you what they agree on .
It is propaganda .
So all scientists agree it ’ s probably warmer now than it was at the end of the Little Ice Age .
Almost all Scientists agree that if you add CO2 you will have some warming .
Maybe very little warming .
But it is propaganda to translate that into it is dangerous and we must reduce CO2 etc .
If you can make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who will amplify it ‘ they said it not me ’ and the response of the political system is to increase your funding , what ’ s not to like ?
For the Left , “ Science ” is spelled “ capitali $ m , ” as most “ research ” papers supporting “ climate change ” are written for , or occasioned by , grant money .
We have a surfeit of unsupported climate fantasy funded by NGOs , academia , and “ philanthropic ” organizations because academics can be greedy .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( which equals Big Dollars ) in supporting the climate flavor-of-the-month fixation of Big Government or Big Philanthropy .
Whatever those organizations are demanding , they supply ; the same kind of capitalism the Left is burning down America to protest .
Climate change policies are about one thing : collectivism .
The ruling class rejecting the rising individualist middle class of the Western world and billing us for that rejection .
It ’ s about rejecting the voice of people globally , people who , because of the internet and information awareness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and for how long the various Western governments have been and are continuing to screw their citizens .
Notice who the climate change “ deniers ” are : middle-class Western individualists , while the climate change True Believers are anti-Western collectivists .
Who makes the world go-round ?
Individualists ( we invent everything ) .
Who mooches off the going-round world ?
Collectivists ( they invent nothing ) .
And now the collectivists want to collect money from the individualists under the unsupported nonsense of “ climate change , ” usurping the power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ earnings , our property , our life ’ s work .
Every government needs authority and a common purpose in the eyes of those governed .
These can be gained via both external and internal threats .
Covid-19 masks and unlawful house arrest/lockdowns by some governors and mayors serve to control you .
“ Climate change ” is being used to achieve that common purpose as well .
It ’ s all about control .
The data didn ’ t support anthropogenic global warming , so the name was changed , but the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ collectivism under our self-anointed betters , the destruction of entire industries , and robbing the West of wealth , progress , liberty , and individualism in order to enrich the totalitarian ruling class in the guise of helping the Third World with cleaner air , cleaner water , cleaner parks and playgrounds , and better schools .
When even the globalists at the U.N. admit that the entire climate hoax is not about the climate , but about destroying capitalism , you can be pretty sure that climate change is a feature for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an excuse to advance totalitarianism and crush the middle class – and to get the middle class to join in , and pay for , its own destruction .
We ’ ve seen this movie before .
In the words of Princeton Professor Emeritus of Physics , William Happer , in 2017 , At least we aren ’ t hanging “ deniers.
” Yet .
Read more at The Pipeline

Written by Alexander Scipio on Jul 29, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Remember “Anthropogenic Global Warming”? “Global warming” became “climate change” because the warming… didn’t exist. It still doesn’t.
The global temperature has, since 1997, flattened. This is explained-away by the climate alarmists as a “pause.”
The problem? Here’s TIME magazine in 1974:
However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.
“Three decades.” Or since circa 1944.
Added to the 1997 – 2014 “pause,” the global temperature has been cooling or flat for at least 47 of the past 76 years, or more than half the time.
And this as post-war prosperity accelerated and hundreds of millions of people increased their use of carbon-based fuels to enter into and prosper from the Industrial Age.
Exactly zero temperature datasets exist that support warming. None. Never have. Sure – a few datasets exist by once-reputable climate science organizations (NASA, East Anglia / CRU), but those are re-manipulated every few years to show whatever curve is required to support the climate alarmism-of-the-day.
This manipulation is of the original data sets, both at the upper end (“The Earth has a temperature!”) and at the lower end (“See how fast the temperature is increasing?!”).
The original data did not show the temperature increase or steeper slope demanded by the alarmists, so the data was … adjusted. This is called many things, but “science” is not one of them.
Remember the “Hockey Stick” curve that started all this? This “curve” has been the subject of constant controversy since its creation, the foundation of Al Gore’s ridiculous film – and the basis for world governments to waste hundreds of billions (trillions?) of our dollars.
The problem? The curve doesn’t exist. (PDF)
MIT also rejected the ‘hockey stick’ and the algorithm that created it, noting that random numbers provide a similar curve and fundamental mistakes are present in the underlying math.
A large body of “science” supports the AGW argument, though, right? Don’t 97 percent of scientists support “Climate Change”?
In a word? No.
Why, then, do so many researchers and academics support it?
Here’s the answer from Dr. Richard Lindzen, the now-retired Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology:
It was the narrative from the beginning. In 1998, [NASA’s James] Hansen made some vague remarks. Newsweek ran a cover that says all scientists agree. Now they never really tell you what they agree on. It is propaganda. So all scientists agree it’s probably warmer now than it was at the end of the Little Ice Age. Almost all Scientists agree that if you add CO2 you will have some warming. Maybe very little warming. But it is propaganda to translate that into it is dangerous and we must reduce CO2 etc. If you can make an ambiguous remark and you have people who will amplify it ‘they said it not me’ and the response of the political system is to increase your funding, what’s not to like?
For the Left, “Science” is spelled “capitali$m,” as most “research” papers supporting “climate change” are written for, or occasioned by, grant money.
We have a surfeit of unsupported climate fantasy funded by NGOs, academia, and “philanthropic” organizations because academics can be greedy.
They see Big Dollars or Big Careers (which equals Big Dollars) in supporting the climate flavor-of-the-month fixation of Big Government or Big Philanthropy.
Whatever those organizations are demanding, they supply; the same kind of capitalism the Left is burning down America to protest.
Climate change policies are about one thing: collectivism. The ruling class rejecting the rising individualist middle class of the Western world and billing us for that rejection.
It’s about rejecting the voice of people globally, people who, because of the internet and information awareness, now are knowledgeable of how badly and for how long the various Western governments have been and are continuing to screw their citizens.
Notice who the climate change “deniers” are: middle-class Western individualists, while the climate change True Believers are anti-Western collectivists.
Who makes the world go-round? Individualists (we invent everything). Who mooches off the going-round world? Collectivists (they invent nothing).
And now the collectivists want to collect money from the individualists under the unsupported nonsense of “climate change,” usurping the power to choose what to do with our earnings, our property, our life’s work.
Every government needs authority and a common purpose in the eyes of those governed. These can be gained via both external and internal threats.
Covid-19 masks and unlawful house arrest/lockdowns by some governors and mayors serve to control you. “Climate change” is being used to achieve that common purpose as well. It’s all about control.
The data didn’t support anthropogenic global warming, so the name was changed, but the goals are the same: global totalitarian collectivism under our self-anointed betters, the destruction of entire industries, and robbing the West of wealth, progress, liberty, and individualism in order to enrich the totalitarian ruling class in the guise of helping the Third World with cleaner air, cleaner water, cleaner parks and playgrounds, and better schools.
When even the globalists at the U.N. admit that the entire climate hoax is not about the climate, but about destroying capitalism, you can be pretty sure that climate change is a feature for the left, not a bug; an excuse to advance totalitarianism and crush the middle class – and to get the middle class to join in, and pay for, its own destruction.
Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism. “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said.
We’ve seen this movie before. In the words of Princeton Professor Emeritus of Physics, William Happer, in 2017,
I don’t see a whole lot of difference between the consensus on climate change and the consensus on witches. At the witch trials in Salem the judges were educated at Harvard. This was supposedly 100 percent science. The one or two people who said there were no witches were immediately hung. Not much has changed.
At least we aren’t hanging “deniers.” Yet.
Read more at The Pipeline
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-07-29--Plunge In Incoming Sunlight May Have Triggered ‘Snowball Earths’

Written by Jennifer Chu on .
Posted in Latest news At least twice in Earth ’ s history , nearly the entire planet was encased in a sheet of snow and ice .
These dramatic “ Snowball Earth ” events occurred in quick succession , somewhere around 700 million years ago , and evidence suggests that the consecutive global ice ages set the stage for the subsequent explosion of complex , multicellular life on Earth .
Scientists have considered multiple scenarios for what may have tipped the planet into each ice age .
While no single driving process has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whatever triggered the temporary freeze-overs must have done so in a way that pushed the planet past a critical threshold , such as reducing incoming sunlight or atmospheric carbon dioxide to levels low enough to set off a global expansion of ice .
But MIT scientists now say that Snowball Earths were likely the product of “ rate-induced glaciations.
” That is , they found the Earth can be tipped into a global ice age when the level of solar radiation it receives changes quickly over a geologically short period of time .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ t have to drop to a particular threshold point ; as long as the decrease in incoming sunlight occurs faster than a critical rate , a temporary glaciation , or Snowball Earth , will follow .
These findings , published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society A , suggest that whatever triggered the Earth ’ s ice ages most likely involved processes that quickly reduced the amount of solar radiation coming to the surface , such as widespread volcanic eruptions or biologically induced cloud formation that could have significantly blocked out the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may also apply to the search for life on other planets .
Researchers have been keen on finding exoplanets within the habitable zone — a distance from their star that would be within a temperature range that could support life .
The new study suggests that these planets , like Earth , could also ice over temporarily if their climate changes abruptly .
Even if they lie within a habitable zone , Earth-like planets may be more susceptible to global ice ages than previously thought .
“ You could have a planet that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but if incoming sunlight changes too fast , you could get a Snowball Earth , ” says lead author Constantin Arnscheidt , a graduate student in MIT ’ s Department of Earth , Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences ( EAPS ) .
“ What this highlights is the notion that there ’ s so much more nuance in the concept of habitability.
” Arnscheidt has co-authored the paper with Daniel Rothman , EAPS professor of geophysics , and co-founder and co-director of the Lorenz Center .
Regardless of the particular processes that triggered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Snowball Earths arose from a “ runaway ” effect involving the ice-albedo feedback : As incoming sunlight is reduced , ice expands from the poles to the equator .
As more ice covers the globe , the planet becomes more reflective , or higher in albedo , which further cools the surface for more ice to expand .
Eventually , if the ice reaches a certain extent , this becomes a runaway process , resulting in global glaciation .
Global ice ages on Earth are temporary in nature , due to the planet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ planet is not covered in ice , levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are somewhat controlled by the weathering of rocks and minerals .
When the planet is covered in ice , weathering is vastly reduced , so that carbon dioxide builds up in the atmosphere , creating a greenhouse effect that eventually thaws the planet out of its ice age .
Scientists generally agree that the formation of Snowball Earths has something to do with the balance between incoming sunlight , the ice-albedo feedback , and the global carbon cycle .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ what caused these global glaciations , but they all really boil down to some implicit modification of solar radiation coming in , ” Arnscheidt says .
“ But generally it ’ s been studied in the context of crossing a threshold.
” He and Rothman had previously studied other periods in Earth ’ s history where the speed or rate at which certain changes in climate occurred had a role in triggering events , such as past mass extinctions .
“ In the course of this exercise , we realized there was an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by applying such ideas of rate-induced tipping , to Snowball Earth and habitability , ” Rothman says .

Written by Jennifer Chu on Jul 29, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
At least twice in Earth’s history, nearly the entire planet was encased in a sheet of snow and ice.
These dramatic “Snowball Earth” events occurred in quick succession, somewhere around 700 million years ago, and evidence suggests that the consecutive global ice ages set the stage for the subsequent explosion of complex, multicellular life on Earth.
Scientists have considered multiple scenarios for what may have tipped the planet into each ice age.
While no single driving process has been identified, it’s assumed that whatever triggered the temporary freeze-overs must have done so in a way that pushed the planet past a critical threshold, such as reducing incoming sunlight or atmospheric carbon dioxide to levels low enough to set off a global expansion of ice.
But MIT scientists now say that Snowball Earths were likely the product of “rate-induced glaciations.” That is, they found the Earth can be tipped into a global ice age when the level of solar radiation it receives changes quickly over a geologically short period of time.
The amount of solar radiation doesn’t have to drop to a particular threshold point; as long as the decrease in incoming sunlight occurs faster than a critical rate, a temporary glaciation, or Snowball Earth, will follow.
These findings, published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society A, suggest that whatever triggered the Earth’s ice ages most likely involved processes that quickly reduced the amount of solar radiation coming to the surface, such as widespread volcanic eruptions or biologically induced cloud formation that could have significantly blocked out the sun’s rays.
The findings may also apply to the search for life on other planets. Researchers have been keen on finding exoplanets within the habitable zone — a distance from their star that would be within a temperature range that could support life.
The new study suggests that these planets, like Earth, could also ice over temporarily if their climate changes abruptly. Even if they lie within a habitable zone, Earth-like planets may be more susceptible to global ice ages than previously thought.
“You could have a planet that stays well within the classical habitable zone, but if incoming sunlight changes too fast, you could get a Snowball Earth,” says lead author Constantin Arnscheidt, a graduate student in MIT’s Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences (EAPS). “What this highlights is the notion that there’s so much more nuance in the concept of habitability.”
Arnscheidt has co-authored the paper with Daniel Rothman, EAPS professor of geophysics, and co-founder and co-director of the Lorenz Center.
A runaway snowball
Regardless of the particular processes that triggered past glaciations, scientists generally agree that Snowball Earths arose from a “runaway” effect involving the ice-albedo feedback: As incoming sunlight is reduced, ice expands from the poles to the equator.
As more ice covers the globe, the planet becomes more reflective, or higher in albedo, which further cools the surface for more ice to expand. Eventually, if the ice reaches a certain extent, this becomes a runaway process, resulting in global glaciation.
Global ice ages on Earth are temporary in nature, due to the planet’s carbon cycle. When the planet is not covered in ice, levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are somewhat controlled by the weathering of rocks and minerals.
When the planet is covered in ice, weathering is vastly reduced, so that carbon dioxide builds up in the atmosphere, creating a greenhouse effect that eventually thaws the planet out of its ice age.
Scientists generally agree that the formation of Snowball Earths has something to do with the balance between incoming sunlight, the ice-albedo feedback, and the global carbon cycle.
“There are lots of ideas for what caused these global glaciations, but they all really boil down to some implicit modification of solar radiation coming in,” Arnscheidt says. “But generally it’s been studied in the context of crossing a threshold.”
He and Rothman had previously studied other periods in Earth’s history where the speed or rate at which certain changes in climate occurred had a role in triggering events, such as past mass extinctions.
“In the course of this exercise, we realized there was an immediate way to make a serious point by applying such ideas of rate-induced tipping, to Snowball Earth and habitability,” Rothman says.
Read rest at SciTechDaily
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-07-29--Biden: ‘We Can’t Rebuild Our Economy And Meet This Crimate Clisis’

Written by Kyle Olson on .
Posted in Latest news Joe Biden got tongue-tied while reading a teleprompter on Tuesday @ @ @ @ @ can ’ t rebuild our economy and meet this crimate clisis .
[ sic ] @ @ @ @ @ the podium , he attempted a joke , which promptly fell flat .
“ Good @ @ @ @ @ said .
“ Welcome to Kingswood Community Center , ” he continued , before standing @ @ @ @ @ agape .
“ Actually , that ’ s the one down where I used to @ @ @ @ @ joke , ” Biden said .
No one could be heard laughing .
Another time @ @ @ @ @ to correct the candidate when he misstated the city that was to host the Republican @ @ @ @ @ it would be in Tallahassee , and a journalist responded , “ Jacksonville ?
”

Written by Kyle Olson on Jul 29, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Joe Biden got tongue-tied while reading a teleprompter on Tuesday, saying, “We can’t rebuild our economy and meet this crimate clisis. [sic]”
Watch:
AG Barr hearing takes a 5 minute break and Fox dips into the Biden event: Joe Biden: “Crimate Clisis” pic.twitter.com/CDcx76JFpw — Benny (@bennyjohnson) July 28, 2020
After Biden first approached the podium, he attempted a joke, which promptly fell flat.
WATCH: Joe Biden welcomes people to the wrong community center, then claims he was joking. pic.twitter.com/LSh164H7YJ — Trump War Room – Text TRUMP to 88022 (@TrumpWarRoom) July 28, 2020
“Good afternoon everyone,” he said. “Welcome to Kingswood Community Center,” he continued, before standing for several moments, mouth agape.
“Actually, that’s the one down where I used to work. That was a joke,” Biden said.
No one could be heard laughing.
Another time, a reporter was forced to correct the candidate when he misstated the city that was to host the Republican National Convention.
Biden said it would be in Tallahassee, and a journalist responded, “Jacksonville?”
In Joe Biden’s world the RNC was going to be held in Tallahassee. #Qanon #WWG1WGA pic.twitter.com/krEvcGEzFQ — Robert Young (@carolinabama) July 28, 2020
“I mean Jacksonville…Florida,” Biden said.
Read more at Breitbart
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-07-29--Paper: Banning Petrol Cars Would Be ‘A Colossal Error’

Written by Dr. Benny Peiser , guest post on .
Posted in Latest news A new paper ( PDF ) published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation reveals another major flaw in plans to electrify the economy .
According to the author , Professor Gautam Kalghatgi , because most vehicles will still run on fossil fuels in ten years ’ time , banning the sale of new ones would prevent any improvement in the efficiency of most of the vehicle fleet .
“ Even with an improbable hundred-fold increase to 10 million in battery electric vehicle numbers in 2030 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ run on petrol and diesel , ” says Professor Kalghatgi .
“ But no manufacturer is going to invest in more advanced cars if they are banned from selling them.
” And Professor Kalghatgi says those advances could bring about significant improvements in efficiency : “ If a battery car delivers a 25 % saving in greenhouse gas emissions on a life cycle basis , the overall reduction for the UK would be less than 4 % by 2030 .
Larger emissions reductions could be delivered with a 5 % improvement in fuel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Banning the sale of new petrol and diesel cars simply means abandoning the possibility of future emissions reductions in this sector by freezing the technology of a vast majority of vehicles running U.K. transport for decades to come.
” Professor Gautam Kalghatgi is a fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering , the Institute of Mechanical Engineers and the Society of Automotive Engineers .

Written by Dr. Benny Peiser, guest post on Jul 29, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
A new paper (PDF) published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation reveals another major flaw in plans to electrify the economy.
According to the author, Professor Gautam Kalghatgi, because most vehicles will still run on fossil fuels in ten years’ time, banning the sale of new ones would prevent any improvement in the efficiency of most of the vehicle fleet.
As Professor Kalghatgi explains:
“Even with an improbable hundred-fold increase to 10 million in battery electric vehicle numbers in 2030, 75% of cars will still run on petrol and diesel,” says Professor Kalghatgi.
“But no manufacturer is going to invest in more advanced cars if they are banned from selling them.”
And Professor Kalghatgi says those advances could bring about significant improvements in efficiency:
“If a battery car delivers a 25% saving in greenhouse gas emissions on a life cycle basis, the overall reduction for the UK would be less than 4% by 2030. Larger emissions reductions could be delivered with a 5% improvement in fuel consumption of petrol and diesel vehicles.
“Banning the sale of new petrol and diesel cars simply means abandoning the possibility of future emissions reductions in this sector by freezing the technology of a vast majority of vehicles running U.K. transport for decades to come.”
Read Gautam Kalghatgi’s The Battery Car Delusion (pdf)
Professor Gautam Kalghatgi is a fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering, the Institute of Mechanical Engineers and the Society of Automotive Engineers.
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-07-29--Kenyan Biologist: ‘Nature Conservation Is The New Colonialism’

Written by Pierre Gosselin on .
Posted in Latest news The ugly face of environmentalism is exposed… “ Nature conservation is the new colonialism , ” Kenyan ecologist Mordecai Ogada told German magazine GEO .
A Kenyan biologist thinks white Europeans and Americans are using “ nature conservation ” for “ self-promotion ” and have created nothing but failure in Africa .
He accuses NGOs and nature conservation organizations of creating a “ permanent crisis ” to justify their work and to transform Africa into a place for white people to enjoy .
Dr. Ogada , who is co-author of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called nature conservation in the GEO interview “ elitist , violent and often racist ” and that it is a “ right-wing agenda enforced with money from the left.
” An instrument of power over Africa He also refers to nature conservation scientists as “ prostitutes ” and NGOs as “ pirates.
” “ Environmental protection in Africa is above all a mendacious instrument of power for him , ” commented GEO .
In his book , Ogada , who has worked as a biologist for NGOs for more than 18 years , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because “ projects are run by whites ” who make all the decisions and use black researchers as window dressing , adding : “ You suddenly realize that decisions are forced on you by people who are less qualified and often white.
” Dr. Ogada told GEO : “ Nature conservation in Africa still follows the rules of colonial times : keep black people away from nature so that white people can enjoy it.
” “ White saviors ” and nature conservation above all In Kenya , because of the religious nature conservation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as grave as poaching and it is the only one that leads to an immediate death penalty.
” “ In Kenya , we arrest robbers , kidnappers , murderers , and bring them to justice .
But we shoot poachers .
Sometimes it happens to someone who is just walking through a protected area , ” he told GEO .
“ Nature conservation organizations spend millions to bring their romantic message to the people : the story of white saviors who save wildlife in Africa – from the Africans.
” Six gorillas more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ illustrates how western values are gravely out of whack , using the example of six poached gorillas at Virunga that made western headlines but not widescale killing and raping of women and children : “ But the worst thing about it was that at the same time Virunga was considered one of the world ’ s worst rape scenes .
Hundreds of women were raped every day , children were killed .
And none of it made the news .
Just the six dead gorillas .
And that is so fundamentally wrong.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ no angels ” Ogada also doubts that the millions of dollars protect animals at all : “ No .
That money makes some people very rich .
These organizations pay high salaries .
They buy guns , ammunition , helicopters .
They build up a kind of parallel government , including security agencies.
” “ Nature conservation is the only area where we reward failure .
They have done nothing or the wrong thing for 40 years.
” He tells GEO : “ Nature conservation is a business .
And environmentalists are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In it for “ self-promotion ” Ogada also thinks very little of conservationists like Jane Goodall or Dian Fossey and that it ’ s about “ self-promotion above all else ” , adding : Dian Fossey ’ s militias killed people they suspected of being poachers .
She was murdered in revenge for violating other people ’ s rights.
” Read more at No Tricks Zone

Written by Pierre Gosselin on Jul 29, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The ugly face of environmentalism is exposed…
“Nature conservation is the new colonialism,” Kenyan ecologist Mordecai Ogada told German magazine GEO.
A Kenyan biologist thinks white Europeans and Americans are using “nature conservation” for “self-promotion” and have created nothing but failure in Africa.
He accuses NGOs and nature conservation organizations of creating a “permanent crisis” to justify their work and to transform Africa into a place for white people to enjoy.
Dr. Ogada, who is co-author of “The Big Conservation Lie,” called nature conservation in the GEO interview “elitist, violent and often racist” and that it is a “right-wing agenda enforced with money from the left.”
An instrument of power over Africa
He also refers to nature conservation scientists as “prostitutes” and NGOs as “pirates.”
“Environmental protection in Africa is above all a mendacious instrument of power for him,” commented GEO.
In his book, Ogada, who has worked as a biologist for NGOs for more than 18 years, compared nature conservation in Africa to apartheid because “projects are run by whites” who make all the decisions and use black researchers as window dressing, adding: “You suddenly realize that decisions are forced on you by people who are less qualified and often white.”
Rules of colonial times
Dr. Ogada told GEO: “Nature conservation in Africa still follows the rules of colonial times: keep black people away from nature so that white people can enjoy it.”
“White saviors” and nature conservation above all
In Kenya, because of the religious nature conservation fervor by elitists, no crime is as grave as poaching and it is the only one that leads to an immediate death penalty.”
“In Kenya, we arrest robbers, kidnappers, murderers, and bring them to justice. But we shoot poachers. Sometimes it happens to someone who is just walking through a protected area,” he told GEO.
“Nature conservation organizations spend millions to bring their romantic message to the people: the story of white saviors who save wildlife in Africa – from the Africans.”
Six gorillas more important than hundreds of Africans
Ogada also illustrates how western values are gravely out of whack, using the example of six poached gorillas at Virunga that made western headlines but not widescale killing and raping of women and children:
“But the worst thing about it was that at the same time Virunga was considered one of the world’s worst rape scenes. Hundreds of women were raped every day, children were killed. And none of it made the news. Just the six dead gorillas. And that is so fundamentally wrong.”
NGOs in it for money, power… “no angels”
Ogada also doubts that the millions of dollars protect animals at all: “No. That money makes some people very rich. These organizations pay high salaries.
They buy guns, ammunition, helicopters. They build up a kind of parallel government, including security agencies.”
Dr. Ogada claims big nature conservation organizations create a crisis to justify their work.
“Nature conservation is the only area where we reward failure. They have done nothing or the wrong thing for 40 years.” He tells GEO: “Nature conservation is a business. And environmentalists are no angels.”
Goodall, Fossey: In it for “self-promotion”
Ogada also thinks very little of conservationists like Jane Goodall or Dian Fossey and that it’s about “self-promotion above all else”, adding: Dian Fossey’s militias killed people they suspected of being poachers. She was murdered in revenge for violating other people’s rights.”
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--2020-07-30--Is Australian Academic Freedom Dead In The Water?

Written by James Allan on .
Posted in Latest news To paraphrase the US conservative commentator Victor Davis Hanson , ‘ 95 percent of university academics are politically left while 100 percent of university administrators are ’ .
That strikes me as about right in Australia too .
Which brings us to Professor Peter Ridd and his dismissal from James Cook University .
As virtually every Speccie reader will by now know , last week Ridd lost on appeal in the Federal Court , 2-1 .
The majority justices , in a joint judgment , held for JCU , while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Ridd .
Now before I take you briefly through the key parts of the decision , let me remind you of the core factual background .
Back in 2016 , Professor Ridd took issue with some colleagues and their claims about the state of the Great Barrier Reef .
Ridd thought what they were saying about the reef was untrustworthy , misleading , even fraudulent .
He said so on TV and online , without the well-mannered urbanity , politesse and civility one might find in the finer salons of Victorian England @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to impose confidentiality on those proceedings , and in May 2018 fired the professor .
Ridd sued and won at first instance , awarded a little over a million dollars in damages .
JCU , using your tax dollars , took that to appeal .
And last week they won , 2-1 .
The core issue was how to read the ‘ intellectual freedom ’ provisions in the Enterprise Agreement ( EA ) against the Code of Conduct .
EA Clause 14.1 states that JCU is committed to intellectual freedom ( though with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intimidating , etc . )
and to the Code .
EA Clause 13.3 says the Code is not intended to detract from Clause 14 ’ s intellectual freedom .
And the Code , in a nutshell , imposes all sorts of limits on the full-blooded , vigorous , satirical exchange of ideas .
JCU basically argued that the exercise of intellectual freedom was subject to the Code , so breach the Code and that can be misconduct and serious misconduct and sayonara to the outspoken professor .
Ridd , by contrast , essentially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his Clause 14 intellectual freedom – best argued in terms that when there is an inconsistency between the EA and Code , the former prevails .
Now I have slogged through the detailed legal arguments from the majority justices and dissenter so you don ’ t have to .
Leave aside ancillary issues as to suggestions of supposed pleading errors and on JCU ’ s scope to impose draconian confidentiality terms ( where the dissent is clearly correct in my view ) .
The key issue was whether a ) the EA is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s view ) or b ) both apply , but where there is inconsistency , the EA prevails ( dissenting view ) .
And on that core point , I confess to readers that both readings are plausible if we are asking the question in a dry , technical , interpretive sense .
That is how badly drafted they are .
Yes , I am slightly more persuaded by the dissent .
But the drafting is terrible and it is certainly plausible to come to the conclusion the majority did .
What is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the normative implications of the joint judgment , the majority view , are anything other than ghastly .
On the majority view , there simply is no academic or intellectual freedom in Australia , or at least at JCU .
It is palpable nonsense to think the JCU Code of Conduct , if determinative , leaves any real intellectual freedom in play at that uni .
Sure , it may be a close call whether that ’ s what the legal words in play dictate ( again , I don ’ t think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ implausible ) .
But that ’ s a God awful outcome if so .
Here are just a few of many problems with where this case leaves us .
First off , Ridd was alleging something between slipshoddiness and fraud on the part of his colleagues .
As the dissenting justice says , you can ’ t do that in any way that is respectful ( or do so in keeping with any of the other desiderata of the Code of Conduct ) .
And if you can ’ t allege what Ridd @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the uni hammering you , trying to silence you and ultimately firing you then there simply is no intellectual/academic freedom .
Full stop .
The majority judgment puts university academics in the position of senior public servants , with the same duty to work for the boss and not be disrespectful and with no real tenure .
Secondly , Ridd could never have been fired in the US or Canada where they do have real tenure .
I even checked with a bunch of US legal academic friends .
Ridd might be denounced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lousy courses at lousy times .
But he could not be fired .
Expressing your views in a biting , mean , vigorous , public , satirical way is what tenure protects .
In my view , it is on occasion what is demanded in the service of truth .
( God knows I ’ ve done it myself enough , sometimes directed at the High Court of Australia . )
The remedy for those whom Ridd attacked is to respond and say why he ’ s wrong .
To my knowledge , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As I said above , the majority of justices may have a plausible reading of these incompetently drafted words , but it is one with very , very unpalatable implications .
Thirdly , think back to the quote at the start of this piece .
In a world with few conservative academics , the behind-the-scenes reality is that JCU and five unions come up with an EA .
And then the vice-chancellor and her top people draft a code .
Take it from me , consultation on the latter is perfunctory only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , never joining a union .
So those on the right side of politics have no say at all into any of these terms and conditions .
It ’ s like a standard form contract , only worse because the Code can change after you start work .
So can the EA for that matter .
Fourthly , any code of conduct ( written in effect by the vice-chancellor , as both judgments concede ) can and will be discretionarily enforced .
No , that ’ s wrong .
It will be highly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the orthodox Barrier Reef academics with the ARC grant had said of Ridd what he said of them , everyone with a brain knows nothing would have happened .
Or if some social justice protesting academics in a university said something about a conservative academic , the Code would be used much differently than were it vice versa .
Does the minister Dan Tehan really wonder why there are so few right-of-center academics ?
Is he in a coma somewhere ?
I know Morrison never wanted to fight for free speech ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ) but this is now very serious .
Let ’ s hope the High Court grants leave to appeal .
Likewise , let ’ s hope that after seven straight years of Coalition governments , impotent on all culture war matters , they wake up and do something on this front , rather than trust to the luck of whether a particular uni has a tolerable EA and Code of Conduct .
I suggest mandating the Chicago Principles ( not Robert French ’ s more insipid suggestions ) on every university in @ @

Written by James Allan on Jul 30, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
To paraphrase the US conservative commentator Victor Davis Hanson, ‘95 percent of university academics are politically left while 100 percent of university administrators are’.
That strikes me as about right in Australia too. Which brings us to Professor Peter Ridd and his dismissal from James Cook University.
As virtually every Speccie reader will by now know, last week Ridd lost on appeal in the Federal Court, 2-1. The majority justices, in a joint judgment, held for JCU, while Justice Rangiah, in part, went with Ridd.
Now before I take you briefly through the key parts of the decision, let me remind you of the core factual background.
Back in 2016, Professor Ridd took issue with some colleagues and their claims about the state of the Great Barrier Reef. Ridd thought what they were saying about the reef was untrustworthy, misleading, even fraudulent.
He said so on TV and online, without the well-mannered urbanity, politesse and civility one might find in the finer salons of Victorian England.
JCU brought disciplinary proceedings, tried to impose confidentiality on those proceedings, and in May 2018 fired the professor.
Ridd sued and won at first instance, awarded a little over a million dollars in damages. JCU, using your tax dollars, took that to appeal. And last week they won, 2-1.
The core issue was how to read the ‘intellectual freedom’ provisions in the Enterprise Agreement (EA) against the Code of Conduct.
EA Clause 14.1 states that JCU is committed to intellectual freedom (though with in-built limits in 14.3 regarding bullying and intimidating, etc.) and to the Code. EA Clause 13.3 says the Code is not intended to detract from Clause 14’s intellectual freedom.
And the Code, in a nutshell, imposes all sorts of limits on the full-blooded, vigorous, satirical exchange of ideas.
JCU basically argued that the exercise of intellectual freedom was subject to the Code, so breach the Code and that can be misconduct and serious misconduct and sayonara to the outspoken professor.
Ridd, by contrast, essentially argued that the Code cannot limit his Clause 14 intellectual freedom – best argued in terms that when there is an inconsistency between the EA and Code, the former prevails.
Now I have slogged through the detailed legal arguments from the majority justices and dissenter so you don’t have to.
Leave aside ancillary issues as to suggestions of supposed pleading errors and on JCU’s scope to impose draconian confidentiality terms (where the dissent is clearly correct in my view).
The key issue was whether a) the EA is subject to the Code (majority’s view) or b) both apply, but where there is inconsistency, the EA prevails (dissenting view).
And on that core point, I confess to readers that both readings are plausible if we are asking the question in a dry, technical, interpretive sense. That is how badly drafted they are.
Yes, I am slightly more persuaded by the dissent. But the drafting is terrible and it is certainly plausible to come to the conclusion the majority did.
What is not plausible however is to believe that the normative implications of the joint judgment, the majority view, are anything other than ghastly.
On the majority view, there simply is no academic or intellectual freedom in Australia, or at least at JCU.
It is palpable nonsense to think the JCU Code of Conduct, if determinative, leaves any real intellectual freedom in play at that uni.
Sure, it may be a close call whether that’s what the legal words in play dictate (again, I don’t think so, but it’s not implausible). But that’s a God awful outcome if so.
Here are just a few of many problems with where this case leaves us.
First off, Ridd was alleging something between slipshoddiness and fraud on the part of his colleagues. As the dissenting justice says, you can’t do that in any way that is respectful (or do so in keeping with any of the other desiderata of the Code of Conduct).
And if you can’t allege what Ridd did, a factual claim, without the uni hammering you, trying to silence you and ultimately firing you then there simply is no intellectual/academic freedom. Full stop.
The majority judgment puts university academics in the position of senior public servants, with the same duty to work for the boss and not be disrespectful and with no real tenure.
Secondly, Ridd could never have been fired in the US or Canada where they do have real tenure.
I even checked with a bunch of US legal academic friends. Ridd might be denounced, defriended, or made to teach lousy courses at lousy times. But he could not be fired.
Expressing your views in a biting, mean, vigorous, public, satirical way is what tenure protects. In my view, it is on occasion what is demanded in the service of truth. (God knows I’ve done it myself enough, sometimes directed at the High Court of Australia.)
The remedy for those whom Ridd attacked is to respond and say why he’s wrong. To my knowledge, they have opted not to do that. As I said above, the majority of justices may have a plausible reading of these incompetently drafted words, but it is one with very, very unpalatable implications.
Thirdly, think back to the quote at the start of this piece. In a world with few conservative academics, the behind-the-scenes reality is that JCU and five unions come up with an EA.
And then the vice-chancellor and her top people draft a code. Take it from me, consultation on the latter is perfunctory only and many conservatives will be like me, never joining a union.
So those on the right side of politics have no say at all into any of these terms and conditions. It’s like a standard form contract, only worse because the Code can change after you start work. So can the EA for that matter.
Fourthly, any code of conduct (written in effect by the vice-chancellor, as both judgments concede) can and will be discretionarily enforced. No, that’s wrong. It will be highly discretionarily enforced.
If those Ridd criticized, the orthodox Barrier Reef academics with the ARC grant had said of Ridd what he said of them, everyone with a brain knows nothing would have happened.
Or if some social justice protesting academics in a university said something about a conservative academic, the Code would be used much differently than were it vice versa.
Does the minister Dan Tehan really wonder why there are so few right-of-center academics? Is he in a coma somewhere? I know Morrison never wanted to fight for free speech (suggesting 18C was ‘a third-order issue’) but this is now very serious.
Let’s hope the High Court grants leave to appeal. Likewise, let’s hope that after seven straight years of Coalition governments, impotent on all culture war matters, they wake up and do something on this front, rather than trust to the luck of whether a particular uni has a tolerable EA and Code of Conduct.
I suggest mandating the Chicago Principles (not Robert French’s more insipid suggestions) on every university in Australia.
Read more at Spectator AU
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-07-30--Data From Two Separate Studies Confirm No Link Between CO2 And Temps

Written by Pierre Gosselin on .
Posted in Latest news German climatologist Professor Dr. Horst-Joachim Lüdecke recently took data from two independent studies and superimposed them .
The first data set was global temperature anomaly going back 600 million years , taken from the results of a paper by Came and Veizer , appearing in Nature ( 2007 ) and plotted below ( blue ) : The second data set was of atmospheric CO2 going back 600 million years , taken from a published study by Berner ( 2003 ) , also appearing in Nature .
These data are plotted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The plots were combined in the above chart to see how well they correlated , if at all .
The result : no correlation .
For example , as the chart shows , 150 million years ago the atmospheric CO2 concentration was over 2,000 ppm , which is five times today ’ s atmospheric concentration of 410 ppm – a level that some climate scientists say is already “ dangerously high.
” Yet , the global temperature 150 million years ago was more than 2°C below the long-term mean .
450 million years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on its head : atmospheric CO2 concentrations were more than 10 times today ’ s level , yet the global temperature was a frigid 3.5°C below the mean !
“ There ’ s no correlation between earth temperature and CO2 , ” Prof. Lüdecke concludes , observing recorded data .
Read more at No Tricks Zone

Written by Pierre Gosselin on Jul 30, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
German climatologist Professor Dr. Horst-Joachim Lüdecke recently took data from two independent studies and superimposed them.
The result shows the long-claimed atmospheric CO2-global temperature correlation doesn’t exist.
The first data set was global temperature anomaly going back 600 million years, taken from the results of a paper by Came and Veizer, appearing in Nature (2007) and plotted below (blue):
The second data set was of atmospheric CO2 going back 600 million years, taken from a published study by Berner (2003), also appearing in Nature. These data are plotted in the above chart in blue.
No correlation
The plots were combined in the above chart to see how well they correlated, if at all. The result: no correlation.
For example, as the chart shows, 150 million years ago the atmospheric CO2 concentration was over 2,000 ppm, which is five times today’s atmospheric concentration of 410 ppm – a level that some climate scientists say is already “dangerously high.”
Yet, the global temperature 150 million years ago was more than 2°C below the long-term mean.
450 million years ago the relationship was even far more on its head: atmospheric CO2 concentrations were more than 10 times today’s level, yet the global temperature was a frigid 3.5°C below the mean!
“There’s no correlation between earth temperature and CO2,” Prof. Lüdecke concludes, observing recorded data.
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--2020-07-30--Hunter Biden Made Millions From Chinese Coal As Dad Decimated US Coal

Written by Natalie Winters on .
Posted in Latest news Despite democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden declaring “ no coal plants in America ” and suppressing the industry as vice president , an investment fund directed by his son Hunter has funneled hundreds of millions of dollars into Chinese communist party-owned coal companies .
The former Vice President gutted American coal while in office , echoing a similar sentiment on the 2020 campaign trail with dictums such as “ getting rid of fossil fuels ” and telling coal miners to “ learn to code.
” Meanwhile , Bohai Harvest , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since its 2013 founding , inked a lucrative contract with Yancoal .
The majority shareholder of the coal company is a Chinese state-owned enterprise Yankuang Group .
Alongside two state-owned Chinese banks , Bohai Harvest pledged $ 950 million , and in return “ collect [ ed ] interest of 8.55 % a year on $ 760 million of the bonds , plus interest of up to 15 % a year on the remainder.
” The Wall Street Journal identified Bohai Harvest as gaining “ control ” of the mines .
Announced in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vice President , the current arrangement stands for nine years and is set to expire in 2024 .
While Hunter Biden pledged to divest of his stake in the company in 2019 , the Daily Caller revealed he retained shares for months after his announcement .
Now , it is alleged he still owns 10 percent of the fund , meaning that if his father ’ s presidential ambitions materialize , his son would ostensibly be beholden to the interests of a foreign government .
And not just any foreign government : the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CCP ) .
It ’ s also a testament to Biden ’ s routine monetization of his political connections and credentials : Bohai Harvest was a billion-dollar joint venture between Rosemont Seneca Partners , an investment fund founded by Hunter Biden and Obama-era Secretary of State John Kerry ’ s stepson in 2009 , and the state-owned Bank of China notoriously birthed less than two weeks after Hunter traveled to China alongside his father .
Another level of hypocrisy , Biden bills himself as a fierce environmental advocate despite his family directly profiting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , disproportionately responsible for carbon emissions and air pollution .
Meanwhile , Biden is keen on issuing inoperable regulations on American coal companies : under his administration ’ s quest to “ bankrupt ” American coal , the industry lost over 80,000 jobs and 400 coal mines in just eight years .

Written by Natalie Winters on Jul 30, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Despite democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden declaring “no coal plants in America” and suppressing the industry as vice president, an investment fund directed by his son Hunter has funneled hundreds of millions of dollars into Chinese communist party-owned coal companies.
The former Vice President gutted American coal while in office, echoing a similar sentiment on the 2020 campaign trail with dictums such as “getting rid of fossil fuels” and telling coal miners to “learn to code.”
Meanwhile, Bohai Harvest, a private equity firm Hunter Biden directed since its 2013 founding, inked a lucrative contract with Yancoal. The majority shareholder of the coal company is a Chinese state-owned enterprise Yankuang Group.
Alongside two state-owned Chinese banks, Bohai Harvest pledged $950 million, and in return “collect[ed] interest of 8.55% a year on $760 million of the bonds, plus interest of up to 15% a year on the remainder.”
The Wall Street Journal identified Bohai Harvest as gaining “control” of the mines.
Announced in February 2016, while Biden was still Vice President, the current arrangement stands for nine years and is set to expire in 2024.
While Hunter Biden pledged to divest of his stake in the company in 2019, the Daily Caller revealed he retained shares for months after his announcement.
Now, it is alleged he still owns 10 percent of the fund, meaning that if his father’s presidential ambitions materialize, his son would ostensibly be beholden to the interests of a foreign government. And not just any foreign government: the hostile and repressive Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
It’s also a testament to Biden’s routine monetization of his political connections and credentials: Bohai Harvest was a billion-dollar joint venture between Rosemont Seneca Partners, an investment fund founded by Hunter Biden and Obama-era Secretary of State John Kerry’s stepson in 2009, and the state-owned Bank of China notoriously birthed less than two weeks after Hunter traveled to China alongside his father.
Another level of hypocrisy, Biden bills himself as a fierce environmental advocate despite his family directly profiting from China’s dirty coal industry, disproportionately responsible for carbon emissions and air pollution.
Meanwhile, Biden is keen on issuing inoperable regulations on American coal companies: under his administration’s quest to “bankrupt” American coal, the industry lost over 80,000 jobs and 400 coal mines in just eight years.
Read more at National Pulse
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-07-30--MIT Gets Huge Cash Crop For Pushing Fake Climate Claims

Written by H. Sterling Burnett on .
Posted in Latest news The Massachusetts Institute of Technology published an article this morning falsely claiming climate change causes crop failure , hunger , and poverty .
The article , titled “ $ 25 million gift launches ambitious new effort tackling poverty and climate change , ” asserted an avalanche of fake climate claims to justify a huge donation to MIT .
Well , at least MIT demonstrated which side of the climate debate benefits from the vast majority of climate activist money .
Among MIT ’ s false assertions is that climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shortages and an increase in hunger and malnutrition .
“ As vast as its effects may be , climate change also presents a diverse set of problems to tackle .
Among other things , climate change , as well as fossil-fuel pollution , is expected to reduce crop yields , raise food prices , and generate more malnutrition … , ” writes Peter Dizikes , the author of the article .
The facts say just the opposite , and MIT should know that .
As my colleague and the president of The Heartland @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Climate Realism article , the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization ( FAO ) keeps meticulous records of each country ’ s agricultural production , as well as global agricultural production .
FAO reports global cereal production ( the vitally important corn , wheat , and rice crops ) set an all-time record in 2019 .
Moreover , FAO expects 2020 crop production to surpass the 2019 record .
New records in 2019 and 2020 are not surprising considering new crop yield records are set virtually every year during this period of modest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ humans have added to the atmosphere has enriched plant growth , contributing to record crop yields .
Warmer temperatures and longer growing seasons have also aided crop production .
The benefits have brought about the largest decline in hunger , malnutrition , and starvation in human history .
The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change ( NIPCC ) meticulously researched and published Climate Change Reconsidered II : Biological Impacts and its follow-up document , Climate Change Reconsidered II : Fossil Fuels .
These two NIPCC publications show the use of fossil fuels has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world .
As NIPCC reports , despite the addition of 3.2 billion people to the planet since 1968 , poverty and hunger have fallen at a faster rate than at any time in human history .
Forty-four percent of the world ’ s population lived in extreme poverty in 1981 .
Since then , the share of people living in extreme poverty fell below 10 percent in 2015 .
And although more than 700 million people worldwide still suffer from persistent hunger , according to the United Nations , the number of hungry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1990 .
Additionally , research shows there is now 17 percent more food available per person than there was 30 years ago—all occurring during this period of consistent and modest global warming .
Food abundance increased even as the amount of land devoted to agriculture declined over the same period .
Forests and pastures have reclaimed former farm fields , benefiting wildlife and the environment .
This has happened due to two primary factors : ( 1 ) the widespread use of modern technologies related to agriculture , many of which depend on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increased carbon-dioxide levels in the atmosphere .
The May 2018 report by The Heartland Institute , “ The Social Benefits of Fossil Fuels , ” documents many of these benefits .
According to the report , “ the increase in atmospheric [ carbon dioxide ] concentration … caused by the historical burning of fossil fuels has likely increased agricultural production per unit [ of ] land area by 70 percent for C3 cereals [ which include rice , wheat , oats , cotton , and evergreen trees ] , 28 percent for C4 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and various grasses ] , 33 percent for fruits and melons , 62 percent for legumes , 67 percent for root and tuber crops , and 51 percent for vegetables.
” The MIT researchers were either ignorant of the agricultural benefits of atmospheric carbon dioxide or simply sold out to score a nice $ 25 million donation – on top of their many other climate alarmism donations .
Either way , the beneficial impact of carbon dioxide and global warming on crop production and declining human hunger is one of the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Written by H. Sterling Burnett on Jul 30, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology published an article this morning falsely claiming climate change causes crop failure, hunger, and poverty.
The article, titled “$25 million gift launches ambitious new effort tackling poverty and climate change,” asserted an avalanche of fake climate claims to justify a huge donation to MIT.
Well, at least MIT demonstrated which side of the climate debate benefits from the vast majority of climate activist money.
Among MIT’s false assertions is that climate change is causing or will cause food shortages and an increase in hunger and malnutrition.
“As vast as its effects may be, climate change also presents a diverse set of problems to tackle. Among other things, climate change, as well as fossil-fuel pollution, is expected to reduce crop yields, raise food prices, and generate more malnutrition …,” writes Peter Dizikes, the author of the article.
The facts say just the opposite, and MIT should know that.
As my colleague and the president of The Heartland Institute James Taylor recently noted in a Climate Realism article, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) keeps meticulous records of each country’s agricultural production, as well as global agricultural production.
FAO reports global cereal production (the vitally important corn, wheat, and rice crops) set an all-time record in 2019.
Moreover, FAO expects 2020 crop production to surpass the 2019 record.
New records in 2019 and 2020 are not surprising considering new crop yield records are set virtually every year during this period of modest warming.
Indeed, the carbon dioxide humans have added to the atmosphere has enriched plant growth, contributing to record crop yields.
Warmer temperatures and longer growing seasons have also aided crop production. The benefits have brought about the largest decline in hunger, malnutrition, and starvation in human history.
The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) meticulously researched and published Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts and its follow-up document, Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels.
These two NIPCC publications show the use of fossil fuels has dramatically reduced poverty and hunger throughout the world.
As NIPCC reports, despite the addition of 3.2 billion people to the planet since 1968, poverty and hunger have fallen at a faster rate than at any time in human history.
Forty-four percent of the world’s population lived in extreme poverty in 1981. Since then, the share of people living in extreme poverty fell below 10 percent in 2015.
And although more than 700 million people worldwide still suffer from persistent hunger, according to the United Nations, the number of hungry people has declined by two billion since 1990.
Additionally, research shows there is now 17 percent more food available per person than there was 30 years ago—all occurring during this period of consistent and modest global warming.
Food abundance increased even as the amount of land devoted to agriculture declined over the same period. Forests and pastures have reclaimed former farm fields, benefiting wildlife and the environment.
This has happened due to two primary factors: (1) the widespread use of modern technologies related to agriculture, many of which depend on fossil fuels, and (2) increased carbon-dioxide levels in the atmosphere.
The May 2018 report by The Heartland Institute, “The Social Benefits of Fossil Fuels,” documents many of these benefits.
According to the report, “the increase in atmospheric [carbon dioxide] concentration … caused by the historical burning of fossil fuels has likely increased agricultural production per unit [of] land area by 70 percent for C3 cereals [which include rice, wheat, oats, cotton, and evergreen trees], 28 percent for C4 cereals [which include sorghum, maize, and various grasses], 33 percent for fruits and melons, 62 percent for legumes, 67 percent for root and tuber crops, and 51 percent for vegetables.”
The MIT researchers were either ignorant of the agricultural benefits of atmospheric carbon dioxide or simply sold out to score a nice $25 million donation – on top of their many other climate alarmism donations.
Either way, the beneficial impact of carbon dioxide and global warming on crop production and declining human hunger is one of the most important global developments in recent decades.
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--2020-07-31--EPA Prioritizes Superfund Cleanup Sites Over Climate Change

Written by Valerie Richardson on .
Posted in Latest news Not long after the Trump administration made cleaning up Superfund sites a priority for the Environmental Protection Agency , Andrew Wheeler turned his attention to a century-old neighborhood built for steelworkers that sits atop soil with dangerously high levels of lead and arsenic .
Cleaning up the 1,700 residential properties on Pueblo ’ s southside was originally scheduled to take more than a decade , but Mr. Wheeler and then-Region 8 Administrator Doug Benevento cobbled together the additional $ 15 million per year needed to cut that timeframe by more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the agency in 2018 , we knew what the problem was here , we knew what the solution was , but it was slated to take 10-15 years , and I just looked at that and said , that ’ s too long , ” said Mr. Wheeler , who took over as EPA administrator last year .
“ We needed to get it done faster , and we are.
” The Colorado Smelter site now is slated to be completed in three to five years , part of the administration ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Superfund National Priorities List where “ people live , work and play , ” he said .
“ This is a new approach we ’ re taking to Superfund , ” said Mr. Wheeler , who toured the site Monday with EPA and local officials .
“ We ’ ll have it done by 2023 , which means a couple of generations of children will be able to play in their backyard without fear of lead-contaminated soil.
” If the EPA under President Barack Obama had its eye on the sky , seeking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ name of combating climate change , then the agency under President Trump has its hands in the dirt , digging into the unglamorous and often unheralded work of scrubbing polluted properties and spurring community revival .
“ There are too many examples of sites around the country that have become stuck and lingered on the list for years , well beyond when they should have been cleaned up and delisted , ” Mr. Wheeler said .
“ President Trump wanted to get these delayed sites unstuck.
” The Superfund National Priorities List is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from old military arsenals to abandoned mines , but Mr. Wheeler said the agency was able to remove all or part of 27 projects last year from the list , the most in one year since 2001 .
Even though neighborhoods of single-family homes like Bessemer hardly fit the Superfund stereotype , “ they ’ re not as rare as you would think , ” said Mr. Benevento , now associate deputy administrator , who cited the recent remediation of homes near a former vermiculite mine at the Libby Asbestos Site in Montana @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a domino effect for other Superfund projects , he said .
“ By doing this more quickly , we ’ re saving money for the taxpayer , ” Mr. Benevento said .
“ Most importantly , we ’ re doing great things for the people in the community , but we ’ re also going to be able to put this money into other Superfund sites to move them faster .
There ’ s nothing about this that isn ’ t a win .
”

Written by Valerie Richardson on Jul 31, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Not long after the Trump administration made cleaning up Superfund sites a priority for the Environmental Protection Agency, Andrew Wheeler turned his attention to a century-old neighborhood built for steelworkers that sits atop soil with dangerously high levels of lead and arsenic.
Cleaning up the 1,700 residential properties on Pueblo’s southside was originally scheduled to take more than a decade, but Mr. Wheeler and then-Region 8 Administrator Doug Benevento cobbled together the additional $15 million per year needed to cut that timeframe by more than half.
“When I started with the agency in 2018, we knew what the problem was here, we knew what the solution was, but it was slated to take 10-15 years, and I just looked at that and said, that’s too long,” said Mr. Wheeler, who took over as EPA administrator last year. “We needed to get it done faster, and we are.”
The Colorado Smelter site now is slated to be completed in three to five years, part of the administration’s push to fast-track projects on the Superfund National Priorities List where “people live, work and play,” he said.
“This is a new approach we’re taking to Superfund,” said Mr. Wheeler, who toured the site Monday with EPA and local officials. “We’ll have it done by 2023, which means a couple of generations of children will be able to play in their backyard without fear of lead-contaminated soil.”
If the EPA under President Barack Obama had its eye on the sky, seeking to reduce atmospheric greenhouse gases in the name of combating climate change, then the agency under President Trump has its hands in the dirt, digging into the unglamorous and often unheralded work of scrubbing polluted properties and spurring community revival.
“There are too many examples of sites around the country that have become stuck and lingered on the list for years, well beyond when they should have been cleaned up and delisted,” Mr. Wheeler said. “President Trump wanted to get these delayed sites unstuck.”
The Superfund National Priorities List is daunting, with 1,335 sites covering everything from old military arsenals to abandoned mines, but Mr. Wheeler said the agency was able to remove all or part of 27 projects last year from the list, the most in one year since 2001.
Even though neighborhoods of single-family homes like Bessemer hardly fit the Superfund stereotype, “they’re not as rare as you would think,” said Mr. Benevento, now associate deputy administrator, who cited the recent remediation of homes near a former vermiculite mine at the Libby Asbestos Site in Montana.
Expediting the Colorado Smelter cleanup creates a domino effect for other Superfund projects, he said.
“By doing this more quickly, we’re saving money for the taxpayer,” Mr. Benevento said. “Most importantly, we’re doing great things for the people in the community, but we’re also going to be able to put this money into other Superfund sites to move them faster. There’s nothing about this that isn’t a win.”
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