climatechangedispatch--2020-09-18--Solar Panels Generate Mountains Of Toxic Waste—And Heat The Earth

Written by Duggan Flanakin on .
Posted in Latest news The problem of solar panel waste is now becoming evident .
As environmental journalist Emily Folk admits in Renewable Energy Magazine , “ when talking about renewable energy , the topic of waste does not often appear.
” She attributes this to the supposed “ pressures of climate change ” and alleged “ urgency to find alternative energy sources , ” saying people may thus be hesitant to discuss “ possible negative impacts of renewable energy.
” Ms .
Folk admits that sustainability requires proper e-waste management .
Yet she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problem .
There is growing evidence that broken panels release toxic pollutants … [ and ] increasing concern regarding what happens with these materials when they are no longer viable , especially since they are difficult to recycle.
” This is the likely reason that ( except in Washington state ) , there are no U.S. mandates for solar recycling .
A recent article in Grist reports that most used solar panels are shipped to developing countries that have little electricity and weak environmental protections , to be reused or landfilled .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ panels is likely a byproduct of the belief ( and repeated , unsupported assertion ) that renewable energy is “ clean ” and “ green.
” Indeed , Mississippi Sierra Club state director Louie Miller recently claimed that unlike fossil fuels and nuclear energy , “ Sunshine is a free fuel.
” Well , sunshine is certainly free and clean .
However , there is a monumental caveat .
Harnessing sunshine ( and wind ) to serve humanity is not free – or clean , green , renewable , or sustainable .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mandates that new surface coal mines include plans and set aside funds for full reclamation of mine properties .
The law also sets standards for restoring abandoned mine lands .
There is nothing akin to this for solar facilities and wastes .
Similarly , the 1980 Superfund law ( Comprehensive Environmental Response , Compensation , and Liability Act ) created a tax and trust fund to pay for preventing and fixing actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances that could endanger public health or the environment .
Again , still nothing for solar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prioritizes deep geologic repositories for safe storage and/or disposal of radioactive waste .
Unfortunately , 25 years after being designated as the disposal site , Nevada ’ s Yucca Mountain has never opened because of conflicts among politicians , locals , anti-nuclear activists , government officials , and the nuclear industry ; the U.S. still stores its nuclear waste at 75 scattered sites , including some near New York City , New Orleans , and Chicago .
But for solar no steps have been taken .
While coal , nuclear , and petrochemical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ costly plans for dealing with real or potential negative consequences of their operations , solar ( and wind ) companies have been “ rewarded ” with massive subsidies and absolutely no disposal standards or requirements .
No government grants require these solar companies to set aside money to dispose of , store or recycle wastes generated during manufacturing or after massive solar “ farms ” have ceased functioning and been torn down .
Solar ( and wind ) customers are likewise not charged for waste cleanup , disposal , or reuse and recycling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and hide the true costs of solar power .
But the reality is starting to catch up .
Disposal ( or recycling ) costs will have to be paid , ultimately by consumers .
The more solar panels we have ( likely billions within a few years ) , the higher those costs will be .
Consumers in states like California that have committed to heavy reliance on solar ( and wind ) energy ( and already have the nation ’ s highest energy bills ) will have to pay even more .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the proliferation of subsidized industrial solar installations .
A 2015 study jointly by Stanford University and the Carnegie Institution for Science found that nearly a third of the state ’ s solar development is occurring on former cropland , where many farmers are shifting from growing crops to using their land to generate electricity – rather than letting it become a wildlife habitat .
As Big Solar also moves into natural areas , California is losing even more habitat and scenic land , while the integrity of state and national parks suffers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ panels and towering transmission lines to distant cities .
The Stanford study highlights another problem : localized higher temperatures .
It found it will take an area the size of South Carolina filled with solar arrays to meet California ’ s goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions 80 % below 1990 levels by 2050 .
[ It would take at least eight South Carolinas if the California mandate were extended nationwide . ]
Other research has found that these large-scale solar power plants raise local temperatures , creating a significant solar heat island @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plant were 5.4°-7.2°F ( 3°-4°C ) warmer than nearby wildlands .
Imagine such manmade “ global warming ” across 20 million acres ( South Carolina ) or 160 million acres ( Texas ) , to meet California or U.S. greenhouse gas reduction goals !
Australia is already coping with this unwelcome reality .
Not until 2018 did Aussie environment ministers mandate fast-track development of new product stewardship schemes for photovoltaic ( PV ) solar panels , like those television and computer manufacturers and retailers have had to comply with since 2011 .
Total @ @ @ @ @ @ @ setting standards for life-of-product management for solar panels was “ long overdue , ” and that the 30-year delay in imposing standards revealed a “ fundamental weakness ” in Australia ’ s waste policies .
He further noted that while solar panels contain hazardous substances , Aussies are “ sending hundreds of thousands of e-waste items to landfills ” and creating significant pollution problems .
And Australia has less than a tenth of the U.S. population !
Since 2002 , the European Union ’ s Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment ( WEEE ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of e-wastes guarantee and pay for taking back and recycling their wastes , so that end-user consumers aren ’ t surprised by additional disposal costs .
However , PV solar panel waste was not included in this mandate until July 2012 – and “ some uncertainty remains ” about the cutoff date for such wastes because the directive has yet to be implemented in national laws .
Producer financing of PV waste treatment thus can not be applied to older solar panels .
So who will pay ?
And how much ?
Ms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plants , and indeed the EU does send much of its solar panel waste to incinerators – which many environmentalists oppose .
Landfilling is not a viable option in the U.S. , because toxins could leach out .
Unscrupulous companies ship solar panel waste to developing nations , but that is a stopgap solution that is environmentally irresponsible .
Tao Meng , the lead author of a new study , says “ the big blind spot in the U.S. for recycling is that the cost far exceeds the revenue ” – by nearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Chemicals must be used to remove silver and lead from silicon modules before they can be safely placed in landfills , Meng notes .
The problem of solar panel waste will continue to grow as more panels reach their end of life .
Four years ago the International Renewable Energy Agency estimated there were already about 250,000 metric tons of solar panel waste worldwide – and that total will explode to 78 million metric tons by 2050 !
So when you read that solar energy is already cheaper than natural gas , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are omitting the pollution and disposal costs , as well as habitat losses , solar heat islands , and the need for backup power generation or batteries – to lowball the true costs of solar .
We need some honest math now before it ’ s too late to turn back .

Written by Duggan Flanakin on Sep 18, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The problem of solar panel waste is now becoming evident. As environmental journalist Emily Folk admits in Renewable Energy Magazine, “when talking about renewable energy, the topic of waste does not often appear.”
She attributes this to the supposed “pressures of climate change” and alleged “urgency to find alternative energy sources,” saying people may thus be hesitant to discuss “possible negative impacts of renewable energy.”
Ms. Folk admits that sustainability requires proper e-waste management. Yet she laments, “Solar presents a particular problem. There is growing evidence that broken panels release toxic pollutants … [and] increasing concern regarding what happens with these materials when they are no longer viable, especially since they are difficult to recycle.”
This is the likely reason that (except in Washington state), there are no U.S. mandates for solar recycling. A recent article in Grist reports that most used solar panels are shipped to developing countries that have little electricity and weak environmental protections, to be reused or landfilled.
The near-total absence of end-of-life procedures for solar panels is likely a byproduct of the belief (and repeated, unsupported assertion) that renewable energy is “clean” and “green.”
Indeed, Mississippi Sierra Club state director Louie Miller recently claimed that unlike fossil fuels and nuclear energy, “Sunshine is a free fuel.” Well, sunshine is certainly free and clean. However, there is a monumental caveat.
Harnessing sunshine (and wind) to serve humanity is not free – or clean, green, renewable, or sustainable.
The 1977 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act mandates that new surface coal mines include plans and set aside funds for full reclamation of mine properties.
The law also sets standards for restoring abandoned mine lands. There is nothing akin to this for solar facilities and wastes.
Similarly, the 1980 Superfund law (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act) created a tax and trust fund to pay for preventing and fixing actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances that could endanger public health or the environment. Again, still nothing for solar.
The 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act prioritizes deep geologic repositories for safe storage and/or disposal of radioactive waste.
Unfortunately, 25 years after being designated as the disposal site, Nevada’s Yucca Mountain has never opened because of conflicts among politicians, locals, anti-nuclear activists, government officials, and the nuclear industry; the U.S. still stores its nuclear waste at 75 scattered sites, including some near New York City, New Orleans, and Chicago.
But for solar no steps have been taken.
While coal, nuclear, and petrochemical companies must come up with detailed, costly plans for dealing with real or potential negative consequences of their operations, solar (and wind) companies have been “rewarded” with massive subsidies and absolutely no disposal standards or requirements.
No government grants require these solar companies to set aside money to dispose of, store or recycle wastes generated during manufacturing or after massive solar “farms” have ceased functioning and been torn down.
Solar (and wind) customers are likewise not charged for waste cleanup, disposal, or reuse and recycling. This and the massive subsidies distort and hide the true costs of solar power.
But the reality is starting to catch up. Disposal (or recycling) costs will have to be paid, ultimately by consumers. The more solar panels we have (likely billions within a few years), the higher those costs will be.
Consumers in states like California that have committed to heavy reliance on solar (and wind) energy (and already have the nation’s highest energy bills) will have to pay even more.
California is also facing a secondary problem from the proliferation of subsidized industrial solar installations.
A 2015 study jointly by Stanford University and the Carnegie Institution for Science found that nearly a third of the state’s solar development is occurring on former cropland, where many farmers are shifting from growing crops to using their land to generate electricity – rather than letting it become a wildlife habitat.
As Big Solar also moves into natural areas, California is losing even more habitat and scenic land, while the integrity of state and national parks suffers from the nearby glare of countless solar panels and towering transmission lines to distant cities.
The Stanford study highlights another problem: localized higher temperatures. It found it will take an area the size of South Carolina filled with solar arrays to meet California’s goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. [It would take at least eight South Carolinas if the California mandate were extended nationwide.]
Other research has found that these large-scale solar power plants raise local temperatures, creating a significant solar heat island effect. Temperatures around one solar power plant were 5.4°-7.2°F (3°-4°C) warmer than nearby wildlands.
Imagine such manmade “global warming” across 20 million acres (South Carolina) or 160 million acres (Texas), to meet California or U.S. greenhouse gas reduction goals!
Australia is already coping with this unwelcome reality. Not until 2018 did Aussie environment ministers mandate fast-track development of new product stewardship schemes for photovoltaic (PV) solar panels, like those television and computer manufacturers and retailers have had to comply with since 2011.
Total Environment Centre director Jeff Angel admitted that setting standards for life-of-product management for solar panels was “long overdue,” and that the 30-year delay in imposing standards revealed a “fundamental weakness” in Australia’s waste policies.
He further noted that while solar panels contain hazardous substances, Aussies are “sending hundreds of thousands of e-waste items to landfills” and creating significant pollution problems. And Australia has less than a tenth of the U.S. population!
Since 2002, the European Union’s Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive has required that the original producers of e-wastes guarantee and pay for taking back and recycling their wastes, so that end-user consumers aren’t surprised by additional disposal costs.
However, PV solar panel waste was not included in this mandate until July 2012 – and “some uncertainty remains” about the cutoff date for such wastes because the directive has yet to be implemented in national laws.
Producer financing of PV waste treatment thus cannot be applied to older solar panels. So who will pay? And how much?
Ms. Folk and others look to waste-to-energy plants, and indeed the EU does send much of its solar panel waste to incinerators – which many environmentalists oppose.
Landfilling is not a viable option in the U.S., because toxins could leach out. Unscrupulous companies ship solar panel waste to developing nations, but that is a stopgap solution that is environmentally irresponsible.
Tao Meng, the lead author of a new study, says “the big blind spot in the U.S. for recycling is that the cost far exceeds the revenue” – by nearly 10-to-1, especially when including transportation costs.
Chemicals must be used to remove silver and lead from silicon modules before they can be safely placed in landfills, Meng notes.
The problem of solar panel waste will continue to grow as more panels reach their end of life.
Four years ago the International Renewable Energy Agency estimated there were already about 250,000 metric tons of solar panel waste worldwide – and that total will explode to 78 million metric tons by 2050!
So when you read that solar energy is already cheaper than natural gas, don’t be fooled. They are omitting the pollution and disposal costs, as well as habitat losses, solar heat islands, and the need for backup power generation or batteries – to lowball the true costs of solar.
We need some honest math now before it’s too late to turn back.
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-09-18--Hanoi Jane’s Logic For Green New Deal: Birds Are ‘Dive-Bombing Dead’

Written by Joseph Vazquez on .
Posted in Latest news For someone as infamous as Hanoi Jane Fonda to exploit the devastating West Coast wildfires to sell the Green New Deal ( GND ) is just par for the course .
She ’ s used to pushing propaganda .
Fonda joined MSNBC blowhard Joy Reid on the September 17 edition of The ReidOut .
Reid shifted her fawning over Fonda ’ s climate activism to questioning Fonda on how to use the wildfires to get people thinking about implementing the GND .
Reid asked : “ How do you get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is and talking about it in theory — even with the fires burning — to get people to focus on this and actually get people to want to implement it ?
” Fonda then took a detour into the hysterical : “ They do .
They are — They ’ re getting focused .
I mean , it ’ s hard not to when your state ’ s on fire .
Not only is the state on fire , birds are falling out of the air — dive-bombing dead into the ground because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans have to foot a multitrillion-dollar proposal because , according to Fonda , “ birds are dive-bombing dead ” ?
According to Fonda , “ Talking about it is important because if you don ’ t talk about it , you can ’ t care about it .
And if you don ’ t care , you won ’ t act .
We need to act .
And the main thing that we have to act about is getting rid of fossil fuels.
” She continued : “ [ L ] istening to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fossil fuel emissions in half in 10 years .
Now that ’ s really , really hard .
And it ’ s not going to happen unless there are unprecedented numbers of people demanding it no matter who is elected in November.
” Fonda then shifted to incoherent babbling about the importance of the November elections : “ November is important because — you know — one of the things that happens during [ an ] election : you choose your opponent .
By opponent , I mean , the person that you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up against when you want other things to happen , like equal pay for equal work between men and women.
” Fonda proceeded to rant that “ it ’ s not just a climate crisis .
Our society — the fabric of our society is unraveling.
” She then pushed an insane idea that the GND can solve “ all ” our society ’ s woes at once : “ The great thing about the Green New Deal is it gives us a way to do it all at once , but we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That ’ s the main thing.
” To finish off the segment , Fonda praised Reid for her new show .
In a cringe response , Reid fangirled Hanoi Jane : “ OK , I officially retire .
I retire .
That ’ s it .
I ’ m done .
I ’ m not going to do any more TV .
Jane Fonda knows who I am !
” Hanoi Jane ’ s climate propaganda was brought to you by advertisers like John Deere , Citibank , and Allstate .
You @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know what you think of them sponsoring such eco-extremist content .

Written by Joseph Vazquez on Sep 18, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
For someone as infamous as Hanoi Jane Fonda to exploit the devastating West Coast wildfires to sell the Green New Deal (GND) is just par for the course. She’s used to pushing propaganda.
Fonda joined MSNBC blowhard Joy Reid on the September 17 edition of The ReidOut.
Reid shifted her fawning over Fonda’s climate activism to questioning Fonda on how to use the wildfires to get people thinking about implementing the GND.
Reid asked: “How do you get from knowing what [the GND] is and talking about it in theory — even with the fires burning — to get people to focus on this and actually get people to want to implement it?”
Fonda then took a detour into the hysterical:
“They do. They are — They’re getting focused. I mean, it’s hard not to when your state’s on fire. Not only is the state on fire, birds are falling out of the air — dive-bombing dead into the ground because of the bad air!”
So Americans have to foot a multitrillion-dollar proposal because, according to Fonda, “birds are dive-bombing dead”?
Watch the segment below:
According to Fonda, “Talking about it is important because if you don’t talk about it, you can’t care about it. And if you don’t care, you won’t act. We need to act. And the main thing that we have to act about is getting rid of fossil fuels.”
She continued: “[L]istening to the experts says we have to cut fossil fuel emissions in half in 10 years. Now that’s really, really hard. And it’s not going to happen unless there are unprecedented numbers of people demanding it no matter who is elected in November.”
Fonda then shifted to incoherent babbling about the importance of the November elections:
“November is important because — you know — one of the things that happens during [an] election: you choose your opponent. By opponent, I mean, the person that you’re going to have to go up against when you want other things to happen, like equal pay for equal work between men and women.”
Fonda proceeded to rant that “it’s not just a climate crisis. Our society — the fabric of our society is unraveling.”
She then pushed an insane idea that the GND can solve “all” our society’s woes at once: “The great thing about the Green New Deal is it gives us a way to do it all at once, but we have to get rid of fossil fuels. That’s the main thing.”
To finish off the segment, Fonda praised Reid for her new show. In a cringe response, Reid fangirled Hanoi Jane: “OK, I officially retire. I retire. That’s it. I’m done. I’m not going to do any more TV. Jane Fonda knows who I am!”
Hanoi Jane’s climate propaganda was brought to you by advertisers like John Deere, Citibank, and Allstate. You can fight back by letting these advertisers know what you think of them sponsoring such eco-extremist content.
Read more at NewsBusters
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-09-18--The Climate Apocalypse: ‘Permanently Immunized From Falsification’

Written by Francis Menton on .
Posted in Latest news In last Saturday ’ s post , I provided a quote from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy that encapsulated the gist of the scientific method : “ [ T ] heories that are permanently immunized from falsification .
.
.
can no longer be classified as scientific.
” That seems simple enough .
Surely we ought to be able to keep track of that one basic precept to distinguish the science from the non-science .
In practice , it turns out to be not so simple at all .
To @ @ @ @ @ @ @ latest from the climate apocalypse movement .
For today I ’ ll put aside the grand foretellings of planet-wide climate doom , and focus instead on just one little question : whether the current wave of wildfires in the West has been caused by human-induced global warming resulting from the burning of fossil fuels .
There ’ s an important difference between these two questions that relate to the potential for falsification .
With the grand foretellings of doom , it is nearly impossible to pin the seers down to anything you might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the phrasings you have likely encountered .
• “ The world has a temperature and we are the cause.
” • “ Unless drastic measures are taken to reduce greenhouse gases , we face a point of no return.
” What is the potential evidence that might emerge that all could agree had falsified these predictions ?
You will never get a climate alarmist to give you an answer to that question .
But you would think that the question of the causation of the wildfires would be different .
There ought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bear directly on this question .
For example , what is the trend of wildfires worldwide during the past 20 or so years , when greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels have accelerated ?
Or , can we get evidence on the extent of wildfires in the West from the time period before either European settlement or any significant human greenhouse gas emissions ?
Meanwhile , of course , the question of the causation of the wildfires has gotten caught up in the maelstrom of our presidential election campaign and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discussion from the media , as well as from the Biden campaign .
Seemingly definitive statements are everywhere , attributing the wildfires to warming caused by human burning of fossil fuels , generally phrased in terms to vilify or ridicule anyone who might question that inference in any way .
To take one non-random example , there was Democratic candidate Joe Biden at an appearance on Monday , where he accused President Trump of being a “ climate arsonist ” for not “ heeding the science ” on the subject of climate change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The headline at the Politico article is “ Biden labels Trump a ‘ climate arsonist , ’ accusing him of not heeding science.
” Excerpt : Politico then also quotes the head of California ’ s Natural Resources Agency , Wade Crowfoot , as follows : “ I think we want to work with you to really recognize the changing climate and what it means for our forests , and actually work together with that science.
” Or consider the piece from the LA Times on September 14 , with the headline “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There are many more similar pieces out there if you care to look .
But suppose we are willing to open the door at least a crack to the idea that the proposition at hand — that warmer temperatures resulting from human burning of fossil fuels have brought about a great increase in wildfires in the West — could potentially be falsified .
Suppose further that we accept as given that temperatures in the relevant regions have increased at least a smidgeon during the era of human greenhouse gas emissions ; and even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the proposition that the human emissions caused the temperature increase .
There remains this completely empirical question : has there actually been a meaningful increase in the extent of wildfires over some relevant time period ?
And the answer , of course , is that readily available data show that , notwithstanding an active wildfire season in the Western U.S. this year , the trend in wildfires over the relevant time , both worldwide and in the Western U.S. , is strongly down , not up .
First , consider the worldwide data @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to study the worldwide extent of wildfires .
In 2019 they published a 20-year summary of the accumulated data .
Here is the chart they provided : Obviously the overall trend is strongly down .
The downward-sloping trend line on the chart was drawn by NASA , who certainly would not be considered climate skeptics .
I can not provide an explanation of why the data seems to end sometime in 2015 when they say the report was published in 2019 .
In any event , here is the key relevant quote from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Surely , California is experiencing a wildfire apocalypse brought about by climate change ?
After all , everybody says so .
So let ’ s try comparing acreage burned by wildfires in California in recent years to acreage burned back in the “ pre-historic ” period ( before 1800 , at a time when human greenhouse gas emissions , let alone any other influences of settlers originating from Europe , could not have had any possible influence on the situation . )
Here is a California state government website called Cal Fire that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in California for this year through September 15 , last year ( 2019 ) through September 15 , and for the full year for each of the years 2016 to 2019 .
The figure for acreage burned this year through September 15 is 1,410,113 acres .
That sounds like a lot of acres .
Last year , for the full year , the figure was only 135,573 acres burned .
In 2018 , it was 876,147 acres ; in 2017 , 505,956 acres ; and in 2016 , 244,319 acres .
But how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might consider this 2007 article from the journal Forest Ecology and Management , by S.L .
Stephens , R.E .
Martin , and N.E .
Clinton of the University of California at Berkeley , titled “ Prehistoric fire area and emissions from California ’ s forests , woodlands , shrublands , and grasslands.
” Here is the money quote : Wow !
In case you don ’ t know , a hectare ( abbreviated ha ) is about 2.5 acres .
So they are saying that the annual acreage burned in this “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million acres to up to 12 million acres — areas as much as an order of magnitude larger than the areas burned in the worst of modern fire seasons , such as the current year .
From the Conclusion of Stephens , et al .
: In short , readily available empirical data completely refutes the proposition that the Western U.S. is suffering some huge increase in wildfires brought about by human-caused climate change .
But of course , another approach is to ignore any and all empirical evidence , and repeat the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and over again until people come to believe it .
It is a proposition that must be , and therefore is , “ permanently immunized from falsification .
”

Written by Francis Menton on Sep 18, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
In last Saturday’s post, I provided a quote from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy that encapsulated the gist of the scientific method: “[T]heories that are permanently immunized from falsification . . . can no longer be classified as scientific.”
That seems simple enough. Surely we ought to be able to keep track of that one basic precept to distinguish the science from the non-science.
In practice, it turns out to be not so simple at all. To illustrate, let’s consider the latest from the climate apocalypse movement.
For today I’ll put aside the grand foretellings of planet-wide climate doom, and focus instead on just one little question: whether the current wave of wildfires in the West has been caused by human-induced global warming resulting from the burning of fossil fuels.
There’s an important difference between these two questions that relate to the potential for falsification. With the grand foretellings of doom, it is nearly impossible to pin the seers down to anything you might try to falsify.
Think about some of the phrasings you have likely encountered.
“The world has a temperature and we are the cause.”
“Unless drastic measures are taken to reduce greenhouse gases, we face a point of no return.”
What is the potential evidence that might emerge that all could agree had falsified these predictions? You will never get a climate alarmist to give you an answer to that question.
But you would think that the question of the causation of the wildfires would be different. There ought to be evidence out there that would bear directly on this question.
For example, what is the trend of wildfires worldwide during the past 20 or so years, when greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels have accelerated?
Or, can we get evidence on the extent of wildfires in the West from the time period before either European settlement or any significant human greenhouse gas emissions?
Meanwhile, of course, the question of the causation of the wildfires has gotten caught up in the maelstrom of our presidential election campaign and therefore is the subject of intense daily discussion from the media, as well as from the Biden campaign.
Seemingly definitive statements are everywhere, attributing the wildfires to warming caused by human burning of fossil fuels, generally phrased in terms to vilify or ridicule anyone who might question that inference in any way.
To take one non-random example, there was Democratic candidate Joe Biden at an appearance on Monday, where he accused President Trump of being a “climate arsonist” for not “heeding the science” on the subject of climate change being the cause of the wildfires.
The headline at the Politico article is “Biden labels Trump a ‘climate arsonist,’ accusing him of not heeding science.” Excerpt:
Joe Biden on Monday denounced President Donald Trump as a “climate arsonist” [for his] unwillingness to acknowledge the threat posed by climate change . . . . Biden’s remarks on Monday were meant to address the wildfires that have been raging across Western states for three weeks…
Politico then also quotes the head of California’s Natural Resources Agency, Wade Crowfoot, as follows: “I think we want to work with you to really recognize the changing climate and what it means for our forests, and actually work together with that science.”
Or consider the piece from the LA Times on September 14, with the headline “A Climate Apocalypse Now.” Excerpt:
In 2001, a team of international scientists projected that during the next 100 years, the planet’s inhabitants would witness higher maximum temperatures, more hot days and heatwaves, an increase in the risk of forest fires, and “substantially degraded air quality” in large metropolitan areas as a result of climate change. That projection has become a reality on the West Coast, as wildfires have cut across California, Oregon, and Washington, killing at least 33 people and charring more than 4 million acres.
There are many more similar pieces out there if you care to look.
But suppose we are willing to open the door at least a crack to the idea that the proposition at hand — that warmer temperatures resulting from human burning of fossil fuels have brought about a great increase in wildfires in the West — could potentially be falsified.
Suppose further that we accept as given that temperatures in the relevant regions have increased at least a smidgeon during the era of human greenhouse gas emissions; and even further that we accept for these purposes the proposition that the human emissions caused the temperature increase.
There remains this completely empirical question: has there actually been a meaningful increase in the extent of wildfires over some relevant time period?
And the answer, of course, is that readily available data show that, notwithstanding an active wildfire season in the Western U.S. this year, the trend in wildfires over the relevant time, both worldwide and in the Western U.S., is strongly down, not up.
First, consider the worldwide data. In 1999 NASA began using satellites to study the worldwide extent of wildfires. In 2019 they published a 20-year summary of the accumulated data.
Here is the chart they provided:
Obviously the overall trend is strongly down. The downward-sloping trend line on the chart was drawn by NASA, who certainly would not be considered climate skeptics.
I cannot provide an explanation of why the data seems to end sometime in 2015 when they say the report was published in 2019. In any event, here is the key relevant quote from NASA:
[O]ver recent decades human activities such as land management and agriculture, increasing population density and active fire suppression have succeeded in significantly reducing the global areas burned by wildfires, despite the rise in global temperatures.
But how about California? Surely, California is experiencing a wildfire apocalypse brought about by climate change? After all, everybody says so.
So let’s try comparing acreage burned by wildfires in California in recent years to acreage burned back in the “pre-historic” period (before 1800, at a time when human greenhouse gas emissions, let alone any other influences of settlers originating from Europe, could not have had any possible influence on the situation.)
Here is a California state government website called Cal Fire that has data on acreage burned by wildfires in California for this year through September 15, last year (2019) through September 15, and for the full year for each of the years 2016 to 2019.
The figure for acreage burned this year through September 15 is 1,410,113 acres. That sounds like a lot of acres. Last year, for the full year, the figure was only 135,573 acres burned. In 2018, it was 876,147 acres; in 2017, 505,956 acres; and in 2016, 244,319 acres.
But how about in that pre-historic/pre-1800 period? You might consider this 2007 article from the journal Forest Ecology and Management, by S.L. Stephens, R.E. Martin, and N.E. Clinton of the University of California at Berkeley, titled “Prehistoric fire area and emissions from California’s forests, woodlands, shrublands, and grasslands.”
Here is the money quote:
Using the estimates of MFRI [median fire return interval] and HFRI [high fire return interval] by vegetation type (Tables 5 and 6), the amount of area burned annually in California varied from 1,814,614 to 4,838,293 ha (excluding the desert region in Southeastern California) during the prehistoric period. With the land area of California equaling 40,396,822 ha (CCDB, 2003), this results in 4.5–12.0% of the state’s lands burning annually.
Wow! In case you don’t know, a hectare (abbreviated ha) is about 2.5 acres. So they are saying that the annual acreage burned in this “pre-historic” period ranged from about 4.5 million acres to up to 12 million acres — areas as much as an order of magnitude larger than the areas burned in the worst of modern fire seasons, such as the current year.
From the Conclusion of Stephens, et al.:
The idea that the US wildfire area of approximately 2 million ha [i.e., 5 million acres] annually is extreme is certainly a 20th- or 21st-century perspective. Skies were likely smoky in the summer and fall in California before fire suppression. An eye-witness account of smoke in northern California forests (C.H. Merriam 1898, quoted in Morford, 1993) reported ‘‘Of the hundreds of persons who visit the Pacific slope in California every summer to see the mountains, few see more than the immediate foreground and a haze of smoke which even the strongest glass is unable to penetrate.’’
In short, readily available empirical data completely refutes the proposition that the Western U.S. is suffering some huge increase in wildfires brought about by human-caused climate change.
But of course, another approach is to ignore any and all empirical evidence, and repeat the mantra of “climate apocalypse” over and over again until people come to believe it.
It is a proposition that must be, and therefore is, “permanently immunized from falsification.”
Read more at Manhattan Contrarian
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-09-18--Bjorn Lomborg: CA Fires Caused By Century Of Suppressing Controlled Burns

Written by Robert Kraychik on .
Posted in Latest news Ongoing forest fires in California are mostly a function of poor forest management , particularly insufficient controlled burns to clear away accumulated fuelwood , explained Bjorn Lomborg , president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center and author of False Alarm , offering his remarks on Thursday ’ s edition of SiriusXM ’ s Breitbart News Daily with host Alex Marlow .
“ It has fairly little to do with climate change , and it has almost everything to do with the fact that we haven ’ t managed our forest well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ We haven ’ t done prescribed burning .
We haven ’ t ensured that these fires won ’ t burn out of control.
” Lomborg added , “ We ’ ve just simply allowed fuelwood to build up to cause almost uncontrollable fires in California.
” Prescribed burnings are necessary to reduce the risk of uncontrollable forest fires , Lomborg stated .
“ If we did prescribed burning , we could , in a few years , reduce the fire risk dramatically and actually get people ’ s lives back to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Fires are mostly there because we ’ ve had fire suppression for more than a hundred years.
” Lomborg explained how California has used fire extinguishment in lieu of prescribed burns for over a century .
“ Fundamentally , we have suppressed fires for more than a hundred years , ” Lomborg said .
“ That obviously makes good sense that you ’ d rather not have fires than fires , but what happens is you build up lots and lots of fuelwood that is basically going to give you much hotter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lomborg noted that California ’ s suppression of forest fires and abdication of prescribed burns led to a build-up of dry kindling in the state ’ s forests .
“ From the 1950s to about 2000 , California only saw about 250,000 acres of forest burn every year , so it was a dramatic reduction , ” Lomborg remarked .
“ It builds up all this fuelwood .
There ’ s now five times as much fuelwood in the under storage of most California forests .
You can ’ t keep that up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out , and that ’ s what we ’ re seeing now.
” Lomborg said the average area consumed by forest fires over the past ten years in California over the last ten years “ is almost a million acres.
” He added , “ It has fairly little to do with climate change , and it has almost everything to do with the fact that we haven ’ t managed our forests well.
” “ We haven ’ t done prescribed burning ; we haven ’ t ensured that these fires won @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Lomborg determined .
“ These fires are big , but we have to get a sense of proportion , ” Lomborg stated .
“ We have good statistics all the way back to before 1800 , and back in the 1700s , California used to burn much much more than what it ’ s doing right now .
We estimate that it burned somewhere between four and 12 million acres — remember , the biggest burn of this year is 2.3 million acres — so more than twice as much and possibly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. Forest Service describes controlled burns on its website .
The agency explains , “ After many years of fire exclusion , an ecosystem that needs periodic fire becomes unhealthy .
Trees are stressed by overcrowding ; fire-dependent species disappear ; and flammable fuels build up and become hazardous.
” “ More prescribed fires mean fewer extreme wildfires , ” declares the U.S. Forest Service .
Scientific American cited Daniel Swain , an assistant researcher at UCLA ’ s Institute of the Environment & Sustainability , who claimed that “ climate change ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ California wildfires .
It also shared a competing view from Jon Keeley , a senior scientist at the U.S. Geological Survey Western Ecological Research Center .
Keeley said , “ We ought to be much more concerned with ignition sources than a one- to two-degree change in temperature.
” He echoed Lomborg ’ s analysis in identifying California ’ s focus on putting out forest fires for about a century instead of using controlled burning to remove flammable dead vegetation .
Noah Diffenbaugh , a professor at Stanford University ’ s School of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told the CBC : “ We now have very strong evidence from those years of research that global warming is , in fact , increasing the odds of unprecedented extremes .
”

Written by Robert Kraychik on Sep 18, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Ongoing forest fires in California are mostly a function of poor forest management, particularly insufficient controlled burns to clear away accumulated fuelwood, explained Bjorn Lomborg, president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center and author of False Alarm, offering his remarks on Thursday’s edition of SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Daily with host Alex Marlow.
“It has fairly little to do with climate change, and it has almost everything to do with the fact that we haven’t managed our forest well,” said Lomborg of California wildfires. “We haven’t done prescribed burning. We haven’t ensured that these fires won’t burn out of control.”
Lomborg added, “We’ve just simply allowed fuelwood to build up to cause almost uncontrollable fires in California.”
Prescribed burnings are necessary to reduce the risk of uncontrollable forest fires, Lomborg stated. “If we did prescribed burning, we could, in a few years, reduce the fire risk dramatically and actually get people’s lives back to — pretty close — to normal.”
“Fires are mostly there because we’ve had fire suppression for more than a hundred years.”
Lomborg explained how California has used fire extinguishment in lieu of prescribed burns for over a century.
“Fundamentally, we have suppressed fires for more than a hundred years,” Lomborg said. “That obviously makes good sense that you’d rather not have fires than fires, but what happens is you build up lots and lots of fuelwood that is basically going to give you much hotter, much fiercer fires later on.”
Lomborg noted that California’s suppression of forest fires and abdication of prescribed burns led to a build-up of dry kindling in the state’s forests.
“From the 1950s to about 2000, California only saw about 250,000 acres of forest burn every year, so it was a dramatic reduction,” Lomborg remarked.
“It builds up all this fuelwood. There’s now five times as much fuelwood in the under storage of most California forests. You can’t keep that up. Eventually, these fires will break out, and that’s what we’re seeing now.”
Lomborg said the average area consumed by forest fires over the past ten years in California over the last ten years “is almost a million acres.”
He added, “It has fairly little to do with climate change, and it has almost everything to do with the fact that we haven’t managed our forests well.”
“We haven’t done prescribed burning; we haven’t ensured that these fires won’t burn out of control,” Lomborg determined.
Lomborg challenged claims that today’s Golden State fires are “unprecedented.”
“These fires are big, but we have to get a sense of proportion,” Lomborg stated. “We have good statistics all the way back to before 1800, and back in the 1700s, California used to burn much much more than what it’s doing right now. We estimate that it burned somewhere between four and 12 million acres — remember, the biggest burn of this year is 2.3 million acres — so more than twice as much and possibly even six times as much.”
The U.S. Forest Service describes controlled burns on its website. The agency explains, “After many years of fire exclusion, an ecosystem that needs periodic fire becomes unhealthy. Trees are stressed by overcrowding; fire-dependent species disappear; and flammable fuels build up and become hazardous.”
“More prescribed fires mean fewer extreme wildfires,” declares the U.S. Forest Service.
Scientific American cited Daniel Swain, an assistant researcher at UCLA’s Institute of the Environment & Sustainability, who claimed that “climate change” is a driver of today’s California wildfires.
It also shared a competing view from Jon Keeley, a senior scientist at the U.S. Geological Survey Western Ecological Research Center.
Keeley said, “We ought to be much more concerned with ignition sources than a one- to two-degree change in temperature.”
He echoed Lomborg’s analysis in identifying California’s focus on putting out forest fires for about a century instead of using controlled burning to remove flammable dead vegetation.
Noah Diffenbaugh, a professor at Stanford University’s School of Earth, Energy, and Environment Sciences told the CBC: “We now have very strong evidence from those years of research that global warming is, in fact, increasing the odds of unprecedented extremes.”
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--2020-09-18--Reuters Daydreams About A Nobel Prize For Greta Thunberg

Written by Joseph Vazquez on .
Posted in Latest news Reuters is pushing an insane idea that eco-extremist activist Greta Thunberg could get the Nobel Peace Prize .
In a story headlined , “ A Nobel for Thunberg ?
In the age of climate change and virus , it is possible , ” Reuters ’ Gwladys Fouche spouted off that “ [ t ] his year ’ s Nobel Peace Prize could go to green campaigner Greta Thunberg and the Fridays for Future movement to highlight the link between environmental damage and the threat to peace and security , some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from when the same writer took the news that President Donald Trump had been nominated for next year ’ s Nobel Peace Prize for brokering a peace deal between Israel and the United Arab Emirates and downplayed the achievement : Asle Sveen , a historian and author of several books about the prize , said Thunberg would be a strong candidate for this year ’ s award , her second nomination in as many years , with the U.S. West Coast wildfires and rising temperatures in the Arctic ‘ leaving people in no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Not a single person has done more to get the world to focus on climate change than her , ’ Sveen told Reuters , [ emphasis added . ]
The bias was especially evident in a subsection that was headlined in capital letters and bold font : “ NOT TRUMP.
” The subsection listed other potential Nobel recipients for 2020 .
Reuters griped : “ [ Trump ] is unlikely to win , Sveen and Smith agreed , not least for his dismantling of the international treaties to limit the proliferation of nuclear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ committees.
” [ Emphasis added . ]
Fouche didn ’ t bother to mention that one of those “ treaties ” Trump pulled out of , the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty , reportedly had been repeatedly violated by Russia .
According to Bloomberg Opinion ’ s national security and foreign policy Opinion Columnist Eli Lake : But instead of providing context behind why Trump pulled out of certain treaties , Fouche just mindlessly parroted the insults of Stockholm International Peace Research Institute director Dan Smith : “ ‘ [ Trump ] is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clear stance against the violence the right-wing perpetrates in the U.S. , ’ said Smith.
” But elevating a teen extremist like Thunberg has been typical of the liberal media .
In May , CNN had ridiculously included Thunberg on an expert panel in a town hall to discuss the novel Coronavirus .
Conservatives are under attack .
Contact Reuters and demand it stops promoting Thunberg ’ s nonsensical climate radicalism .

Written by Joseph Vazquez on Sep 18, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Reuters is pushing an insane idea that eco-extremist activist Greta Thunberg could get the Nobel Peace Prize.
In a story headlined, “A Nobel for Thunberg? In the age of climate change and virus, it is possible,” Reuters’ Gwladys Fouche spouted off that “[t]his year’s Nobel Peace Prize could go to green campaigner Greta Thunberg and the Fridays for Future movement to highlight the link between environmental damage and the threat to peace and security, some experts say.”
This reads very different from when the same writer took the news that President Donald Trump had been nominated for next year’s Nobel Peace Prize for brokering a peace deal between Israel and the United Arab Emirates and downplayed the achievement:
Trump has been unable to negotiate a deal between Israel and the Palestinians, however, and a peace plan he proposed in January that heavily favoured the Israelis has not advanced in any significant way.
In her latest story, Fouche praised Thunberg:
Asle Sveen, a historian and author of several books about the prize, said Thunberg would be a strong candidate for this year’s award, her second nomination in as many years, with the U.S. West Coast wildfires and rising temperatures in the Arctic ‘leaving people in no doubt’ about global warming. ‘Not a single person has done more to get the world to focus on climate change than her,’ Sveen told Reuters, [emphasis added.]
The bias was especially evident in a subsection that was headlined in capital letters and bold font: “NOT TRUMP.”
The subsection listed other potential Nobel recipients for 2020. Reuters griped: “[Trump] is unlikely to win, Sveen and Smith agreed, not least for his dismantling of the international treaties to limit the proliferation of nuclear weapons, a cause dear to Nobel committees.” [Emphasis added.]
Fouche didn’t bother to mention that one of those “treaties” Trump pulled out of, the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, reportedly had been repeatedly violated by Russia.
According to Bloomberg Opinion’s national security and foreign policy Opinion Columnist Eli Lake:
“The Russians, in contrast, have been cheating for more than a decade. In 2008, they began testing a ground-based cruise missile system. In 2017, the U.S. government acknowledged that Russia had deployed what is known as the ‘9M729 missile’ against NATO positions in Europe.”
But instead of providing context behind why Trump pulled out of certain treaties, Fouche just mindlessly parroted the insults of Stockholm International Peace Research Institute director Dan Smith: “‘[Trump] is divisive and seems to not take a clear stance against the violence the right-wing perpetrates in the U.S.,’ said Smith.”
But elevating a teen extremist like Thunberg has been typical of the liberal media. In May, CNN had ridiculously included Thunberg on an expert panel in a town hall to discuss the novel Coronavirus.
Conservatives are under attack. Contact Reuters and demand it stops promoting Thunberg’s nonsensical climate radicalism.
Read more at NewsBusters
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-09-18--New Report: Official US Climate Data Reveals No Cause For Alarm

Written by Dr. Benny Peiser , GWPF , guest post on .
Posted in Latest news A new paper published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation shows that the U.S. climate has been changing very gradually , and mostly in a benign way .
The paper , by British climate writer Paul Homewood , examines official US weather sources and finds almost nothing to justify alarm .
“ The temperature has risen a little , ” says Homewood , “ but temperature extremes are still a long way off the levels seen in the 1930s .
And there has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate-related deaths , so in many ways , the US climate has become less extreme compared to previous ages.
” It is the same story for rainfall .
There has been an increase overall , but the wettest year on record was nearly 50 years ago .
Droughts were mostly far worse in the 1930s .
“ It ’ s hard to find anything in the records of recent weather in the US that should give anyone any cause for alarm , ” says Homewood .
“ It ’ s mostly rather reassuring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and tornadoes , there is no trend that is out of the ordinary.
” Homewood ’ s paper , entitled The US Climate in 2019 , can be downloaded here ( pdf )

Written by Dr. Benny Peiser, GWPF, guest post on Sep 18, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
A new paper published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation shows that the U.S. climate has been changing very gradually, and mostly in a benign way.
The paper, by British climate writer Paul Homewood, examines official US weather sources and finds almost nothing to justify alarm.
“The temperature has risen a little,” says Homewood, “but temperature extremes are still a long way off the levels seen in the 1930s. And there has been a reduction in cold spells and climate-related deaths, so in many ways, the US climate has become less extreme compared to previous ages.”
It is the same story for rainfall. There has been an increase overall, but the wettest year on record was nearly 50 years ago. Droughts were mostly far worse in the 1930s.
“It’s hard to find anything in the records of recent weather in the US that should give anyone any cause for alarm,” says Homewood.
“It’s mostly rather reassuring. From heat to cold to storms and tornadoes, there is no trend that is out of the ordinary.”
Homewood’s paper, entitled The US Climate in 2019, can be downloaded here (pdf)
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-09-18--CA Wildfires Burned Enough Carbon To Power About 23 Coal Plants For A Year

Written by Chris White on .
Posted in Latest news Wildfires have likely dumped more than 90 million metric tons of carbon dioxide into the environment — more than the total emissions required to power the entire state , a pair of atmospheric scientists told The Washington Post Thursday .
Burning 90 million metric tons of carbon emissions over the course of a month is the equivalent of powering 23 coal-fired power stations for one year , according to the Environmental Protection Agency Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies calculator .
The Daily Caller News Foundation used the EPA calculator to determine the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Niels Andela , an atmospheric scientist at Cardiff University in Wales who relayed his estimation to the Post .
The DCNF ’ s calculation , like the estimate conducted by Andela , does not take into account the acreage and type of vegetation burned throughout the summer .
“ Given that 2020 is really a record-setting year for California , it ’ s going to be quite off-the-charts compared to the observational period we have , ” Andela told The Post .
The estimate of 91.2 million tons is preliminary given that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of data , he said , adding , “ That would be my expectation.
” Guido van der Werf , a wildfire emissions expert at Vrije University in Amsterdam , believes Andela ’ s estimate of 90 million metric tons is rough but notes that the wildfires will pump a record amount of carbon into the air .
“ What is pretty certain is that this year beats the previous record in the satellite record ( starting in 1997 ) … by a large margin , ” van der Werf told the Post @ @ @ @ @ @ @ satellite data measuring heat from the fires to make their estimates , the Post reported .
Wildfires continue burning in parts of California , Oregon , and Washington , CNN reported .
Fires have killed more than 33 people in West Coast states since August , The Wall Street Journal reported Sunday .
They have also culminated in more than half-a-million people evacuating Oregon , a number representing roughly 10 % of the state ’ s overall population , according to CNN .
Roughly 100 massive fires blazed through the West Saturday , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Montana , the National Interagency Fire Center said Saturday .
All told , the wildfires have churned through more than 4.5 million acres in 12 states .
More than 3.3 million acres burned so far this season in California .
California ’ s power plants , which are subject to the state ’ s decade-long cap-and-trade program along with other green energy mandates , are typically responsible for spewing 62 million tons of carbon dioxide into the air in 2017 , The Post reported , citing data from the California Air Resources Board @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number , one forest preservation expert argues .
“ When you look at what California has done with its cap-and-trade program , and other states ’ efforts to address emissions , all the gains we ’ ve been seeing , frankly , literally went up in smoke this year , ” Travis Joseph , head of the American Forest Resource Council , told The Post .
His group is based in Oregon and represents mills , manufacturers , and the timber industry in the Western states .

Written by Chris White on Sep 18, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Wildfires have likely dumped more than 90 million metric tons of carbon dioxide into the environment — more than the total emissions required to power the entire state, a pair of atmospheric scientists told The Washington Post Thursday.
Burning 90 million metric tons of carbon emissions over the course of a month is the equivalent of powering 23 coal-fired power stations for one year, according to the Environmental Protection Agency Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies calculator.
The Daily Caller News Foundation used the EPA calculator to determine the total, which is based on estimates from Niels Andela, an atmospheric scientist at Cardiff University in Wales who relayed his estimation to the Post.
The DCNF’s calculation, like the estimate conducted by Andela, does not take into account the acreage and type of vegetation burned throughout the summer.
“Given that 2020 is really a record-setting year for California, it’s going to be quite off-the-charts compared to the observational period we have,” Andela told The Post.
The estimate of 91.2 million tons is preliminary given that he does not have a robust set of data, he said, adding, “That would be my expectation.”
Guido van der Werf, a wildfire emissions expert at Vrije University in Amsterdam, believes Andela’s estimate of 90 million metric tons is rough but notes that the wildfires will pump a record amount of carbon into the air.
“What is pretty certain is that this year beats the previous record in the satellite record (starting in 1997) … by a large margin,” van der Werf told the Post. Andela and van der Werf used satellite data measuring heat from the fires to make their estimates, the Post reported.
Wildfires continue burning in parts of California, Oregon, and Washington, CNN reported. Fires have killed more than 33 people in West Coast states since August, The Wall Street Journal reported Sunday.
They have also culminated in more than half-a-million people evacuating Oregon, a number representing roughly 10% of the state’s overall population, according to CNN.
Roughly 100 massive fires blazed through the West Saturday, including 12 in Idaho and nine in Montana, the National Interagency Fire Center said Saturday.
All told, the wildfires have churned through more than 4.5 million acres in 12 states. More than 3.3 million acres burned so far this season in California.
California’s power plants, which are subject to the state’s decade-long cap-and-trade program along with other green energy mandates, are typically responsible for spewing 62 million tons of carbon dioxide into the air in 2017, The Post reported, citing data from the California Air Resources Board. The wildfire season has obliterated that number, one forest preservation expert argues.
“When you look at what California has done with its cap-and-trade program, and other states’ efforts to address emissions, all the gains we’ve been seeing, frankly, literally went up in smoke this year,” Travis Joseph, head of the American Forest Resource Council, told The Post.
His group is based in Oregon and represents mills, manufacturers, and the timber industry in the Western states.
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--2020-09-18--Why California Doesn’t Need To Burn

Why California Doesn’t Need To Burn

Written by Steven Greenhut on .
Posted in Latest news California ’ s leaders have a knack for taking bold , headline-grabbing stances on important issues – then ignoring the mundane reasons that things aren ’ t going so well .
They rail against soaring poverty rates but don ’ t mention that their regulatory policies drive up the cost of living and make it difficult for companies to create jobs .
They complain about California ’ s struggling education system , yet never challenge the teachers ’ unions that make it nearly impossible to reform our schools .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ West Coast , California Gov .
Gavin Newsom has placed the blame squarely on global warming , as he noted that “ climate change is real and that is exacerbating this.
” Not to be outdone , Oregon Gov .
Kate Brown said the current disaster “ is a wake-up call for all of us that we have got to do everything in our power to tackle climate change.
” Apparently , we need only give these governors more power to control the economy in ways designed to change the trajectory of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ll be ready to tackle next year ’ s wildfire season .
Never mind that Newsom and his predecessors have failed to take simple , tangible steps to deal with the wildfire situation whatever the broader climate is doing .
Despite the Oregon governor ’ s words , these officials aren ’ t doing everything in their power – not even close – to control fires that have ravaged millions of acres and taken more than two dozen lives .
The main issue involves land management .
Newsom gave a nod to that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was not on nuts-and-bolts governance , but climate change .
“ That ’ s one point , but it ’ s not the point , ” he said .
By the way , California has passed some of the most far-reaching climate-change-battling policies in the world , and yet here we are , facing another fire season that has destroyed property , lives , and our air .
The issue isn ’ t particularly complex .
Because of the state ’ s environmental fixations , California has been less apt to clear away @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allow prescribed burns .
“ Between 1982 and 1998 , California ’ s agency land managers burned , on average , about 30,000 acres a year , ” according to a recent investigative report in the progressive ProPublica .
“ Between 1999 and 2017 , that number dropped to an annual 13,000 acres.
” That article truly is a must-read .
That situation has led to a vast land-clearing backlog that many state and federal officials already are starting to address .
The problem goes beyond public land management .
“ Environmental regulations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ permits for landowners with small parcels to thin trees and brush on their properties , ” according to a report in the Bay Area News Group .
Yes , California keeps private landowners from defending their own property .
Reforming regulatory barriers isn ’ t as sexy as talking about climate change , but it could help mitigate our recurring wildfire problems .
Insurance reform makes regulatory reform sound like a day at the circus , but the state ’ s prior-approval insurance system gives California ’ s insurance commissioner the power to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are elected officials , so they resist rate increases and use the bully pulpit to rail against “ evil ” insurers .
As a result , the California system makes it tough for insurers to price their policies to reflect the actual risk .
Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara opposed a bill this year that would have allowed insurers merely to propose higher rates in wooded regions .
Lawmakers killed that measure at the end of the session .
Again , it ’ s boring policy wonkery , but insurance reform would quickly adjust @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his climate-change policies with these brush-clearance efforts .
That Bay Area News Group article explained how the cap-and-trade system could pay for expanded fire-mitigation efforts .
Under that system , the state taxes greenhouse-gas-producing industries – and forces them to buy pollution credits when they exceed their limits .
That ’ s a problematic system , but Newsom had plenty of fodder if he wanted to , say , redirect more money to brush-clearing from these auctions rather than just issue dire climate warnings .
Of course , the governor isn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government currently spends its resources on firefighting – or anything else , for that matter .
As I wrote recently for the Orange County Register , “ The median compensation package for firefighters has topped $ 240,000 a year in some locales.… The number of California firefighters who receive compensation packages above $ 500,000 a year is mind-blowing .
Obviously , if the state spends scarce resources in this manner , it will have fewer resources to hire additional firefighters and buy equipment that ’ s now in short supply.
” Certainly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problem .
“ Mountain regions that are normally cooler and wetter have dried out more rapidly in the summer , adding to the potential fuel load , ” the BBC reported .
But that doesn ’ t excuse the “ blame climate change ” approach that Newsom has taken , which amounts to little more than an effort to deflect attention from the state ’ s slow and bureaucratic wildfire responses .

Written by Steven Greenhut on Sep 18, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
California’s leaders have a knack for taking bold, headline-grabbing stances on important issues – then ignoring the mundane reasons that things aren’t going so well.
They rail against soaring poverty rates but don’t mention that their regulatory policies drive up the cost of living and make it difficult for companies to create jobs.
They complain about California’s struggling education system, yet never challenge the teachers’ unions that make it nearly impossible to reform our schools.
And so, as wildfires rage across the West Coast, California Gov. Gavin Newsom has placed the blame squarely on global warming, as he noted that “climate change is real and that is exacerbating this.”
Not to be outdone, Oregon Gov. Kate Brown said the current disaster “is a wake-up call for all of us that we have got to do everything in our power to tackle climate change.”
Apparently, we need only give these governors more power to control the economy in ways designed to change the trajectory of the world’s climate and we’ll be ready to tackle next year’s wildfire season.
Never mind that Newsom and his predecessors have failed to take simple, tangible steps to deal with the wildfire situation whatever the broader climate is doing.
Despite the Oregon governor’s words, these officials aren’t doing everything in their power – not even close – to control fires that have ravaged millions of acres and taken more than two dozen lives.
The main issue involves land management. Newsom gave a nod to that problem. His focus, however, was not on nuts-and-bolts governance, but climate change.
“That’s one point, but it’s not the point,” he said. By the way, California has passed some of the most far-reaching climate-change-battling policies in the world, and yet here we are, facing another fire season that has destroyed property, lives, and our air.
The issue isn’t particularly complex. Because of the state’s environmental fixations, California has been less apt to clear away underbrush, thin out forests, and allow prescribed burns.
“Between 1982 and 1998, California’s agency land managers burned, on average, about 30,000 acres a year,” according to a recent investigative report in the progressive ProPublica. “Between 1999 and 2017, that number dropped to an annual 13,000 acres.”
That article truly is a must-read.
That situation has led to a vast land-clearing backlog that many state and federal officials already are starting to address. The problem goes beyond public land management.
“Environmental regulations will need to be streamlined, particularly permits for landowners with small parcels to thin trees and brush on their properties,” according to a report in the Bay Area News Group. Yes, California keeps private landowners from defending their own property.
Reforming regulatory barriers isn’t as sexy as talking about climate change, but it could help mitigate our recurring wildfire problems.
Insurance reform makes regulatory reform sound like a day at the circus, but the state’s prior-approval insurance system gives California’s insurance commissioner the power to approve any rate changes.
Those commissioners are elected officials, so they resist rate increases and use the bully pulpit to rail against “evil” insurers.
As a result, the California system makes it tough for insurers to price their policies to reflect the actual risk.
Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara opposed a bill this year that would have allowed insurers merely to propose higher rates in wooded regions. Lawmakers killed that measure at the end of the session.
Again, it’s boring policy wonkery, but insurance reform would quickly adjust development incentives.
Newsom could have tied his climate-change policies with these brush-clearance efforts. That Bay Area News Group article explained how the cap-and-trade system could pay for expanded fire-mitigation efforts.
Under that system, the state taxes greenhouse-gas-producing industries – and forces them to buy pollution credits when they exceed their limits.
That’s a problematic system, but Newsom had plenty of fodder if he wanted to, say, redirect more money to brush-clearing from these auctions rather than just issue dire climate warnings.
Of course, the governor isn’t about to look at how the state government currently spends its resources on firefighting – or anything else, for that matter.
As I wrote recently for the Orange County Register, “The median compensation package for firefighters has topped $240,000 a year in some locales.… The number of California firefighters who receive compensation packages above $500,000 a year is mind-blowing. Obviously, if the state spends scarce resources in this manner, it will have fewer resources to hire additional firefighters and buy equipment that’s now in short supply.”
Certainly, climate change may be exacerbating the wildfire problem. “Mountain regions that are normally cooler and wetter have dried out more rapidly in the summer, adding to the potential fuel load,” the BBC reported.
But that doesn’t excuse the “blame climate change” approach that Newsom has taken, which amounts to little more than an effort to deflect attention from the state’s slow and bureaucratic wildfire responses.
h/t Steve B.
Read more at American Spectator
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-09-21--U.S. Forest Fires Aren’t At Historic Highs—Not Even Close

Written by Jon Miltimore on .
Posted in Latest news California ’ s wildfires are a serious matter , but the official record of the United States shows forest fires in the US today are far below the annual average in the 1930s and 1940s .
California wildfires have been in the news in recent weeks .
As I noted Thursday , the Golden State is experiencing one of the worst fire seasons in recent memory .
Newly updated figures from the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection show there have been nearly 8,000 wildfires that have burned more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Since August 15 , when the state ’ s fire activity elevated sharply , there have been 25 fatalities and some 5,400 structures destroyed .
Despite widespread news coverage , some have argued many do not appreciate the historic severity of the blazes .
“ There are two dozen fires burning right now that singularly would have been the top story on the national news 10 or 20 years ago , ” Daniel Swain , a climate scientist at UCLA and the National Center for Atmospheric Research , told Robinson Meyer .
Meyer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who covers climate change and technology , says California has already experienced its worst fire season in state history .
Writing at The Week , Damon Linker proclaimed that the fires represent the dawn of an apocalypse .
Linker cites Meyers and an unnamed friend in Oregon who said he ’ s never seen anything like the recent blazes .
“ We ’ ve always had fires in the West , but never like this .
We ’ re choking on smoke and ash .
It ’ s happening this year , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happened two years before that .
It never once happened before during my lifetime , ” Linker ’ s middle-aged friend says .
“ This is definitely a new pattern .
And I never heard the phrase ‘ fire season ’ until a couple of years ago .
It certainly wasn ’ t a thing when I was a kid .
I never even saw smoke from a wildfire until I was in my 30s.
” Annie Lowrey , in an article titled “ The U.S. Is on the Path to Destruction , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fires in California and Oregon are incinerating homes , businesses , schools , power lines , and roads , ” Lowrey wrote in The Atlantic ’ s top story on Friday .
“ Climate hell is here .
We can not stand it .
And we can not afford it either.
” With all due respect to the Cassandras preaching apocalypse and hell on earth , there are two points worth mentioning .
First , as I explained recently , there is widespread agreement that California ’ s megafires stem largely from decades-long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New York Times explained earlier this month , for more than a century , many firefighting agencies have aggressively focused on extinguishing blazes whenever they occur , a strategy that has often proved counterproductive .
Other parts of the US have shown , the paper said , that less aggressive extinguishing of natural fires and targeted prescribed burning are effective at periodically clearing excess vegetation in forests and grasslands , which essentially serve as the fuel of California ’ s wildfires .
“ The first step is to acknowledge that fire is inevitable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ live with it , ” David McWethy , a fire scientist at Montana State University , told the paper .
California has spent decades aggressively preventing fire from doing its natural work , which has made it a virtual tinderbox .
To his credit , Linker at least mentions that “ Yes , poor forest management is playing a role ” in California ’ s hot season .
But there is a troubling tendency to simply blame the apocalyptic blazes on climate change .
As I pointed out , it ’ s not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ management and California ’ s high temperatures and arid climate have played a role in the fires .
But California is not the only place in America that experiences high temps and dry weather .
Texas actually has more forests and higher temperatures than California , but the Lone Star state rarely struggles with fires , perhaps because 95 percent of its landmass is privately owned and these owners act as responsible stewards of the land .
If climate change was truly the primary culprit of the wildfires , wouldn ’ t it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ US would be suffering similar results ?
Are there reasons climate change impacts California more than Texas and the Southeast US ?
This brings me to my second point .
There ’ s a perception that today ’ s fires are historically unprecedented .
“ Even though the U.S. is only halfway through wildfire season , this year is one of the worst in history , ” CNBC reported Friday .
“ Human-caused climate change has made blazes more frequent and intense , especially during extreme heat waves and drought conditions.
” But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the worst in US history is simply not true .
A news story making such a claim might start by telling readers how many acres of land have burned in the record-setting year .
CNBC doesn ’ t .
One also sees a second problem : most of its charts don ’ t include information prior to 1990 .
Fortunately , data from the National Interagency Fire Center ( NIFC ) offer some answers .
So far in 2020 , the US has experienced 42,809 total fires that burned a total of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ten-year average—45,711 fires and 5,963,782 acres .
However , 2020 is unlikely to exceed the number of fires or acreage burned just three years ago in 2017 .
Many will argue that 2017 was one of the worst fire seasons in US history , a claim that was reported numerous times during the fires season .
But Bjorn Lomborg pointed out these claims were also not true .
“ The National Interagency Fire Center curiously – and somewhat conveniently – only shows the annual burnt area back to 1960 , when fire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hence we had some of the lowest amounts of burnt forests ever , ” wrote Lomborg , a Danish author and President of the Copenhagen Consensus Center .
News agencies and NIFC were simply ignoring all data prior to 1960 .
When this data is included , one sees 2017 ’ s record-setting fires burned about one-fifth of the acreage of fires in 1930 and 1931 .
These were peak years , but they were not exactly anomalies , Lomborg pointed out .
The entire dataset , a quarter-century of figures that comes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States , shows the yearly average between 1926 and 1952 was several times higher than the peaks of today .
California ’ s wildfires are serious , and steps should be taken to see human lives and infrastructure are spared from them .
But the idea that America is witnessing an unprecedented apocalypse of fire is simply not true .
We ’ ve seen no shortage of crises in 2020 , but it ’ s worth remembering a simple truth : pandemics , riots , and wildfires are nothing new .
They have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
What ’ s changing is our response to these phenomena .
Each crisis is presented as an opportunity to save humanity , and each requires giving more control to central planners .
Rahm Emmanuel popularized the phrase “ Never let a good crisis go to waste , ” but it was economist Robert Higgs who showed that crises are the mortal enemy of liberty .
His great work Crisis and Leviathan lays bare the state ’ s tradition of claiming new powers during emergencies , powers that rarely are relinquished fully when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was worried about the correlation between liberty and crises because he understood a basic truth : there will always be human crises .
“ [ W ] e do know something – at least abstractly – about the future .
We know that other great crises will come .
Whether they will be occasioned by foreign wars , economic collapse , or rampant terrorism , no one can predict with assurances .
Yet in one form or another , great crises will surely come again , ” Higgs wrote .
“ When they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new powers over economic and social affairs… For those who cherish individual liberty and a free society , the prospect is deeply disheartening.
” Disheartening indeed .
But this also serves as a reminder : a crisis is not time to abandon liberty , it ’ s when liberty matters most .

Written by Jon Miltimore on Sep 21, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
California’s wildfires are a serious matter, but the official record of the United States shows forest fires in the US today are far below the annual average in the 1930s and 1940s.
California wildfires have been in the news in recent weeks. As I noted Thursday, the Golden State is experiencing one of the worst fire seasons in recent memory.
Newly updated figures from the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection show there have been nearly 8,000 wildfires that have burned more than 3.4 million acres in California.
Since August 15, when the state’s fire activity elevated sharply, there have been 25 fatalities and some 5,400 structures destroyed.
Despite widespread news coverage, some have argued many do not appreciate the historic severity of the blazes.
“There are two dozen fires burning right now that singularly would have been the top story on the national news 10 or 20 years ago,” Daniel Swain, a climate scientist at UCLA and the National Center for Atmospheric Research, told Robinson Meyer.
Meyer, a staff writer at The Atlantic who covers climate change and technology, says California has already experienced its worst fire season in state history.
In the past few months, one in every 33 acres of California has burned. This year is already the most destructive wildfire season, in terms of acreage affected, in state history. In 2018, during California’s last annus horribilis, I noted that six of the 10 largest wildfires in state history had happened since 2008. That list has since been completely rewritten. Today, six of California’s 10 largest wildfires have happened since 2018—and five of them have happened this year.
Writing at The Week, Damon Linker proclaimed that the fires represent the dawn of an apocalypse. Linker cites Meyers and an unnamed friend in Oregon who said he’s never seen anything like the recent blazes.
“We’ve always had fires in the West, but never like this. We’re choking on smoke and ash. It’s happening this year, it happened two years ago, and it happened two years before that. It never once happened before during my lifetime,” Linker’s middle-aged friend says.
“This is definitely a new pattern. And I never heard the phrase ‘fire season’ until a couple of years ago. It certainly wasn’t a thing when I was a kid. I never even saw smoke from a wildfire until I was in my 30s.”
Annie Lowrey, in an article titled “The U.S. Is on the Path to Destruction,” was even more vivid.
“Fires in California and Oregon are incinerating homes, businesses, schools, power lines, and roads,” Lowrey wrote in The Atlantic’s top story on Friday. “Climate hell is here. We cannot stand it. And we cannot afford it either.”
With all due respect to the Cassandras preaching apocalypse and hell on earth, there are two points worth mentioning.
First, as I explained recently, there is widespread agreement that California’s megafires stem largely from decades-long mismanagement of its forests.
As The New York Times explained earlier this month, for more than a century, many firefighting agencies have aggressively focused on extinguishing blazes whenever they occur, a strategy that has often proved counterproductive.
Other parts of the US have shown, the paper said, that less aggressive extinguishing of natural fires and targeted prescribed burning are effective at periodically clearing excess vegetation in forests and grasslands, which essentially serve as the fuel of California’s wildfires.
“The first step is to acknowledge that fire is inevitable, and we have to learn to live with it,” David McWethy, a fire scientist at Montana State University, told the paper.
California has spent decades aggressively preventing fire from doing its natural work, which has made it a virtual tinderbox.
To his credit, Linker at least mentions that “Yes, poor forest management is playing a role” in California’s hot season. But there is a troubling tendency to simply blame the apocalyptic blazes on climate change.
As I pointed out, it’s not unreasonable to assume that both poor land management and California’s high temperatures and arid climate have played a role in the fires. But California is not the only place in America that experiences high temps and dry weather.
Texas actually has more forests and higher temperatures than California, but the Lone Star state rarely struggles with fires, perhaps because 95 percent of its landmass is privately owned and these owners act as responsible stewards of the land.
If climate change was truly the primary culprit of the wildfires, wouldn’t it stand to reason other parts of the US would be suffering similar results? Are there reasons climate change impacts California more than Texas and the Southeast US?
This brings me to my second point. There’s a perception that today’s fires are historically unprecedented.
“Even though the U.S. is only halfway through wildfire season, this year is one of the worst in history,” CNBC reported Friday. “Human-caused climate change has made blazes more frequent and intense, especially during extreme heat waves and drought conditions.”
But, the claim that 2020 is one of the worst in US history is simply not true.
A news story making such a claim might start by telling readers how many acres of land have burned in the record-setting year. CNBC doesn’t. One also sees a second problem: most of its charts don’t include information prior to 1990.
Fortunately, data from the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) offer some answers. So far in 2020, the US has experienced 42,809 total fires that burned a total of 7,015,956.
These numbers are indeed above the ten-year average—45,711 fires and 5,963,782 acres. However, 2020 is unlikely to exceed the number of fires or acreage burned just three years ago in 2017.
Many will argue that 2017 was one of the worst fire seasons in US history, a claim that was reported numerous times during the fires season. But Bjorn Lomborg pointed out these claims were also not true.
“The National Interagency Fire Center curiously – and somewhat conveniently – only shows the annual burnt area back to 1960, when fire suppression indeed was going strong, and hence we had some of the lowest amounts of burnt forests ever,” wrote Lomborg, a Danish author and President of the Copenhagen Consensus Center.
News agencies and NIFC were simply ignoring all data prior to 1960. When this data is included, one sees 2017’s record-setting fires burned about one-fifth of the acreage of fires in 1930 and 1931.
These were peak years, but they were not exactly anomalies, Lomborg pointed out. The entire dataset, a quarter-century of figures that comes from the official record of the United States, shows the yearly average between 1926 and 1952 was several times higher than the peaks of today.
For all the talk about 2020’s fires being an unprecedented apocalypse (7M acres burned), it’s worth noting 2020 is unlikely to surpass 2017’s total. Even if it does, it’s still about about 1/5 of the total acreage burned in 1930. Context matters. H/T @BjornLomborg. pic.twitter.com/x44Ag1l4me — Jon Miltimore (Parler: @Miltimore79) (@miltimore79) September 21, 2020
California’s wildfires are serious, and steps should be taken to see human lives and infrastructure are spared from them. But the idea that America is witnessing an unprecedented apocalypse of fire is simply not true.
We’ve seen no shortage of crises in 2020, but it’s worth remembering a simple truth: pandemics, riots, and wildfires are nothing new. They have been around as long as humans have.
What’s changing is our response to these phenomena. Each crisis is presented as an opportunity to save humanity, and each requires giving more control to central planners.
Rahm Emmanuel popularized the phrase “Never let a good crisis go to waste,” but it was economist Robert Higgs who showed that crises are the mortal enemy of liberty.
His great work Crisis and Leviathan lays bare the state’s tradition of claiming new powers during emergencies, powers that rarely are relinquished fully when the crisis ends.
Higgs admitted he was worried about the correlation between liberty and crises because he understood a basic truth: there will always be human crises.
“[W]e do know something – at least abstractly – about the future. We know that other great crises will come. Whether they will be occasioned by foreign wars, economic collapse, or rampant terrorism, no one can predict with assurances. Yet in one form or another, great crises will surely come again,” Higgs wrote.
“When they do, governments almost certainly will gain new powers over economic and social affairs… For those who cherish individual liberty and a free society, the prospect is deeply disheartening.”
Disheartening indeed. But this also serves as a reminder: a crisis is not time to abandon liberty, it’s when liberty matters most.
Read more at FEE
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print