climatechangedispatch--2020-03-26--R.I. Official: Climate Lawsuit Will Create ‘Sustainable Funding Stream’

Written by Patrick Hall on .
Posted in Latest news One of the motivations behind Rhode Island ’ s ongoing public nuisance climate change lawsuit against energy producers is to secure a “ sustainable funding stream ” for the state , according to recently released documents .
Public interest law firm Energy Policy Advocates ( EPA ) submitted the bombshell documents to the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals this month , citing remarks from a senior environmental official for the state .
The Rhode Island official admitted that they couldn ’ t secure funding for the climate-focused policies and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proper channels – through laws that would raise revenue for the state .
Instead , they chose to sue oil and gas companies in a money-grab attempt , and want their case heard in state court where they believe they stand a better chance of circumventing traditional avenues of generating revenue .
EPA filed its proposed amicus brief on March 10 , asking the court to hear its argument because its brief provided evidence that would help the court decide whether Rhode Island ’ s climate lawsuit should proceed in state or federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brief , from Janet Coit , Director at the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management , are revealing .
In its proposed amicus brief , EPA writes : The emails and notes , which were obtained via public records requests , come from a two-day meeting in July 2019 hosted by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund ( RBF ) , a sister organization to the Rockefeller Family Fund ( RFF ) .
The meeting , which took place at the Rockefeller family mansion at Pocantico , NY , was titled “ Accelerating State Action @ @ @ @ @ @ @ senior political appointees from fifteen states , including those where a handful of municipalities have either sued energy producers or announced they intend to sue for climate change damages .
Both RBF and RFF have been intimately involved in climate litigation targeting energy companies across the country for years .
For example , in January , an Energy In-Depth analysis of New York state tax disclosures found that RFF gave the Institute for Governance & Sustainable Development ( IGSD ) over $ 1 million to launch an aggressive climate litigation campaign against America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ official ’ s comments were confirmed by notes taken at the event by two separate participants , Carla Frisch of the Rocky Mountain Institute ( RMI ) and Katie McCormack of the Energy Foundation .
Both the Energy Foundation and RMI are closely tied to anti-oil and gas efforts .
RMI is chaired by Ted White – climate activist billionaire Tom Steyer ’ s lawyer .
The Energy Foundation , along with several other large foundations that oppose and actively work to stop oil and natural gas development ( including the Rockefeller Brothers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ School of Journalism ’ s biased reporting project that helped launch the “ Exxon Knew ” campaign .
EPA provided further evidence of Coit ’ s comments with the Energy Foundation ’ s Katie McCormack ’ s typewritten notes , which detailed : Coit ’ s “ sustainable funding stream ” comments provide a peek behind the curtain , plainly demonstrating how Rhode Island officials view the purpose of their public nuisance climate litigation – as a workaround to the legislative system .
The comments bring to light the ongoing bias in favor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as EPA outlines in their brief , it is clear that Rhode Island officials seek to use “ … ( state ) courts to effectively create federal energy and environmental policy as stand-ins for the political process that has denied plaintiffs their desired policies.
” While Coit ’ s comments may be surprising to some , they ’ re not new .
Matthew Pawa , one of the plaintiffs ’ attorneys representing municipalities in their lawsuits against energy producers , outright stated in a July 2015 interview to The Nation : In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Unfortunately , Rhode Island is just one of many examples of state and local officials across the country ignoring traditional means of raising revenues , and instead are turning to trial lawyers to win funds from lengthy nuisance climate cases .
Sher Edling : There ’ s Nothing to See Here… Rhode Island ’ s outside legal counsel in its climate lawsuit , Sher Edling LLP , responded to EPA ’ s proposed amicus brief with a retort calling the notes nothing more than “ hearsay , ” claiming that EPA “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of personal meeting notes , purportedly drafted by two non-party individuals unaffiliated with the State or any Defendant-Appellant… ” Throughout its response , Sher Edling argues that “ none of [ EPA ’ s ] documents or arguments are supported or relevant to any issue before the Court.
” Why ?
Because the law firm says these notes “ do not represent a position of the State.
” And yet , the two sets of contemporaneous notes independently confirm the comments of a state official discussing the purpose of the state ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The court has not yet ruled on whether EPA will be permitted to submit its brief .

Written by Patrick Hall on Mar 26, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
One of the motivations behind Rhode Island’s ongoing public nuisance climate change lawsuit against energy producers is to secure a “sustainable funding stream” for the state, according to recently released documents.
Public interest law firm Energy Policy Advocates (EPA) submitted the bombshell documents to the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals this month, citing remarks from a senior environmental official for the state.
The Rhode Island official admitted that they couldn’t secure funding for the climate-focused policies and projects they wanted to undertake through the proper channels – through laws that would raise revenue for the state.
Instead, they chose to sue oil and gas companies in a money-grab attempt, and want their case heard in state court where they believe they stand a better chance of circumventing traditional avenues of generating revenue.
EPA’s Proposed Amicus Brief
EPA filed its proposed amicus brief on March 10, asking the court to hear its argument because its brief provided evidence that would help the court decide whether Rhode Island’s climate lawsuit should proceed in state or federal court.
The comments submitted in the brief, from Janet Coit, Director at the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, are revealing.
In its proposed amicus brief, EPA writes:
“This entry on its face represents a senior official confessing that Rhode Island’s climate litigation is in fact a product of Rhode Island’s elected representatives lacking enthusiasm for politically enacting certain policies, including revenue measures, thus leaving the State ‘looking for [a] sustainable funding stream’ and therefore ‘suing big oil.’” (emphasis added)
The emails and notes, which were obtained via public records requests, come from a two-day meeting in July 2019 hosted by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund (RBF), a sister organization to the Rockefeller Family Fund (RFF).
The meeting, which took place at the Rockefeller family mansion at Pocantico, NY, was titled “Accelerating State Action on Climate Change.”
In attendance were senior political appointees from fifteen states, including those where a handful of municipalities have either sued energy producers or announced they intend to sue for climate change damages.
Both RBF and RFF have been intimately involved in climate litigation targeting energy companies across the country for years.
For example, in January, an Energy In-Depth analysis of New York state tax disclosures found that RFF gave the Institute for Governance & Sustainable Development (IGSD) over $1 million to launch an aggressive climate litigation campaign against America’s top energy producers.
The official’s comments were confirmed by notes taken at the event by two separate participants, Carla Frisch of the Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) and Katie McCormack of the Energy Foundation.
Both the Energy Foundation and RMI are closely tied to anti-oil and gas efforts. RMI is chaired by Ted White – climate activist billionaire Tom Steyer’s lawyer.
The Energy Foundation, along with several other large foundations that oppose and actively work to stop oil and natural gas development (including the Rockefeller Brothers Fund), helped fund the Columbia School of Journalism’s biased reporting project that helped launch the “Exxon Knew” campaign.
EPA provided further evidence of Coit’s comments with the Energy Foundation’s Katie McCormack’s typewritten notes, which detailed:
Coit’s “sustainable funding stream” comments provide a peek behind the curtain, plainly demonstrating how Rhode Island officials view the purpose of their public nuisance climate litigation – as a workaround to the legislative system.
The comments bring to light the ongoing bias in favor of state court from Rhode Island officials, as EPA outlines in their brief, it is clear that Rhode Island officials seek to use “…(state) courts to effectively create federal energy and environmental policy as stand-ins for the political process that has denied plaintiffs their desired policies.”
Activists: Litigation > Legislation
While Coit’s comments may be surprising to some, they’re not new. Matthew Pawa, one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys representing municipalities in their lawsuits against energy producers, outright stated in a July 2015 interview to The Nation:
“Legislation is going nowhere, so litigation could potentially play an important role.”
In its brief, EPA summarizes the problem:
“These notes from the Rockefeller-hosted meeting in July 2019, obtained by Energy Policy Advocates, provide strong impetus to formally confront traits of this ‘climate nuisance’ litigation campaign, which are a grab for revenue and other desired policies that have eluded parties through the political process, seeking the most favorable forum for a court to stand in for that political process.” (emphasis added)
Unfortunately, Rhode Island is just one of many examples of state and local officials across the country ignoring traditional means of raising revenues, and instead are turning to trial lawyers to win funds from lengthy nuisance climate cases.
Sher Edling: There’s Nothing to See Here…
Rhode Island’s outside legal counsel in its climate lawsuit, Sher Edling LLP, responded to EPA’s proposed amicus brief with a retort calling the notes nothing more than “hearsay,” claiming that EPA “provides unverified, irrelevant hearsay, comprised of personal meeting notes, purportedly drafted by two non-party individuals unaffiliated with the State or any Defendant-Appellant…”
Throughout its response, Sher Edling argues that “none of [EPA’s] documents or arguments are supported or relevant to any issue before the Court.”
Why? Because the law firm says these notes “do not represent a position of the State.”
And yet, the two sets of contemporaneous notes independently confirm the comments of a state official discussing the purpose of the state’s litigation, using nearly identical wording.
The court has not yet ruled on whether EPA will be permitted to submit its brief.
Read more at EID Climate
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-03-26--Eco-Nutters Deny Posting ‘Corona Is The Cure, Humans The Disease’ Signs

Written by James Delingpole on .
Posted in Latest news The eco-fascists are showing their true face in the Coronavirus pandemic .
Activists claiming to be from Extinction Rebellion have put up posters exulting in the loss of human life .
The official national leadership of Extinction Rebellion has since sought to distance itself from the posters , claiming that the stickers are ‘ not in line with what XR believes or stands for ’ and blaming ‘ far-right groups.
’ But this should be taken with a pinch of salt .
First , the XR East Midlands Twitter account @ @ @ @ @ @ @ followed by XR groups around the country .
If it has been a ‘ far-right ’ disinformation operation , it appears to have fooled pretty much the entirety of the XR movement – which has repeatedly tweeted its views and seems to share many of them .
Second , the posters are entirely in line with the thinking of the green movement – as detailed in my book Watermelons : How Environmentalists are Killing the Planet , Destroying the Economy and Stealing Your Children ’ s Future .
As a high-level environmentalist organization @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrote : This is genuinely how many so-called environmentalists think .
It dates back at least to the era of late 18th-century doom-monger Thomas Malthus and is evident in everything from the burblings of Sir David Attenborough ( a former trustee of the Optimum Population Trust which , up until 2011 , argued on its website that the world ’ s then-population of 6.8 billion should be reduced to a more ‘ sustainable ’ 5.1 billion ) to the entire field of ecology ( predicated on the notion that man is a detrimental @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is that mode of thinking – worryingly popular among the global elite – expressed in the 1970s by one of the early enthusiasts of the green movement , the late gambler , tiger-enthusiast , and casino owner John Aspinall .
Some of us are now drawn to believe that a demo-catastrophe will be an eco-bonanza .
In other words , a population readjustment on a planetary scale from 4,000 million to something in the nature of 200 minion would be the only possible solution for the survival of the eco-system or systems that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suspect , are the very last people we should be heeding in this coronavirus pandemic .
Not only are they partly responsible for the misdirection of scientific resources which has left us so woefully ill-prepared for the disease – but a worrying proportion of them actually welcome this plague because they see it as Gaia ’ s revenge on evil mankind .

Written by James Delingpole on Mar 26, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The eco-fascists are showing their true face in the Coronavirus pandemic. Activists claiming to be from Extinction Rebellion have put up posters exulting in the loss of human life.
They say:
“Corona is the cure
Humans are the disease.”
The official national leadership of Extinction Rebellion has since sought to distance itself from the posters, claiming that the stickers are ‘not in line with what XR believes or stands for’ and blaming ‘far-right groups.’
IMPORTANT: We are aware that far right groups have put out stickers with messaging that is not in line with what XR believes or stands for. Please get in touch with us if you see any anywhere. Look after yourselves.
A reminder of our position #COVID19 https://t.co/YqPzYmVhBf — Extinction Rebellion UK 🌍 (@XRebellionUK) March 25, 2020
But this should be taken with a pinch of salt.
First, the XR East Midlands Twitter account which boasted about the stunt is widely followed by XR groups around the country.
If it has been a ‘far-right’ disinformation operation, it appears to have fooled pretty much the entirety of the XR movement – which has repeatedly tweeted its views and seems to share many of them.
There is no evidence that the XR account https://t.co/7oNFhxRg36 is fake or far right. In fact, their anti-human sentiment is widely shared among on social media in recent weeks. @afneil https://t.co/uPDowJqILF — GWPF (@thegwpfcom) March 25, 2020
Second, the posters are entirely in line with the thinking of the green movement – as detailed in my book Watermelons: How Environmentalists are Killing the Planet, Destroying the Economy and Stealing Your Children’s Future.
As a high-level environmentalist organization, The Club of Rome once infamously wrote:
“The Earth has a cancer. The cancer is man.”
This is genuinely how many so-called environmentalists think.
It dates back at least to the era of late 18th-century doom-monger Thomas Malthus and is evident in everything from the burblings of Sir David Attenborough (a former trustee of the Optimum Population Trust which, up until 2011, argued on its website that the world’s then-population of 6.8 billion should be reduced to a more ‘sustainable’ 5.1 billion) to the entire field of ecology (predicated on the notion that man is a detrimental presence on the planet).
Here is that mode of thinking – worryingly popular among the global elite – expressed in the 1970s by one of the early enthusiasts of the green movement, the late gambler, tiger-enthusiast, and casino owner John Aspinall.
Some of us are now drawn to believe that a demo-catastrophe will be an eco-bonanza. In other words, a population readjustment on a planetary scale from 4,000 million to something in the nature of 200 minion would be the only possible solution for the survival of the eco-system or systems that nurtured us.
Environmentalists, you may suspect, are the very last people we should be heeding in this coronavirus pandemic.
Not only are they partly responsible for the misdirection of scientific resources which has left us so woefully ill-prepared for the disease – but a worrying proportion of them actually welcome this plague because they see it as Gaia’s revenge on evil mankind.
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--2020-03-26--Greens Spread The Virulent Virus Of Identity Politics

Written by Corrine Barraclough on .
Posted in Latest news Anyone with a functioning pair of eyes will have read that coronavirus is killing more men than women .
In Italy , the National Health Institute ( ISS ) has found that men represent nearly 60 percent of people who tested positive for the virus and more than 70 percent of those who have died .
CNN reported that even in South Korea , where the number of women who have tested positive for the virus outnumbers men , 54 percent of reported deaths are men .
Dr. Deborah Birx @ @ @ @ @ @ @ response coordinator said last Friday , “ From Italy , we ’ re seeing another concerning trend .
That the morality in males seems to be twice in every age group of females.
” Obviously , this pandemic is unfolding at a pace around the world and some data is not yet available .
However , from the data that has been released , for every 10 female deaths in Italy , there were 24 male deaths .
In China , for every 10 female deaths , there were 18 male deaths .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ deaths , there were 16 male deaths .
In Iran , for every 10 female deaths , there were 14 male deaths .
In France , for every 10 female deaths , there were 14 male deaths .
In South Korea , for every 10 female deaths , there were 12 male deaths .
Sarah Hawkes , professor of global public health at University College London said , “ When we look at the data what we ’ re seeing is that in every country with sex-disaggregated data… there is between a 10 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mortality amongst people diagnosed with Covid if they are men compared to if they are women.
” Scientists are looking into lifestyle choices that could be impacting these figures , such as smoking and alcohol consumption .
And yet , amongst all of this , the Greens circus has wheeled into town trying to flog tickets to the ‘ Gender Wars Circus ’ .
Watermelon Senator Mehreen Faruqi , mother of blowhard Twitter troll Osman Faruqui and lead clown in said circus claims , “ COVID-19 is a gendered crisis .
Nurses , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and early-childhood educators , aged-care workers and cleaners are mostly women .
They are on the frontline of this public health crisis and carry a disproportionate risk of being exposed to the virus.
” ou mean , they are at more risk of being exposed to this virus , which is more likely to kill men ?
And what about the sheer irresponsibility — insanity — of a member of our federal parliament deliberately spreading misleading information at a time of crisis ?
Remember that speech that Hillary Clinton made on 17 November @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when she claimed , “ Women have always been the primary victims of war .
Women lose their husbands , their fathers , their sons in combat ” ?
These horrendous human beings want us to feel sorry for women , even when it ’ s men being buried .

Written by Corrine Barraclough on Mar 26, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Anyone with a functioning pair of eyes will have read that coronavirus is killing more men than women.
In Italy, the National Health Institute (ISS) has found that men represent nearly 60 percent of people who tested positive for the virus and more than 70 percent of those who have died.
CNN reported that even in South Korea, where the number of women who have tested positive for the virus outnumbers men, 54 percent of reported deaths are men.
Dr. Deborah Birx, The White House’s coronavirus response coordinator said last Friday, “From Italy, we’re seeing another concerning trend. That the morality in males seems to be twice in every age group of females.”
Obviously, this pandemic is unfolding at a pace around the world and some data is not yet available. However, from the data that has been released, for every 10 female deaths in Italy, there were 24 male deaths.
In China, for every 10 female deaths, there were 18 male deaths.
In Germany, for every 10 female deaths, there were 16 male deaths.
In Iran, for every 10 female deaths, there were 14 male deaths.
In France, for every 10 female deaths, there were 14 male deaths.
In South Korea, for every 10 female deaths, there were 12 male deaths.
Get the picture?
Sarah Hawkes, professor of global public health at University College London said, “When we look at the data what we’re seeing is that in every country with sex-disaggregated data… there is between a 10 percent and 90 percent higher rate of mortality amongst people diagnosed with Covid if they are men compared to if they are women.”
It is world news.
Scientists are looking into lifestyle choices that could be impacting these figures, such as smoking and alcohol consumption.
And yet, amongst all of this, the Greens circus has wheeled into town trying to flog tickets to the ‘Gender Wars Circus’.
Watermelon Senator Mehreen Faruqi, mother of blowhard Twitter troll Osman Faruqui and lead clown in said circus claims, “COVID-19 is a gendered crisis. Nurses, nurse aides, teachers, child carers and early-childhood educators, aged-care workers and cleaners are mostly women. They are on the frontline of this public health crisis and carry a disproportionate risk of being exposed to the virus.”
ou mean, they are at more risk of being exposed to this virus, which is more likely to kill men?
Talk about crap takes.
And what about the sheer irresponsibility — insanity — of a member of our federal parliament deliberately spreading misleading information at a time of crisis?
Remember that speech that Hillary Clinton made on 17 November 1998? You know, that one when she claimed, “Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat”?
These horrendous human beings want us to feel sorry for women, even when it’s men being buried.
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--2020-03-26--COVID-19: A Glimpse Of The Eco-Dystopia That Greens Keep Pushing

Written by Brendan O'Neill on .
Posted in Latest news Greens just can ’ t help themselves .
As the rest of us do what we can to tackle or withstand the COVID-19 crisis , they treat it as a sign , a warning from nature , a telling-off to hubristic , destructive mankind .
The speed with which they have folded this pandemic into their misanthropic narrative about humanity being a pox on the planet has been shocking , but not surprising .
Right from the top of the UN , they have been promoting their backward belief that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Inger Andersen , executive director of the UN Environment Programme , says ‘ nature is sending us a message ’ with this pandemic and other recent disasters , including bushfires in Australia and locust invasions in Kenya .
Of course , nature is doing no such thing because nature is not a sentient being , however much the new religion of environmentalism might fantasize that it is .
The Guardian reports that Andersen thinks humanity ’ s ‘ destruction of the natural world for farming , housing , and mining ’ is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , human growth , modern society itself , is now getting its comeuppance .
We think we can farm and mine and , erm , build houses as we see fit , but here comes nature with her punishment : a terrible disease .
This is positively Biblical .
Gaia is God in this scenario , coming to punish us for our sins .
A group of scientists agrees with Andersen .
They describe COVID-19 as a ‘ clear warning shot ’ from nature , telling human civilization that it is ‘ playing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political exploitation of a horrible disease to the end of winding back human industry : what a low trick .
Britain ’ s chief bourgeois misanthrope , George Monbiot , was hot on the heels of the UN ’ s eco-medievalists .
He says COVID-19 has shattered humanity ’ s self-serving myth that it has achieved ‘ insulation from natural hazards ’ .
There is a grotesque glee in the way Monbiot describes what COVID-19 has unleashed – ‘ the membrane has ruptured ’ , he says , and ‘ we find ourselves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we appeared to have banished storms through our lives ’ .
Monbiot also views this pandemic as a lesson from nature .
The headline to his piece says : ‘ COVID-19 is nature ’ s wake-up call to our complacent civilization.
’ And what is the content of nature ’ s violent lesson to disgusting mankind ?
It is to remind us that , for all our arrogance , we are actually ‘ governed by biology and physics.
’ There is something profoundly ugly in this .
Monbiot and other greens seem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will have an upside : it might roll back the Enlightenment-era belief that humankind can exercise dominion over nature and remind us that actually we are at nature ’ s mercy .
They hope this disaster will restore nature ’ s power over the humanized world .
This is also why so many greens online have been sharing images of dolphins swimming near Venice or the absence of airplane trails over California .
Because to them , these are signs of a benefit from COVID-19 : the humbling of humankind , the reining @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and the reassertion of nature ’ s awesome power .
If you see a disease as a political statement , as an opportunity to pursue your pre-existing misanthropic agendas , there is something very wrong with you .
Even though all of this is morally perverse , it is not surprising .
For a long time , greens have viewed human beings as a pox , a virus in our own right , doing untold damage to the planet .
Green god David Attenborough has said humans are ‘ a plague on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t use such explicitly hateful language , they constantly promote a view of human production and development as toxic and destructive .
And they latch on to everything from bushfires to floods , from plagues of locusts to melting ice-caps , as signs from nature , lessons from a furious Gaia .
When religious crackpots blame floods on gay marriage , claiming God is punishing us for losing the moral plot , we rightly mock them .
Yet greens offer merely a secular version of such backward , apocalyptic claptrap .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ crisis has shown us anything , it is how awful it would be to live in the kind of world greens dream about .
Right now , courtesy of a horrible new virus , our societies look not dissimilar to the kind of societies Greta Thunberg , Extinction Rebellion , green parties , and others have long been agitating for .
Fewer flights , industry halted , huge infrastructure projects put on hold .
Less driving , less traveling , less human interaction .
Over the past few weeks , as a result @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ human footprint ’ will undoubtedly have shrunk .
And what an awful world it has become : smaller , quieter , more atomized .
We are all happy to make some sacrifices during this crisis .
We are staying home , observing social distancing , and of course , most of us are not working or traveling .
But we can not wait to go back to a world in which factories crank back to life , airplanes scrawl their lines in the sky , and people can go anywhere and work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their heart ’ s content .
Greens really should be careful when they talk about COVID-19 , because it won ’ t be long before more and more people realize that this unpleasant emergency we are living through is just like the warped dystopia greens want to build .

Written by Brendan O'Neill on Mar 26, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Greens just can’t help themselves. As the rest of us do what we can to tackle or withstand the COVID-19 crisis, they treat it as a sign, a warning from nature, a telling-off to hubristic, destructive mankind.
The speed with which they have folded this pandemic into their misanthropic narrative about humanity being a pox on the planet has been shocking, but not surprising.
Right from the top of the UN, they have been promoting their backward belief that this virus is a reprimand from nature.
Inger Andersen, executive director of the UN Environment Programme, says ‘nature is sending us a message’ with this pandemic and other recent disasters, including bushfires in Australia and locust invasions in Kenya.
Of course, nature is doing no such thing because nature is not a sentient being, however much the new religion of environmentalism might fantasize that it is.
The Guardian reports that Andersen thinks humanity’s ‘destruction of the natural world for farming, housing, and mining’ is making pandemics more likely.
In short, human growth, modern society itself, is now getting its comeuppance. We think we can farm and mine and, erm, build houses as we see fit, but here comes nature with her punishment: a terrible disease.
This is positively Biblical. Gaia is God in this scenario, coming to punish us for our sins.
A group of scientists agrees with Andersen. They describe COVID-19 as a ‘clear warning shot’ from nature, telling human civilization that it is ‘playing with fire’.
This is the political exploitation of a horrible disease to the end of winding back human industry: what a low trick.
Britain’s chief bourgeois misanthrope, George Monbiot, was hot on the heels of the UN’s eco-medievalists. He says COVID-19 has shattered humanity’s self-serving myth that it has achieved ‘insulation from natural hazards’.
There is a grotesque glee in the way Monbiot describes what COVID-19 has unleashed – ‘the membrane has ruptured’, he says, and ‘we find ourselves naked and outraged, as the biology, we appeared to have banished storms through our lives’.
Monbiot also views this pandemic as a lesson from nature. The headline to his piece says:
‘COVID-19 is nature’s wake-up call to our complacent civilization.’
And what is the content of nature’s violent lesson to disgusting mankind? It is to remind us that, for all our arrogance, we are actually ‘governed by biology and physics.’
There is something profoundly ugly in this. Monbiot and other greens seem to view COVID-19 as a disaster that will have an upside: it might roll back the Enlightenment-era belief that humankind can exercise dominion over nature and remind us that actually we are at nature’s mercy.
They hope this disaster will restore nature’s power over the humanized world.
This is also why so many greens online have been sharing images of dolphins swimming near Venice or the absence of airplane trails over California.
Because to them, these are signs of a benefit from COVID-19: the humbling of humankind, the reining in of our industrial and technological activity, and the reassertion of nature’s awesome power.
If you see a disease as a political statement, as an opportunity to pursue your pre-existing misanthropic agendas, there is something very wrong with you.
Even though all of this is morally perverse, it is not surprising. For a long time, greens have viewed human beings as a pox, a virus in our own right, doing untold damage to the planet.
Green god David Attenborough has said humans are ‘a plague on the planet’. Even when greens don’t use such explicitly hateful language, they constantly promote a view of human production and development as toxic and destructive.
And they latch on to everything from bushfires to floods, from plagues of locusts to melting ice-caps, as signs from nature, lessons from a furious Gaia.
When religious crackpots blame floods on gay marriage, claiming God is punishing us for losing the moral plot, we rightly mock them. Yet greens offer merely a secular version of such backward, apocalyptic claptrap.
The truth is that if the COVID-19 crisis has shown us anything, it is how awful it would be to live in the kind of world greens dream about.
Right now, courtesy of a horrible new virus, our societies look not dissimilar to the kind of societies Greta Thunberg, Extinction Rebellion, green parties, and others have long been agitating for.
Fewer flights, industry halted, huge infrastructure projects put on hold. Less driving, less traveling, less human interaction.
Over the past few weeks, as a result of our response to COVID-19, the ‘human footprint’ will undoubtedly have shrunk. And what an awful world it has become: smaller, quieter, more atomized.
We are all happy to make some sacrifices during this crisis. We are staying home, observing social distancing, and of course, most of us are not working or traveling.
But we cannot wait to go back to a world in which factories crank back to life, airplanes scrawl their lines in the sky, and people can go anywhere and work, socialize, buy and eat to their heart’s content.
Greens really should be careful when they talk about COVID-19, because it won’t be long before more and more people realize that this unpleasant emergency we are living through is just like the warped dystopia greens want to build.
Read more at Spiked Online
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-03-31--Europe’s Carmakers Seek Delay In EU’s Costly CO2 Rules

Written by Neil Winton on .
Posted in Latest news The European auto industry has asked the European Union ( EU ) to delay the implementation of its CO2 emissions rules because the impact of the coronavirus is causing short-term mayhem in the industry .
The rules start this year , get harsher in 2025 , and demand an effective average fuel economy of 92 miles per U.S. gallon by 2030 .
The European Automobile Manufacturers Association , plus the tire makers , suppliers and dealers associations made the plea in a letter ( see www.acea.be ) to Ursula von @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Commission dated March 25 .
“ No production , development , testing or homologation work occurs for the time being ( because of the impact of the coronavirus ) .
This upsets the plans we had made to prepare ourselves for complying with existing and future EU laws and regulations within the applicable deadlines set in these regulations .
We believe therefore that some adjustment would need to be made to the timing of these laws , ” the letter said .
“ Please be assured , however , that it is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such nor the underlying objectives of road safety , climate change mitigation and protection of the environment .
Looking into the future , industry , and policymakers must together , and in a timely manner , start planning for the period beyond the immediate health crisis , ” the letter said .
The EU Commission hasn ’ t replied to a question seeking its reaction to this plea .
Brussels-based environmental lobby group Transport & Environment wasn ’ t happy , saying that such a plea is unfounded and potentially damaging for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ industry in Europe .
Asked to comment on the joint letter , the European Auto Manufacturers Association , known by its French acronym ACEA , said the industry has been halted by the virus in this statement .
“ The primary concern of ACEA and all its members right now is to manage the immediate crisis facing the auto industry , which has essentially come to an abrupt halt – something the sector has never experienced before , ” Director General , Eric-Mark Huitema said .
“ Our first priority is to protect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 14 million Europeans who work directly or indirectly in this sector .
In parallel , we are active in directing resources to help fight the ongoing health crisis , for instance by providing vehicles and where possible medical equipment and protective gear.
” “ In this emergency context , it has not yet been possible to undertake a detailed analysis of the implications of this crisis on legislation affecting our industry .
Nonetheless , ACEA has already drawn the European Commission ’ s attention to the fact that there will inevitably be consequences @ @ @ @ @ @ @ production , development , testing or homologation work is able to happen now or in the foreseeable future due to company shutdowns and other measures to contain the virus.
” “ This will require discussions between the industry and policymakers in due course .
In the meantime , ACEA will work with its members to examine what the practical implications are for the most critical legislative issues .
As a general principle , it should be stressed that it is not the industry ’ s intention to question any laws as such nor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate change mitigation and protection of the environment for example , ” Huitema said .
The industry has been alarmed about the impact of the CO2 rules , even before the coronavirus struck , not least because the EU Commission had been talking about making the rules even tougher .
According to a report from investment researcher Jefferies last year , if the auto industry makes no progress in curbing CO2 from 2018 towards meeting the EU ’ s 2020/21 regulations , it faces fines totaling the equivalent of $ 36 billion , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be forced to raise prices up to 10 % .
The latest data suggests in 2019 , the industry went backward not forwards in production of CO2 thanks to the popularity of SUVs and the demise of diesel .

Written by Neil Winton on Mar 31, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The European auto industry has asked the European Union (EU) to delay the implementation of its CO2 emissions rules because the impact of the coronavirus is causing short-term mayhem in the industry.
The rules start this year, get harsher in 2025, and demand an effective average fuel economy of 92 miles per U.S. gallon by 2030.
The European Automobile Manufacturers Association, plus the tire makers, suppliers and dealers associations made the plea in a letter (see www.acea.be) to Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission dated March 25.
“No production, development, testing or homologation work occurs for the time being (because of the impact of the coronavirus). This upsets the plans we had made to prepare ourselves for complying with existing and future EU laws and regulations within the applicable deadlines set in these regulations. We believe therefore that some adjustment would need to be made to the timing of these laws,” the letter said.
“Please be assured, however, that it is not our intention to question the laws as such nor the underlying objectives of road safety, climate change mitigation and protection of the environment. Looking into the future, industry, and policymakers must together, and in a timely manner, start planning for the period beyond the immediate health crisis,” the letter said.
The EU Commission hasn’t replied to a question seeking its reaction to this plea.
Brussels-based environmental lobby group Transport & Environment wasn’t happy, saying that such a plea is unfounded and potentially damaging for the long-term sustainability and competitiveness of the car industry in Europe.
Asked to comment on the joint letter, the European Auto Manufacturers Association, known by its French acronym ACEA, said the industry has been halted by the virus in this statement.
“The primary concern of ACEA and all its members right now is to manage the immediate crisis facing the auto industry, which has essentially come to an abrupt halt – something the sector has never experienced before,” Director General, Eric-Mark Huitema said.
“Our first priority is to protect the health and jobs of the almost 14 million Europeans who work directly or indirectly in this sector. In parallel, we are active in directing resources to help fight the ongoing health crisis, for instance by providing vehicles and where possible medical equipment and protective gear.”
“In this emergency context, it has not yet been possible to undertake a detailed analysis of the implications of this crisis on legislation affecting our industry. Nonetheless, ACEA has already drawn the European Commission’s attention to the fact that there will inevitably be consequences in this domain, given that no production, development, testing or homologation work is able to happen now or in the foreseeable future due to company shutdowns and other measures to contain the virus.”
“This will require discussions between the industry and policymakers in due course. In the meantime, ACEA will work with its members to examine what the practical implications are for the most critical legislative issues. As a general principle, it should be stressed that it is not the industry’s intention to question any laws as such nor the underlying objectives of road safety, climate change mitigation and protection of the environment for example,” Huitema said.
The industry has been alarmed about the impact of the CO2 rules, even before the coronavirus struck, not least because the EU Commission had been talking about making the rules even tougher.
According to a report from investment researcher Jefferies last year, if the auto industry makes no progress in curbing CO2 from 2018 towards meeting the EU’s 2020/21 regulations, it faces fines totaling the equivalent of $36 billion, twice its estimated profits, and could be forced to raise prices up to 10%.
The latest data suggests in 2019, the industry went backward not forwards in production of CO2 thanks to the popularity of SUVs and the demise of diesel.
Read rest at Forbes
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-03-31--Extinction Rebellion: Anti-Human To The Core

Written by Connor Tomlinson on .
Posted in Latest news A Twitter account claiming to represent an Extinction Rebellion ( XR ) chapter in the East Midlands tweeted last week that the ‘ Earth is healing .
The air and water are clearing .
Corona is the cure .
Humans are the disease !
’ The post also showed stickers with the same slogan posted on a lamppost .
The tweet and the account were denounced by a number of official XR accounts , which accused far-right groups of putting up the offending stickers and setting up a fake account @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Twitter .
Given much of the rhetoric of XR ’ s activists , spokespeople and supporters , it is hardly surprising that the tweet and posters were widely taken as a legitimate XR campaign .
Indeed , as broadcaster Andrew Neil has pointed out , the ‘ fake ’ East Midlands account was followed by several XR accounts that are known to be genuine .
Extreme , controversial and anti-human views are nothing new for the Extinction Rebellion .
For instance , XR co-founder Stuart Basden says that the movement ‘ isn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it aims to dismantle the ‘ cruelty and violence ’ of ‘ 600 years of colonialism ’ conducted by ‘ European civilization ’ , and its delusions of ‘ patriarchy ’ , ‘ white supremacy ’ , and ‘ heteronormativity ’ .
Another XR co-founder , Roger Hallam , says that ‘ forcing governments to act ’ or ‘ bringing them down ’ in order to enact its policies will require ‘ some to die in the process ’ .
What ’ s more , the wider environmental movement has tried to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instance , Greta Thunberg says the widespread suspension of economic activity to slow the coronavirus pandemic shows her demands for instantaneous preventative action against climate change are possible .
Lots of environmentalists have also celebrated the fact that air pollution and CO2 levels have plummeted because of quarantine measures against coronavirus .
Whether the XR sticker or East Midlands Twitter account is real or not , it is hardly surprising that so many recognized its anti-human message .

Written by Connor Tomlinson on Mar 31, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
A Twitter account claiming to represent an Extinction Rebellion (XR) chapter in the East Midlands tweeted last week that the ‘Earth is healing. The air and water are clearing. Corona is the cure. Humans are the disease!’
The post also showed stickers with the same slogan posted on a lamppost.
The tweet and the account were denounced by a number of official XR accounts, which accused far-right groups of putting up the offending stickers and setting up a fake account. The account has since been suspended by Twitter.
Given much of the rhetoric of XR’s activists, spokespeople and supporters, it is hardly surprising that the tweet and posters were widely taken as a legitimate XR campaign.
Indeed, as broadcaster Andrew Neil has pointed out, the ‘fake’ East Midlands account was followed by several XR accounts that are known to be genuine.
Extreme, controversial and anti-human views are nothing new for the Extinction Rebellion.
For instance, XR co-founder Stuart Basden says that the movement ‘isn’t about the climate.’
Rather, it aims to dismantle the ‘cruelty and violence’ of ‘600 years of colonialism’ conducted by ‘European civilization’, and its delusions of ‘patriarchy’, ‘white supremacy’, and ‘heteronormativity’.
Another XR co-founder, Roger Hallam, says that ‘forcing governments to act’ or ‘bringing them down’ in order to enact its policies will require ‘some to die in the process’.
What’s more, the wider environmental movement has tried to connect climate change to COVID-19.
For instance, Greta Thunberg says the widespread suspension of economic activity to slow the coronavirus pandemic shows her demands for instantaneous preventative action against climate change are possible.
Lots of environmentalists have also celebrated the fact that air pollution and CO2 levels have plummeted because of quarantine measures against coronavirus.
Whether the XR sticker or East Midlands Twitter account is real or not, it is hardly surprising that so many recognized its anti-human message.
Read more at Spiked
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-03-31--Gov. Cuomo To Ram Green Energy Plants Down Locals’ Throats

Written by Jonathan Lesser on .
Posted in Latest news Gov .
Andrew Cuomo deserves credit for his handling ( so far ) of the coronavirus pandemic .
But not so for his push to eliminate residents ’ ability to decide for themselves if they want industrial-scale wind and solar projects in their towns .
Upstate communities that don ’ t want such projects blighting their communities have a legal right to veto them .
But Cuomo intends to bulldoze through those rights in the name of a climate-change “ emergency.
” This clash has been a long time coming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ waged war against hydraulic fracturing , or fracking , the technology that has unleashed an energy renaissance of jobs and cheap natural gas .
Last year , Cuomo pushed even further with his green agenda .
Under the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act , passed and signed last year , the state must obtain 70 percent of its electricity from green sources by 2030 and 100 percent by 2040 .
And by 2050 , the state must achieve “ net-zero ” emissions for everything — electricity , motor vehicles , industry , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ benchmarks .
Replacing all of the non-electric fossil-fuel use with wind and solar power will be a Herculean task , not only in terms of the rate at which those renewable resources will have to be developed but also the amount of land it will require .
Hence , this battle with localities .
Upstate New York already is home to most of the existing and proposed wind and solar development — and opposition to that development .
Many upstaters are unhappy about the impact that 500- to 650-foot-tall wind turbines and hundreds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on their communities .
For example , local opposition led developer Apex Energy to withdraw its application for the Lighthouse Wind project last year .
The project would have constructed 600-foot tall wind turbines along the shore of Lake Ontario near the towns of Somerset and Yates .
In 2018 , the town of Hopkinton voted to block wind development , leading to the cancellation of the proposed North Ridge wind farm .
New York is one of 41 states with some form of “ home rule.
” In these states , local @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own zoning requirements and conditions for development .
Some New York communities have welcomed wind and solar ; others haven ’ t .
Cuomo intends to crush local , home-rule-based opposition .
Under the guise of the state ’ s budgeting process , he intends to declare an “ emergency ” that will allow him to revamp the process for approving green-energy projects .
To wit , the projects are to be fast-tracked , with no regard for local opinion .
The state will also acquire needed land , build the necessary infrastructure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it all over to developers .
Property taxes on these developments will no longer be determined locally .
Instead , they will be set based on the state ’ s projections of future revenues from these projects , which will be paid to towns in lieu of property taxes they would otherwise collect .
There will be a two-tiered property tax system : one for local residents and businesses , and a second , more favorable one , for green developers .
The governor ’ s proposal will prohibit any town from requiring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any locally imposed conditions for development , operation and eventual decommissioning .
Conceivably , with the blessing of the state , a wind developer could build a 650-foot tall wind turbine next to an elementary school and , at the end of that turbine ’ s life , simply walk away and force the locals to clean up the mess .
And if a town objects ?
The state can — and surely will — respond with the legal equivalent of an extended middle finger .
Under the proposal circulating in Albany , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ green energy project is if it will have a “ substantive or significant ” adverse impact .
Local opposition , however , “ shall not be considered to be substantive or significant.
” The question , of course , is what would constitute a “ substantive or significant ” objection to building wind turbines and thousands of acres of solar panels near small communities ?
Would concerns over decreased property values count ?
Losses of endangered species ?
Loss of property-tax revenues ?
Reductions in tourism revenues or lower agricultural yields ?
Because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as both judge and jury , the answer is : probably not .
None of these actions will have any measurable impact on global climate .
All they will do is raise New York ’ s already high costs of energy , stifle economic growth and stoke locals ’ resentment against environmental activists .

Written by Jonathan Lesser on Mar 31, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Gov. Andrew Cuomo deserves credit for his handling (so far) of the coronavirus pandemic. But not so for his push to eliminate residents’ ability to decide for themselves if they want industrial-scale wind and solar projects in their towns.
Upstate communities that don’t want such projects blighting their communities have a legal right to veto them. But Cuomo intends to bulldoze through those rights in the name of a climate-change “emergency.”
This clash has been a long time coming. Since 2014, the governor has waged war against hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, the technology that has unleashed an energy renaissance of jobs and cheap natural gas.
Last year, Cuomo pushed even further with his green agenda.
Under the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, passed and signed last year, the state must obtain 70 percent of its electricity from green sources by 2030 and 100 percent by 2040.
And by 2050, the state must achieve “net-zero” emissions for everything — electricity, motor vehicles, industry, you name it.
Those are daunting benchmarks. Replacing all of the non-electric fossil-fuel use with wind and solar power will be a Herculean task, not only in terms of the rate at which those renewable resources will have to be developed but also the amount of land it will require.
Hence, this battle with localities.
Upstate New York already is home to most of the existing and proposed wind and solar development — and opposition to that development.
Many upstaters are unhappy about the impact that 500- to 650-foot-tall wind turbines and hundreds of acres of solar panels will have on their communities.
For example, local opposition led developer Apex Energy to withdraw its application for the Lighthouse Wind project last year.
The project would have constructed 600-foot tall wind turbines along the shore of Lake Ontario near the towns of Somerset and Yates.
In 2018, the town of Hopkinton voted to block wind development, leading to the cancellation of the proposed North Ridge wind farm.
New York is one of 41 states with some form of “home rule.” In these states, local communities have the right to establish their own zoning requirements and conditions for development. Some New York communities have welcomed wind and solar; others haven’t.
Cuomo intends to crush local, home-rule-based opposition. Under the guise of the state’s budgeting process, he intends to declare an “emergency” that will allow him to revamp the process for approving green-energy projects.
To wit, the projects are to be fast-tracked, with no regard for local opinion. The state will also acquire needed land, build the necessary infrastructure, including transmission lines, and hand it all over to developers.
Property taxes on these developments will no longer be determined locally. Instead, they will be set based on the state’s projections of future revenues from these projects, which will be paid to towns in lieu of property taxes they would otherwise collect.
There will be a two-tiered property tax system: one for local residents and businesses, and a second, more favorable one, for green developers.
The governor’s proposal will prohibit any town from requiring developers to obtain any approvals or meet any locally imposed conditions for development, operation and eventual decommissioning.
Conceivably, with the blessing of the state, a wind developer could build a 650-foot tall wind turbine next to an elementary school and, at the end of that turbine’s life, simply walk away and force the locals to clean up the mess.
And if a town objects? The state can — and surely will — respond with the legal equivalent of an extended middle finger.
Under the proposal circulating in Albany, the only acceptable reason to derail a green energy project is if it will have a “substantive or significant” adverse impact.
Local opposition, however, “shall not be considered to be substantive or significant.”
The question, of course, is what would constitute a “substantive or significant” objection to building wind turbines and thousands of acres of solar panels near small communities?
Would concerns over decreased property values count? Losses of endangered species? Loss of property-tax revenues? Reductions in tourism revenues or lower agricultural yields?
Because the Office of Renewable Energy will serve as both judge and jury, the answer is: probably not.
None of these actions will have any measurable impact on global climate. All they will do is raise New York’s already high costs of energy, stifle economic growth and stoke locals’ resentment against environmental activists.
Read more at NY Post
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-03-31--Trump Expected To Ease Obama-Era Mileage Standards

Written by Bradford Betz on .
Posted in Latest news The Trump administration is expected this week to ease Obama-era regulations on fuel emission standards , capping off more than two years of legal battles between the president and states that opposed the move .
The new rule , which will last through 2026 , rolls back one of the United States ’ biggest efforts against climate change .
“ When finalized , the rule will benefit our economy , will improve the U.S. fleet ’ s fuel economy , will make vehicles more affordable , and will save lives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” EPA spokeswoman Corry Schiermeyer said Monday , ahead of the expected release .
The Trump administration says the looser mileage standards will allow consumers to keep buying the less fuel-efficient SUVs that U.S. drivers have favored for years .
Opponents , meanwhile , allege that the new standards will kill several hundred more Americans a year — through dirtier air — compared to the Obama standards .
Even “ given the catastrophe they ’ re in with the coronavirus , they ’ re pursuing a policy that ’ s going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” said Chet France , a former 39-year veteran of the Environmental Protection Agency , where he served as a senior official over emissions and mileage standards .
Delaware Sen. Tom Carper , the senior Democrat on the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee , called it “ the height of irresponsibility for this administration to finalize a rollback that will lead to dirtier air while our country is working around the clock to respond to a respiratory pandemic whose effects may be exacerbated by air pollution.
” Trump ’ s Cabinet heads @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rollback amid the coronavirus pandemic .
The administration — like others before it — is facing procedural rules that will make changes adopted before the last six months of Trump ’ s current term tougher to throw out , even if the White House changes occupants .
The standards have split the auto industry with Ford , BMW , Honda and Volkswagen siding with California and agreeing to higher standards .
Other automakers contend the Obama-era standards will be impossible to meet because consumers have shifted dramatically away from efficient cars to SUVs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dozen other states say they will continue resisting the Trump mileage standards in court .
Last year , 72 percent of the new vehicles purchased by U.S. consumers were trucks or SUVs .
When the current standards went into effect in 2012 , that figure was 51 percent .

Written by Bradford Betz on Mar 31, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The Trump administration is expected this week to ease Obama-era regulations on fuel emission standards, capping off more than two years of legal battles between the president and states that opposed the move.
The new rule, which will last through 2026, rolls back one of the United States’ biggest efforts against climate change.
“When finalized, the rule will benefit our economy, will improve the U.S. fleet’s fuel economy, will make vehicles more affordable, and will save lives by increasing the safety of new vehicles,” EPA spokeswoman Corry Schiermeyer said Monday, ahead of the expected release.
The Trump administration says the looser mileage standards will allow consumers to keep buying the less fuel-efficient SUVs that U.S. drivers have favored for years.
Opponents, meanwhile, allege that the new standards will kill several hundred more Americans a year — through dirtier air — compared to the Obama standards.
Even “given the catastrophe they’re in with the coronavirus, they’re pursuing a policy that’s going to hurt public health and kill people,” said Chet France, a former 39-year veteran of the Environmental Protection Agency, where he served as a senior official over emissions and mileage standards.
Delaware Sen. Tom Carper, the senior Democrat on the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee, called it “the height of irresponsibility for this administration to finalize a rollback that will lead to dirtier air while our country is working around the clock to respond to a respiratory pandemic whose effects may be exacerbated by air pollution.”
Trump’s Cabinet heads have pursued a public health and environment rollback amid the coronavirus pandemic.
The administration — like others before it — is facing procedural rules that will make changes adopted before the last six months of Trump’s current term tougher to throw out, even if the White House changes occupants.
The standards have split the auto industry with Ford, BMW, Honda and Volkswagen siding with California and agreeing to higher standards.
Other automakers contend the Obama-era standards will be impossible to meet because consumers have shifted dramatically away from efficient cars to SUVs and trucks.
California and about a dozen other states say they will continue resisting the Trump mileage standards in court.
Last year, 72 percent of the new vehicles purchased by U.S. consumers were trucks or SUVs. When the current standards went into effect in 2012, that figure was 51 percent.
h/t Rúnar O.
Read more at Fox News
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-04-01--Climate Crisis RIP: People Will Be In No Mood For Needless Panic

Written by Pierre Gosselin on .
Posted in Latest news COVID-19 has not only been a nightmare for the public worldwide but especially for “ climate crisis ” alarmists who have seen their agenda disappear from the media radar .
And it ’ s going to stay off the radar for quite some time .
People can take only so much panic and restriction .
Once the COVID-19 crisis subsides , and it will in a few months , the global citizenry will be in absolutely no mood to keep on panicking .
They ’ ll want to go back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Enough sacrifice and restrictions , ” they ’ ll be saying .
There are several reasons the climate crisis isn ’ t going to come back soon .
First off , it ’ s human nature to address only dangers that are truly present .
Though many believe there ’ s a climate crisis , it ’ s one that is perceived to be years , even decades , off into the future .
So there ’ s no sense of real urgency like the immediate sort we ’ ve been seeing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ level rises 2 feet by 2100 .
I can move in 30 years – long before it ever gets here !
People will be sick and tired of panic Secondly , by the time COVID-19 passes , citizens will be sick and tired of panicking , and they aren ’ t going to be in the mood for a continued high-level panic over something far , far less urgent .
They ’ ll have had enough of lockdowns and sacrificing and aren ’ t going to be very open to sacrificing for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t buying the flaky climate crisis “ science ” A third reason is that the climate crisis is still highly uncertain and increasingly hotly disputed .
Much of the science behind it is flimsy .
While it has been crystal clear that COVID-19 is urgent , especially for the elderly , the climate crisis is fraught with huge uncertainties and flaky science .
Too many people just aren ’ t buying it .
They ’ re going to take the let ’ s-wait-and-see attitude before flying off the handle again .
The media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the high panic Fourthly , the media can ’ t devote the same attention to the “ climate crisis ” that they did to COVID-19 simply because people would just tune them out , and rightly so .
Enough is enough .
People will want to get back to normalcy .
Who in their right mind would want to spend the rest of his life in a state of panic like the alarmists propose ?
Why would people — already fatigued by the COVID-19 panic — worry about a climate doomsday when summer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the hype surrounding Greta and Fridays for Future , a recent study by the organization Media Matters , revealed that there were only 238 minutes of climate crisis coverage by major US networks in 2019 !
So after COVID-19 subsides , the networks aren ’ t going to keep crying doomsday .
They know they ’ ll be tuned out totally if they do .
The climate crisis had gotten little attention Gotten so old Moreover , the climate warnings have been going on more than 30 years now and people had been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reason .
Life on the planet by most measures is far better today .
All the dire predictions made in the 1990s and 2000s never came to pass .
Finally , politicians will be very wary about calling for more pain to combat a distant , dubious threat .
Doing so after going through the pain of COVID-19 would be tantamount to political suicide .
Dictatorship as the last hope for the climate crisis ?
“ As heretical as it may sound , there are valid questions to be raised about whether a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to dealing with an issue that requires short-term sacrifice for long-term benefits , ” wrote Joe Wiggins , a researcher in fund management .
Read more at No Tricks Zone

Written by Pierre Gosselin on Apr 1, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
COVID-19 has not only been a nightmare for the public worldwide but especially for “climate crisis” alarmists who have seen their agenda disappear from the media radar.
And it’s going to stay off the radar for quite some time. People can take only so much panic and restriction.
Once the COVID-19 crisis subsides, and it will in a few months, the global citizenry will be in absolutely no mood to keep on panicking. They’ll want to go back to the prosperity they previously enjoyed.
“Enough sacrifice and restrictions,” they’ll be saying.
Far lower urgency
There are several reasons the climate crisis isn’t going to come back soon.
First off, it’s human nature to address only dangers that are truly present. Though many believe there’s a climate crisis, it’s one that is perceived to be years, even decades, off into the future.
So there’s no sense of real urgency like the immediate sort we’ve been seeing with COVID-19. So what if sea level rises 2 feet by 2100. I can move in 30 years – long before it ever gets here!
People will be sick and tired of panic
Secondly, by the time COVID-19 passes, citizens will be sick and tired of panicking, and they aren’t going to be in the mood for a continued high-level panic over something far, far less urgent.
They’ll have had enough of lockdowns and sacrificing and aren’t going to be very open to sacrificing for the weather.
Too many people aren’t buying the flaky climate crisis “science”
A third reason is that the climate crisis is still highly uncertain and increasingly hotly disputed. Much of the science behind it is flimsy.
While it has been crystal clear that COVID-19 is urgent, especially for the elderly, the climate crisis is fraught with huge uncertainties and flaky science.
Too many people just aren’t buying it. They’re going to take the let’s-wait-and-see attitude before flying off the handle again.
The media aren’t going to keep up the high panic
Fourthly, the media can’t devote the same attention to the “climate crisis” that they did to COVID-19 simply because people would just tune them out, and rightly so. Enough is enough. People will want to get back to normalcy.
Who in their right mind would want to spend the rest of his life in a state of panic like the alarmists propose?
Why would people — already fatigued by the COVID-19 panic — worry about a climate doomsday when summer is finally there?
And despite all the hype surrounding Greta and Fridays for Future, a recent study by the organization Media Matters, revealed that there were only 238 minutes of climate crisis coverage by major US networks in 2019!
So after COVID-19 subsides, the networks aren’t going to keep crying doomsday. They know they’ll be tuned out totally if they do.
The climate crisis had gotten little attention
Chart: Media Matters
Gotten so old
Moreover, the climate warnings have been going on more than 30 years now and people had been tuning them out already and for good reason.
Life on the planet by most measures is far better today. All the dire predictions made in the 1990s and 2000s never came to pass.
Political suicide
Finally, politicians will be very wary about calling for more pain to combat a distant, dubious threat. Doing so after going through the pain of COVID-19 would be tantamount to political suicide.
Dictatorship as the last hope for the climate crisis?
“As heretical as it may sound, there are valid questions to be raised about whether a democratic system with regular elections is suited to dealing with an issue that requires short-term sacrifice for long-term benefits,” wrote Joe Wiggins, a researcher in fund management.
Good luck with that.
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--2020-04-01--To Fight The Pandemic, The World Returns To Fossil Fuels

Written by ccdeditor on .
Posted in Latest news March 2020 will be the month the western world changed .
As March began , there was relative normalcy except in China and isolated places in east Asia .
By month ’ s end , much of the West – indeed , the entire world – was in quarantine .
Entire nations have put their lives on lockdown as we try to “ socially distance ” ourselves to prevent the spread of COVID-19 .
In these unprecedented times , the world has returned to basic truths that manifest themselves when the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ One of those involves fossil fuels .
In an instant , sometimes without realizing it , the world has demanded fossil fuel products , and few concerns have been raised about their carbon footprint .
First among these truths is the production of surgical masks and other protective gear .
Many of the best masks are made of polypropylene , clearly a fossil fuel product .
With COVID-19 raging , there has been little to no discussion of going to less effective paper masks .
The paper might have a less climatic impact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ carbon footprint – but almost without exception , our medical personnel has determined that their health is more important to them than the abstract potential to affect climate change .
Who can blame them ?
Another example is the return of plastic bags at the local supermarket .
Prior to the virus hitting , many markets announced they were stopping the use of plastics bags for their groceries .
It turns out , of course , that single-use plastic bags are far cleaner than other bags people keep in their house and then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the germs and viruses they ’ ve collected along the way with them .
Now , not only are stores returning to fossil fuel-based plastic bags , they are banning reusable ones from being brought in .
The third use of fossil fuels is the medicines we take .
While little known outside the pharmaceutical industry , fossil fuels are the foundation for between 80 % to 90 % of the pharmaceuticals we use .
As with surgical masks , when facing the stark reality of protecting a loved one through drugs that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fend for him/herself in order to fight climate change , few choose the latter .
Perhaps the most important aspect of the use of fossil fuels , however , has been the fact that we have the consistent energy supply that we need during this time to work remotely and to take care of our sick in the hospitals .
As marvelous as solar , wind , and other similar technologies are , they remain intermittent .
We have yet to determine how to store and transmit power when the sun doesn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t blow .
Without that consistent , reliable power supply – the overwhelming majority of which remains powered by fossil fuels – we in the west would have no chance to fight the virus .
Over the next few decades , we will and should be working tirelessly to find new , cleaner ways to power our world and to provide reliable power to the hundreds of millions who go without it .
But before we make that leap into the unknown–and currently unproven–world of a society relying entirely on renewable energy , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a way to inject some realism into a debate that for too long has been driven by idealism .

Written by Thomas Richard on Apr 1, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
March 2020 will be the month the western world changed. As March began, there was relative normalcy except in China and isolated places in east Asia. By month’s end, much of the West – indeed, the entire world – was in quarantine.
Entire nations have put their lives on lockdown as we try to “socially distance” ourselves to prevent the spread of COVID-19.
In these unprecedented times, the world has returned to basic truths that manifest themselves when the price of ideology is too high.
One of those involves fossil fuels.
In an instant, sometimes without realizing it, the world has demanded fossil fuel products, and few concerns have been raised about their carbon footprint.
First among these truths is the production of surgical masks and other protective gear. Many of the best masks are made of polypropylene, clearly a fossil fuel product.
With COVID-19 raging, there has been little to no discussion of going to less effective paper masks.
The paper might have a less climatic impact – although fewer trees also have a carbon footprint – but almost without exception, our medical personnel has determined that their health is more important to them than the abstract potential to affect climate change.
Who can blame them?
Another example is the return of plastic bags at the local supermarket. Prior to the virus hitting, many markets announced they were stopping the use of plastics bags for their groceries.
That didn’t last long.
It turns out, of course, that single-use plastic bags are far cleaner than other bags people keep in their house and then bring to the market – carrying all the germs and viruses they’ve collected along the way with them.
Now, not only are stores returning to fossil fuel-based plastic bags, they are banning reusable ones from being brought in.
The third use of fossil fuels is the medicines we take.
While little known outside the pharmaceutical industry, fossil fuels are the foundation for between 80% to 90% of the pharmaceuticals we use.
As with surgical masks, when facing the stark reality of protecting a loved one through drugs that are carbon-based or letting that loved one fend for him/herself in order to fight climate change, few choose the latter.
Perhaps the most important aspect of the use of fossil fuels, however, has been the fact that we have the consistent energy supply that we need during this time to work remotely and to take care of our sick in the hospitals.
As marvelous as solar, wind, and other similar technologies are, they remain intermittent. We have yet to determine how to store and transmit power when the sun doesn’t shine or the wind doesn’t blow.
Without that consistent, reliable power supply – the overwhelming majority of which remains powered by fossil fuels – we in the west would have no chance to fight the virus.
Over the next few decades, we will and should be working tirelessly to find new, cleaner ways to power our world and to provide reliable power to the hundreds of millions who go without it.
But before we make that leap into the unknown–and currently unproven–world of a society relying entirely on renewable energy, we should use this current crisis as a way to inject some realism into a debate that for too long has been driven by idealism.
Read more at Forbes
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-04-01--Rick Perry Is Sending Up Flares About America’s Energy Sector

Written by Leah Barkoukis on .
Posted in Latest news , Videos The nation is grappling with a virus that the White House coronavirus task force is warning could kill as many as 240,000 Americans .
The economy has come to a grinding halt , and now , former Energy Secretary Rick Perry has another dire warning : the energy sector is on the verge of collapsing .
With Americans advised to slow the spread of the virus by staying home , and guidelines extending now to April 30 , car and air travel have plummeted , which means so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Our capacity is full and the Saudis are flooding this market with cheap oil , ” Perry told Fox News ’ s Tucker Carlson .
“ I ’ m telling you , we are on the verge of a massive collapse of an industry that we worked awfully hard over the course of the last three or four years to build up to the No .
1 oil and gas producing country in the world , giving Americans some affordable energy resources .
“ It ’ s a driver of a massive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he continued .
“ There are some big companies out there , [ but ] there are independents out there that are the real buffer and if we were to lose that , if we woke up a year from now and there were five big companies because all these independents are going out of business and if there ’ s a company called Aramco and a company called Rosneft [ and ] ExxonMobil , Chevron [ and ] BP , if that ’ s it then I would suggest that would make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Carlson interrupted Perry to note that U.S. refiners are being flooded with foreign oil , wondering why we are allowing that to happen .
Perry then said what advice he would give the president for the next two to three months .
“ I would say , refiners , we ’ re going to refine U.S. crude , U.S. crude only .
That would give a buffer to the market , it would send the clear message that we ’ re just not gon na let foreign oil blow in here , bust @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s the most important thing , ” he said .
“ This is about our national security .
This is about Americans ’ ability to defend ourselves [ sic ] .
If our independent operators…if we lost that , we ’ d go back to 1974 , 1975…where we were beholden to countries that didn ’ t have our best interests in mind .
”

Written by Leah Barkoukis on Apr 1, 2020 . Posted in Latest news, Videos
The nation is grappling with a virus that the White House coronavirus task force is warning could kill as many as 240,000 Americans.
The economy has come to a grinding halt, and now, former Energy Secretary Rick Perry has another dire warning: the energy sector is on the verge of collapsing.
With Americans advised to slow the spread of the virus by staying home, and guidelines extending now to April 30, car and air travel have plummeted, which means so too has the demand for oil.
“Our capacity is full and the Saudis are flooding this market with cheap oil,” Perry told Fox News’s Tucker Carlson.
“I’m telling you, we are on the verge of a massive collapse of an industry that we worked awfully hard over the course of the last three or four years to build up to the No. 1 oil and gas producing country in the world, giving Americans some affordable energy resources.
“It’s a driver of a massive amount of our American economy,” he continued. “There are some big companies out there, [but] there are independents out there that are the real buffer and if we were to lose that, if we woke up a year from now and there were five big companies because all these independents are going out of business and if there’s a company called Aramco and a company called Rosneft [and] ExxonMobil, Chevron [and] BP, if that’s it then I would suggest that would make a lot of Americans really nervous.”
Carlson interrupted Perry to note that U.S. refiners are being flooded with foreign oil, wondering why we are allowing that to happen.
Perry then said what advice he would give the president for the next two to three months.
“I would say, refiners, we’re going to refine U.S. crude, U.S. crude only. That would give a buffer to the market, it would send the clear message that we’re just not gonna let foreign oil blow in here, bust our energy industry, and here’s the most important thing,” he said.
“This is about our national security. This is about Americans’ ability to defend ourselves [sic]. If our independent operators…if we lost that, we’d go back to 1974, 1975…where we were beholden to countries that didn’t have our best interests in mind.”
Watch the latest video at foxnews.com
Read more at Townhall
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-04-01--Democrats’ Energy Policies Hurt Black Americans The Most

Written by Ken Blackwell on .
Posted in Latest news Both Democrat presidential candidates , Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders , have bowed to the demands of progressive activists by adopting extreme green energy policies that hurt black American voters .
As a result , leaders of normally progressive/liberal civil rights organizations are now urging Democrats to reconsider support for policies that would radically move us away from traditional and affordable energy like natural gas to unproven green energy .
A rejection of the American energy renaissance in recent years would raise the cost for low-income Americans who struggle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ homes and fueling their cars — particularly in most black neighborhoods .
It is refreshing to see liberal leaders like Marc Morial , the National Urban League president , break with the radical Green agenda .
According to recent media coverage , Morial , and even Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton , has warned against “ an abrupt move away from natural gas.
” Morial argued , “ Natural gas is a bit of a bridge fuel .
It ’ s a fuel that we need to have access to because the transition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ More and more liberal black leaders are advocating for expanding , not restricting , the production and transportation of oil and gas .
They now join thought leaders Kay Cole-James and Herman Cain because they understand how clean-burning natural gas provides their communities with affordable energy .
For example , the Rev .
Jesse Jackson has joined the fight to begin construction on a pipeline that would serve Pembroke Township in Illinois , a township whose 21,000 residents have no access to natural gas heat .
Without a pipeline , residents are left @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stoves that produce toxic gases .
Rev .
Jackson has joined black conservatives like the Rev .
C.L .
Bryant because the Democrats ’ radical climate agenda — led by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez — is forcing him to reject ideological purity .
The far-left Green agenda harms those he wishes to represent .
This message has not been well received by Democratic frontrunner Joe Biden , who has been less than forthcoming on the issue of whether he would work to ban natural gas drilling if elected president .
When pressed on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the former U.S. senator from Delaware said he would insist on “ no new fracking [ the progressive scare word for natural gas drilling ] in America.
” Campaign staff later clarified that Biden meant he opposes new oil-and-gas drilling on federally owned land .
His campaign seems more interested in appeasing progressive extremists than in addressing concerns about whether energy costs would spike under a Biden administration .
Sen. Bernie Sanders , moreover , is even more extreme when it comes to oil and gas .
The junior senator from Vermont @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , aggressively calling for an end to natural gas production across the board .
“ Any proposal to avert the climate crisis must include a full fracking ban on public and private lands , ” he tweeted in September .
If politicians are allowed to exact such a devastating blow on an industry that works overtime to keep people ’ s homes heated during cold months , the end result will not be comforting , especially for black Americans and other minorities .
Black Americans constitute nearly 7 percent of the labor force @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ In fact , as recently as 2015 , blacks held a larger share of oil and gas jobs than in fields as diverse as law , the social sciences , arts and entertainment , architecture , the physical sciences , and the life sciences , ” reports U.S. News .
If the oil and gas industry is eliminated as soon and as aggressively as many Democrats would like , these well-paying jobs will vanish , leaving many black Americans unemployed .
If , on the other hand , the oil and gas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ black American labor force participation in the sector will grow .
“ Because of the American energy revolution , we expect as much as two million new jobs will be needed by 2030 in the industry , ” said Mike Sommers , president and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute .
“ The last two years we ’ ve sponsored an effort called the Energy Research Collaborative to make sure that we have women and minorities represented in those energy companies.
” Black individuals and black families , furthermore , are the ones @ @ @ @ @ @ @ often foregoing food and medicine to pay the heating bill .
Nearly a third of U.S. households reported struggling to pay energy bills , according to an Energy Information Administration report .
Half of those who reported difficulty affording their energy bill are black .
Sen. Sanders and Biden , in attacking the oil and gas industry , target the black community and would make us even more vulnerable and marginalized than we already are .
It ’ s imperative that Americans reject the radical climate change plans falsely marketed as blueprints for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agenda is dangerous and will serve only to hurt the very communities Democrats purport to defend .

Written by Ken Blackwell on Apr 1, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Both Democrat presidential candidates, Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders, have bowed to the demands of progressive activists by adopting extreme green energy policies that hurt black American voters.
As a result, leaders of normally progressive/liberal civil rights organizations are now urging Democrats to reconsider support for policies that would radically move us away from traditional and affordable energy like natural gas to unproven green energy.
A rejection of the American energy renaissance in recent years would raise the cost for low-income Americans who struggle to pay for heating and cooling their homes and fueling their cars — particularly in most black neighborhoods.
It is refreshing to see liberal leaders like Marc Morial, the National Urban League president, break with the radical Green agenda.
According to recent media coverage, Morial, and even Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, has warned against “an abrupt move away from natural gas.”
Morial argued, “Natural gas is a bit of a bridge fuel. It’s a fuel that we need to have access to because the transition to alternatives is a long-range transition.”
More and more liberal black leaders are advocating for expanding, not restricting, the production and transportation of oil and gas.
They now join thought leaders Kay Cole-James and Herman Cain because they understand how clean-burning natural gas provides their communities with affordable energy.
For example, the Rev. Jesse Jackson has joined the fight to begin construction on a pipeline that would serve Pembroke Township in Illinois, a township whose 21,000 residents have no access to natural gas heat.
Without a pipeline, residents are left using old and dangerous appliances like wood-burning stoves that produce toxic gases.
Rev. Jackson has joined black conservatives like the Rev. C.L. Bryant because the Democrats’ radical climate agenda — led by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez — is forcing him to reject ideological purity.
The far-left Green agenda harms those he wishes to represent.
This message has not been well received by Democratic frontrunner Joe Biden, who has been less than forthcoming on the issue of whether he would work to ban natural gas drilling if elected president.
When pressed on the issue during the last Democratic presidential debate, the former U.S. senator from Delaware said he would insist on “no new fracking [the progressive scare word for natural gas drilling] in America.”
Campaign staff later clarified that Biden meant he opposes new oil-and-gas drilling on federally owned land.
His campaign seems more interested in appeasing progressive extremists than in addressing concerns about whether energy costs would spike under a Biden administration.
Sen. Bernie Sanders, moreover, is even more extreme when it comes to oil and gas. The junior senator from Vermont is a fierce opponent of the industry, aggressively calling for an end to natural gas production across the board.
“Any proposal to avert the climate crisis must include a full fracking ban on public and private lands,” he tweeted in September.
If politicians are allowed to exact such a devastating blow on an industry that works overtime to keep people’s homes heated during cold months, the end result will not be comforting, especially for black Americans and other minorities.
Black Americans constitute nearly 7 percent of the labor force responsible for oil and gas extraction.
“In fact, as recently as 2015, blacks held a larger share of oil and gas jobs than in fields as diverse as law, the social sciences, arts and entertainment, architecture, the physical sciences, and the life sciences,” reports U.S. News.
If the oil and gas industry is eliminated as soon and as aggressively as many Democrats would like, these well-paying jobs will vanish, leaving many black Americans unemployed.
If, on the other hand, the oil and gas industry is allowed to meet demand, black American labor force participation in the sector will grow.
“Because of the American energy revolution, we expect as much as two million new jobs will be needed by 2030 in the industry,” said Mike Sommers, president and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute.
“The last two years we’ve sponsored an effort called the Energy Research Collaborative to make sure that we have women and minorities represented in those energy companies.”
Black individuals and black families, furthermore, are the ones hit hardest by high energy expenses, often foregoing food and medicine to pay the heating bill.
Nearly a third of U.S. households reported struggling to pay energy bills, according to an Energy Information Administration report. Half of those who reported difficulty affording their energy bill are black.
Sen. Sanders and Biden, in attacking the oil and gas industry, target the black community and would make us even more vulnerable and marginalized than we already are.
It’s imperative that Americans reject the radical climate change plans falsely marketed as blueprints for saving the planet.
The radical green-energy agenda is dangerous and will serve only to hurt the very communities Democrats purport to defend.
Read more at American Thinker
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print