climatechangedispatch--2020-10-14--BONKERS: NYT’s Krugman Says Charles Koch Wants Barrett To ‘Destroy The Planet’

Written by Joseph Vazquez on .
Posted in Latest news economist Paul Krugman is at it again .
He ’ s promoting a conspiracy theory that libertarian billionaire Charles Koch wants U.S. Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett to — wait for it — destroy the planet .
Sounds like Krugman may have been watching too much Star Wars .
Promoting a Times article headlined , “ Charles Koch ’ s Big Bet on Barrett , ” Krugman tweeted : “ This analysis got somewhat lost in the shuffle , but Charles Koch is going big for Barrett — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ destroy Roe or the ACA , but because he hopes she ’ ll destroy the planet.
” Krugman wouldn ’ t stop , and immediately tried to explain the logic behind that bonkers idea : “ That is , the most consequential effects of a stolen R court majority may not be on health care or right to choose — important as they are — but on gutting environmental policy .
And the survival of civilization seems to me more important than imaginary norms.
” [ Emphasis added . ]
Krugman doesn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ imaginary norms , ” but an idea like this can ’ t be expected to make much sense .
But Krugman wasn ’ t finished .
He pushed another conspiracy theory on the Court should Democrats take control of both the White House and the Senate in November : “ A further thought .
My guess is that if Ds take both the WH and the Senate , the stolen court won ’ t overturn Roe or the ACA , which it knows would lead to quick court expansion .
Instead , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ engage in sustained sabotage of environmental policy.
” Did Krugman miss The Wall Street Journal ’ s recent reporting on U.S. environmental policy ?
According to The Journal , “ it ’ s worth highlighting a new Energy Information Administration report that shows how fracking and competitive energy markets have done more to reduce CO2 emissions over the last decade than government regulation and renewable subsidies.
” But here ’ s the kicker : “ President Trump pulled out of the Paris Climate Accord and eased the Obama-Biden Administration ’ s economically destructive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still leading the world in CO2 reductions.
” Promoting conspiracy theories on Twitter is just par for the course for Krugman .
In June , when CNBC reported that “ Employment stunningly rose by 2.5 million in May and the jobless rate declined to 13.3 % , ” Krugman speculated that Trump may have coerced the Bureau of Labor Statistics ( BLS ) to fudge the numbers .

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
Tanning salon owners charged for violating pandemic restrictions Photo by (Susan Gamble)
Article content Brantford police have charged a North Park Street tanning salon for violating provincial pandemic restrictions.
Advertisement 2 Story continues below This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
Article content Two owners of Java Tanning Salon were charged May 10 with breaching COVID protocols defined under the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act, said police spokesperson Robin Matthews-Osmond. We apologize, but this video has failed to load.
tap here to see other videos from our team. Try refreshing your browser, or Tanning salon owners charged for violating pandemic restrictions Back to video She said no other such charges have been issued to local businesses.
Article content “I know we have educated some businesses on regulations for the purposes of obtaining compliance. Early in the pandemic, complaints were received regarding a couple of restaurants charged for failure to adhere to regulations that apply to indoor dining areas.” As well, police issued a warning on May 9 to the pastor of New City Church, on Lynden Road, about a parking lot outdoor worship service that was held that day. Java Tanning was taking appointments for its services and had reduced the number of people it was allowing in at one time.
Advertisement 3 Story continues below This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
Article content On its door, it posted a trespass notice aimed at police, municipal bylaw and public health officers against entering without a warrant. The notice said it would defend against such “unlawful entry” and warned that force could be used. Another sign said the business recognized it might be fined for being opened and would let the court decide if they are legitimate.” Matthews-Osmond said police had no issues in charging the Java owners. Java sparked a “Twitterstorm” earlier in the month when, in an online posting, it announced, referring to COVID vaccines, that it didn’t want “any clients who have recently been injected with the experimental and possibly infectious cocktail of genetically modifying toxins.” Many people on Twitter called for a boycott of the business, while some on Facebook offered support. One owner told The Expositor the announcement was in response to hearing on social media that a freshly vaccinated person could “shed” the vaccine and cause harm to others. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control has said “there is no way for a COVID-19 vaccinated person to shed vaccine.” SGamble@postmedia.com @EXPSGamble
Article content
Share this article in your social network
Latest National Stories Advertisement 1 Story continues below This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
News Near Brantford


climatechangedispatch--2020-03-30--Another Coronavirus Victim: The Green New Deal

Written by Kevin D. Williamson on .
Posted in Latest news What will happen next with the coronavirus epidemic is unknown , but it seems certain to claim one very high-profile victim : the so-called Green New Deal .
The current crisis in the U.S. economy is , in miniature but a concentrated form , precisely what the Left has in mind in response to climate change : shutting down large sectors of the domestic and global economies through official writ , social pressure , and indirect means , in response to a crisis with potentially devastating and wide-ranging consequences @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What is underway right now in response to the epidemic is in substance much like the Green New Deal and lesser versions of the same climate-change agenda : massive new government spending , political control of critical industries , emergency protocols modeled on wartime practice , etc .
But the characters of the two crises are basically different .
Set aside , for the moment , any reservations you might have about the coronavirus-emergency regime , and set aside your views on climate change , too , whatever they may be .
Instead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are this resistant to paying a large economic price to enable measures meant to prevent a public-health catastrophe in the here and now — one that threatens the lives of people they know and love — then how much less likely are they to bear not weeks or months but decades of disruption and economic dislocation and a permanently diminished standard of living in order to prevent possible severe consequences to people in Bangladesh or Indonesia 80 or 100 years from now ?
For years , we ’ ve been hearing , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That is climate change , ” every time there ’ s a flood or a storm .
If that ’ s the fact , then climate change is , relatively speaking , manageable .
There is no way Americans—or people around the world—are going to agree to endure anything like the current economic downturn in order to prevent problems of that nature .
Without failing to appreciate the severe immediate economic consequences being felt by Americans in this episode , asking retail and service-industry workers to forfeit their incomes for a few months @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relatively manageable thing even if we are ( as I believe we should be ) very liberal in doing what we can to protect them financially in the meantime .
Telling everybody who works in coal , oil , natural gas , petrochemicals , plastics , and refineries — and a great many people who work in automobiles , aviation , shipping , utilities , construction , agriculture , manufacturing , food processing , utilities , and dozens of other fields — that their companies and their jobs are going away forever is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who does business with those people that they ’ ll have to consult Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for solvents and industrial polymers — and , you know , lights — would send waves of chaos rippling around the world hard and so fast that you ’ d need Tom Araya to properly give voice to them .
“ Oh , but we ’ ll find them jobs in the new green economy !
” comes the response .
“ It ’ ll be a net positive !
” As though petroleum engineers were lumps of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by a committee of lawyers in Washington if only we gave them the power .
Nobody is buying that .
Not many people are that stupid .
As I wrote at the beginning of this outbreak , Americans are hard to quarantine .
We may yet end up paying a very heavy price for that — in some circumstances , a non-compliance rate of 20 percent ( i.e.
, if every fifth person is a knucklehead ) will have effects quite similar to a non-compliance rate of 95 percent .
A 51 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but an effective social-distancing regimen requires much more .
Those spring-break clowns down in Florida and the “ coronavirus party ” doofuses in Kentucky are We the People , too , and if they are not willing to spend a couple of weeks watching Netflix to save grandma ’ s life — or their own lives — then do you really think they ’ re going to take an economic bullet over the prospect of losing three percent of world economic output a century from now to global-warming-mitigation costs ?
What we are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like when Washington tries to steer the economy .
There are times when that is necessary , and this is one of those times .
But emergencies do not last forever , and emergency measures should be , by nature , temporary .
The attraction of the climate-change crusade is that it creates a permanent state of emergency .
The Left wants very much to convince Americans that climate change presents an emergency of the same kind requiring the same “ moral equivalent of war ” worldwide mobilization .
One suspects that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now , and the ones who worry that they may be missing them soon , are going to need some convincing .
The adverse effects of climate change are likely to be significant and may prove severe — as noted , many of our progressive friends insist that they already are .
But we have a new point of comparison , and those challenges feel relatively manageable if the alternative is an extended version of the coronavirus shutdown — and no amount of marketing will change the fact that that is precisely what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ months of this is going to be very hard to take .
Nobody is signing up for a lifetime of it .

Written by Kevin D. Williamson on Mar 30, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
What will happen next with the coronavirus epidemic is unknown, but it seems certain to claim one very high-profile victim: the so-called Green New Deal.
Good riddance.
The current crisis in the U.S. economy is, in miniature but a concentrated form, precisely what the Left has in mind in response to climate change: shutting down large sectors of the domestic and global economies through official writ, social pressure, and indirect means, in response to a crisis with potentially devastating and wide-ranging consequences for human life and human flourishing.
What is underway right now in response to the epidemic is in substance much like the Green New Deal and lesser versions of the same climate-change agenda: massive new government spending, political control of critical industries, emergency protocols modeled on wartime practice, etc.
But the characters of the two crises are basically different.
Set aside, for the moment, any reservations you might have about the coronavirus-emergency regime, and set aside your views on climate change, too, whatever they may be.
Instead, ask yourself this: If Americans are this resistant to paying a large economic price to enable measures meant to prevent a public-health catastrophe in the here and now — one that threatens the lives of people they know and love — then how much less likely are they to bear not weeks or months but decades of disruption and economic dislocation and a permanently diminished standard of living in order to prevent possible severe consequences to people in Bangladesh or Indonesia 80 or 100 years from now?
For years, we’ve been hearing, “This is climate change” and “That is climate change,” every time there’s a flood or a storm. If that’s the fact, then climate change is, relatively speaking, manageable.
There is no way Americans—or people around the world—are going to agree to endure anything like the current economic downturn in order to prevent problems of that nature.
Without failing to appreciate the severe immediate economic consequences being felt by Americans in this episode, asking retail and service-industry workers to forfeit their incomes for a few months until their establishments can reopen is a relatively manageable thing even if we are (as I believe we should be) very liberal in doing what we can to protect them financially in the meantime.
Telling everybody who works in coal, oil, natural gas, petrochemicals, plastics, and refineries — and a great many people who work in automobiles, aviation, shipping, utilities, construction, agriculture, manufacturing, food processing, utilities, and dozens of other fields — that their companies and their jobs are going away forever is a much larger thing.
Telling everybody who does business with those people that they’ll have to consult Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for solvents and industrial polymers — and, you know, lights — would send waves of chaos rippling around the world hard and so fast that you’d need Tom Araya to properly give voice to them.
“Oh, but we’ll find them jobs in the new green economy!” comes the response. “It’ll be a net positive!”
As though petroleum engineers were lumps of labor that could be reshaped at will by a committee of lawyers in Washington if only we gave them the power.
Nobody is buying that. Not many people are that stupid.
As I wrote at the beginning of this outbreak, Americans are hard to quarantine. We may yet end up paying a very heavy price for that — in some circumstances, a non-compliance rate of 20 percent (i.e., if every fifth person is a knucklehead) will have effects quite similar to a non-compliance rate of 95 percent.
A 51 percent majority works in a city-council election, but an effective social-distancing regimen requires much more.
Those spring-break clowns down in Florida and the “coronavirus party” doofuses in Kentucky are We the People, too, and if they are not willing to spend a couple of weeks watching Netflix to save grandma’s life — or their own lives — then do you really think they’re going to take an economic bullet over the prospect of losing three percent of world economic output a century from now to global-warming-mitigation costs?
What we are seeing right now is what it looks like when Washington tries to steer the economy. There are times when that is necessary, and this is one of those times.
But emergencies do not last forever, and emergency measures should be, by nature, temporary. The attraction of the climate-change crusade is that it creates a permanent state of emergency.
The Left wants very much to convince Americans that climate change presents an emergency of the same kind requiring the same “moral equivalent of war” worldwide mobilization.
One suspects that the people who are missing their paychecks right now, and the ones who worry that they may be missing them soon, are going to need some convincing.
The adverse effects of climate change are likely to be significant and may prove severe — as noted, many of our progressive friends insist that they already are.
But we have a new point of comparison, and those challenges feel relatively manageable if the alternative is an extended version of the coronavirus shutdown — and no amount of marketing will change the fact that that is precisely what is being advocated.
A couple of months of this is going to be very hard to take. Nobody is signing up for a lifetime of it.
Read more at National Review
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-03-30--Dutch Govt Says COVID-19 More Important Than Climate Plans

Written by Dutch News on .
Posted in Latest news The Dutch cabinet will not come up with new measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions before April 1 as planned , economic affairs minister Erik Wiebes said after Friday ’ s cabinet meeting .
‘ A lot of people , we included , have other things to do at the moment , ’ Wiebes said .
‘ The Urgenda court ruling still stands , but there are other priorities.
’ Last December the Dutch Supreme Court ruled the state is required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to protect the health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ treaty of human rights , ending a seven-year legal process .
The ruling means that the government must now reduce greenhouse gas pollution by 25 % by the end of this year when compared with 1990 .
The plans should have been published next week .
Various researchers suggest the Netherlands is on course to reduce CO2 emissions by only 19 % to 23 % of 1990 levels by the end of this year .
Potential solutions include closing the remaining coal-fired power stations sooner than planned .
The speed limit on motorways @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court case .

Written by Dutch News on Mar 30, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The Dutch cabinet will not come up with new measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions before April 1 as planned, economic affairs minister Erik Wiebes said after Friday’s cabinet meeting.
‘A lot of people, we included, have other things to do at the moment,’ Wiebes said. ‘The Urgenda court ruling still stands, but there are other priorities.’
Last December the Dutch Supreme Court ruled the state is required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to protect the health of its people, under the European treaty of human rights, ending a seven-year legal process.
The ruling means that the government must now reduce greenhouse gas pollution by 25% by the end of this year when compared with 1990. The plans should have been published next week.
Various researchers suggest the Netherlands is on course to reduce CO2 emissions by only 19% to 23% of 1990 levels by the end of this year.
Potential solutions include closing the remaining coal-fired power stations sooner than planned. The speed limit on motorways has already been reduced because of another court case.
Read rest at Dutch News
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-03-30--MEP Erupts At EU For Being ‘Too Focused On Climate Change’, Not Coronavirus

Written by Oli Smith on .
Posted in Latest news , Videos Dutch MEP Derk Jan Eppink said that the coronavirus crisis wreaking havoc across the European Union showed the bloc ’ s weaknesses .
In a furious rant against the EU ’ s response , Mr. Eppink told Ursula von der Leyen ( pictured ) , who is in the European Parliament at the time , that she had failed .
This comes amid a growing rift between EU member-states over how to respond to the growing pandemic .
The scathing assessment of Brussels came during a European Parliament @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health crisis .
Mr. Eppink criticized the European Commission for its slow response , noting that it was too focused on the climate and too little on the health crisis .
The Dutch MEP said : ” We have to ask the question and come to the conclusion that the EU was too late to take this crisis seriously .
“ The US took action and you criticized them for cutting the aviation connections with Europe even though later you did the same !
“ Were you too focused on climate change and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were too late to take action.
” He urged the European Commission to use the €1 trillion pledged for the EU ’ s Green New Deal in the fight against the pandemic .
This echoes the Czech Republic ’ s prime minister , Andrej Babiš , who earlier said the European Union should abandon its Green Deal and focus on fighting the spread of the coronavirus .
Mr. Eppink also criticized the plot to push through corona-bonds , creating a common European debt as a way to soften the economic impact of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new euro bonds or “ coronabonds ” would not be an effective way to revitalize the European economy .
People urgently need cash .
National central banks should instead provide credits at zero interest rates to our citizens and companies.
” The furious attack follows fears that the coronavirus crisis could turn into a huge economic disaster for the European bloc .
On Thursday , EU leaders failed to agree on a joint economic response to the COVID-19 pandemic ravaging the continent .
This failure set off a wave of furious criticism from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Spain France24 revealed that angry exchanges between EU leaders took place during the six-hour video conference call , with “ intense disagreements ” sparking a furious row .

Written by Oli Smith on Mar 30, 2020 . Posted in Latest news, Videos
Dutch MEP Derk Jan Eppink said that the coronavirus crisis wreaking havoc across the European Union showed the bloc’s weaknesses.
In a furious rant against the EU’s response, Mr. Eppink told Ursula von der Leyen (pictured), who is in the European Parliament at the time, that she had failed.
This comes amid a growing rift between EU member-states over how to respond to the growing pandemic.
The scathing assessment of Brussels came during a European Parliament debate on measures to tackle the current health crisis.
Mr. Eppink criticized the European Commission for its slow response, noting that it was too focused on the climate and too little on the health crisis.
The Dutch MEP said: ” We have to ask the question and come to the conclusion that the EU was too late to take this crisis seriously.
“The US took action and you criticized them for cutting the aviation connections with Europe even though later you did the same!
“Were you too focused on climate change and too little on the coronavirus? We were too late to take action.”
He urged the European Commission to use the €1 trillion pledged for the EU’s Green New Deal in the fight against the pandemic.
This echoes the Czech Republic’s prime minister, Andrej Babiš, who earlier said the European Union should abandon its Green Deal and focus on fighting the spread of the coronavirus.
Mr. Eppink also criticized the plot to push through corona-bonds, creating a common European debt as a way to soften the economic impact of the virus.
He said: “The new euro bonds or “coronabonds” would not be an effective way to revitalize the European economy. People urgently need cash. National central banks should instead provide credits at zero interest rates to our citizens and companies.”
The furious attack follows fears that the coronavirus crisis could turn into a huge economic disaster for the European bloc.
On Thursday, EU leaders failed to agree on a joint economic response to the COVID-19 pandemic ravaging the continent.
This failure set off a wave of furious criticism from leaders in Italy, Portugal, and Spain
France24 revealed that angry exchanges between EU leaders took place during the six-hour video conference call, with “intense disagreements” sparking a furious row.
Read more at Daily Express
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-03-30--Sweden Glacier Melt Far More Rapid In Mid-20th Century; Arctic Ice Stable

Written by Pierre Gosselin on .
Posted in Latest news A recent paper published in the Swedish journal Geografiska Annaler : Series A , Physical Geography authored by Holmlund and Holmlund , found that the strongest melts of the Storglaciären in Sweden occurred between the 1930s and 1960s .
The glacier mass even increased from the early 1970s to the mid-1990s .
According to the authors , geodetic volume estimates of Storglaciären in Sweden suggest a 28 % loss in total ice mass between 1910 and 2015 , but the greatest part of the melt occurred in the mid 20th @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were deemed to be at a safe level .
The authors used terrestrial photographs of Tarfala valley , where Storglaciären is situated , from 1910 to allow an accurate reconstruction of the glacier ’ s surface , past volume , and mass .
They found say that the likely start of a melting trend is supported by imagery from 1922 , which shows almost no snow was present on top of Storglaciären , and other glaciers showed tendencies of retreat .
76 % of the mass loss seen from 1910 to 2015 occurred @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in less than half of that 105 year period , they estimate .
The mass change of Storglaciären stabilized and even contained periods of increases in mass after 1970 , their analysis shows .
It appears Arctic ice melt has slowed down over the recent decades and has not accelerated like global warming alarmists like to claim .
Over the past 10 years , Arctic sea ice minimum has not fallen in over a decade : Read more at No Tricks Zone

Written by Pierre Gosselin on Mar 30, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
A recent paper published in the Swedish journal Geografiska Annaler: Series A, Physical Geography authored by Holmlund and Holmlund, found that the strongest melts of the Storglaciären in Sweden occurred between the 1930s and 1960s.
The glacier mass even increased from the early 1970s to the mid-1990s.
According to the authors, geodetic volume estimates of Storglaciären in Sweden suggest a 28% loss in total ice mass between 1910 and 2015, but the greatest part of the melt occurred in the mid 20th century – a time when CO2 levels were deemed to be at a safe level.
The authors used terrestrial photographs of Tarfala valley, where Storglaciären is situated, from 1910 to allow an accurate reconstruction of the glacier’s surface, past volume, and mass.
They found say that the likely start of a melting trend is supported by imagery from 1922, which shows almost no snow was present on top of Storglaciären, and other glaciers showed tendencies of retreat.
76% of the mass loss seen from 1910 to 2015 occurred between 1920 and 1970, i.e. in less than half of that 105 year period, they estimate.
The mass change of Storglaciären stabilized and even contained periods of increases in mass after 1970, their analysis shows.
Arctic sea ice stable over the past 10 years
It appears Arctic ice melt has slowed down over the recent decades and has not accelerated like global warming alarmists like to claim.
Over the past 10 years, Arctic sea ice minimum has not fallen in over a decade:
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--2020-03-30--Study: The Ozone Layer Is Repairing Itself, Affecting Wind Flows

Written by Sam McGriskin on .
Posted in Latest news , Videos While most people ’ s focus remains directed at the coronavirus pandemic , some good news has emerged : a hole in our ozone layer is now in recovery .
The hole—located above Antarctica—is continuing to recover and bringing changes in atmospheric circulation as a result , according to New Scientist .
Many dangerous changes are being brought to a halt in the atmosphere of the Southern Hemisphere due to the ongoing recovery .
Ozone depletion began to bring air currents in the Southern Hemisphere further south in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in ocean currents and rainfall patterns .
Global News reported that the new changes suggest that a ban on producing ozone-depleting substances , called the 1987 Montreal Protocol , is now having a positive effect on the world .
On Wednesday , a research paper released in Science Daily showed that the ozone layer has started recovery due to changing wind patterns .
Antara Banerjee and her colleagues at the University of Colorado Boulder did the research and noted that the ozone layer in the Northern Hemisphere is on track to fully recover @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2030s .
They added that in the Southern Hemisphere should return to that state by the 2050s .
The Antarctic hole is expected to take longer and is estimated to recover by the 2060s .
The recovery is not in direct correlation to the coronavirus outbreak , though positive changes in the environment are beginning to be seen as emissions are decreased around the world .
Economic activity has been drastically limited amid the rapid spread of coronavirus resulting in less CO2 emissions , according to the World Meteorological Organization ( WMO ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ showing that the Northern Hemisphere ’ s colder months usually bring an increase in CO2 emissions though that hasn ’ t been the case this year .

Written by Sam McGriskin on Mar 30, 2020 . Posted in Latest news, Videos
While most people’s focus remains directed at the coronavirus pandemic, some good news has emerged: a hole in our ozone layer is now in recovery.
The hole—located above Antarctica—is continuing to recover and bringing changes in atmospheric circulation as a result, according to New Scientist.
Many dangerous changes are being brought to a halt in the atmosphere of the Southern Hemisphere due to the ongoing recovery.
Ozone depletion began to bring air currents in the Southern Hemisphere further south in the 1980s. This caused a change in ocean currents and rainfall patterns.
Global News reported that the new changes suggest that a ban on producing ozone-depleting substances, called the 1987 Montreal Protocol, is now having a positive effect on the world.
On Wednesday, a research paper released in Science Daily showed that the ozone layer has started recovery due to changing wind patterns.
Antara Banerjee and her colleagues at the University of Colorado Boulder did the research and noted that the ozone layer in the Northern Hemisphere is on track to fully recover to its 1980s levels sometime in the 2030s.
They added that in the Southern Hemisphere should return to that state by the 2050s. The Antarctic hole is expected to take longer and is estimated to recover by the 2060s.
The recovery is not in direct correlation to the coronavirus outbreak, though positive changes in the environment are beginning to be seen as emissions are decreased around the world.
Economic activity has been drastically limited amid the rapid spread of coronavirus resulting in less CO2 emissions, according to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).
Severe Weather Europe conducted a study showing that the Northern Hemisphere’s colder months usually bring an increase in CO2 emissions though that hasn’t been the case this year.
Read rest at The Post Millenial
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-03-30--States Nix Plastic Bag Bans To Avoid Viral Spread, Contamination

Written by Dr. Susan Berry on .
Posted in Latest news States that introduced “ green ” regulations that taxed single-use plastic grocery bags in an effort to eventually annihilate them are now welcoming them back as health officials caution of possible contamination with reusable bags .
Connecticut Gov .
Ned Lamont ( D ) said Thursday he was suspending the ten-cent tax on single-use plastic bags at grocery stores and other retail businesses as one of his actions “ to mitigate the spread of COVID-19.
” “ The latter move is to curb the use of personal bags that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” reported the Journal Inquirer .
Neighboring Massachusetts Gov .
Charlie Baker ( R ) banned reusable bags in stores this week and lifted bans on plastic bags as well “ as part of his administration ’ s latest steps to limit the spread of the coronavirus , ” reported the Boston Business Journal .
“ Baker announced Wednesday that stores can not charge for either paper or plastic bags , which in some communities have previously cost 5 cents per bag , ” noted the report .
New York State and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bans on single-use plastic bags .
In New York , a lawsuit challenging the ban on plastic bags has also been delayed because of the coronavirus crisis .
Basil Seggos , the commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation , disagreed with a postponement of the plastic bag ban and tweeted : New Hampshire Gov .
Chris Sununu ( R ) issued an order Saturday banning reusable bags at stores , asserting they pose a risk of spreading the coronavirus : In order to prevent the spread of COVID-19 through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ secure the safety and protection of the people of New Hampshire … all grocery stores … and any other establishment within this State offering groceries for sale , shall transition to exclusive use of store provided single use plastic or paper bags when bagging groceries or other products for customers .
A report at New Hampshire ’ s Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy asserted that , as many states forged ahead with plastic bag bans , “ concerns about public health tended to be dismissed , even though studies have shown genuine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , for example , researchers at Loma Linda University School of Public Health studied the possible transmission of norovirus through reusable grocery bags ( RGBs ) at the supermarket .
After inoculating RGBs with a surrogate virus to evaluate how the pathogens traveled within a grocery store , researchers found the surrogate virus “ spread to all surfaces touched by the shopper ; the highest concentration occurred on the shopper ’ s hands , the checkout stand , and the clerk ’ s hands.
” The authors concluded the high concentration of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between use .
Yet , many people simply empty them of groceries and meats and then replace them immediately in their cars so as not to be without them for their next shopping trip .
A now widely reported University of Arizona study from 2011 found so much bacteria in reusable grocery bags that the study ’ s lead author called reusable bags “ a serious threat to public health , especially from coliform bacteria including E. coli , which were detected in half of the bags sampled.
” When bags contaminated by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hours , the number of bacteria increased ten-fold .
The study ’ s author warned that “ consumers are alarmingly unaware of these risks and the critical need to sanitize their bags on a weekly basis.
” At the Daily Signal , Jarrett Stepman also pointed to a study published at the Journal of Environmental Economics and Management that found plastic bag bans actually do not significantly reduce waste .
Similarly , Just Facts produced a video in August demonstrating that plastic bags are actually better for the environment than paper and reusable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the current crisis has revealed the misguided nature of plastic bag bans , and now cities and states must move quickly to prevent these bans from exacerbating the coronavirus pandemic , ” Stepman observed .

Written by Dr. Susan Berry on Mar 30, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
States that introduced “green” regulations that taxed single-use plastic grocery bags in an effort to eventually annihilate them are now welcoming them back as health officials caution of possible contamination with reusable bags.
Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont (D) said Thursday he was suspending the ten-cent tax on single-use plastic bags at grocery stores and other retail businesses as one of his actions “to mitigate the spread of COVID-19.”
“The latter move is to curb the use of personal bags that could bring the virus into a store,” reported the Journal Inquirer.
Neighboring Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker (R) banned reusable bags in stores this week and lifted bans on plastic bags as well “as part of his administration’s latest steps to limit the spread of the coronavirus,” reported the Boston Business Journal.
“Baker announced Wednesday that stores cannot charge for either paper or plastic bags, which in some communities have previously cost 5 cents per bag,” noted the report.
New York State and Maine will also delay enforcement of their bans on single-use plastic bags.
In New York, a lawsuit challenging the ban on plastic bags has also been delayed because of the coronavirus crisis.
Basil Seggos, the commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, disagreed with a postponement of the plastic bag ban and tweeted:
No. Folks, if you are concerned about the cleanliness of your reusable bag, please consider washing it— as you wash clothes or hands. It’s good hygiene anyway. New Yorkers are pleased with the bag ban and have no interest in a return to polluting ways. — Basil Seggos (@BasilSeggos) March 12, 2020
New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu (R) issued an order Saturday banning reusable bags at stores, asserting they pose a risk of spreading the coronavirus:
In order to prevent the spread of COVID-19 through grocery sales, and to promote and secure the safety and protection of the people of New Hampshire … all grocery stores … and any other establishment within this State offering groceries for sale, shall transition to exclusive use of store provided single use plastic or paper bags when bagging groceries or other products for customers.
A report at New Hampshire’s Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy asserted that, as many states forged ahead with plastic bag bans, “concerns about public health tended to be dismissed, even though studies have shown genuine potential health hazards.”
In June 2018, for example, researchers at Loma Linda University School of Public Health studied the possible transmission of norovirus through reusable grocery bags (RGBs) at the supermarket.
After inoculating RGBs with a surrogate virus to evaluate how the pathogens traveled within a grocery store, researchers found the surrogate virus “spread to all surfaces touched by the shopper; the highest concentration occurred on the shopper’s hands, the checkout stand, and the clerk’s hands.”
The authors concluded the high concentration of the virus warrants public education about washing RGBs between use.
Yet, many people simply empty them of groceries and meats and then replace them immediately in their cars so as not to be without them for their next shopping trip.
The Josiah Bartlett Center reported:
A now widely reported University of Arizona study from 2011 found so much bacteria in reusable grocery bags that the study’s lead author called reusable bags “a serious threat to public health, especially from coliform bacteria including E. coli, which were detected in half of the bags sampled.” When bags contaminated by meat juices sat in cars for two hours, the number of bacteria increased ten-fold. The study’s author warned that “consumers are alarmingly unaware of these risks and the critical need to sanitize their bags on a weekly basis.”
Andrew Cline, Josiah Bartlett Center’s executive director, told Michael Graham, the political editor at InsideSources.com:
Ill-conceived bans on disposable containers such as plastic shopping bags, water bottles, to-go cups and straws need to be reconsidered along with the many other unnecessary and potentially dangerous regulations this outbreak is exposing. Research clearly shows that poorly handled reusable shopping bags are like little Ubers for dangerous micro-organisms. Governor Sununu deserves credit for taking this public health risk seriously when other state and local elected officials would not.
At the Daily Signal, Jarrett Stepman also pointed to a study published at the Journal of Environmental Economics and Management that found plastic bag bans actually do not significantly reduce waste.
Similarly, Just Facts produced a video in August demonstrating that plastic bags are actually better for the environment than paper and reusable bags.
“The bottom line is, the current crisis has revealed the misguided nature of plastic bag bans, and now cities and states must move quickly to prevent these bans from exacerbating the coronavirus pandemic,” Stepman observed.
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--2020-03-30--Trudeau’s Green Crusaders Can’t See The Forest For The Trees

Written by Kateri Muys on .
Posted in Latest news Canada ’ s boreal forest comprises about a third of the huge forest that circles the northern hemisphere , mostly north of the 50th parallel .
The boreal forest originated with the end of the last ice age and covers a tenth of the Earth ’ s land surface .
Canada has retained 91 percent of the forest that existed since Europeans first settled .
There are 318 billion trees ( more than 8,000 for every one of the 37 million population ) , mostly conifers , and it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grizzly , brown and black bears , 130 species of fish and 300 of birds .
Many other countries have scarcely any of their boreal forest remaining , such as Sweden with only 5 percent left .
The lack of boreal forest in other countries is quite tragic because in Canada the boreal forest is effectively a carbon sponge , capturing and storing carbon in the trees and the peatland .
In Canada ’ s north , the temperature can easily fall to -65 C. The cold acts to hinder the release of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Furthermore , in areas where there is permafrost , the carbon remains trapped under the soil .
A quick google search would reveal a plethora of articles saying that Canada ’ s forest emits more carbon than it absorbs .
When these articles claim Canada ’ s managed forests aren ’ t a carbon sink anymore , they are misleading as the data typically does not include Canada ’ s unmanaged forest , accounting for approximately 35 percent of its total forest area .
So how is it that the Canadian boreal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ carbon sink of 115 million tonnes of CO2 in 1992 to being a source of 221 million tonnes of CO2 in 2015 ?
The Liberal government headed by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his minority government cronies on environmental policies ( the Green Party and New Democratic Party ) say it is clearly a result of , you guessed it , man-made climate change ( see his twitter feed here ) .
It is to suggest flooding , forest fires , and natural disasters did not exist at all prior to the green @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Prime Minister who emphatically joined a climate strike in September in Montreal , Quebec , and met with Greta Thunberg .
She promptly told him he was not doing well enough and he agreed .
As the fourth-largest supplier of oil in the world , never has a nation or a prime minister done so much to torpedo their own nation ’ s major industry .
Countless canceled projects and scandals – Northern Gateway , Energy East , Trans Mountain , Keystone XL , Line 3 and now Coastal Gaslink pipeline .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Despite the self-sabotage , Canada is still projected to fail its ambitious Paris Agreement pledge to reduce emissions by 232 megatonnes in 2030 .
The data indicate that Canada emits 722.29 ( excluding land-use ) megatonnes of CO2 per year and 585 megatonnes result from the energy sector alone ( 2017 ) .
In total , Canada is responsible for 1.6 percent of the global carbon emissions and is the tenth-largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world .
Interestingly enough , Canada has elected not to include the forests when tabulating its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elected to attempt some clever accounting , since negating forest fires could help Canada meet its Paris Agreement pledge .
Surprising that a country can just elect not to include whole sectors ( such as forestry ) and yet Canada is looking into selling carbon credits to other countries in what the Paris Agreement refers to as ITMOs ( internationally transferred mitigation outcomes ) by using the forest to make the claim .
Thus , Canada is hoping the accounting will include wetlands , farmland , and forestry but please exclude the forest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the boreal forest has been suffering from an increase in a variety of factors including forest fires as a result of humans ( setting fires or carelessness ) and lightning , pests ( such as the pine beetle ) , environmental policies against active forest management and to an extent , the modest warming from climate change .
First and foremost , among the culprits , fires are particularly damaging and result in 170 tonnes of CO2 released per hectare burned .
Next , pests are subsiding in recent years but still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the boreal forest .
Then , of course , the forestry industry is heavily regulated , less than 0.5 percent is available to harvest annually ; and thus , the effects on emissions are negligible .
Furthermore , the data actually infers that where there is forestry activity , there is a negative carbon count .
Lastly , the bureaucracy behind the current forest management is laughable and extremely mismanaged .
The climate change alarmists and environmentalists have wormed their way with their degrees in environmental studies into jobs managing the forests , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ‘ green ’ and ‘ clean ’ sectors .
Now they are running the show and crafting policies in the logging and forestry industry that sadly misses the mark .
What we are seeing are ineffective policies from the new wave of clean sustainable management so-called experts when what we need are methods such as strategically planned burns , varying the species regenerated , thinning and proper harvesting of timber .
If Canada were to improve its management of fires , continue to see a decline in pests and increase forestry , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could be negated and the reality is that Canada could be charging other countries for its carbon credits .
Think of the billions Canada could be receiving to compensate for the loss of all those oil and gas projects Trudeau has canceled .
However , I wouldn ’ t hold my breath .
The current government believes everything can be solved with more taxation and the Prime Minister believes the budget will ‘ balance itself ’ , while he travels using not one but two private jets ( though not at the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the boreal forest will continue to be mismanaged despite being one of Canada ’ s strengths and biggest assets in the carbon wars .
Instead , we ’ re banning plastic bags…

Written by Kateri Muys on Mar 30, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Canada’s boreal forest comprises about a third of the huge forest that circles the northern hemisphere, mostly north of the 50th parallel.
The boreal forest originated with the end of the last ice age and covers a tenth of the Earth’s land surface. Canada has retained 91 percent of the forest that existed since Europeans first settled.
There are 318 billion trees (more than 8,000 for every one of the 37 million population), mostly conifers, and it is home to 85 species of mammals including grizzly, brown and black bears, 130 species of fish and 300 of birds.
Many other countries have scarcely any of their boreal forest remaining, such as Sweden with only 5 percent left.
The lack of boreal forest in other countries is quite tragic because in Canada the boreal forest is effectively a carbon sponge, capturing and storing carbon in the trees and the peatland.
In Canada’s north, the temperature can easily fall to -65 C. The cold acts to hinder the release of carbon dioxide from dying and decomposing trees.
Furthermore, in areas where there is permafrost, the carbon remains trapped under the soil.
A quick google search would reveal a plethora of articles saying that Canada’s forest emits more carbon than it absorbs.
When these articles claim Canada’s managed forests aren’t a carbon sink anymore, they are misleading as the data typically does not include Canada’s unmanaged forest, accounting for approximately 35 percent of its total forest area.
Net carbon emissions in Canada’s managed forest: Areas subject to human activities, 1990–2016
So how is it that the Canadian boreal forest has changed from functioning as a carbon sink of 115 million tonnes of CO2 in 1992 to being a source of 221 million tonnes of CO2 in 2015?
The Liberal government headed by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his minority government cronies on environmental policies (the Green Party and New Democratic Party) say it is clearly a result of, you guessed it, man-made climate change (see his twitter feed here).
It is to suggest flooding, forest fires, and natural disasters did not exist at all prior to the green agenda.
In Canada, we have a Prime Minister who emphatically joined a climate strike in September in Montreal, Quebec, and met with Greta Thunberg. She promptly told him he was not doing well enough and he agreed.
As the fourth-largest supplier of oil in the world, never has a nation or a prime minister done so much to torpedo their own nation’s major industry.
Countless canceled projects and scandals – Northern Gateway, Energy East, Trans Mountain, Keystone XL, Line 3 and now Coastal Gaslink pipeline. Canada cannot get anything built.
Despite the self-sabotage, Canada is still projected to fail its ambitious Paris Agreement pledge to reduce emissions by 232 megatonnes in 2030.
The data indicate that Canada emits 722.29 (excluding land-use) megatonnes of CO2 per year and 585 megatonnes result from the energy sector alone (2017).
In total, Canada is responsible for 1.6 percent of the global carbon emissions and is the tenth-largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world.
Interestingly enough, Canada has elected not to include the forests when tabulating its emissions.
Given the option, Canada elected to attempt some clever accounting, since negating forest fires could help Canada meet its Paris Agreement pledge.
Surprising that a country can just elect not to include whole sectors (such as forestry) and yet Canada is looking into selling carbon credits to other countries in what the Paris Agreement refers to as ITMOs (internationally transferred mitigation outcomes) by using the forest to make the claim.
Thus, Canada is hoping the accounting will include wetlands, farmland, and forestry but please exclude the forest fires and pests.
Back in reality, the boreal forest has been suffering from an increase in a variety of factors including forest fires as a result of humans (setting fires or carelessness) and lightning, pests (such as the pine beetle), environmental policies against active forest management and to an extent, the modest warming from climate change.
First and foremost, among the culprits, fires are particularly damaging and result in 170 tonnes of CO2 released per hectare burned.
Next, pests are subsiding in recent years but still serve as the second leading concern hurting the boreal forest.
Then, of course, the forestry industry is heavily regulated, less than 0.5 percent is available to harvest annually; and thus, the effects on emissions are negligible.
Furthermore, the data actually infers that where there is forestry activity, there is a negative carbon count.
Lastly, the bureaucracy behind the current forest management is laughable and extremely mismanaged.
The climate change alarmists and environmentalists have wormed their way with their degrees in environmental studies into jobs managing the forests, no doubt created by Justin Trudeau in the ‘green’ and ‘clean’ sectors.
Now they are running the show and crafting policies in the logging and forestry industry that sadly misses the mark.
What we are seeing are ineffective policies from the new wave of clean sustainable management so-called experts when what we need are methods such as strategically planned burns, varying the species regenerated, thinning and proper harvesting of timber.
If Canada were to improve its management of fires, continue to see a decline in pests and increase forestry, the negative drawbacks of the boreal forest could be negated and the reality is that Canada could be charging other countries for its carbon credits.
Think of the billions Canada could be receiving to compensate for the loss of all those oil and gas projects Trudeau has canceled. However, I wouldn’t hold my breath.
The current government believes everything can be solved with more taxation and the Prime Minister believes the budget will ‘balance itself’, while he travels using not one but two private jets (though not at the same time).
Meanwhile, left alone, the boreal forest will continue to be mismanaged despite being one of Canada’s strengths and biggest assets in the carbon wars. Instead, we’re banning plastic bags…
Read more at Conservative Woman
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-03-30--There Is An Emergency, But It’s Not The Climate

Written by Paul Driessen and David Wojick , guest post on .
Posted in Latest news The many trillions of dollars proposed to be spent under dubious “ green new deals ” should be spent instead ( effectively and within reason ) on health care , especially virus prevention , protection , and cures .
This is the gist of an “ Open Letter to World Leaders ” from the Climate Intelligence Foundation .
The Foundation , or CLINTEL , makes this clear right up front : “ Your Excellencies , compared to COVID-19 , climate change is a non-problem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ models , and it looks into the distant future .
In the current health emergency , however , your attention to the peoples ’ needs is today !
“ Please , don ’ t continue pushing your zero-carbon emission ambition in a time that the world is dealing with a deadly global crisis .
Yes , there is an emergency , but it is NOT climate.
” CLINTEL specifically speaks to the leaders of the UN and EU , saying : “ People need an inspiring narrative that promises them a hopeful future @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is totally inappropriate that the billion-dollar Green New Deal focused on climate is still on the agenda of leaders such as Mr. Antonio Guterres of the UN and Mr. Frans Timmermans of the EU.
” We do not have a manmade climate and weather crisis .
In the EU , green funds could begin flowing to the virus crisis almost immediately , by reprogramming €100 billion ( $ 110 billion ) of European Green Deal money .
The GED has a Just Transition Mechanism to “ help mobilize at least €100 billion over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of “ financial support and technical assistance to help people , businesses and regions that are most affected by the move toward the green economy.
” All they have to do is replace the Mechanism ’ s “ green economy ” with the “ corona crisis.
” All the EU has to do is abandon its compulsory transition to a so-called “ green economy , ” which would , in reality , be very poor and uncompetitive , with tens of millions unemployed .
The European Green Plan ( EGP ) proposes spending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to control the global climate , even as China , India and other emerging economies build hundreds of new coal and gas-fired power plants , hundreds of new airports , thousands of fossil fuel-based factories , and millions of internal combustion vehicles .
CLINTEL says it would be far wiser to spend that money on improving health care , with priority to virus protection .
Far more necessary , too .
Anyone following the coronavirus news out of Italy , France , Spain , Germany , Britain , and other EU countries , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaders know it too .
In the United States , President Trump has signed into law Coronavirus Aid , Relief and Economic Security ( CARES ) Act , the $ 2.2 trillion emergency relief bill , the largest such package in US history .
It will help hospitals and state and local governments , assist with critical medical needs , and provide relief for small businesses and furloughed workers .
It eliminated most of the liberal wish list items in an earlier bill .
Some of that spending should go to upgrading the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ getting COVID patients respirators and medicines that work , conducting clinical trials to evaluate anecdotal evidence about various treatments , and saving lives !
Other spending should assist families whose breadwinners have been laid off by the lockdowns and quarantines , and businesses that have been closed down .
Right now , some 15 million workers are unemployed in the restaurant industry alone , plus millions more in restaurant support industries .
If the business lockdown continues another month or so , some 75 % of independently owned restaurants will never reopen , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the USA , it is minorities who are most seriously harmed by the shutdown , since they dominate worst-affected sectors .
The rest of the money should simply not be spent , especially since it ’ s mostly more government debt .
Spending it would further damage the economy and future taxpayers , in Europe and the United States .
Any thinking legislator should endorse CLINTEL ’ s call for action , instead of foolish green new deals .
But instead , the manmade-climate-crisis-obsessed United Nations continues to pressure all nations to adopt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ soon as its Glasgow climate summit in November .
That underscores how wrongheaded and intransigent the UN has been for decades .
No .
The world needs to fix the current virus problem – and prepare for the inevitable next ones .
The economic crisis due to the corona pandemic will hit all countries , including those with relatively small virus outbreaks at the moment or in the future .
With proper prevention and response systems in place , there is no reason these economic disasters should escalate .
But those systems will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – largely because UN , EU , climate and other eco-imperialist activists for decades have prevented those countries from building fossil fuel , nuclear and even hydroelectric generating plants , forcing them instead to be content with minimal , unreliable , habitat-destroying wind and solar power .
CLINTEL ’ s strong advice to the world ’ s leaders is spot-on : “ To revive the global economy , don ’ t further increase government debts .
Instead , apply the money intended for your costly Green New Deal to the present needs of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID-19 RECOVERY PLAN .
Be aware that , in today ’ s crisis , the conjectural policy of CO2 reduction is highly counterproductive !
” The letter ’ s eloquent summary statement says it all : “ The world is moving to an open global economy of ten billion people .
Top priority must be given to significant investments in a global health system that makes any pandemic less catastrophic .
Considering COVID-19 , climate alarmists and climate critics should admit that global warming is a non-problem .
Therefore , stop fighting , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ together against the deadly virus .
In this tough battle , we need each other !
” Imagine what would happen if abundant , reliable , affordable electricity from fossil , nuclear and hydroelectric were replaced by expensive , limited , intermittent , weather-dependent wind and solar power .
The impacts on our coronavirus response , healthcare , living standards , and life spans would be horrific .
Without reliable , on-demand energy sufficient to power modern , industrialized society – which neither wind nor solar power can provide at current levels of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conditions .
Food and vaccines could not be grown , developed , preserved or transported .
Protective equipment to safeguard front-line health care workers from COVID-19 , and respirators for critically-ill patients , could not be delivered where they ’ re needed , let alone manufactured in the first place .
We would not even have clean water or reliable sanitation systems .
We would not have jobs , industries , decent living standards , or anything approaching a vibrant , functioning , job and tax-generating economy .
That ’ s the situation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Ebola – and will find themselves if ( when ) COVID-19 reaches them .
It is where a GED or GND would take the United States .
President Trump is absolutely right .
We need to fight the coronavirus and keep it from spreading .
But we also need to begin soon to balance the virus threat against threats created by our response to the virus : deaths from COVID-19 itself ( which could be overstated ) versus deaths due to mass unemployment and recession because of the shutdowns : from stress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heart attacks , suicides , and murder-suicides … amid bankruptcies , loss of life savings , and destruction of years of work and sacrifice .
And yet there are some who applaud the corona-economic recession for driving down fossil fuel use and CO2 emissions – or want more wind and solar mandates and subsidies built into any corona response plans .
Our health and economic emergency is real and immediate .
The man-made climate emergency is years or decades away – if it even exists outside the realm of computer models that generate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ average global temperatures accurately … and pseudoscientific studies that blame every observed ( and imagined ) temperature shift , climate fluctuation and extreme weather event on fossil fuels .
Paul Driessen is a senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow ( www.CFACT.org ) and author of books and articles on energy , environment , climate and human rights issues .
David Wojick is an independent analyst specializing in science , logic and human rights in public policy , and author of numerous articles on these topics .

Written by Paul Driessen and David Wojick, guest post on Mar 30, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The many trillions of dollars proposed to be spent under dubious “green new deals” should be spent instead (effectively and within reason) on health care, especially virus prevention, protection, and cures.
This is the gist of an “Open Letter to World Leaders” from the Climate Intelligence Foundation.
The Foundation, or CLINTEL, makes this clear right up front:
“Your Excellencies, compared to COVID-19, climate change is a non-problem! It is based on immature computer models, and it looks into the distant future. In the current health emergency, however, your attention to the peoples’ needs is today!
“Please, don’t continue pushing your zero-carbon emission ambition in a time that the world is dealing with a deadly global crisis. Yes, there is an emergency, but it is NOT climate.”
CLINTEL specifically speaks to the leaders of the UN and EU, saying:
“People need an inspiring narrative that promises them a hopeful future. Today, for instance, it is totally inappropriate that the billion-dollar Green New Deal focused on climate is still on the agenda of leaders such as Mr. Antonio Guterres of the UN and Mr. Frans Timmermans of the EU.”
We do not have a manmade climate and weather crisis.
In the EU, green funds could begin flowing to the virus crisis almost immediately, by reprogramming €100 billion ($110 billion) of European Green Deal money.
The GED has a Just Transition Mechanism to “help mobilize at least €100 billion over the period 2021-2027,” by way of “financial support and technical assistance to help people, businesses and regions that are most affected by the move toward the green economy.”
All they have to do is replace the Mechanism’s “green economy” with the “corona crisis.”
All the EU has to do is abandon its compulsory transition to a so-called “green economy,” which would, in reality, be very poor and uncompetitive, with tens of millions unemployed.
The European Green Plan (EGP) proposes spending a trillion euros on a foolish attempt to control the global climate, even as China, India and other emerging economies build hundreds of new coal and gas-fired power plants, hundreds of new airports, thousands of fossil fuel-based factories, and millions of internal combustion vehicles.
CLINTEL says it would be far wiser to spend that money on improving health care, with priority to virus protection. Far more necessary, too.
Anyone following the coronavirus news out of Italy, France, Spain, Germany, Britain, and other EU countries, knows CLINTEL is right. Awake EU leaders know it too.
In the United States, President Trump has signed into law Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act, the $2.2 trillion emergency relief bill, the largest such package in US history.
It will help hospitals and state and local governments, assist with critical medical needs, and provide relief for small businesses and furloughed workers. It eliminated most of the liberal wish list items in an earlier bill.
(By contrast, any European Green Deal would cost many trillions of dollars, as would the US Green New Deal endorsed by Democrat presidential candidates, to address conjectural future risks. Candidate Bernie Sanders pegs his pet version at “just” $11 trillion, while other estimates run as high as $93 trillion!)
Some of that spending should go to upgrading the health care system, testing people and getting COVID patients respirators and medicines that work, conducting clinical trials to evaluate anecdotal evidence about various treatments, and saving lives!
Other spending should assist families whose breadwinners have been laid off by the lockdowns and quarantines, and businesses that have been closed down.
Right now, some 15 million workers are unemployed in the restaurant industry alone, plus millions more in restaurant support industries.
If the business lockdown continues another month or so, some 75% of independently owned restaurants will never reopen, business insiders say.
Moreover, across the USA, it is minorities who are most seriously harmed by the shutdown, since they dominate worst-affected sectors.
(A suggestion: Order an occasional takeout-pickup meal from local eateries – and leave a generous tip.)
The rest of the money should simply not be spent, especially since it’s mostly more government debt. Spending it would further damage the economy and future taxpayers, in Europe and the United States.
Any thinking legislator should endorse CLINTEL’s call for action, instead of foolish green new deals.
But instead, the manmade-climate-crisis-obsessed United Nations continues to pressure all nations to adopt expensive zero-carbon dioxide plans, preferably as soon as its Glasgow climate summit in November.
That underscores how wrongheaded and intransigent the UN has been for decades. No. The world needs to fix the current virus problem – and prepare for the inevitable next ones.
The economic crisis due to the corona pandemic will hit all countries, including those with relatively small virus outbreaks at the moment or in the future.
With proper prevention and response systems in place, there is no reason these economic disasters should escalate.
But those systems will not be in place in impoverished nations – largely because UN, EU, climate and other eco-imperialist activists for decades have prevented those countries from building fossil fuel, nuclear and even hydroelectric generating plants, forcing them instead to be content with minimal, unreliable, habitat-destroying wind and solar power.
CLINTEL’s strong advice to the world’s leaders is spot-on:
“To revive the global economy, don’t further increase government debts. Instead, apply the money intended for your costly Green New Deal to the present needs of people and society. Call it the COVID-19 RECOVERY PLAN. Be aware that, in today’s crisis, the conjectural policy of CO2 reduction is highly counterproductive!”
The letter’s eloquent summary statement says it all:
“The world is moving to an open global economy of ten billion people. Top priority must be given to significant investments in a global health system that makes any pandemic less catastrophic. Considering COVID-19, climate alarmists and climate critics should admit that global warming is a non-problem. Therefore, stop fighting, step over your own shadow and work together against the deadly virus. In this tough battle, we need each other!”
Imagine what would happen if abundant, reliable, affordable electricity from fossil, nuclear and hydroelectric were replaced by expensive, limited, intermittent, weather-dependent wind and solar power.
The impacts on our coronavirus response, healthcare, living standards, and life spans would be horrific.
Without reliable, on-demand energy sufficient to power modern, industrialized society – which neither wind nor solar power can provide at current levels of technology – hospitals could not maintain sterile conditions.
Food and vaccines could not be grown, developed, preserved or transported. Protective equipment to safeguard front-line health care workers from COVID-19, and respirators for critically-ill patients, could not be delivered where they’re needed, let alone manufactured in the first place.
We would not even have clean water or reliable sanitation systems. We would not have jobs, industries, decent living standards, or anything approaching a vibrant, functioning, job and tax-generating economy.
That’s the situation African and other impoverished nations found themselves with Ebola – and will find themselves if (when) COVID-19 reaches them. It is where a GED or GND would take the United States.
President Trump is absolutely right. We need to fight the coronavirus and keep it from spreading.
But we also need to begin soon to balance the virus threat against threats created by our response to the virus: deaths from COVID-19 itself (which could be overstated) versus deaths due to mass unemployment and recession because of the shutdowns: from stress, depression, despair, strokes, heart attacks, suicides, and murder-suicides … amid bankruptcies, loss of life savings, and destruction of years of work and sacrifice.
And yet there are some who applaud the corona-economic recession for driving down fossil fuel use and CO2 emissions – or want more wind and solar mandates and subsidies built into any corona response plans.
Our health and economic emergency is real and immediate.
The man-made climate emergency is years or decades away – if it even exists outside the realm of computer models that generate worst-case scenarios but cannot even forecast average global temperatures accurately … and pseudoscientific studies that blame every observed (and imagined) temperature shift, climate fluctuation and extreme weather event on fossil fuels.
Fight the virus, not carbon.
Paul Driessen is a senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of books and articles on energy, environment, climate and human rights issues. David Wojick is an independent analyst specializing in science, logic and human rights in public policy, and author of numerous articles on these topics.
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-03-27--Activist Judge Orders Review Of Pipeline Moving Oil For 3 Years

Written by Penny Starr on .
Posted in Latest news A judge with United States District Court for the District of Columbia ordered a review and could bring operations to a halt of a pipeline in North Dakota that has been successfully operating for the past three years since President Donald Trump kept a campaign promise to get oil and gas pipelines online , which had been repeatedly delayed during the Obama administration .
Judge James Boasberg wrote that the easement approval for the pipeline is “ highly controversial ” and a “ more extensive review is necessary than the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Associated Press ( AP ) reported .
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Chairman Mike Faith told AP it a “ significant legal win.
” The tribe claims the pipeline threatens polluting water supplies .
“ Perhaps in the wake of this court ruling the federal government will begin to catch on , too , starting by actually listening to us when we voice our concerns , ” Faith said in a statement .
“ Craig Stevens , a spokesman for the GAIN Coalition , a group that supports large infrastructure projects , said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s economic and energy security , ” AP reported .
“ This is a stunning decision that flies in the face of decades of widely accepted practice , ” Stevens said in a statement .
“ The Dakota Access Pipeline is already the most studied , regulated , and litigated pipeline in the history of our country and has been safely operating for nearly three years.
” A fact sheet from Energy Transfer , which operates the pipeline , describes it : The Dakota Access Pipeline is a 1,172-mile underground 30″ pipeline transporting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Forks production area in North Dakota to Patoka , Illinois .
Safely operating since June of 2017 , the Dakota Access Pipeline now transports 570,000 barrels of oil per day .
The pipeline is the safest and most efficient means to transport crude oil from the geographically constrained region , providing better access to Gulf Coast and Midwest refineries and other downstream markets .
The Dakota Access Pipeline created approximately 8,000 to 12,000 jobs during construction .
It put highly skilled union mechanics , electricians , pipefitters , heavy equipment operators and others @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Local economies benefited from workers using hotels , motels , restaurants and other services .
And since the start of operation , the pipeline has been paying millions in property taxes to states each year .
These tax dollars have been used to support schools , hospitals , emergency services and other critical ongoing needs .
We remain an active member of the communities the pipeline traverses , which is a core aspect of our business .
AP reported on what might come next : It ’ s not clear whether the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Boasberg ordered both parties to submit briefs on whether the pipeline should continue operating during the period of the new environmental review .
The pipeline was the subject of months of protests , sometimes violent , during its construction in late 2016 and early 2017 near the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation that straddles the North Dakota-South Dakota border .
The Standing Rock tribe continued to press litigation against the pipeline even after it began carrying oil from North Dakota across several states to a shipping point in Illinois in June 2017 .
AP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including Jan Hasselman , an attorney with the leftwing Earthjustice which represents the Standing Rock tribe .
The group said the Obama administration “ had it right ” in its efforts to block the pipeline .

Written by Penny Starr on Mar 27, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
A judge with United States District Court for the District of Columbia ordered a review and could bring operations to a halt of a pipeline in North Dakota that has been successfully operating for the past three years since President Donald Trump kept a campaign promise to get oil and gas pipelines online, which had been repeatedly delayed during the Obama administration.
Judge James Boasberg wrote that the easement approval for the pipeline is “highly controversial” and a “more extensive review is necessary than the environmental assessment that was done,” the Associated Press (AP) reported.
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Chairman Mike Faith told AP it a “significant legal win.” The tribe claims the pipeline threatens polluting water supplies.
“Perhaps in the wake of this court ruling the federal government will begin to catch on, too, starting by actually listening to us when we voice our concerns,” Faith said in a statement.
“Craig Stevens, a spokesman for the GAIN Coalition, a group that supports large infrastructure projects, said the decision could jeopardize the nation’s economic and energy security,” AP reported.
“This is a stunning decision that flies in the face of decades of widely accepted practice,” Stevens said in a statement. “The Dakota Access Pipeline is already the most studied, regulated, and litigated pipeline in the history of our country and has been safely operating for nearly three years.”
A fact sheet from Energy Transfer, which operates the pipeline, describes it:
The Dakota Access Pipeline is a 1,172-mile underground 30″ pipeline transporting light sweet crude oil from the Bakken/Three Forks production area in North Dakota to Patoka, Illinois. Safely operating since June of 2017, the Dakota Access Pipeline now transports 570,000 barrels of oil per day. The pipeline is the safest and most efficient means to transport crude oil from the geographically constrained region, providing better access to Gulf Coast and Midwest refineries and other downstream markets. The Dakota Access Pipeline created approximately 8,000 to 12,000 jobs during construction. It put highly skilled union mechanics, electricians, pipefitters, heavy equipment operators and others within the heavy construction industry to work. Local economies benefited from workers using hotels, motels, restaurants and other services. And since the start of operation, the pipeline has been paying millions in property taxes to states each year. These tax dollars have been used to support schools, hospitals, emergency services and other critical ongoing needs. We remain an active member of the communities the pipeline traverses, which is a core aspect of our business.
AP reported on what might come next:
It’s not clear whether the ruling will shut down the pipeline. Boasberg ordered both parties to submit briefs on whether the pipeline should continue operating during the period of the new environmental review. The pipeline was the subject of months of protests, sometimes violent, during its construction in late 2016 and early 2017 near the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation that straddles the North Dakota-South Dakota border. The Standing Rock tribe continued to press litigation against the pipeline even after it began carrying oil from North Dakota across several states to a shipping point in Illinois in June 2017.
AP interviewed environmentalist activists who oppose fossil fuel, including Jan Hasselman, an attorney with the leftwing Earthjustice which represents the Standing Rock tribe. The group said the Obama administration “had it right” in its efforts to block the pipeline.
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--2020-03-27--‘Conservative’ WaPo Writer Uses Virus To Spew Climate Agitprop

Written by Joseph Vazquez on .
Posted in Latest news Looks like eco-extremists in the liberal media aren ’ t the only ones who ’ ll use the coronavirus pandemic to push their climate change talking points .
Now , The Washington Post ’ s self-proclaimed “ conservative ” opinion writer is using the pandemic to spew the same eco-propaganda nonsense others on the left have at President Donald Trump and Republicans .
Jennifer Rubin wrote a column headlined “ Can the Coronavirus Obliterate Some Republican Myths ?
” She babbled that the much-hyped “ climate-change crisis ” finds a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” “ Both the pandemic and climate change are inescapable facts with deadly outcomes unless our behavior radically changes , ” Rubin quipped .
Then she let loose : Did Rubin forget that her own newspaper published a story Jan. 31 headlined “ How our brains make coronavirus seem scarier than it is ” ?
Maybe she forgot her paper ’ s Feb. 1 story headlined “ Get a grippe , America .
The flu is a much bigger threat than coronavirus , for now ” ?
She then circled back to her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the irony in casting the president ’ s labeling of the coronavirus as political while she compares the pandemic to climate change ?
Perhaps she also missed MRCTV ’ s montage of liberal media talking heads referring to COVID-19 as the “ Wuhan ” or “ Chinese Coronavirus ” ?
Her argument then devolved further into mindless hyperbole against the president and the GOP : “ Trump is worse than useless ; he stymies others from acting ( as he did despite months of warnings about the pandemic from national security personnel ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cooperation we need to effectuate social distancing .
The question raised by the coronavirus is whether it will recalibrate the thinking of Republicans in any material way .
Decades of demonizing government and the degree to which Trump ’ s anti-truth , anti-reality mentality ( enabled by a right-wing echo chamber ) have seeped into the Republican bloodstream are hard to ignore .
They have placed us in grave peril .
And now even Republicans must turn to science and to government , ” [ emphasis added ] .

Written by Joseph Vazquez on Mar 27, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Looks like eco-extremists in the liberal media aren’t the only ones who’ll use the coronavirus pandemic to push their climate change talking points.
Now, The Washington Post’s self-proclaimed “conservative” opinion writer is using the pandemic to spew the same eco-propaganda nonsense others on the left have at President Donald Trump and Republicans.
Jennifer Rubin wrote a column headlined “Can the Coronavirus Obliterate Some Republican Myths?” She babbled that the much-hyped “climate-change crisis” finds a “parallel in the global Covid-19 pandemic.”
“Both the pandemic and climate change are inescapable facts with deadly outcomes unless our behavior radically changes,” Rubin quipped.
Then she let loose:
“Right-wing populists obsessed with fanning xenophobia and distrust of intellectuals have been denying climate change for years, painting it as a ‘hoax’ cooked up by China to undermine America’s way of life. It’s scarily familiar to the coronavirus huh?” [Emphasis added.]
Did Rubin forget that her own newspaper published a story Jan. 31 headlined “How our brains make coronavirus seem scarier than it is”?
Maybe she forgot her paper’s Feb. 1 story headlined “Get a grippe, America. The flu is a much bigger threat than coronavirus, for now”?
She then circled back to her typical Trump-bashing:
“President Trump’s use of ‘Chinese virus’ (not even “China virus”) serves not only to cast blame elsewhere but to convert a science and math problem (stopping community spread, flattening the curve) into a political issue.” [Emphasis added.]
Does Rubin not see the irony in casting the president’s labeling of the coronavirus as political while she compares the pandemic to climate change?
Perhaps she also missed MRCTV’s montage of liberal media talking heads referring to COVID-19 as the “Wuhan” or “Chinese Coronavirus”?
Her argument then devolved further into mindless hyperbole against the president and the GOP:
“Trump is worse than useless; he stymies others from acting (as he did despite months of warnings about the pandemic from national security personnel) and misleads the public, undermining the cooperation we need to effectuate social distancing. The question raised by the coronavirus is whether it will recalibrate the thinking of Republicans in any material way. Decades of demonizing government and the degree to which Trump’s anti-truth, anti-reality mentality (enabled by a right-wing echo chamber) have seeped into the Republican bloodstream are hard to ignore. They have placed us in grave peril. And now even Republicans must turn to science and to government,” [emphasis added].
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--2020-03-27--Wealthy Hypocrites Are The Real Climate Deniers

Written by Lorrie Goldstein on .
Posted in Latest news A recent study by the University of Leeds in the U.K. says rich people are most to blame for human-induced climate change .
As reported by the BBC , the wealthiest 10 % of people in the 86 countries surveyed consume 20 times more fossil fuel energy than the poorest 10 % .
The largest disparity is in the transportation sector , where the top 10 % consume 187 times more fossil fuel energy than the bottom 10 % .
Poor people have always been the world ’ s greatest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Canada , who thinks human-induced climate change is a hoax , is doing far more to “ save the planet ” than all of the rich and relatively rich people who mock and denounce him , or her , as a “ climate denier.
” He , or she , is a better environmentalist than our current prime minister , or anyone in his cabinet , or in our elite , chattering classes who imagine themselves to be climate crusaders .
Ditto the never-ending array of global celebrities who tell everyone else to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in private jets and vacationing on luxury yachts .
Poor people are the world ’ s greatest environmentalists because they consume less than rich people .
They live in small apartments , not mansions .
They take public transit , not cars .
They don ’ t go on exotic vacations .
They have few material possessions .
Since almost all goods and services consume fossil fuel energy , their carbon footprints are small because they consume less .
In responding to the study ’ s findings published in Nature Energy , Prof. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tyndall Centre for Climate Research — who wasn ’ t involved in the report — admirably stated the painfully obvious when it comes to the chattering classes .
As he told the BBC : “ This study tells relatively wealthy people like us what we don ’ t want to hear .
The climate issue is framed by us high-emitters — the politicians , business people , journalists , academics … We have convinced ourselves that our lives are normal , yet the numbers tell a very different story.
” Anyone who tells @ @ @ @ @ @ @ planet is a hypocrite unless and until they ’ re willing to consume less themselves .
Nor can the rich claim to reduce their carbon footprints by buying carbon offsets , because the only credible way to reduce one ’ s carbon footprint is not to emit fossil fuel energy in the first place .
Carbon offsets are the modern equivalent of papal indulgences — paying for sin , without giving up the sin , hardly anything new for the rich .
The other way hypocritical elites attempt to guilt-trip everyone else on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on about Canada ’ s high “ per capita ” emissions — as if every Canadian has an oil well in his or her backyard and is endangering life on earth by exploiting it .
( Albeit not at current prices . )
Our per capita emissions are high — compared to those in the developing world — because we live in a big , cold , northern , sparsely-populated , industrialized country with significant fossil fuel resources .
It ’ s true , for example , that Canada ’ s per capita @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than for the poor in China , but it ’ s misleading to talk about average per capita emissions in Canada when emissions are directly linked to income and standard of living .
The richer one is , the greater the emissions .
All of which means if you ’ re genuinely concerned about human-induced climate change , blame those rich people who are lecturing you about climate change .

Written by Lorrie Goldstein on Mar 27, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
A recent study by the University of Leeds in the U.K. says rich people are most to blame for human-induced climate change.
As reported by the BBC, the wealthiest 10% of people in the 86 countries surveyed consume 20 times more fossil fuel energy than the poorest 10%.
The largest disparity is in the transportation sector, where the top 10% consume 187 times more fossil fuel energy than the bottom 10%.
This isn’t surprising.
Poor people have always been the world’s greatest environmentalists.
A minimum wage worker in Canada, who thinks human-induced climate change is a hoax, is doing far more to “save the planet” than all of the rich and relatively rich people who mock and denounce him, or her, as a “climate denier.”
He, or she, is a better environmentalist than our current prime minister, or anyone in his cabinet, or in our elite, chattering classes who imagine themselves to be climate crusaders.
Ditto the never-ending array of global celebrities who tell everyone else to consume less while flying around the world in private jets and vacationing on luxury yachts.
Poor people are the world’s greatest environmentalists because they consume less than rich people.
They live in small apartments, not mansions.
They take public transit, not cars.
They don’t go on exotic vacations.
They don’t fly.
They have few material possessions.
Since almost all goods and services consume fossil fuel energy, their carbon footprints are small because they consume less.
In responding to the study’s findings published in Nature Energy, Prof. Kevin Anderson of the U.K.’s Tyndall Centre for Climate Research — who wasn’t involved in the report — admirably stated the painfully obvious when it comes to the chattering classes.
As he told the BBC:
“This study tells relatively wealthy people like us what we don’t want to hear. The climate issue is framed by us high-emitters — the politicians, business people, journalists, academics … We have convinced ourselves that our lives are normal, yet the numbers tell a very different story.”
Anyone who tells others to consume less to save the planet is a hypocrite unless and until they’re willing to consume less themselves.
Nor can the rich claim to reduce their carbon footprints by buying carbon offsets, because the only credible way to reduce one’s carbon footprint is not to emit fossil fuel energy in the first place.
Carbon offsets are the modern equivalent of papal indulgences — paying for sin, without giving up the sin, hardly anything new for the rich.
The other way hypocritical elites attempt to guilt-trip everyone else on this issue is to go on and on about Canada’s high “per capita” emissions — as if every Canadian has an oil well in his or her backyard and is endangering life on earth by exploiting it. (Albeit not at current prices.)
Our per capita emissions are high — compared to those in the developing world — because we live in a big, cold, northern, sparsely-populated, industrialized country with significant fossil fuel resources.
It’s true, for example, that Canada’s per capita emissions for poor people are far higher than for the poor in China, but it’s misleading to talk about average per capita emissions in Canada when emissions are directly linked to income and standard of living.
The richer one is, the greater the emissions.
All of which means if you’re genuinely concerned about human-induced climate change, blame those rich people who are lecturing you about climate change.
Read more at Toronto Sun
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print