climatechangedispatch--2020-05-05--Hudson Valley Couple Sues Green Cabal To Save Their Property

Written by Bonner Cohen , Ph.D. on .
Posted in Latest news A Hudson River Valley couple who have spent the last 33 years battling well-funded and well-connected Green groups and New York state officials intent on taking their property are hauling their tormentors into federal court .
In a suit filed April 13 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York , Michael Fink and Karen Pardini seek $ 7.3 million from the Mohonk Preserve as “ just compensation ” for the taking of their property , along with a permanent injunction against the Mohonk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Space Institute , the Shawangunk Conservancy , the Land Trust Alliance , the New York State Conservation Partnership Program , “ and others acting in concert , barring them from further efforts to take Fink and Pardini ’ s land.
” When Fink and Pardini purchased about 300 acres of ridge land in the Shawangunk Mountains in 1987 , they envisioned the picturesque spot as a place where they could build the home of their dreams .
The heavily wooded property had once been home to “ Smithy ’ s Ranch , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Ulster County , New York .
They even thought of reopening the long-shuttered ranch to a new generation of guests .
Their plans , however , ran afoul of powerful interests who coveted the property and who were determined to get ahold of the land , come what may .
The couple ’ s property adjoins the Mohonk Preserve , New York State ’ s largest nature preserve .
Encompassing 8,000 acres , Mohonk Preserve is a formidable presence in the area , and its management is eager to acquire even more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fink and Pardini .
The property known as Smitty ’ s Ranch had been assembled over many decades from various parcels , all part of a tract that dated to 1799 .
Instead of going after all of Fink and Pardini ’ s property in one fell swoop , the cabal coveting their land took a piece-meal approach , using lawsuits and harassment to gobble up chunks of the property , hoping the beleaguered couple would eventually throw in the towel .
The defendants claim that their actions were taken to forestall “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in fact , no such development has taken place in the 33 years since Fink and Pardini acquired the property .
In an ominous sign of things to come , attorney Robert K. Anderberg , a board member of the Mohonk Preserve and founder of the Shawangunk Conservancy , told Fink ’ s sister in the late 1980s to let her brother know Anderberg “ would watch over every single thing [ Fink ] did and do everything in his power to take that land from [ Fink ] , ” according @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a local resident whose property is nearby that the land in dispute “ is the most important property in the Shawangunk Ridge , a privately-owned piece of property , and by hook or by crook he was going to get it , ” according to court documents .
These were not idle threats .
Beginning in 1994 and continuing for over two decades , Fink and Pardini were in and out of court , fighting to hold on to their property on which they were paying taxes , keeping roads and pathways clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against them was a phalanx of deep-pocketed green groups intent on acquiring land for alleged conservation purposes , often in league with state officials .
The interlocking relationships and revolving doors among these public and private parties were tailor-made to overwhelm anyone who stood in their way .
In addition to the ubiquitous Anderberg and working on behalf of the Mohonk Preserve and the Shawangunk Conservancy , those lining up against Fink and Pardini were the Manhattan-based Open Space Institute ( OSI ) , the Washington D.C.-based Land Trust Alliance ( LTA ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Saratoga Springs , NY ) , and the Conservation Partnership Program ( CPP ) , a partnership between the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ( DEC ) and the LTA ’ s New York program .
Significantly , the CCP offers “ competitive matching grants ” to “ qualified New York land trusts to advance land conservation , recreation , and tourism.
” The public-private partnership between DEC and LTA was created in 2002 and is managed by LTA in coordination with DEC .
The “ public-private partnership ” was also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fink and Pardini ’ s land .
Their attorney , John .
L. Liddle , points out that the New York DEC contributed $ 15,000 to the Mohonk Preserve for “ conservation defense ” “ ostensibly for legal fees in their action against Fink and Pardini.
” Liddle notes further that the activities of the defendants are “ highly intertwined ” and that high-level officials within the Mohonk Preserve , Shawangunk Conservancy , and OSI “ circulate among these organizations and New York state environmental positions.
” Summarizing his case , Liddle writes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and claiming to effectuate the State ’ s codified policy of ecological conservation , ’ have been able to obtain , finance , litigate , and use for private purposes Fink ’ s and Pardini ’ s land , and the land of others , to accumulate large contiguous parcels in the Shawangunk Ridge .
These takings have frequently been accomplished ‘ by hook or by crook.
’ Although these takings are justified as accomplishing the State ’ s policies , there has not been just compensation or any limitation to the takings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the State ’ s policy.
” The case , which will be closely watched by property rights advocates , is Michael Fink and Karen Pardini v. Mohonk Preserve Inc. et al .

Written by Bonner Cohen, Ph.D. on May 5, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
A Hudson River Valley couple who have spent the last 33 years battling well-funded and well-connected Green groups and New York state officials intent on taking their property are hauling their tormentors into federal court.
In a suit filed April 13 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Michael Fink and Karen Pardini seek $7.3 million from the Mohonk Preserve as “just compensation” for the taking of their property, along with a permanent injunction against the Mohonk Preserve (pictured), the Open Space Institute, the Shawangunk Conservancy, the Land Trust Alliance, the New York State Conservation Partnership Program, “and others acting in concert, barring them from further efforts to take Fink and Pardini’s land.”
When Fink and Pardini purchased about 300 acres of ridge land in the Shawangunk Mountains in 1987, they envisioned the picturesque spot as a place where they could build the home of their dreams.
The heavily wooded property had once been home to “Smithy’s Ranch,” a popular watering hole near New Paltz in Ulster County, New York. They even thought of reopening the long-shuttered ranch to a new generation of guests.
Their plans, however, ran afoul of powerful interests who coveted the property and who were determined to get ahold of the land, come what may. The couple’s property adjoins the Mohonk Preserve, New York State’s largest nature preserve.
Encompassing 8,000 acres, Mohonk Preserve is a formidable presence in the area, and its management is eager to acquire even more land, including the property owned by Fink and Pardini.
The property known as Smitty’s Ranch had been assembled over many decades from various parcels, all part of a tract that dated to 1799.
Instead of going after all of Fink and Pardini’s property in one fell swoop, the cabal coveting their land took a piece-meal approach, using lawsuits and harassment to gobble up chunks of the property, hoping the beleaguered couple would eventually throw in the towel.
The defendants claim that their actions were taken to forestall “rapacious development” of the land when, in fact, no such development has taken place in the 33 years since Fink and Pardini acquired the property.
“By Hook or by Crook”
In an ominous sign of things to come, attorney Robert K. Anderberg, a board member of the Mohonk Preserve and founder of the Shawangunk Conservancy, told Fink’s sister in the late 1980s to let her brother know Anderberg “would watch over every single thing [Fink] did and do everything in his power to take that land from [Fink],” according to court documents.
Anderberg also told a local resident whose property is nearby that the land in dispute “is the most important property in the Shawangunk Ridge, a privately-owned piece of property, and by hook or by crook he was going to get it,” according to court documents.
These were not idle threats. Beginning in 1994 and continuing for over two decades, Fink and Pardini were in and out of court, fighting to hold on to their property on which they were paying taxes, keeping roads and pathways clear, and managing the forest.
Arrayed against them was a phalanx of deep-pocketed green groups intent on acquiring land for alleged conservation purposes, often in league with state officials.
The interlocking relationships and revolving doors among these public and private parties were tailor-made to overwhelm anyone who stood in their way.
In addition to the ubiquitous Anderberg and working on behalf of the Mohonk Preserve and the Shawangunk Conservancy, those lining up against Fink and Pardini were the Manhattan-based Open Space Institute (OSI), the Washington D.C.-based Land Trust Alliance (LTA), which maintains a significant office in Saratoga Springs, NY), and the Conservation Partnership Program (CPP), a partnership between the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and the LTA’s New York program.
Significantly, the CCP offers “competitive matching grants” to “qualified New York land trusts to advance land conservation, recreation, and tourism.”
The public-private partnership between DEC and LTA was created in 2002 and is managed by LTA in coordination with DEC.
The “public-private partnership” was also on display in the court battles over Fink and Pardini’s land.
Their attorney, John. L. Liddle, points out that the New York DEC contributed $15,000 to the Mohonk Preserve for “conservation defense” “ostensibly for legal fees in their action against Fink and Pardini.”
Liddle notes further that the activities of the defendants are “highly intertwined” and that high-level officials within the Mohonk Preserve, Shawangunk Conservancy, and OSI “circulate among these organizations and New York state environmental positions.”
Takings without “Just Compensation”
Summarizing his case, Liddle writes that the defendants “working in concert and claiming to effectuate the State’s codified policy of ecological conservation,’ have been able to obtain, finance, litigate, and use for private purposes Fink’s and Pardini’s land, and the land of others, to accumulate large contiguous parcels in the Shawangunk Ridge.
These takings have frequently been accomplished ‘by hook or by crook.’ Although these takings are justified as accomplishing the State’s policies, there has not been just compensation or any limitation to the takings to that which is necessary to effectuate the State’s policy.”
The case, which will be closely watched by property rights advocates, is Michael Fink and Karen Pardini v. Mohonk Preserve Inc. et al.
Read more at CFACT
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-05-05--Rev. Jesse Jackson Pushes For Natural Gas Pipeline That Greens Oppose

Written by Chris White on .
Posted in Latest news Rev .
Jesse Jackson is bucking many of the environmentalists who believe natural gas production perpetuates a world in which climate change is disproportionately hurting black communities .
Jackson is prodding local , state , and federal officials in Illinois to okay the construction of an $ 8.2 million 30-mile natural-gas pipeline built for a community , Axios noted in a report Monday addressing the reverend ’ s contrarian position .
The Pembroke , Illinois , pipeline would shuttle natural gas into an area of the state that suffers from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ When we move to another form of energy , that ’ s fine by me , I support that , ” Jackson told Axios in February as the issue began heating up .
“ But in the meantime , you can not put the black farmers on hold until that day comes.
” Pembroke residents have a median income of $ 28,922 and rely on a combination of propane , wood stoves , and space heaters for heat during Illinois winters , media reports show .
Residents of the town want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have access to gas but they must rely on wood and propane .
“ Everyone else has ( gas service ) , ” Levi , a 52-year-old construction and resident , told the Chicago Tribune in December 2019 as Jackson promoted the pipeline .
“ I ’ m unclear why it ’ s so hard for us to get it.
” Another resident — Cathy Vanderdyz , a city clerk in the area — told Axios that she pays between $ 500 and $ 800 to heat her home over a two month @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part to a request from Mark Hodge , mayor of Hopkins Park , a town in the area .
The mayor told Axios that businesses refuse to come to the area because local energy prices are too high .
“ It ’ s not on my radar at this point , not to say in the future it would not be , ” Hodges said of climate change .
“ My main concern is cutting our energy costs out here.
” Customers have to pay for some of the costs of delivering such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ residents must pay $ 3.2 million of the estimated total $ 8.2 million pipeline extension , according to Nicor Gas , the company behind the project .
Each household would have to pay more than $ 8,000 upfront for access , Axios notes .
Illinois ’ s state legislature is considering a bill designating Pembroke as a “ designated hardship area , ” which would allow Nicor Gas to pay the entire cost .
Jackson , Rev .
Al Sharpton , and National Urban League President Marc Morial have said in the past @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from fracking , a technique producers use to extract natural gas from shale .
They said the technique for producing natural gas helps black people who struggle with high energy prices .

Written by Chris White on May 5, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Rev. Jesse Jackson is bucking many of the environmentalists who believe natural gas production perpetuates a world in which climate change is disproportionately hurting black communities.
Jackson is prodding local, state, and federal officials in Illinois to okay the construction of an $8.2 million 30-mile natural-gas pipeline built for a community, Axios noted in a report Monday addressing the reverend’s contrarian position.
The Pembroke, Illinois, pipeline would shuttle natural gas into an area of the state that suffers from high energy prices, according to Jackson.
“When we move to another form of energy, that’s fine by me, I support that,” Jackson told Axios in February as the issue began heating up. “But in the meantime, you cannot put the black farmers on hold until that day comes.”
Pembroke residents have a median income of $28,922 and rely on a combination of propane, wood stoves, and space heaters for heat during Illinois winters, media reports show.
Residents of the town want to know why other parts of Illinois have access to gas but they must rely on wood and propane.
“Everyone else has (gas service),” Levi, a 52-year-old construction and resident, told the Chicago Tribune in December 2019 as Jackson promoted the pipeline. “I’m unclear why it’s so hard for us to get it.”
Another resident — Cathy Vanderdyz, a city clerk in the area — told Axios that she pays between $500 and $800 to heat her home over a two month period.
Jackson got involved due in part to a request from Mark Hodge, mayor of Hopkins Park, a town in the area.
The mayor told Axios that businesses refuse to come to the area because local energy prices are too high.
“It’s not on my radar at this point, not to say in the future it would not be,” Hodges said of climate change. “My main concern is cutting our energy costs out here.”
Customers have to pay for some of the costs of delivering such pipeline access under current regulations.
Pembroke residents must pay $3.2 million of the estimated total $8.2 million pipeline extension, according to Nicor Gas, the company behind the project.
Each household would have to pay more than $8,000 upfront for access, Axios notes. Illinois’s state legislature is considering a bill designating Pembroke as a “designated hardship area,” which would allow Nicor Gas to pay the entire cost.
Jackson, Rev. Al Sharpton, and National Urban League President Marc Morial have said in the past that they oppose an abrupt move away from fracking, a technique producers use to extract natural gas from shale.
They said the technique for producing natural gas helps black people who struggle with high energy prices.
Read rest at Daily Caller
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-05-05--Exposing The Dark Side Of Environmentalism

Written by Sam Allen on .
Posted in Latest news There are some who believe that the COVID-19 pandemic represents humanity ’ s comeuppance .
They will tweet comments like ‘ humanity is the real virus ’ , or that this is Mother Nature ’ s way of defending herself against humanity .
And the principal source of such statements lies in a part of the environmentalist movement , and their anti-human , sometimes openly misanthropic worldview .
Just look at the enthusiasm with which some greens have greeted the stopping of so much human activity , despite the economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there is the language environmentalists use to describe humanity .
At the very least , they portray humans as feckless exploiters of nature .
Others are less coy , and overtly cast humanity as a plague on the planet , or a cancer that needs to be eradicated .
The more fervent the eco-warrior , the more dehumanizing the rhetoric .
Even more morbid is greens ’ suggestion that mass pandemics serve the useful function of culling people .
This ties to another favorite subject of radical conservationists : population control .
Population @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politicians and public figures in recent years .
They claim that population growth will result in the use of more resources and therefore will put more strain on the environment .
This argument draws on the thoroughly debunked work of 18th-century reactionary Thomas Malthus , who claimed that since the Earth ’ s resources are finite , it could only support a finite number of people .
Too many people would mean famine , disease , and war .
Malthus ’ s error was to underestimate the extent to which humanity , through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unlock hitherto inaccessible resources .
So despite the massive population growth since the 1790s , not only is there currently more food available than ever before , it is more efficiently produced and distributed , too .
You would have thought this would have been a cause for celebration .
But no – despite the persistent historical refutation of the overpopulation thesis , it has continually found doom-laden advocates , especially in the environmentalist movement .
So , in the 1960s and 70s , many scientists and experts , citing Malthus , predicted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would occur within two or three decades if immediate action was not taken .
One of the most vocal prophets of ecological doom at this time was Paul Ehrlich , a Stanford professor and author of The Population Bomb ( 1968 ) .
He warned that between 1970 and 1990 , billions would starve to death due to population growth exceeding levels of food production .
Additionally , he argued that the earth ’ s natural resources would be depleted , leading to an energy crisis and major world conflicts .
Like Malthus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And like Malthus , he was completely , undeniably wrong .
The problem with the overpopulation thesis is not simply that it is wrong – it is that it has resulted in the proposal of sinister , draconian solutions .
Ehrlich and others , for instance , recommended spiking food and water supplies with sterilizing drugs ; keeping blacklists of organizations and individuals who were seen to hinder population-control efforts ; gradually changing the culture to vilify couples with more than two children .
Ehrlich also said that governments should resort to ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their procreative habits voluntarily .
And what does such compulsion look like ?
Well , it looks a lot like communist China ’ s one-child policy , complete with mandatory sterilizations and forced abortions .
Even less authoritarian regimes imposed similarly brutal policies in the name of tackling overpopulation .
The Indian government , for instance , carried out millions of often coerced sterilizations during the 1970s .

Written by Sam Allen on May 5, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
There are some who believe that the COVID-19 pandemic represents humanity’s comeuppance.
They will tweet comments like ‘humanity is the real virus’, or that this is Mother Nature’s way of defending herself against humanity.
And the principal source of such statements lies in a part of the environmentalist movement, and their anti-human, sometimes openly misanthropic worldview.
Just look at the enthusiasm with which some greens have greeted the stopping of so much human activity, despite the economic damage it will wreak.
And then there is the language environmentalists use to describe humanity. At the very least, they portray humans as feckless exploiters of nature.
Others are less coy, and overtly cast humanity as a plague on the planet, or a cancer that needs to be eradicated. The more fervent the eco-warrior, the more dehumanizing the rhetoric.
Even more morbid is greens’ suggestion that mass pandemics serve the useful function of culling people. This ties to another favorite subject of radical conservationists: population control.
Population control has been advocated by several prominent politicians and public figures in recent years. They claim that population growth will result in the use of more resources and therefore will put more strain on the environment.
This argument draws on the thoroughly debunked work of 18th-century reactionary Thomas Malthus, who claimed that since the Earth’s resources are finite, it could only support a finite number of people. Too many people would mean famine, disease, and war.
Malthus’s error was to underestimate the extent to which humanity, through technological advances, could increase productivity and unlock hitherto inaccessible resources.
So despite the massive population growth since the 1790s, not only is there currently more food available than ever before, it is more efficiently produced and distributed, too.
You would have thought this would have been a cause for celebration.
But no – despite the persistent historical refutation of the overpopulation thesis, it has continually found doom-laden advocates, especially in the environmentalist movement.
So, in the 1960s and 70s, many scientists and experts, citing Malthus, predicted that global mass starvation and civilizational collapse would occur within two or three decades if immediate action was not taken.
One of the most vocal prophets of ecological doom at this time was Paul Ehrlich, a Stanford professor and author of The Population Bomb(1968).
He warned that between 1970 and 1990, billions would starve to death due to population growth exceeding levels of food production.
Additionally, he argued that the earth’s natural resources would be depleted, leading to an energy crisis and major world conflicts. Like Malthus, his predictions were apocalyptically bleak. And like Malthus, he was completely, undeniably wrong.
The problem with the overpopulation thesis is not simply that it is wrong – it is that it has resulted in the proposal of sinister, draconian solutions.
Ehrlich and others, for instance, recommended spiking food and water supplies with sterilizing drugs; keeping blacklists of organizations and individuals who were seen to hinder population-control efforts; gradually changing the culture to vilify couples with more than two children.
Ehrlich also said that governments should resort to ‘compulsion’ if people failed to change their procreative habits voluntarily.
And what does such compulsion look like? Well, it looks a lot like communist China’s one-child policy, complete with mandatory sterilizations and forced abortions.
Even less authoritarian regimes imposed similarly brutal policies in the name of tackling overpopulation. The Indian government, for instance, carried out millions of often coerced sterilizations during the 1970s.
What’s even more troubling about the deeply misanthropic worldview of a significant part of the green movement is its proximity to what is known as eco-fascism. That may sound like an oxymoron, given the misperception of environmentalism as left-wing, but there are indeed fanatical environmentalists within the far right, obsessed as it is with eugenics, racial purity, and the alleged ‘natural order’. Indeed, the manifestos of several recent mass shooters, who identified themselves as far-right white nationalists, have lamented the destruction of the environment and criticized the corporate plunder of the earth’s resources. The proximity of environmentalism to the far right is actually long-standing. Eugenics and scientific racism had a significant influence on the environmentalist movement in the early 20th century. Take Madison Grant. He was an American writer and lawyer, best known for The Passing of the Great Race, a work admired by Adolf Hitler. It detailed how the supposed supremacy of the Nordic people was being undermined by ‘lesser’ races. Grant was not just a white supremacist. He was also recognized as one of America’s most prolific conservationists and he was the architect of the American National Park service. As Grant saw it, the preservation of the American natural landscape preserved a ‘master race’ of species of trees and animals. His ecological beliefs, therefore, grew out of his ideas on racial supremacy.
This dark past of environmentalism has largely been quietly ignored in modern times. But lately, with the rise of the loosely defined alt-right movement, the proximity of far-right views to certain environmentalist ones has become clear once again. Read rest at Spiked Online
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-05-05--NYC Continues Tone-Deaf Energy Divestment Efforts

Written by Jeff Eshelman on .
Posted in Latest news The U.S. energy industry is facing unprecedented challenges : an international oil price war , a global pandemic that has not only changed our way of life but depressed economic activity and transport , and the implementation of protocols that ensure social distancing while maintaining essential operations .
But even in these challenging and uncertain times , the industry is stepping up .
Operators are finding ways to do whatever they can to support those battling COVID-19 on the front lines , from converting operations to develop protective gear for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for direct relief .
And yet , somewhat inexplicitly , there are some New York lawmakers and activists looking to instead take advantage of this crisis to push for a politicized stance against this very industry .
Even more perplexing , the push is coming from the state at the epicenter of the fight against this pandemic .
At a time when COVID-19 continues to wreak havoc on the country and the world undergoes a once-in-a-generation crisis , members of the New York City Council introduced a resolution last week calling on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with which the city government does business to divest from oil , gas , and coal to , as they say , put fossil fuels in our past .
This resolution will now move to their environmental protection committee and , if passed , does little more than send a message on the city ’ s view on the topic .
But the question remains : why are New York City ’ s leaders surfacing this issue now ?
The same can be said at the state level , where earlier this month @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made noise about “ all the support ” a watered-down divestment bill has among New York state senators and imploring them to pass it .
Many of these same groups have also taken to virtual Earth Day celebrations , holding all day and even 72-hour-long virtual webinars to increase calls for divestment from the very same companies providing critical supplies and energy to fuel our response to the pandemic .
Others have gone so far as to push headlines like “ Fossil Fuel Companies Are Suffering Under the Coronavirus .
Good.
” On @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the fact that divestment does nothing for the environment and that giving up investments in a sector of the economy that provides roughly 80 percent of U.S. energy consumption is simply bad economics .
But at a time of COVID-19 , they show something else .
This crisis is a time to focus on solutions and to give back , whatever we can , to those on the front lines .
While activists spend their time on all day webinars , energy companies are focusing on solutions .
Do a quick search online @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Chevron has doubled down on its commitments to support teachers and students in high-need school districts .
ExxonMobil and the Global Center for Medical Innovation have initiated a joint project to spur the development of personal protection equipment for health care workers , such as face shields and masks .
Baker Hughes is using its 3D printing capabilities to make parts for protective gear .
BP has donated over $ 2 million to the World Health Organization ’ s Covid-19 Solidarity Response .
Williams has pledged $ 1 million to provide community @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and safety apparel to its local health system .
And let ’ s not forget the thousands of men and women who continue to work around the clock to perform essential services that maintain access to stable and reliable energy so that our response to COVID-19 is not disrupted .
These are just a few examples of efforts underway to help combat the impacts of this public health crisis while providing safe , reliable energy to consumers and protecting our workforce .
Leaders in government in New York and across the country have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : how to support residents losing their livelihoods , how to keep healthcare workers safe , and how to support teachers and students as the world moves remote .
The oil and gas industry continues to help , investing in technology and solutions to support our men and women at the front lines of response efforts .
We are reminded in this moment of the value of real solutions .
Empty gesture divestment from an industry helping to fuel our response and recovery is bad politics on a good day , and it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this global crisis .

Written by Jeff Eshelman on May 5, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The U.S. energy industry is facing unprecedented challenges: an international oil price war, a global pandemic that has not only changed our way of life but depressed economic activity and transport, and the implementation of protocols that ensure social distancing while maintaining essential operations.
But even in these challenging and uncertain times, the industry is stepping up. Operators are finding ways to do whatever they can to support those battling COVID-19 on the front lines, from converting operations to develop protective gear for healthcare workers to rallying to raise donations for direct relief.
And yet, somewhat inexplicitly, there are some New York lawmakers and activists looking to instead take advantage of this crisis to push for a politicized stance against this very industry.
Even more perplexing, the push is coming from the state at the epicenter of the fight against this pandemic.
At a time when COVID-19 continues to wreak havoc on the country and the world undergoes a once-in-a-generation crisis, members of the New York City Council introduced a resolution last week calling on the banks, asset managers and insurance companies with which the city government does business to divest from oil, gas, and coal to, as they say, put fossil fuels in our past.
This resolution will now move to their environmental protection committee and, if passed, does little more than send a message on the city’s view on the topic.
But the question remains: why are New York City’s leaders surfacing this issue now?
The same can be said at the state level, where earlier this month pro-divestment groups Go Fossil Free and 350.org made noise about “all the support” a watered-down divestment bill has among New York state senators and imploring them to pass it.
Many of these same groups have also taken to virtual Earth Day celebrations, holding all day and even 72-hour-long virtual webinars to increase calls for divestment from the very same companies providing critical supplies and energy to fuel our response to the pandemic.
Others have gone so far as to push headlines like “Fossil Fuel Companies Are Suffering Under the Coronavirus. Good.”
On a good day, these efforts ignore the fact that divestment does nothing for the environment and that giving up investments in a sector of the economy that provides roughly 80 percent of U.S. energy consumption is simply bad economics.
But at a time of COVID-19, they show something else. This crisis is a time to focus on solutions and to give back, whatever we can, to those on the front lines.
While activists spend their time on all day webinars, energy companies are focusing on solutions.
Do a quick search online and you will see countless examples underway.
Chevron has doubled down on its commitments to support teachers and students in high-need school districts.
ExxonMobil and the Global Center for Medical Innovation have initiated a joint project to spur the development of personal protection equipment for health care workers, such as face shields and masks.
Baker Hughes is using its 3D printing capabilities to make parts for protective gear. BP has donated over $2 million to the World Health Organization’s Covid-19 Solidarity Response.
Williams has pledged $1 million to provide community support. Range Resources provided N95 masks and safety apparel to its local health system.
And let’s not forget the thousands of men and women who continue to work around the clock to perform essential services that maintain access to stable and reliable energy so that our response to COVID-19 is not disrupted.
These are just a few examples of efforts underway to help combat the impacts of this public health crisis while providing safe, reliable energy to consumers and protecting our workforce.
Leaders in government in New York and across the country have a lot to work through right now: how to support residents losing their livelihoods, how to keep healthcare workers safe, and how to support teachers and students as the world moves remote.
The oil and gas industry continues to help, investing in technology and solutions to support our men and women at the front lines of response efforts.
We are reminded in this moment of the value of real solutions. Empty gesture divestment from an industry helping to fuel our response and recovery is bad politics on a good day, and it is plain irresponsible in the midst of this global crisis.
Read more at RealClearEnergy
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-05-05--Net-Zero Mania Threatens To Derail The UK’s Recovery

Written by Rupert Darwall on .
Posted in Latest news When economies emerge from the pandemic , aggressive climate policies should be the priority , according to Dominic Raab , the foreign secretary and Boris Johnson ’ s deputy .
Sounding like a modern-day King Canute , he has urged governments to turn the tide on climate change .
“ There ’ s no choice between cutting our emissions and growing our economy , ” Mr. Raab claims .
“ That ’ s a myth the UK has helped to shatter over the past decade.
” In fact , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worst productivity performance since the Industrial Revolution .
Ministers don ’ t tell us how we cut them by exporting our industrial base – emissions relating to imports from China are 276pc higher compared to 1997 .
The Government can forget about re-shoring vulnerable supply chains as it would push up our emissions .
France ’ s Emmanuel Macron , by contrast , is a good deal more honest , having described the choice on climate as profound and brutal .
Decarbonising inflicts costs on the poorest in society and it shrinks blue-collar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ divide .
Britain legislated its commitment to cut its greenhouse gas emissions to net-zero after a mere ninety-minute debate in the House of Commons last June .
Unlike the original 2008 Climate Change Act , the Government did not provide an economic impact assessment of net-net and its analysis of the costs , of what it would do the economy and an estimate of the potential climate benefits to Britain .
Lack of scientific and economic rigor and objectivity is par for the course development of net-zero and adoption of the 1.5°C target @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Copenhagen climate conference , the president of the Maldives held the world ’ s first underwater cabinet meeting to dramatize the threat to low-lying islands from rising sea levels and lobby for the 1.5°C limit and incorporated in the 2015 Paris Agreement .
Yet there was no satisfactory scientific basis for the sinking island fable .
As Charles Darwin explained in the 1830s , coral atolls are formed by gentle subsidence of the seabed and , surprise , surprise , islands such as the Maldives have seen their land area expand .
After @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , scientists , in the shape of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ) , were invited to provide a special report in 2018 on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels .
The IPCC had a problem .
Its existing 1.5°C carbon budget – the number of greenhouse gases that can be emitted to keep global warming from rising more than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels – was all but used up .
Obviously there was no point in agreeing on a limit only to have it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate models running too hot and over-predicting warming since 2000 , an IPCC lead author admitted , the IPCC found a way of more than doubling the 1.5°C budget and keeping the climate show on the road .
Although the IPCC only had medium confidence in its revised 1.5°C budget , it claimed high confidence that emissions had to reach net-zero by 2050 .
Perhaps that ’ s because the IPCC sees net-zero as providing , it says , the opportunity for “ intentional societal transformation ” and makes little secret of its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Like the government , the IPCC doesn ’ t put a price tag on net zero , but the few numbers it produces are eye-popping , with costs ranging up to sixty times the hypothetical climate benefits estimated by the Obama administration .
Indeed , the IPCC concedes that net-zero will hit the world ’ s poor hard with higher food prices and delay the transition to clean cooking , one of the biggest causes of avoidable deaths in poorer countries .
There is no ethical , economic , or social justification @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immense destruction of human welfare .
Fortunately net-zero isn ’ t going to happen whatever politicians here might think .
The West ’ s pre-pandemic emissions account for around one-quarter of global emissions .
Buying into net-zero will turn Europe into a continent of zombie economies , but the rest of the world isn ’ t going to follow .
The Prime Minister has only one chance to ensure rapid and sustained economic recovery from the lockdown – and that is to scrap every obstacle that stands in the way of economic growth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ net-zero climate noose .
If he fails , he and his government will be toast , his political career is ruined and the Conservatives will be remembered for this policy-made economic disaster .
Keeping Boris ’ s commitment to net-zero won ’ t be pretty .
Read more at The Telegraph

Written by Rupert Darwall on May 5, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
When economies emerge from the pandemic, aggressive climate policies should be the priority, according to Dominic Raab, the foreign secretary and Boris Johnson’s deputy.
Sounding like a modern-day King Canute, he has urged governments to turn the tide on climate change.
“There’s no choice between cutting our emissions and growing our economy,” Mr. Raab claims. “That’s a myth the UK has helped to shatter over the past decade.”
In fact, the last decade saw Britain rack up its worst productivity performance since the Industrial Revolution.
Ministers don’t tell us how we cut them by exporting our industrial base – emissions relating to imports from China are 276pc higher compared to 1997.
The Government can forget about re-shoring vulnerable supply chains as it would push up our emissions.
France’s Emmanuel Macron, by contrast, is a good deal more honest, having described the choice on climate as profound and brutal.
Decarbonising inflicts costs on the poorest in society and it shrinks blue-collar job opportunities, worsening the North-South regional divide.
Britain legislated its commitment to cut its greenhouse gas emissions to net-zero after a mere ninety-minute debate in the House of Commons last June.
Unlike the original 2008 Climate Change Act, the Government did not provide an economic impact assessment of net-net and its analysis of the costs, of what it would do the economy and an estimate of the potential climate benefits to Britain.
Lack of scientific and economic rigor and objectivity is par for the course development of net-zero and adoption of the 1.5°C target.
In the run-up to the 2009 Copenhagen climate conference, the president of the Maldives held the world’s first underwater cabinet meeting to dramatize the threat to low-lying islands from rising sea levels and lobby for the 1.5°C limit and incorporated in the 2015 Paris Agreement.
Yet there was no satisfactory scientific basis for the sinking island fable. As Charles Darwin explained in the 1830s, coral atolls are formed by gentle subsidence of the seabed and, surprise, surprise, islands such as the Maldives have seen their land area expand.
After the politicians had decided on the policy, scientists, in the shape of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), were invited to provide a special report in 2018 on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels.
The IPCC had a problem. Its existing 1.5°C carbon budget – the number of greenhouse gases that can be emitted to keep global warming from rising more than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels – was all but used up.
Obviously there was no point in agreeing on a limit only to have it busted almost immediately.
Helped by computer climate models running too hot and over-predicting warming since 2000, an IPCC lead author admitted, the IPCC found a way of more than doubling the 1.5°C budget and keeping the climate show on the road.
Although the IPCC only had medium confidence in its revised 1.5°C budget, it claimed high confidence that emissions had to reach net-zero by 2050.
Perhaps that’s because the IPCC sees net-zero as providing, it says, the opportunity for “intentional societal transformation” and makes little secret of its ideological hostility to capitalism and economic growth.
Like the government, the IPCC doesn’t put a price tag on net zero, but the few numbers it produces are eye-popping, with costs ranging up to sixty times the hypothetical climate benefits estimated by the Obama administration.
Indeed, the IPCC concedes that net-zero will hit the world’s poor hard with higher food prices and delay the transition to clean cooking, one of the biggest causes of avoidable deaths in poorer countries.
There is no ethical, economic, or social justification for such a policy overkill and its immense destruction of human welfare.
Fortunately net-zero isn’t going to happen whatever politicians here might think. The West’s pre-pandemic emissions account for around one-quarter of global emissions.
Buying into net-zero will turn Europe into a continent of zombie economies, but the rest of the world isn’t going to follow.
The Prime Minister has only one chance to ensure rapid and sustained economic recovery from the lockdown – and that is to scrap every obstacle that stands in the way of economic growth, the biggest of all being the net-zero climate noose.
If he fails, he and his government will be toast, his political career is ruined and the Conservatives will be remembered for this policy-made economic disaster. Keeping Boris’s commitment to net-zero won’t be pretty.
Read more at The Telegraph
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-05-06--Wealthy Celebs Use Pandemic To Push Climate Change Reforms

Written by David Ng on .
Posted in Latest news Left-wing politicians have woken up to the fact that the coronavirus pandemic “ would be a terrible crisis to waste , ” in the words of Hillary Clinton .
Now a group of wealthy Hollywood stars is also capitalizing on the crisis to push a sweeping climate change agenda .
Celebrities including Robert De Niro , Madonna , Barbra Streisand , Jane Fonda , and Joaquin Phoenix have signed their names to an editorial published Wednesday in France ’ s largest newspaper , Le Monde , demanding a total overhaul @ @ @ @ @ @ @ name of saving the environment and fighting global warming .
“ The Covid-19 pandemic is a tragedy .
This crisis , however , has an upside in giving us the chance to examine what is essential , ” the editorial says .
“ The ongoing ecological catastrophe is a ‘ meta-crisis ’ : the massive extinction of life on Earth is no longer in doubt , and all indicators point to a direct existential threat .
Unlike a pandemic , however serious it may be , it ’ s a question of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immeasurable.
” The article , titled “ No to a Return to Normal , ” was co-authored by actress Juliette Binoche and astrophysicist Aurélien Barrau , who both wrote a similar article in Le Monde in 2018 , in which they warned that a massive extinction event was currently underway .
Their new article argues that it is “ unthinkable to ‘ go back to normal ’ ” following the coronavirus pandemic .
“ Consumerism has led us to deny the value of life itself : that of plants , that of animals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of human beings .
Pollution , climate change , and the destruction of natural spaces have brought the world to a breaking point , ” they wrote .
“ For these reasons , along with growing social inequalities , we believe it is unthinkable to ‘ go back to normal.
’ ” Oscar-winning filmmakers Alfonso Cuaron , Spike Jonze , Pedro Almodovar , and Alejandro G. Inarritu also signed the editorial .
A growing number of celebrities have linked the Wuhan coronavirus with climate change activism .
Jane Fonda recently called for coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sustainable energy as well as to efforts to create a “ level playing field ” for workers .
Filmmaker Michael Moore recently said in his podcast that the coronavirus is Earth ’ s slap in our collective face , adding that the pandemic is nature “ trying to tell our species to back off , slow down , and change your ways .
”

Written by David Ng on May 6, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Left-wing politicians have woken up to the fact that the coronavirus pandemic “would be a terrible crisis to waste,” in the words of Hillary Clinton.
Now a group of wealthy Hollywood stars is also capitalizing on the crisis to push a sweeping climate change agenda.
Celebrities including Robert De Niro, Madonna, Barbra Streisand, Jane Fonda, and Joaquin Phoenix have signed their names to an editorial published Wednesday in France’s largest newspaper, Le Monde, demanding a total overhaul of economies around the world in the name of saving the environment and fighting global warming.
“The Covid-19 pandemic is a tragedy. This crisis, however, has an upside in giving us the chance to examine what is essential,” the editorial says.
“The ongoing ecological catastrophe is a ‘meta-crisis’: the massive extinction of life on Earth is no longer in doubt, and all indicators point to a direct existential threat. Unlike a pandemic, however serious it may be, it’s a question of a global ecological collapse whose effects will be immeasurable.”
The article, titled “No to a Return to Normal,” was co-authored by actress Juliette Binoche and astrophysicist Aurélien Barrau, who both wrote a similar article in Le Monde in 2018, in which they warned that a massive extinction event was currently underway.
Their new article argues that it is “unthinkable to ‘go back to normal’” following the coronavirus pandemic.
“Consumerism has led us to deny the value of life itself: that of plants, that of animals, and that of a large number of human beings. Pollution, climate change, and the destruction of natural spaces have brought the world to a breaking point,” they wrote.
“For these reasons, along with growing social inequalities, we believe it is unthinkable to ‘go back to normal.’”
Other signatories include actors Adam Driver, Cate Blanchett, Rooney Mara, Penelope Cruz, Javier Bardem, Jeremy Irons, and Willem Dafoe.
Oscar-winning filmmakers Alfonso Cuaron, Spike Jonze, Pedro Almodovar, and Alejandro G. Inarritu also signed the editorial.
A growing number of celebrities have linked the Wuhan coronavirus with climate change activism.
Jane Fonda recently called for coronavirus recovery money to go toward green or sustainable energy as well as to efforts to create a “level playing field” for workers.
Filmmaker Michael Moore recently said in his podcast that the coronavirus is Earth’s slap in our collective face, adding that the pandemic is nature “trying to tell our species to back off, slow down, and change your ways.”
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--2020-05-06--Ban Plastic Bags! No, Never Mind!

Ban Plastic Bags! No, Never Mind!

Written by John Stossel on .
Posted in Latest news Recently , many politicians were in such a hurry to ban plastic bags .
California and Hawaii banned them , then New York .
Then Oregon , Connecticut , Maine , and Vermont passed laws against them .
More than 400 cities did , too .
Why ?
Because plastic bags are evil , didn ’ t you know ?
“ Look at the damage done by plastic bags !
It is everywhere !
” complained New York Governor Andrew Cuomo .
A Washington state senator cited “ videos of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ garbage !
” So what should we use instead of plastic ?
Cloth bags !
They ’ re reusable !
“ Certainly the way to go !
” said New Jersey ’ s assembly speaker .
But now , suddenly , politicians are canceling their bans .
Instead , they ’ re banning the once praised reusable bags .
It ’ s because of COVID-19 , of course .
Reusable bags already brought bacteria into stores .
We ’ re supposed to wash them , but almost no one does .
Studies found @ @ @ @ @ @ @ After plastic bags were banned in San Francisco , food poisoning deaths increased sharply .
But environmental groups , like Greenpeace , call those disease fears “ misinformation.
” “ There are no studies or evidence that reusable bags are transmitting viruses , ” says Alex Truelove of the Public Interest Research Group , in my new video .
He ’ s right .
There are no human studies , but COVID-19 is so new .
Millions of piglets died from swine coronavirus .
The agriculture department concluded that reusable feed bags were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now , some politicians can ’ t wait to ban plastic again .
Boston Mayor Marty Walsh says “ as soon as this crisis is over we ’ ll go back to all paper bags and reusable bags.
” “ Politicians are always just looking for something to do , ” complains supermarket executive Andrea Catsimatidis .
She points out that paper bags cost five times what plastic costs .
“ When you ’ re talking billions of bags , it really adds up !
” And paper bags don ’ t hold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is more convenient .
Why must politicians take away what ’ s convenient ?
“ Over two-thirds of everything we use is not recycled or composted and ends up in a landfill , ” complains Truelove .
People think America is running out of room for landfills , but that ’ s not true .
“ All America ’ s trash for the next century would fit in one landfill just 18 miles square , ” says environmental economist Ross McKitrick .
Landfills take up so little space that “ if you look @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be able to see where landfills are.
” And modern landfills hardly pollute .
They ’ re surrounded by layers of clay and plastic that keep nasty stuff in the garbage from leaking out .
But what about all that plastic in the ocean ?
Plastic bags are sometimes eaten by animals .
Some sea turtles mistake the bags for jellyfish and then starve .
Islands of floating garbage have formed in the Pacific Ocean .
Green groups have convinced Americans that we are to blame .
But we aren ’ t !
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , fewer Americans do — your litter is unlikely to end up in an ocean .
Almost all the plastic in the oceans comes from Asia and Africa .
Less than 1 % comes from North America .
In other words , banning plastic bags in America will accomplish roughly … nothing .
What it will do is inconvenience Americans and make some of us sick .
Truelove says , “ We should … set an example for the rest of the world.
” “ That ’ s posturing , ” replies McKitrick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ isn ’ t looking to see what you do with your Starbucks cup .
“ If we are concerned about other countries ’ waste going into their river systems , ” he adds , “ there are better things we can do .
We can share technology with them so they process their waste better .
That ’ s better than imposing on consumers ’ tiresome inconveniences in hopes that it will somehow change behavior on the other side of the planet.
” Politicians “ looking for something to do ” routinely do @ @ @ @ @

Written by John Stossel on May 6, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Recently, many politicians were in such a hurry to ban plastic bags.
California and Hawaii banned them, then New York. Then Oregon, Connecticut, Maine, and Vermont passed laws against them. More than 400 cities did, too.
Why? Because plastic bags are evil, didn’t you know?
“Look at the damage done by plastic bags! It is everywhere!” complained New York Governor Andrew Cuomo.
A Washington state senator cited “videos of animals choked by plastics, tangled in garbage!”
So what should we use instead of plastic? Cloth bags! They’re reusable! “Certainly the way to go!” said New Jersey’s assembly speaker.
But now, suddenly, politicians are canceling their bans. Instead, they’re banning the once praised reusable bags.
It’s because of COVID-19, of course.
Reusable bags already brought bacteria into stores. We’re supposed to wash them, but almost no one does. Studies found reusable bags crawling with dangerous bacteria. After plastic bags were banned in San Francisco, food poisoning deaths increased sharply.
But environmental groups, like Greenpeace, call those disease fears “misinformation.”
“There are no studies or evidence that reusable bags are transmitting viruses,” says Alex Truelove of the Public Interest Research Group, in my new video.
He’s right. There are no human studies, but COVID-19 is so new. Millions of piglets died from swine coronavirus. The agriculture department concluded that reusable feed bags were probably the cause.
Still, even now, some politicians can’t wait to ban plastic again. Boston Mayor Marty Walsh says “as soon as this crisis is over we’ll go back to all paper bags and reusable bags.”
“Politicians are always just looking for something to do,” complains supermarket executive Andrea Catsimatidis.
She points out that paper bags cost five times what plastic costs. “When you’re talking billions of bags, it really adds up!”
And paper bags don’t hold as much. They rip.
Plastic is more convenient. Why must politicians take away what’s convenient?
“Over two-thirds of everything we use is not recycled or composted and ends up in a landfill,” complains Truelove.
So what?
People think America is running out of room for landfills, but that’s not true.
“All America’s trash for the next century would fit in one landfill just 18 miles square,” says environmental economist Ross McKitrick. Landfills take up so little space that “if you look the air you wouldn’t even be able to see where landfills are.”
And modern landfills hardly pollute. They’re surrounded by layers of clay and plastic that keep nasty stuff in the garbage from leaking out.
But what about all that plastic in the ocean?
Plastic bags are sometimes eaten by animals. Some sea turtles mistake the bags for jellyfish and then starve. Islands of floating garbage have formed in the Pacific Ocean.
Green groups have convinced Americans that we are to blame.
But we aren’t! Even if you litter — and today, fewer Americans do — your litter is unlikely to end up in an ocean.
Almost all the plastic in the oceans comes from Asia and Africa. Less than 1% comes from North America.
In other words, banning plastic bags in America will accomplish roughly … nothing.
What it will do is inconvenience Americans and make some of us sick.
Truelove says, “We should … set an example for the rest of the world.”
“That’s posturing,” replies McKitrick. “The rest of the world isn’t looking to see what you do with your Starbucks cup.
“If we are concerned about other countries’ waste going into their river systems,” he adds, “there are better things we can do. We can share technology with them so they process their waste better. That’s better than imposing on consumers’ tiresome inconveniences in hopes that it will somehow change behavior on the other side of the planet.”
Politicians “looking for something to do” routinely do more harm than good.
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--2020-05-06--Study: Antarctic Amery Ice Shelf Grew Considerably Over Last 20 Years

Written by Pierre Gosselin on .
Posted in Latest news A newly released paper by Kumar et al looks at the changes and prediction of the Amery Ice Shelf ( AIS ) of East Antarctica using remote sensing data .
The scientists found that the ice shelf is prograding ( expanding ) , and not breaking apart like some alarmist scientists feared earlier .
Wikipedia tells that in December 2006 , “ enormous cracks ” had been forming for over a decade at a rate of three to five meters a day – possibly due to global warming – but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to attribute the phenomenon to global warming because of the “ possibility of a natural 50-60 year cycle being responsible.
” Now the recent paper by Kumar et al reports findings that the Amery Ice Shelf ( AIS ) is not disintegrating , let alone shrinking , but rather is advancing !
Once readers get past the scientific gobbledygook of the paper ’ s abstract , ( possibly intended to obscure the paper ’ s inconvenient results ) it becomes clear the ice shelf there is growing .
“ Amery Ice Shelf extent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decades.
” The scientists reconstructed the past and made a prediction of the future-ice shelf extent using linear regression techniques .
They found that changes in the ice shelf extent “ are linked with ocean-atmosphere interaction.
” That means natural factors are dominantly at work , and not the anthropogenic ones .
The AIS changes were studied using Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectro-radiometer ( MODIS ) satellite data of the austral summer months ( January–March ) from 2001–2016 .
Using statistical techniques , the rate changes of the AIS extent were estimated .
According @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ The study reveals that the AIS extent has been prograded at the rate of 994 m/year with an average 14.5 km increase in the areal extents during 2001–2016 , as compared to the year 2001 , whereas , the maximum advancement in ice shelf extent was recorded during the 2006–2016 period.
” The study also found that the eastern part of Mackenzie Bay to Ingrid Christensen coast also “ recorded advancement in ice shelf extents and mass ” and that this was in part linked to “ a decrease in the temperatures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
Read more at No Tricks Zone

Written by Pierre Gosselin on May 6, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
A newly released paper by Kumar et al looks at the changes and prediction of the Amery Ice Shelf (AIS) of East Antarctica using remote sensing data.
The scientists found that the ice shelf is prograding (expanding), and not breaking apart like some alarmist scientists feared earlier.
Wikipedia tells that in December 2006, “enormous cracks” had been forming for over a decade at a rate of three to five meters a day – possibly due to global warming – but researchers later said it was too early to attribute the phenomenon to global warming because of the “possibility of a natural 50-60 year cycle being responsible.”
Now the recent paper by Kumar et al reports findings that the Amery Ice Shelf (AIS) is not disintegrating, let alone shrinking, but rather is advancing!
“Prograding considerably”
Once readers get past the scientific gobbledygook of the paper’s abstract, (possibly intended to obscure the paper’s inconvenient results) it becomes clear the ice shelf there is growing. “Amery Ice Shelf extent is prograding considerably in the last two decades.”
The scientists reconstructed the past and made a prediction of the future-ice shelf extent using linear regression techniques.
They found that changes in the ice shelf extent “are linked with ocean-atmosphere interaction.” That means natural factors are dominantly at work, and not the anthropogenic ones.
The AIS changes were studied using Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectro-radiometer (MODIS) satellite data of the austral summer months (January–March) from 2001–2016. Using statistical techniques, the rate changes of the AIS extent were estimated.
14.5 km increase
According to the paper’s abstract: “The study reveals that the AIS extent has been prograded at the rate of 994 m/year with an average 14.5 km increase in the areal extents during 2001–2016, as compared to the year 2001, whereas, the maximum advancement in ice shelf extent was recorded during the 2006–2016 period.”
The study also found that the eastern part of Mackenzie Bay to Ingrid Christensen coast also “recorded advancement in ice shelf extents and mass” and that this was in part linked to “a decrease in the temperatures (air temperature and sea surface temperature).
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--2020-05-06--Barents Sea Polar Bear Body Size Grew After 2005 Despite Less Sea Ice

Written by Dr. Susan J. Crockford on .
Posted in Latest news A recent paper that attempted to correlate pollution levels and body condition of Barents Sea polar bears found body condition of female bears had increased between 2004 and 2017 despite a pronounced decline in summer and winter sea ice extent .
“ Unexpectedly , body condition of female polar bears from the Barents Sea has increased after 2005 , although sea ice has retreated by ∼50 % since the late 1990s in the area , and the length of the ice-free season has increased by over 20 weeks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are also accompanied by winter sea ice retreat that is especially pronounced in the Barents Sea compared to other Arctic areas ” [ Lippold et al .
2019:988 ] This result explains all the fat female polar bear photos coming out of the Svalbard region in recent years .
However , it is totally at odds with predictions of catastrophic declines in polar bear numbers in the Barents Sea and assertions that Barents Sea bears are one of the most vulnerable to the effects of global warming ( Amstrup et al .
2007 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ et al .
2016 ; Stern and Laidre 2016 ) due to a dramatic loss of sea ice ( see map below ) .
And that is before the high levels of sea ice in the region I ’ ve been reporting on here , here , here , here , and here .
Prior to this 2019 publication , all we have been provided with are body condition values for adult males ( 1993-2019 ) – showing them to have been doing well in recent years with no trend in body condition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , public hand-wringing from polar bear activists , we find out that all along , adult females have been doing even better in recent years than they were before 2005 when there were more summer and winter ice .
Therefore , contrary to expectations , the Barents Sea and the Chukchi Sea bears have been shown to be thriving with less sea ice – and for the Barents Sea bears it ’ s a lot less ice .
Oddly , the 2019 Lippold paper came to my attention because a paper published last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bears in the Barents Sea ( Blanchet et al .
2020 ) , cites Lippold et al .
2019 as evidence that the Barents Sea polar bears have not shown signs of “ decreases in overall body condition.
” What Lippold et al .
actually say , in their abstract , is this [ my bold ] : Later in the paper ( pg .
988 ) , they had this to say [ my bold ] : “ Unexpectedly , body condition of female polar bears from the Barents Sea has increased @ @ @ @ @ @ @ retreated by ∼50 % since the late 1990s in the area , and the length of the ice-free season has increased by over 20 weeks between 1979 and 2013 .
These changes are also accompanied by winter sea ice retreat that is especially pronounced in the Barents Sea compared to other Arctic areas .
Despite the declining sea ice in the Barents Sea , polar bears are likely not lacking food as long as sea ice is present during their peak feeding period.Polar bears feed extensively from April to June when ringed seals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ predation , whereas the predation rate during the rest of the year is likely low.
” Note this statement : “ Despite the declining sea ice in the Barents Sea , polar bears are likely not lacking food as long as sea ice is present during their peak feeding period.
” Martyn Obbard and colleagues ( 2016 ) said essentially the same thing to explain why the body condition of Southern Hudson Bay polar bears had not declined in lock-step with sea ice declines in recent years .
And I have said something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explain why summer sea ice decline has not had a devastating effect on polar bears ( Crockford 2017 , 2019 , 2020 ) , a conclusion I arrived at from my review of the polar bear literature ( including Obbard ’ s paper ) .
Probably more than any other statement , it has been my insistence that summer sea ice is not the essential polar bear habitat that I have been publicly disparaged and denigrated by journalists and colleagues ( see also Harvey et al .
2018 ) .
It was undoubtedly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adjunct professor status .
Yet it is what the evidence shows .
Bottom line : Contrary to predictions , this new paper documents that the body condition of Barents Sea polar bears has improved significantly between 2005 and 2017 despite the most profound decline in summer sea ice of any polar bear subpopulation , which is consistent with a marked but non-statistically significant increase ( 42 % ) in population size ( Aars 2018 ; Aars et al .
2017 ; Crockford 2017 , 2019 , 2020 ) .
Dr. Susan Crockford is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ University of Victoria ) specializing in Holocene mammals , including polar bears and walruses .
Her new book is called The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened ( Amazon ) .

Written by Dr. Susan J. Crockford on May 6, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
A recent paper that attempted to correlate pollution levels and body condition of Barents Sea polar bears found body condition of female bears had increased between 2004 and 2017 despite a pronounced decline in summer and winter sea ice extent.
“Unexpectedly, body condition of female polar bears from the Barents Sea has increased after 2005, although sea ice has retreated by ∼50% since the late 1990s in the area, and the length of the ice-free season has increased by over 20 weeks between 1979 and 2013.
These changes are also accompanied by winter sea ice retreat that is especially pronounced in the Barents Sea compared to other Arctic areas” [Lippold et al. 2019:988]
This result explains all the fat female polar bear photos coming out of the Svalbard region in recent years.
However, it is totally at odds with predictions of catastrophic declines in polar bear numbers in the Barents Sea and assertions that Barents Sea bears are one of the most vulnerable to the effects of global warming (Amstrup et al. 2007; Hamiltion and Derocher 2019; Regehr et al. 2016; Stern and Laidre 2016) due to a dramatic loss of sea ice (see map below).
And that is before the high levels of sea ice in the region I’ve been reporting on here, here, here, here, and here.
Prior to this 2019 publication, all we have been provided with are body condition values for adult males (1993-2019) – showing them to have been doing well in recent years with no trend in body condition.
Now, after years of loud, public hand-wringing from polar bear activists, we find out that all along, adult females have been doing even better in recent years than they were before 2005 when there were more summer and winter ice.
Therefore, contrary to expectations, the Barents Sea and the Chukchi Sea bears have been shown to be thriving with less sea ice – and for the Barents Sea bears it’s a lot less ice.
Oddly, the 2019 Lippold paper came to my attention because a paper published last month about ‘space-use’ of polar bears in the Barents Sea (Blanchet et al. 2020), cites Lippold et al. 2019 as evidence that the Barents Sea polar bears have not shown signs of “decreases in overall body condition.”
What Lippold et al. actually say, in their abstract, is this [my bold]:
“Body condition [of adult females], based on morphometric measurements, had a nonsignificant decreasing tendency between 1997 and 2005, and increased significantly between 2005 and 2017.“
Later in the paper (pg. 988), they had this to say [my bold]:
“Unexpectedly, body condition of female polar bears from the Barents Sea has increased after 2005, although sea ice has retreated by ∼50% since the late 1990s in the area, and the length of the ice-free season has increased by over 20 weeks between 1979 and 2013. These changes are also accompanied by winter sea ice retreat that is especially pronounced in the Barents Sea compared to other Arctic areas. Despite the declining sea ice in the Barents Sea, polar bears are likely not lacking food as long as sea ice is present during their peak feeding period.Polar bears feed extensively from April to June when ringed seals have pups and are particularly vulnerable to predation, whereas the predation rate during the rest of the year is likely low.”
Note this statement: “Despite the declining sea ice in the Barents Sea, polar bears are likely not lacking food as long as sea ice is present during their peak feeding period.”
Martyn Obbard and colleagues (2016) said essentially the same thing to explain why the body condition of Southern Hudson Bay polar bears had not declined in lock-step with sea ice declines in recent years.
And I have said something very similar – many times – to explain why summer sea ice decline has not had a devastating effect on polar bears (Crockford 2017, 2019, 2020), a conclusion I arrived at from my review of the polar bear literature (including Obbard’s paper).
Probably more than any other statement, it has been my insistence that summer sea ice is not the essential polar bear habitat that I have been publicly disparaged and denigrated by journalists and colleagues(see also Harvey et al. 2018).
It was undoubtedly also instrumental in the loss of my adjunct professor status. Yet it is what the evidence shows.
Bottom line: Contrary to predictions, this new paper documents that the body condition of Barents Sea polar bears has improved significantly between 2005 and 2017 despite the most profound decline in summer sea ice of any polar bear subpopulation, which is consistent with a marked but non-statistically significant increase (42%) in population size (Aars 2018; Aars et al. 2017; Crockford 2017, 2019, 2020).
Dr. Susan Crockford is a zoologist (former adjunct professor, University of Victoria) specializing in Holocene mammals, including polar bears and walruses. Her new book is called The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened (Amazon).
Read rest at Polar Bear Science
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-05-06--Greta Asks For UN Support In Suit Against Fossil-Fuel Nations (Except China)

Written by Simon Kent on .
Posted in Latest news Swedish climate worrier Greta Thunberg asked the U.N. on Tuesday to back her lawsuit against Germany and a selection of other countries that use fossil fuel to drive their economies .
Thunberg ’ s legal claim alleges minors face ” increased death and disease ” as a result of climate change , therefore countries that use fossil fuels should face consequences .
China , which accounts for 30 percent of global emissions , has been specifically excluded from the action .
The 17-year-old is joined in the lawsuit by a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eight and 17 representing a host of countries around the world , as reported by Breitbart News .
Argentina , Brazil , France , Germany , and Turkey have specifically been singled out for attention , being accused of ” breaching their obligations under the International Convention on the Rights of Child , by promoting fossil fuels and failing to curb greenhouse gas emissions for decades , despite knowing about the risks of climate change , ” the group said in a press release , as reported by Deutsche Welle news agency .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ fellow activists are escalating a confrontation with the five countries that stemmed from a lawsuit they formally filed to the U.N. Convention back in September 2019 .
The complaint ’ s original filing came on the same day Thunberg unleashed an emotional tirade on world leaders at the U.N .
Climate Action Summit in New York City .
“ This is all wrong .
I shouldn ’ t be up here .
I should be back in school on the other side of the ocean yet you all come to us young people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” said the Swedish teenager in her planned remarks .
“ You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words , ” she added .
The 16 petitioning children range from 8 to 17 years old and hail from Argentina , Brazil , France , Germany , India , Marshall Islands , Nigeria , Palau , South Africa , Sweden , Tunisia , and the United States .
The complaint was filed through the Third Optional Protocol , a mechanism that allows children to formally request the U.N. take action @ @ @ @ @ @ @ choice .
Three countries – Brazil , France , and Germany – have responded to the lawsuit , according to the press release , arguing the claims against them were ” ill-founded or unsubstantiated , ” the complaint was ” inadmissible in the U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child , ” and that ” the climate crisis is so global that no state bears responsibility.
” Deutsche Welle reports the activists said these objections are ” baseless , ” adding ” the countries should be judged for their conduct rather than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ China , because it has not signed the part of the Convention on the Rights of the Child treaty allowing children to seek justice for breaching the agreement .

Written by Simon Kent on May 6, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Swedish climate worrier Greta Thunberg asked the U.N. on Tuesday to back her lawsuit against Germany and a selection of other countries that use fossil fuel to drive their economies.
Thunberg’s legal claim alleges minors face ”increased death and disease” as a result of climate change, therefore countries that use fossil fuels should face consequences.
China, which accounts for 30 percent of global emissions, has been specifically excluded from the action.
The 17-year-old is joined in the lawsuit by a range of petitioners between the ages of eight and 17 representing a host of countries around the world, as reported by Breitbart News.
Argentina, Brazil, France, Germany, and Turkey have specifically been singled out for attention, being accused of ”breaching their obligations under the International Convention on the Rights of Child, by promoting fossil fuels and failing to curb greenhouse gas emissions for decades, despite knowing about the risks of climate change,” the group said in a press release, as reported by Deutsche Welle news agency.
With the filing, Thunberg and her fellow activists are escalating a confrontation with the five countries that stemmed from a lawsuit they formally filed to the U.N. Convention back in September 2019.
The complaint’s original filing came on the same day Thunberg unleashed an emotional tirade on world leaders at the U.N. Climate Action Summit in New York City.
“This is all wrong. I shouldn’t be up here. I should be back in school on the other side of the ocean yet you all come to us young people for hope. How dare you,” said the Swedish teenager in her planned remarks.
“You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words,” she added.
The 16 petitioning children range from 8 to 17 years old and hail from Argentina, Brazil, France, Germany, India, Marshall Islands, Nigeria, Palau, South Africa, Sweden, Tunisia, and the United States.
The complaint was filed through the Third Optional Protocol, a mechanism that allows children to formally request the U.N. take action regarding the petitioner’s cause of choice.
Three countries – Brazil, France, and Germany – have responded to the lawsuit, according to the press release, arguing the claims against them were ”ill-founded or unsubstantiated,” the complaint was ”inadmissible in the U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child,” and that ”the climate crisis is so global that no state bears responsibility.”
Deutsche Welle reports the activists said these objections are ”baseless,” adding ”the countries should be judged for their conduct rather than words.”
The complaint does not name China, because it has not signed the part of the Convention on the Rights of the Child treaty allowing children to seek justice for breaching the agreement.
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--2020-05-06--WaPo Gets Pulitzer For Series On — Wait For It — Climate Change

Written by Joseph Vazquez on .
Posted in Latest news Another day , another Pulitzer prize given to The Washington Post for liberal content .
This time , the prize was given for the paper ’ s reporting on climate change .
The Post ’ s media reporter Paul Farhi flaunted the news in a story headlined “ Washington Post wins Pulitzer Prize for series that detailed environmental devastation in global hot spots.
” Farhi wrote how in late 2018 , The Post ’ s “ environmental writer Chris Mooney began noticing a small but recurring theme in scientific studies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ epiphany ?
“ Most places on the planet had gotten warmer on average over the preceding century , but some had become hotter than others.
” Mooney ’ s light-bulb moment apparently led to an entire climate change series that included “ articles , photos , videos and graphics ” and 53 people in The Post ’ s newsroom .
This was all part of an “ effort to document places on the planet that had experienced above-average warming.
” “ On Monday , a panel of judges awarded the series the Pulitzer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” [ Emphasis added . ]
Farhi broke down how the project , “ dubbed ‘ 2C : Beyond the Limit ’ for the benchmark two-degree Celsius temperature rise , won for explanatory journalism.
” Specifically : “ Mooney , whose byline appeared on five of the 10 stories submitted for the Pulitzer , said his reading of the studies gave him ‘ the sense that there was a common theme , where regions that were seeing unusually high levels of warming were seeing some type of bizarre or dramatic ecosystem upheaval.
’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ This year ’ s [ Pulitzer ] prizes were also the first during Donald Trump ’ s presidency in which no news organization was recognized for its reporting about Trump ’ s policies , finances or business practices.
” It appears the 53 negative headline stories The Post ran bashing the Trump administration ’ s coronavirus policies between January 17 and April 25 didn ’ t make the cut .
NewsBusters Executive Editor Tim Graham broke down the descent of the once-acclaimed Pulitzer prize into a biased token of liberal media self-aggrandizement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , four Pulitzer Prizes for reporting were handed out for exposing Donald Trump ’ s apparently shady deeds , from alleged Russian collusion to tax evasion .
In the previous eight years , there ’ s not a single reporting prize handed out for exposing anything about Barack Obama or his team .
Democracy was never in darkness back then .
”

Written by Joseph Vazquez on May 6, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Another day, another Pulitzer prize given to The Washington Post for liberal content. This time, the prize was given for the paper’s reporting on climate change.
#Headdesk.
The Post’s media reporter Paul Farhi flaunted the news in a story headlined “Washington Post wins Pulitzer Prize for series that detailed environmental devastation in global hot spots.”
Farhi wrote how in late 2018, The Post’s “environmental writer Chris Mooney began noticing a small but recurring theme in scientific studies about climate change.”
Mooney’s epiphany? “Most places on the planet had gotten warmer on average over the preceding century, but some had become hotter than others.”
Mooney’s light-bulb moment apparently led to an entire climate change series that included “articles, photos, videos and graphics” and 53 people in The Post’s newsroom.
This was all part of an “effort to document places on the planet that had experienced above-average warming.”
“On Monday, a panel of judges awarded the series the Pulitzer Prize, journalism’s highest honor.” [Emphasis added.]
Break out the confetti.
Farhi broke down how the project, “dubbed ‘2C: Beyond the Limit’ for the benchmark two-degree Celsius temperature rise, won for explanatory journalism.” Specifically:
“Mooney, whose byline appeared on five of the 10 stories submitted for the Pulitzer, said his reading of the studies gave him ‘the sense that there was a common theme, where regions that were seeing unusually high levels of warming were seeing some type of bizarre or dramatic ecosystem upheaval.’”
Astonishingly, according to Farhi, “This year’s [Pulitzer] prizes were also the first during Donald Trump’s presidency in which no news organization was recognized for its reporting about Trump’s policies, finances or business practices.”
It appears the 53 negative headline stories The Post ran bashing the Trump administration’s coronavirus policies between January 17 and April 25 didn’t make the cut.
NewsBusters Executive Editor Tim Graham broke down the descent of the once-acclaimed Pulitzer prize into a biased token of liberal media self-aggrandizement:
“Over the previous three years, four Pulitzer Prizes for reporting were handed out for exposing Donald Trump’s apparently shady deeds, from alleged Russian collusion to tax evasion. In the previous eight years, there’s not a single reporting prize handed out for exposing anything about Barack Obama or his team. Democracy was never in darkness back then.”
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--2020-05-07--New York Sits On A Natural-Gas Gold Mine They Refuse To Tap

Written by Kevin Mooney on .
Posted in Latest news New York Democrats who are asking Congress to supply them with what is widely described as a would be in a stronger economic and political position today if they took advantage of their state ’ s natural resources .
Unlike neighboring Pennsylvania , New York has banned the use of hydraulic fracturing that can be used to extract oil and natural gas deposits available within an underground rock formation known as the Marcellus Shale .
For this reason , New York residents have lost out on an energy production boom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ produce more than enough natural gas to cover its own heating , electrical , and industrial needs .
In fact , New York has enough untapped resources to become an exporter of natural gas to other states .
The Institute for Energy Research , a nonprofit group based in Washington , D.C. , that advocates for free-market energy policies , has published some highly revealing that show how costly the ban on drilling has been in a state that is in desperate need of affordable , reliable energy .
The Marcellus Shale extends @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Virginia and includes small parts of Maryland and Virginia .
But New York policymakers have effectively cut off 12 million acres from the Marcellus Shale that could be used to supply growing energy needs .
“ Without hydraulic fracturing , New York produces less than one percent of the natural gas that it consumes , ” the IER says .
Because of this wide disparity between what is produced and what is consumed , the state must import large quantities of natural gas from other states .
How does this make sense when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ within New York ’ s borders ?
Using the natural gas prices from the for New York , the value of the natural gas consumed in 2018 was $ 10.77 billion , of which the majority , $ 10.67 billion , was imported from outside of New York at a value of $ 6.39 billion that was paid to the natural gas producers of another state .
That means that New Yorkers were forced to send over $ 6 billion out of their state to buy a widely-used product that has been banned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also means fewer jobs , both directly and indirectly , and less tax revenue for the state and local governments .
Now that New York policymakers are beset with the economic fallout from COVID-19 , they may want to rethink their anti-energy posture instead of lobbying for more taxpayer-funded bailouts .
With Congress passing providing emergency funding in response to COVID-19 , it ’ s fair to say the federal response has already been substantial .
Now is the time for New York to look inward at its own failed policies , starting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There ’ s nothing like a little outside pressure and blunt criticism to start that process .
In the past few days , New York Gov .
Andrew Cuomo and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio have been involved in a highly publicized with the president , who recently suggested on and in a media that Republicans should not be compelled to bail out blue states that have been “ poorly run ” and “ mismanaged ” by Democrats .
Trump didn ’ t name names , but Cuomo and de Blasio @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talking about them .
New York was saddled with a long before it became the epicenter for the coronavirus , and it was Cuomo in who decided to maintain a ban on fracking that had been in place under his predecessor .
The New York City mayor is also as someone who opposes natural gas development .
Whatever the merits might be of Trump ’ s critique of New York ’ s leadership , it ’ s evident that the anti-energy mindset that has taken hold of top elected officials has resulted in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have to travel far to discover how shortsighted and backward their ban on fracking has been .
In Pennsylvania , natural gas production totaled in 2018 , which is almost double of what it produced in 2013 .
“ Pennsylvania produces about one-fifth of the nation ’ s natural gas , making it the second-largest natural gas producer after Texas , ” the IER says .
“ Natural gas production has revitalized communities in the state , not only in production areas where new housing , hotels , restaurants , and other businesses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state due to a per-well impact fee that raised $ 1.7 billion for community projects , environmental programs , and public safety initiatives.
” In this economic crisis , New York political figures should pay less attention to Trump ’ s tweets and instead take a long , hard look at the untapped potential that sits within the Marcellus Shale .

Written by Kevin Mooney on May 7, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
New York Democrats who are asking Congress to supply them with what is widely described as a “coronavirus bailout” would be in a stronger economic and political position today if they took advantage of their state’s natural resources.
Unlike neighboring Pennsylvania, New York has banned the use of hydraulic fracturing that can be used to extract oil and natural gas deposits available within an underground rock formation known as the Marcellus Shale.
For this reason, New York residents have lost out on an energy production boom that would have enabled the state to produce more than enough natural gas to cover its own heating, electrical, and industrial needs.
In fact, New York has enough untapped resources to become an exporter of natural gas to other states.
The Institute for Energy Research, a nonprofit group based in Washington, D.C., that advocates for free-market energy policies, has published some highly revealing figures that show how costly the ban on drilling has been in a state that is in desperate need of affordable, reliable energy.
The Marcellus Shale extends from New York through Pennsylvania and West Virginia and includes small parts of Maryland and Virginia.
But New York policymakers have effectively cut off 12 million acres from the Marcellus Shale that could be used to supply growing energy needs.
“Without hydraulic fracturing, New York produces less than one percent of the natural gas that it consumes,” the IER says.
Because of this wide disparity between what is produced and what is consumed, the state must import large quantities of natural gas from other states.
How does this make sense when there are ample supplies of natural gas within New York’s borders?
Here’s how IER describes the problem.
Using the natural gas prices from the Energy Information Administration for New York, the value of the natural gas consumed in 2018 was $10.77 billion, of which the majority, $10.67 billion, was imported from outside of New York at a value of $6.39 billion that was paid to the natural gas producers of another state. That means that New Yorkers were forced to send over $6 billion out of their state to buy a widely-used product that has been banned from being produced at home. It also means fewer jobs, both directly and indirectly, and less tax revenue for the state and local governments.
Now that New York policymakers are beset with the economic fallout from COVID-19, they may want to rethink their anti-energy posture instead of lobbying for more taxpayer-funded bailouts.
With Congress passing three bills providing emergency funding in response to COVID-19, it’s fair to say the federal response has already been substantial.
Now is the time for New York to look inward at its own failed policies, starting with its ban on hydraulic fracturing. There’s nothing like a little outside pressure and blunt criticism to start that process.
Enter President Trump.
In the past few days, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio have been involved in a highly publicized exchange with the president, who recently suggested on Twitter and in a media interview that Republicans should not be compelled to bail out blue states that have been “poorly run” and “mismanaged” by Democrats.
Why should the people and taxpayers of America be bailing out poorly run states (like Illinois, as example) and cities, in all cases Democrat run and managed, when most of the other states are not looking for bailout help? I am open to discussing anything, but just asking? — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 27, 2020
Trump didn’t name names, but Cuomo and de Blasio have good reason to believe Trump was talking about them.
New York was saddled with a $6 billion budget gap long before it became the epicenter for the coronavirus, and it was Cuomo in December 2014 who decided to maintain a ban on fracking that had been in place under his predecessor.
The New York City mayor is also on record as someone who opposes natural gas development.
Whatever the merits might be of Trump’s critique of New York’s leadership, it’s evident that the anti-energy mindset that has taken hold of top elected officials has resulted in self-inflicted wounds.
They don’t have to travel far to discover how shortsighted and backward their ban on fracking has been.
In Pennsylvania, natural gas production totaled 6.2 trillion cubic feet in 2018, which is almost double of what it produced in 2013.
“Pennsylvania produces about one-fifth of the nation’s natural gas, making it the second-largest natural gas producer after Texas,” the IER says.
“Natural gas production has revitalized communities in the state, not only in production areas where new housing, hotels, restaurants, and other businesses have been established, but across the state due to a per-well impact fee that raised $1.7 billion for community projects, environmental programs, and public safety initiatives.”
In this economic crisis, New York political figures should pay less attention to Trump’s tweets and instead take a long, hard look at the untapped potential that sits within the Marcellus Shale.
Read more at Washington Examiner
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print