climatechangedispatch--2020-03-18--The Myth Of Climate Change Refugees

The Myth Of Climate Change Refugees

Written by Ben Pile on .
Posted in Latest news Much of the Welsh village of Fairbourne ( pictured ) lies between just one and three meters above sea level .
It was built on a salt marsh in the 19th century behind two meter-high sea walls to protect the settlement from the waves .
Now climate change seems to threaten the village .
Local-authority planners say it would cost too much to extend the Victorian sea defenses and the village must be abandoned – the homes will be dismantled and the land will be returned to the marsh .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ decades ’ time , the inhabitants of Fairbourne will be ‘ the UK ’ s first climate-change refugees.
’ Really ?
Sea-level rise ( SLR ) is no doubt a problem .
But the connection between sea levels and global warming or CO2 emissions is uncertain .
There is good evidence that SLR is a phenomenon that long predates industrial society , and the notion of anthropogenic ‘ acceleration ’ is at best controversial .
It is certainly not , as is so often claimed , a subject where there is a definitive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to support both sides of this argument .
And different approaches to measuring SLR , between tide gauges and satellites , produce different results , each confounded by many technical complexities .
Tide-gauge records are sparse and inconsistent .
The satellite era began only very recently in geological terms – in 1992 .
There is no clear picture and global estimates of SLR vary between 1mm and 3mm per year .
Overall , scientists expect sea levels to rise between three and nine centimeters between now and the mid-century .
The consensus view @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and 82 centimeters by the end of the century , with worst-case scenarios projecting rises of as much as three meters .
Moreover , this range of estimates , clouded by uncertainty , should be seen in the context of the science ’ s history , which has been drenched in alarmist prognostications .
Far from being a new phenomenon , rising tides , sinking lands , storms , and erosion have claimed many of Britain ’ s coastal towns and villages through the centuries .
And plenty of settlements along Britain ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and figurative cliff edge .
The notion that sands don ’ t shift , that the natural landscape is immutable , and that houses stand forever may reflect the longings of the human psyche , but these are not facts about the natural world .
And while salt marshes at the feet of mountains make for pretty locations , that does not make them safe .
With or without man-made global warming , coastal settlements are at much greater risk than inland towns and villages – they always have been and always will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but by how much is hard to detect and to isolate from the risk that has existed throughout history .
One thing that has undoubtedly changed the risks for the inhabitants of Fairbourne is the policy decision to stop building coastal defenses .
This is framed in terms of climate policy – a framing that is totally helpful to the people of Fairbourne .
The 460 homes in the sea ’ s way have lost half of their value following Gwynedd Council ’ s decision to ‘ decommission ’ the village .
‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ house ’ , said Bev to BBC filmmakers .
Coincidentally , £100,000 is approximately the cost that will fall on the average household as a consequence of the government ’ s ‘ Net-Zero ’ agenda .
And like Gwynedd Council ’ s incautious decision , this will create a constellation of unintended consequences , which rather than serving the public interest or protecting people is likely to do great harm .
For instance , according to the ‘ wisdom ’ of environmentalists , climate change is the greatest threat humanity has ever faced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Election Guide Is More Climate Change Claptrap One piece of evidence for this seems to be the threat posed by the rising seas for some small coastal communities .
Yet the 460 homes in Fairbourne that lie in the path of the Irish Sea are less than the number of homes that are repossessed each month in England and Wales .
The threats of illness , unemployment or substantial increases in the cost of living – often caused by ideologically blinkered policymakers – are a far more present and manifestly real threat to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coasts than the angry waves could ever be .
None of which answers the question of what can be done for the people who live in places that are vulnerable to the sea .
First , we can not let any politicians or officials use climate change as an excuse or as cover for their rank incompetence and indifference to these communities .
Second , given the costs that the government wishes to impose on the entire population in the name of fighting climate change , why can we not find the money @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suitable location were found for new houses , it would even be possible to keep communities intact .
This will certainly be a lot cheaper than the trillions currently earmarked for a climate-change agenda that will produce net-zero benefits .
But this desire for puppets to act out a green morality play means that problems which require public debate are removed from their wider context , or are framed so as to preclude any solution .
The people of Fairbourne have been swept up in journalists ’ and politicians ’ green hyperbole , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agenda that has done nothing for them and is indifferent to their plight .
Meanwhile , the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – the scientific consensus – offers a far more sober perspective than the media .
It advises that ‘ the use of the term “ climate refugee ” is scientifically and legally problematic.
’ Moreover , it adds that ‘ current alarmist predictions of massive flows of so-called “ environmental migrants ” are not supported by past experiences of responses to droughts and extreme weather events , and predictions for future @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It is safe to say that the views of scientists have been a huge disappointment to green campaigners , who have gone in search of stories about ‘ climate refugees ’ all the same .

Written by Ben Pile on Mar 18, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Much of the Welsh village of Fairbourne (pictured) lies between just one and three meters above sea level.
It was built on a salt marsh in the 19th century behind two meter-high sea walls to protect the settlement from the waves.
Now climate change seems to threaten the village.
Local-authority planners say it would cost too much to extend the Victorian sea defenses and the village must be abandoned – the homes will be dismantled and the land will be returned to the marsh.
Headlines excitedly proclaim that, in three decades’ time, the inhabitants of Fairbourne will be ‘the UK’s first climate-change refugees.’ Really?
Sea-level rise (SLR) is no doubt a problem. But the connection between sea levels and global warming or CO2 emissions is uncertain.
There is good evidence that SLR is a phenomenon that long predates industrial society, and the notion of anthropogenic ‘acceleration’ is at best controversial.
It is certainly not, as is so often claimed, a subject where there is a definitive scientific ‘consensus.’
There is evidence to support both sides of this argument. And different approaches to measuring SLR, between tide gauges and satellites, produce different results, each confounded by many technical complexities.
Tide-gauge records are sparse and inconsistent. The satellite era began only very recently in geological terms – in 1992. There is no clear picture and global estimates of SLR vary between 1mm and 3mm per year.
Overall, scientists expect sea levels to rise between three and nine centimeters between now and the mid-century.
The consensus view provides a range of SLR between 28 and 82 centimeters by the end of the century, with worst-case scenarios projecting rises of as much as three meters.
Moreover, this range of estimates, clouded by uncertainty, should be seen in the context of the science’s history, which has been drenched in alarmist prognostications.
Far from being a new phenomenon, rising tides, sinking lands, storms, and erosion have claimed many of Britain’s coastal towns and villages through the centuries.
And plenty of settlements along Britain’s coastline still stand at the literal and figurative cliff edge.
The notion that sands don’t shift, that the natural landscape is immutable, and that houses stand forever may reflect the longings of the human psyche, but these are not facts about the natural world.
And while salt marshes at the feet of mountains make for pretty locations, that does not make them safe.
With or without man-made global warming, coastal settlements are at much greater risk than inland towns and villages – they always have been and always will be.
Climate change increases that risk but by how much is hard to detect and to isolate from the risk that has existed throughout history.
One thing that has undoubtedly changed the risks for the inhabitants of Fairbourne is the policy decision to stop building coastal defenses.
This is framed in terms of climate policy – a framing that is totally helpful to the people of Fairbourne.
The 460 homes in the sea’s way have lost half of their value following Gwynedd Council’s decision to ‘decommission’ the village. ‘I’ve lost £100,000 on this house’, said Bev to BBC filmmakers.
Coincidentally, £100,000 is approximately the cost that will fall on the average household as a consequence of the government’s ‘Net-Zero’ agenda.
And like Gwynedd Council’s incautious decision, this will create a constellation of unintended consequences, which rather than serving the public interest or protecting people is likely to do great harm.
For instance, according to the ‘wisdom’ of environmentalists, climate change is the greatest threat humanity has ever faced.
SEE ALSO: BBC’s Election Guide Is More Climate Change Claptrap
One piece of evidence for this seems to be the threat posed by the rising seas for some small coastal communities.
Yet the 460 homes in Fairbourne that lie in the path of the Irish Sea are less than the number of homes that are repossessed each month in England and Wales.
The threats of illness, unemployment or substantial increases in the cost of living – often caused by ideologically blinkered policymakers – are a far more present and manifestly real threat to people living both inland and on the coasts than the angry waves could ever be.
None of which answers the question of what can be done for the people who live in places that are vulnerable to the sea.
First, we cannot let any politicians or officials use climate change as an excuse or as cover for their rank incompetence and indifference to these communities.
Second, given the costs that the government wishes to impose on the entire population in the name of fighting climate change, why can we not find the money to relocate people inland?
If a suitable location were found for new houses, it would even be possible to keep communities intact. This will certainly be a lot cheaper than the trillions currently earmarked for a climate-change agenda that will produce net-zero benefits.
Climate campaigners have long sought climate victims.
But this desire for puppets to act out a green morality play means that problems which require public debate are removed from their wider context, or are framed so as to preclude any solution.
The people of Fairbourne have been swept up in journalists’ and politicians’ green hyperbole, and have been used to further an agenda that has done nothing for them and is indifferent to their plight.
Meanwhile, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – the scientific consensus – offers a far more sober perspective than the media.
It advises that ‘the use of the term “climate refugee” is scientifically and legally problematic.’
Moreover, it adds that ‘current alarmist predictions of massive flows of so-called “environmental migrants” are not supported by past experiences of responses to droughts and extreme weather events, and predictions for future migration flows are tentative at best.’
It is safe to say that the views of scientists have been a huge disappointment to green campaigners, who have gone in search of stories about ‘climate refugees’ all the same.
Read more at Spiked Online
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-03-18--Good News, Say Climate Activists: We Have A Crisis!

Written by Terence Corcoran on .
Posted in Latest news “ A crisis is a terrible thing to waste , ” said U.S. economist Paul Romer way back in 2004 , the point being that crises create opportunities for solving problems .
While moving aggressively to control the spread of a deadly virus seems like a worthy objective of public policy , for some manipulators of public opinion the COVID-19 crisis has become too terrible to waste on merely controlling infectious disease .
Even before the World Health Organization ’ s pandemic declaration , the world ’ s climate activists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emerging global policy panic .
What an opportunity !
Air travel curtailed , world trade slowed , fossil fuel use in decline , growth falling , people staying home and not using their carbon-emitting vehicles — a textbook demonstration of the benefits of carbon control policy .
Leading the high-level march of triumph was Christiana Figueres , former executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and one of the architects of the 2015 Paris Agreement that Canada has committed to .
In a recent interview on British television , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the last disease eruption if the world continues to “ deny , delude and delay on climate change.
” Then Figueres was asked by the interviewer : “ Is there any sense that this could be self-controlling , that as we see economic growth possibly slowing down around the world because of the coronavirus , that ’ s actually good for the climate ?
” Figueres : “ Well , that is ironically , of course , the other side of it .
It may be good for the climate because there is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ travel , there ’ s less commerce … if we really sustain several months of reduced travel , we may realize that we don ’ t have to travel.
” The former UN executive is co-author of a new book , The Future We Choose : Surviving the Climate Crisis , which describes a feel-good neo-communist future in 2050 where much more than travel has disappeared in a new “ communal effort ” to produce goods .
“ Instead of going to a big grocery store for food flown in from hundreds , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , you buy most of your food from small local farmers and producers.
” Food , therefore , becomes more expensive , but because food is now “ something to be prized ” it has “ turned out to be a better recipe for happiness.
” Figueres is not a lone voice attempting to turn the COVID-19 pandemic , and its associated economic fallout , into an opportunity .
At the Globe and Sail , the Toronto-based newspaper and cruise ship promoter , an oped last week by veteran green fear-monger Thomas Homer-Dixon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world .
It might be a better future.
” Homer-Dixon is an environmental professor at the University of Waterloo and head of the Cascade Institute at Royal Roads University in Victoria , a new academic venture dedicated to shifting “ global civilization away from a path that leads to calamity ” and toward sustainable development .
In his op-ed on the pandemic calamity , the professor observed the empty shelves at a big-box grocery store near Victoria and immediately began to marvel at the “ surprising silver linings around the coronavirus clouds.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ along with massive disruption to the global economic system in which “ shocks propagate like a row of dominoes falling over.
” But think of the benefits !
We can all now realize that this global virus crisis is revealing the “ critical vulnerabilities in humanity ’ s planet-spanning economic , social and technological systems.
” Think of all the global interconnectivity that , thanks to COVID-19 , is now revealed to be at a tipping point : “ air traffic , financial , energy , manufacturing , food distribution , shipping , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Homer-Dixon , is “ a collective problem that requires global collective action — just like climate change.
” The same theme emerged across the Atlantic last week in a Financial Times feature that presented the coronavirus “ an epidemic for our times.
” Writer Henry Mance said it pits pessimistic environmentalists against optimists such as Steven Pinker .
Mance sided with the pessimists .
COVID-19 “ could , at the very least , be part of the learning curve .
If we can accept canceled flights , closed schools , postponed sporting fixtures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the future.
” On The Climate Crisis web page at The New Yorker magazine , U.S. radical fossil fuel activist Bill McKibben ( pictured above ) wrote that “ There ’ s nothing good about the novel coronavirus.
” McKibben didn ’ t really mean that , because he certainly was not going to let a pandemic stand in the way of a terrific opportunity .
“ However , ” he continued , “ if we ’ re fated to go through this passage , we may as well learn something from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ McKibben , is that “ giant cruise ships are climate killers and , it turns out , can become floating sick wards.
” Maybe , too , the COVID-19 pandemic will teach us to “ substitute human contact for endless consumption.
” Still , the ever-vigilant producers at CBC Radio ’ s The Current noticed his New Yorker item and lined him up to tell Canadians that when the pandemic is over “ we may feel real relief … and perhaps start to evaluate whether or not the satisfaction we want as human @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , not from the consumption of stuff .
If that message sank in , then there might be some real benefit for the larger , more enduring crisis that we face in the planet ’ s atmosphere.
” As the CBC interview ended , McKibben took a shot at Canada .
“ If we set all the oil in Alberta on fire , that CO2 is gon na travel all over the world as people burn it in gas tanks in their cars.
” What that has to do with the coronavirus doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and others , this pandemic is just too terrible to waste .
Read more at Financial Post

Written by Terence Corcoran on Mar 18, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
“A crisis is a terrible thing to waste,” said U.S. economist Paul Romer way back in 2004, the point being that crises create opportunities for solving problems.
While moving aggressively to control the spread of a deadly virus seems like a worthy objective of public policy, for some manipulators of public opinion the COVID-19 crisis has become too terrible to waste on merely controlling infectious disease.
Even before the World Health Organization’s pandemic declaration, the world’s climate activists had already decided to capitalize on the emerging global policy panic.
What an opportunity! Air travel curtailed, world trade slowed, fossil fuel use in decline, growth falling, people staying home and not using their carbon-emitting vehicles — a textbook demonstration of the benefits of carbon control policy.
Leading the high-level march of triumph was Christiana Figueres, former executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and one of the architects of the 2015 Paris Agreement that Canada has committed to.
In a recent interview on British television, Figueres warned that COVID-19 will not be the last disease eruption if the world continues to “deny, delude and delay on climate change.”
Then Figueres was asked by the interviewer: “Is there any sense that this could be self-controlling, that as we see economic growth possibly slowing down around the world because of the coronavirus, that’s actually good for the climate?”
Figueres: “Well, that is ironically, of course, the other side of it. It may be good for the climate because there is less trade, there’s less travel, there’s less commerce … if we really sustain several months of reduced travel, we may realize that we don’t have to travel.”
The former UN executive is co-author of a new book, The Future We Choose: Surviving the Climate Crisis, which describes a feel-good neo-communist future in 2050 where much more than travel has disappeared in a new “communal effort” to produce goods.
“Instead of going to a big grocery store for food flown in from hundreds, if not thousands, of miles away, you buy most of your food from small local farmers and producers.”
Food, therefore, becomes more expensive, but because food is now “something to be prized” it has “turned out to be a better recipe for happiness.”
Figueres is not a lone voice attempting to turn the COVID-19 pandemic, and its associated economic fallout, into an opportunity.
At the Globe and Sail, the Toronto-based newspaper and cruise ship promoter, an oped last week by veteran green fear-monger Thomas Homer-Dixon announced that “Coronavirus will change the world. It might be a better future.”
Homer-Dixon is an environmental professor at the University of Waterloo and head of the Cascade Institute at Royal Roads University in Victoria, a new academic venture dedicated to shifting “global civilization away from a path that leads to calamity” and toward sustainable development.
In his op-ed on the pandemic calamity, the professor observed the empty shelves at a big-box grocery store near Victoria and immediately began to marvel at the “surprising silver linings around the coronavirus clouds.”
There may be a few million dead along with massive disruption to the global economic system in which “shocks propagate like a row of dominoes falling over.”
But think of the benefits! We can all now realize that this global virus crisis is revealing the “critical vulnerabilities in humanity’s planet-spanning economic, social and technological systems.”
Think of all the global interconnectivity that, thanks to COVID-19, is now revealed to be at a tipping point: “air traffic, financial, energy, manufacturing, food distribution, shipping, and communications networks.”
COVID-19, writes Homer-Dixon, is “a collective problem that requires global collective action — just like climate change.”
The same theme emerged across the Atlantic last week in a Financial Times feature that presented the coronavirus “an epidemic for our times.”
Writer Henry Mance said it pits pessimistic environmentalists against optimists such as Steven Pinker. Mance sided with the pessimists.
COVID-19 “could, at the very least, be part of the learning curve. If we can accept canceled flights, closed schools, postponed sporting fixtures now, perhaps we can accept restraints in the future.”
On The Climate Crisis web page at The New Yorker magazine, U.S. radical fossil fuel activist Bill McKibben (pictured above) wrote that “There’s nothing good about the novel coronavirus.”
McKibben didn’t really mean that, because he certainly was not going to let a pandemic stand in the way of a terrific opportunity. “However,” he continued, “if we’re fated to go through this passage, we may as well learn something from it.”
What we learn, said McKibben, is that “giant cruise ships are climate killers and, it turns out, can become floating sick wards.” Maybe, too, the COVID-19 pandemic will teach us to “substitute human contact for endless consumption.”
McKibben’s message was riddled with incoherence.
Still, the ever-vigilant producers at CBC Radio’s The Current noticed his New Yorker item and lined him up to tell Canadians that when the pandemic is over “we may feel real relief … and perhaps start to evaluate whether or not the satisfaction we want as human beings come from contact with other people, not from the consumption of stuff. If that message sank in, then there might be some real benefit for the larger, more enduring crisis that we face in the planet’s atmosphere.”
As the CBC interview ended, McKibben took a shot at Canada. “If we set all the oil in Alberta on fire, that CO2 is gonna travel all over the world as people burn it in gas tanks in their cars.”
What that has to do with the coronavirus doesn’t really matter. For McKibben and others, this pandemic is just too terrible to waste.
Read more at Financial Post
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-03-18--Why Electric Cars Won’t ‘Save The Planet’ From Climate Change

Written by Ellie Bufkin on .
Posted in Latest news After Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders vowed to end all fossil fuel use during the Sunday night Democratic debate , the reality of an all-electric lifestyle must be considered .
The idea of eliminating fossil fuel use in the U.S. is obviously an effort aimed at reducing emissions and greenhouse gasses considered harmful to the environment and propelling the effects of climate change .
But are battery-operated vehicles a truly green , clean alternative to traditional fuel operated vehicles ?
There is a lot of incomplete information about electric vehicles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact and touted as a badge of sacrifice on the altar of climate activism .
The truth , however inconvenient , is that battery-operated vehicles aren ’ t so clean and offer their own set of resource-depleting problems .
Do Electric Vehicles really give off zero emissions ?
While electric vehicles ( EVs ) do not emit CO2 like traditional combustion engine cars , they actually do still have particulate emissions that pose a substantial threat to clean air .
Batteries required to power cars with no assistance from a traditional engine are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ burden on tires than traditional cars .
As the EVs rack up miles , particulates from tires , brake dust , and re-agitated roadway pollutants are all mixed into the environment , creating potentially harmful air quality .
As the increased workload on braking systems of EVs became a known problem , however , some electric cars have developed regenerative braking systems to curb the increase of air pollutants .
Where does all that recharging power come from ?
While there are public charging stations scattered all over the world that tout a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ majority of EV charging is done at home by the vehicle owner .
A single overnight charge for the car can equate to running a large appliance for over a month , depending on the size of the vehicle and the intended battery range .
While renewable energy sources have increased in recent years , solar power still accounts for less than 2 % of the total U.S. energy production .
Wind and hydropower account for about 14 % of total energy output and nuclear power represents just under 20 % .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ natural gas that power the majority of American homes and businesses with nearly 63 % of all energy generation in the United States .
This means that the overnight charge for your environmentally friendly car is actually very likely dependent on fossil fuels , increasing emissions as the battery “ fills up , ” even though no fuel is going into a gas tank .
Producing and disposing of large , powerful batteries for EVs has a huge environmental impact While the tailpipe emissions from EVs are non-existent , the effort to achieve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CO2 output than traditional cars .
In fact , a battery-only ( nonhybrid ) vehicle uses 8.8 CO2 tons on average to produce which is over 2 tons greater that of a traditional fuel or diesel-consuming vehicle .
Forty-six percent of all emissions generated by a battery-operated vehicle occurs at the time of production before the EV has even traveled to the dealership .
According to a report by Ricardo , this emissions-heavy production process poses a significant threat to the climate .
Batteries for EVs also have a limited life , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ future of clean energy cars .
For larger vehicles like vans and buses , batteries are estimated to need replacement every few years .
Smaller cars may use their batteries for 7-10 years , depending on a variety of factors .
But disposing of old batteries is no simple task and is one that most countries are ill-prepared to deal with .
As they can not be taken to landfills because of their toxic acid components , they must be recycled , which is an expensive , labor-intensive process .
Currently , regulations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the European Union for battery disposal .
China places the burden of disposal on the car manufacturers .
The future of energy in the United States While Biden may get a round of applause when he suggests the end of fossil fuels , the reality of enacting such a plan is not only unrealistic , it implicates an elimination of millions of jobs and a near-halt to domestic energy production .
Biden may not have been connecting the dots , but to run a battery-powered “ clean-energy ” nation , you need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ behind in production vs. consumption of energy and as more cities , like NYC , San Francisco , and Los Angeles vow to bring more electric vehicles into the fold and purge the gas-guzzling cars of old , power will need to increase quickly .
The technology behind making renewable energy sources a reality for the power needs of the U.S. is woefully behind .
It is currently estimated that , based on our current rate of increased energy needs , America will be 79 % reliant on fossil fuels by 2050 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ no ” to drilling , Biden failed to suggest an alternative to a desperately needed source of power .

Written by Ellie Bufkin on Mar 18, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
After Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders vowed to end all fossil fuel use during the Sunday night Democratic debate, the reality of an all-electric lifestyle must be considered.
The idea of eliminating fossil fuel use in the U.S. is obviously an effort aimed at reducing emissions and greenhouse gasses considered harmful to the environment and propelling the effects of climate change.
But are battery-operated vehicles a truly green, clean alternative to traditional fuel operated vehicles?
There is a lot of incomplete information about electric vehicles that is commonly accepted by environmentalists as fact and touted as a badge of sacrifice on the altar of climate activism.
The truth, however inconvenient, is that battery-operated vehicles aren’t so clean and offer their own set of resource-depleting problems.
Do Electric Vehicles really give off zero emissions?
While electric vehicles (EVs) do not emit CO2 like traditional combustion engine cars, they actually do still have particulate emissions that pose a substantial threat to clean air.
Batteries required to power cars with no assistance from a traditional engine are quite heavy and place a much larger burden on tires than traditional cars.
As the EVs rack up miles, particulates from tires, brake dust, and re-agitated roadway pollutants are all mixed into the environment, creating potentially harmful air quality.
As the increased workload on braking systems of EVs became a known problem, however, some electric cars have developed regenerative braking systems to curb the increase of air pollutants.
Where does all that recharging power come from?
While there are public charging stations scattered all over the world that tout a variety of renewable energy sources, the majority of EV charging is done at home by the vehicle owner.
A single overnight charge for the car can equate to running a large appliance for over a month, depending on the size of the vehicle and the intended battery range.
While renewable energy sources have increased in recent years, solar power still accounts for less than 2% of the total U.S. energy production.
Wind and hydropower account for about 14% of total energy output and nuclear power represents just under 20%.
But it is fossil fuels like coal and natural gas that power the majority of American homes and businesses with nearly 63% of all energy generation in the United States.
This means that the overnight charge for your environmentally friendly car is actually very likely dependent on fossil fuels, increasing emissions as the battery “fills up,” even though no fuel is going into a gas tank.
Producing and disposing of large, powerful batteries for EVs has a huge environmental impact
While the tailpipe emissions from EVs are non-existent, the effort to achieve the green-friendly ride requires a much heftier CO2 output than traditional cars.
In fact, a battery-only (nonhybrid) vehicle uses 8.8 CO2 tons on average to produce which is over 2 tons greater that of a traditional fuel or diesel-consuming vehicle.
Forty-six percent of all emissions generated by a battery-operated vehicle occurs at the time of production before the EV has even traveled to the dealership.
According to a report by Ricardo, this emissions-heavy production process poses a significant threat to the climate.
Batteries for EVs also have a limited life, which poses another set of problems for the future of clean energy cars.
For larger vehicles like vans and buses, batteries are estimated to need replacement every few years. Smaller cars may use their batteries for 7-10 years, depending on a variety of factors.
But disposing of old batteries is no simple task and is one that most countries are ill-prepared to deal with.
As they cannot be taken to landfills because of their toxic acid components, they must be recycled, which is an expensive, labor-intensive process.
Currently, regulations are being considered by the United States and the European Union for battery disposal. China places the burden of disposal on the car manufacturers.
The future of energy in the United States
While Biden may get a round of applause when he suggests the end of fossil fuels, the reality of enacting such a plan is not only unrealistic, it implicates an elimination of millions of jobs and a near-halt to domestic energy production.
Biden may not have been connecting the dots, but to run a battery-powered “clean-energy” nation, you need power.
The United States is already behind in production vs. consumption of energy and as more cities, like NYC, San Francisco, and Los Angeles vow to bring more electric vehicles into the fold and purge the gas-guzzling cars of old, power will need to increase quickly.
The technology behind making renewable energy sources a reality for the power needs of the U.S. is woefully behind.
It is currently estimated that, based on our current rate of increased energy needs, America will be 79% reliant on fossil fuels by 2050.
Apart from banning fracking and saying “no” to drilling, Biden failed to suggest an alternative to a desperately needed source of power.
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--2020-03-18--The Luxury Of Apocalypticism

The Luxury Of Apocalypticism

Written by Brendan O'Neill on .
Posted in Latest news People ’ s refusal to panic has been a great source of frustration for the establishment in recent years .
‘ The planet is burning ’ , they lie , in relation to climate change , and yet we do not weep or wail or even pay very much attention .
‘ I want you to panic ’ , instructs the newest mouthpiece of green apocalypticism , Greta Thunberg , and yet most of us refuse to do so .
A No-Deal Brexit would unleash economic mayhem , racist pogroms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they squealed , incessantly , like millenarian preachers balking at the imminent arrival of the lightning bolt of final judgment , and yet we didn ’ t flinch .
We went to work .
We went home .
We still supported Brexit .
Our skittish elites have been so baffled , infuriated in fact , by our calm response to their hysterical warnings that they have invented pathologies to explain our unacceptable behavior .
The therapeutic language of ‘ denialism ’ is used to explain the masses ’ refusal to fret over climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the psychology of climate-change denial ’ , on ‘ the self-deception and mass denial ’ coursing through this society that refuses to flatter or engage with the hysteria of the eco-elites .
Likewise , the refusal of voters to succumb to the dire , hollow warnings of the ferociously anti-Brexit wing of the establishment was interpreted by self-styled experts as a psychological disorder .
‘ [ This is ] people taking action for essentially psychological reasons , irrespective of the economic cost ’ , said one professor .
How curious .
In the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was seen as a malady of the mind .
Now it is the reluctance to kowtow to hysteria , the preference for calm discussion over panic and dread , that is treated as a malady .
Today , it is those who prefer reason over rashness , whether on climate change or Brexit , who are judged to be disordered .
According to the new elites , their apocalypticism is normal , while our calm democratic commitment to a political project , such as Brexit , or our desire to treat pollution as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ swirling , cloudy hint of nature ’ s coming fury with man ’ s hubris and destructiveness , is mad , deranged , in need of treatment .
Their End-Times nervousness is good ; our faith in moral reason is bad .
This strange , fascinating tension between the apocalypticism of the intellectual and cultural elites and the skepticism of ordinary people is coming into play in the Covid-19 crisis .
Of course , Covid-19 is very different from both No Deal Brexit and climate change .
It is a serious medical and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ idea that leaving the EU without a deal would be the greatest crisis to befall Britain since the Luftwaffe dropped its deadly cargo on us was nothing more than political propaganda invented from pure cloth .
And the notion that climate change is an End-Times event , rather than a practical problem that can be solved with tech , especially the rollout of nuclear power , is little more than the prejudice of Malthusian elites who view the very project of modernity as an intemperate expression of speciesist supremacy by mankind .
Covid-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a real and pressing crisis .
It poses a profound challenge to humankind .
It requires seriousness and action to limit the number of deaths and to mitigate the economic and social costs of both the disease itself and of our strategies for dealing with it .
But what ties Covid-19 to the other fashionable apocalypses of our nervous elites , including the green apocalypse and the Brexit apocalypse , is the interpretation of it through the language and ideology of the elites ’ pre-existing dread , their pre-existing cultural skittishness , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Covid-19 has been folded into their narrative of horror , into their permanent state of cultural distress , and this is making the task of facing it down even harder .
The media are at the forefront of stirring up apocalyptic dread over Covid-19 .
In Europe , there is also performative apocalypticism in some of the more extreme clampdowns on everyday life and social engagement by the political authorities , in particular in Italy , Spain , and France .
Many governments seem to be driven less by a reasoned , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the disease and the disorganization of economic life , than by an urge to be seen to be taking action .
They seem motivated more by an instinct to perform the role of worriers about the apocalypse , for the benefit of the dread-ridden cultural elites , rather than by the responsibility to behave as true moral leaders who might galvanize the public in a collective mission against illness and a concerted effort to protect economic life .

Written by Brendan O'Neill on Mar 18, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
People’s refusal to panic has been a great source of frustration for the establishment in recent years.
‘The planet is burning’, they lie, in relation to climate change, and yet we do not weep or wail or even pay very much attention.
‘I want you to panic’, instructs the newest mouthpiece of green apocalypticism, Greta Thunberg, and yet most of us refuse to do so.
A No-Deal Brexit would unleash economic mayhem, racist pogroms and even a pandemic of super-gonorrhea, they squealed, incessantly, like millenarian preachers balking at the imminent arrival of the lightning bolt of final judgment, and yet we didn’t flinch.
We went to work. We went home. We still supported Brexit.
Our skittish elites have been so baffled, infuriated in fact, by our calm response to their hysterical warnings that they have invented pathologies to explain our unacceptable behavior.
The therapeutic language of ‘denialism’ is used to explain the masses’ refusal to fret over climate change.
Environmentalists write articles on ‘the psychology of climate-change denial’, on ‘the self-deception and mass denial’ coursing through this society that refuses to flatter or engage with the hysteria of the eco-elites.
Likewise, the refusal of voters to succumb to the dire, hollow warnings of the ferociously anti-Brexit wing of the establishment was interpreted by self-styled experts as a psychological disorder.
‘[This is] people taking action for essentially psychological reasons, irrespective of the economic cost’, said one professor.
How curious. In the past, it was the hysteria that was seen as a malady of the mind. Now it is the reluctance to kowtow to hysteria, the preference for calm discussion over panic and dread, that is treated as a malady.
Today, it is those who prefer reason over rashness, whether on climate change or Brexit, who are judged to be disordered.
According to the new elites, their apocalypticism is normal, while our calm democratic commitment to a political project, such as Brexit, or our desire to treat pollution as a practical problem rather than as a swirling, cloudy hint of nature’s coming fury with man’s hubris and destructiveness, is mad, deranged, in need of treatment.
Their End-Times nervousness is good; our faith in moral reason is bad.
This strange, fascinating tension between the apocalypticism of the intellectual and cultural elites and the skepticism of ordinary people is coming into play in the Covid-19 crisis.
Of course, Covid-19 is very different from both No Deal Brexit and climate change. It is a serious medical and social crisis.
In contrast, the idea that leaving the EU without a deal would be the greatest crisis to befall Britain since the Luftwaffe dropped its deadly cargo on us was nothing more than political propaganda invented from pure cloth.
And the notion that climate change is an End-Times event, rather than a practical problem that can be solved with tech, especially the rollout of nuclear power, is little more than the prejudice of Malthusian elites who view the very project of modernity as an intemperate expression of speciesist supremacy by mankind.
Covid-19, on the other hand, is a real and pressing crisis. It poses a profound challenge to humankind.
It requires seriousness and action to limit the number of deaths and to mitigate the economic and social costs of both the disease itself and of our strategies for dealing with it.
But what ties Covid-19 to the other fashionable apocalypses of our nervous elites, including the green apocalypse and the Brexit apocalypse, is the interpretation of it through the language and ideology of the elites’ pre-existing dread, their pre-existing cultural skittishness, and moral disarray.
Predictably, and depressingly, Covid-19 has been folded into their narrative of horror, into their permanent state of cultural distress, and this is making the task of facing it down even harder.
The media are at the forefront of stirring up apocalyptic dread over Covid-19. In Europe, there is also performative apocalypticism in some of the more extreme clampdowns on everyday life and social engagement by the political authorities, in particular in Italy, Spain, and France.
Many governments seem to be driven less by a reasoned, evidence-fuelled strategy of limiting both the spread of the disease and the disorganization of economic life, than by an urge to be seen to be taking action.
They seem motivated more by an instinct to perform the role of worriers about the apocalypse, for the benefit of the dread-ridden cultural elites, rather than by the responsibility to behave as true moral leaders who might galvanize the public in a collective mission against illness and a concerted effort to protect economic life.
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--2020-03-18--Rep. Conor Lamb Is All-In On Biden’s No Fracking Pledge

Written by Chris White on .
Posted in Latest news Pennsylvania Rep. Conor Lamb ’ s ( pictured ) Republican opponent railed against the Democrat Tuesday after he tossed his support behind former Vice President Joe Biden ’ s promise to end new fracking projects if he wins in 2020 .
Lamb ’ s praise of the former vice president ’ s newfound fracking position comes as his state morphs into a leader in the booming natural gas industry .
The moderate Democrat is also running for re-election in a state that tilted heavily toward President Donald Trump in 2016 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vice president ’ s fracking proposal strikes a balance that aligns with the views of Democrats in his area of the state , where fracking is a major industry , ” Lamb told The Wall Street Journal Monday .
His Republican opponent isn ’ t buying the new pitch .
“ The Democrats I ’ ve talked to– blue-collar union Democrats who work in the oil and gas industry– are scared to death by this rhetoric , ” Sean Parnell , a retired Army Ranger who is running for Lamb ’ s seat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : “ Over 100,000 oil and gas jobs in Western PA would vanish ” under that plan .
Lamb ’ s remark came one day after Biden promised during Sunday ’ s CNN Democratic debate to stop new fracking projects after his presidential rival , Sen. Bernie Sanders , drilled the former vice president for not being tough enough on the oil industry .
“ No new fracking , ” he said in response to Sanders ’ hectoring .
Biden also suggested during the debate that he would replace fossil fuels with “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off the road .
Making sure we move in a direction where no more drilling on federal lands.
” Biden ’ s surrogates say the vice president is referring to his plan to stop fracking on public lands , but conservative natural gas supporters say Biden ’ s position is effectively a ban .
“ Saying no ‘ new ’ fracking is functionally the same as saying no fracking period , ” Steve Everley a former energy advisor to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich , told the DCNF .
The fracking process takes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s not something that occurs for months or years .
… Biden and Lamb going all-in on a “ no new fracking ” agenda also comes as Sanders champions the issue .
Sanders , a self-avowed Democratic socialist , revealed his own Green New Deal in August 2019 , promising everything from “ virtually free ” electricity and a “ hunger-free ” transition to green energy from fossil fuels .
Some researchers suggest the proposal if it became law would take a sledgehammer to American households in swing states .
Households would have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 74,287 and $ 76,683 in Colorado , Michigan , and Pennsylvania , among other states , a February report from the Competitive Enterprise Institute noted .
Reports continue to show that such a policy would fracture the economy amid coronavirus fears and global oil wars .
Oil prices tumbled into the $ 30 range on March 9 as the Saudis pushed for a cut in output to prop up prices , while Russia went the other way , and decided to infuse the market with hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil .

Written by Chris White on Mar 18, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Pennsylvania Rep. Conor Lamb’s (pictured) Republican opponent railed against the Democrat Tuesday after he tossed his support behind former Vice President Joe Biden’s promise to end new fracking projects if he wins in 2020.
Lamb’s praise of the former vice president’s newfound fracking position comes as his state morphs into a leader in the booming natural gas industry.
The moderate Democrat is also running for re-election in a state that tilted heavily toward President Donald Trump in 2016.
“[T]he former vice president’s fracking proposal strikes a balance that aligns with the views of Democrats in his area of the state, where fracking is a major industry,” Lamb told The Wall Street Journal Monday. His Republican opponent isn’t buying the new pitch.
“The Democrats I’ve talked to– blue-collar union Democrats who work in the oil and gas industry– are scared to death by this rhetoric,” Sean Parnell, a retired Army Ranger who is running for Lamb’s seat, told the DCNF.
He added: “Over 100,000 oil and gas jobs in Western PA would vanish” under that plan.
Lamb’s remark came one day after Biden promised during Sunday’s CNN Democratic debate to stop new fracking projects after his presidential rival, Sen. Bernie Sanders, drilled the former vice president for not being tough enough on the oil industry.
“No new fracking,” he said in response to Sanders’ hectoring.
Biden also suggested during the debate that he would replace fossil fuels with “high-speed rail, taking millions of automobiles off the road. Making sure we move in a direction where no more drilling on federal lands.”
Biden’s surrogates say the vice president is referring to his plan to stop fracking on public lands, but conservative natural gas supporters say Biden’s position is effectively a ban.
“Saying no ‘new’ fracking is functionally the same as saying no fracking period,” Steve Everley a former energy advisor to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, told the DCNF. The fracking process takes nearly a week, meaning it’s not something that occurs for months or years. …
Biden and Lamb going all-in on a “no new fracking” agenda also comes as Sanders champions the issue.
Sanders, a self-avowed Democratic socialist, revealed his own Green New Deal in August 2019, promising everything from “virtually free” electricity and a “hunger-free” transition to green energy from fossil fuels.
Some researchers suggest the proposal if it became law would take a sledgehammer to American households in swing states.
Households would have ponied up an average of between $74,287 and $76,683 in Colorado, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, among other states, a February report from the Competitive Enterprise Institute noted.
Reports continue to show that such a policy would fracture the economy amid coronavirus fears and global oil wars.
Oil prices tumbled into the $30 range on March 9 as the Saudis pushed for a cut in output to prop up prices, while Russia went the other way, and decided to infuse the market with hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil.
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--2020-03-19--Earth Is Greening From Rising CO2, Expanding Planet’s Carbon Sink

Written by Kenneth Richard on .
Posted in Latest news A new study finds rising CO2 concentrations ( and warming ) have driven the rapid increase in Earth ’ s photosynthesis processes , or greening .
CO2-induced planetary greening leads to an enormous expansion of Earth ’ s carbon sink .
By 2100 this greening-sink effect will offset 17 years of equivalent human CO2 emissions .
This easily supersedes the effect of the Paris Agreement ’ s CO2-mitigation policies .
In a break from the deflating global news of viral infections and rising death rates , a groundbreaking new study @ @ @ @ @ @ @ affirms the “ beneficial role of the land carbon sink in modulating future excess anthropogenic CO2 consistent with the target of the Paris Agreement ” via the fertilization effect of rising CO2 .
There has been a 30 % rise in global greening since 1900 .
CO2 fertilization is the “ dominant driver ” of these greening trends , with an additional positive contribution from climate warming .
When CO2 levels double ( to 560 ppm ) , this CO2-fertilization-greening effect is expected to increase to 47 % .
Growth in the land @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CO2 emissions – will reach 174 PgC by the end of the century .
This is the equivalent of eliminating 17 full years of human CO2 emissions .
Read more at No Tricks Zone

Written by Kenneth Richard on Mar 19, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
A new study finds rising CO2 concentrations (and warming) have driven the rapid increase in Earth’s photosynthesis processes, or greening.
CO2-induced planetary greening leads to an enormous expansion of Earth’s carbon sink.
By 2100 this greening-sink effect will offset 17 years of equivalent human CO2 emissions.
This easily supersedes the effect of the Paris Agreement’s CO2-mitigation policies.
In a break from the deflating global news of viral infections and rising death rates, a groundbreaking new study (Haverd et al., 2020) affirms the “beneficial role of the land carbon sink in modulating future excess anthropogenic CO2 consistent with the target of the Paris Agreement” via the fertilization effect of rising CO2.
There has been a 30% rise in global greening since 1900. CO2 fertilization is the “dominant driver” of these greening trends, with an additional positive contribution from climate warming.
When CO2 levels double (to 560 ppm), this CO2-fertilization-greening effect is expected to increase to 47%.
Growth in the land’s carbon sink – absorbing excess CO2 emissions – will reach 174 PgC by the end of the century.
This is the equivalent of eliminating 17 full years of human CO2 emissions.
Read more at No Tricks Zone
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-03-19--Left, Media Tout How Shuttered Industries Good For Climate

Written by Penny Starr on .
Posted in Latest news The media is celebrating that the coronavirus –– which has killed over 3,000 in China –– could be combating climate change as nations ’ economies around the world are ground to a halt .
CNN reported on the “ blue skies ” in China in recent days : Factories were shuttered and streets were cleared across China ’ s Hubei province as authorities ordered residents to stay home to stop the spread of the coronavirus .
It seems the lockdown had an unintended benefit — blue skies .
The average @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” increased 21.5 % in February , compared to the same period last year , according to China ’ s Ministry of Ecology and Environment .
NASA , which promotes climate change on its website , released images that show a reduction of nitrogen dioxide emissions from power plants and industrial plants during January and February — the height of the coronavirus pandemic in China .
“ This is the first time I have seen such a dramatic drop-off over such a wide area for a specific event , ” Fei Liu , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Goddard Space Flight Center , said in the CNN report .
“ I am not surprised because many cities nationwide have taken measures to minimize the spread of the virus.
” The Center for Research on Energy and Clean Air ( CREA ) , an “ air pollution research organization , ” hailed the reduction of coal production , an energy source that helps save lives in China as a source for warming homes .
“ We would very much advocate for China to foster this opportunity to transform its economy , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Li Shuo , a senior climate policy adviser for Greenpeace East Asia , said in the CNN report .
“ There might be a round of economic stimulus which would inject cheap credits to heavy industries in China , and as a result of that we might see increasing pollutants and also carbon emissions in the second half of this year , ” Li said .
But communist China is planning to reboot its economy .
“ President Xi has made clear that workers and factories need to ramp up activity as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to avoid a steeper economic downturn , ” CNN reported .

Written by Penny Starr on Mar 19, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The media is celebrating that the coronavirus –– which has killed over 3,000 in China –– could be combating climate change as nations’ economies around the world are ground to a halt.
CNN reported on the “blue skies” in China in recent days:
Factories were shuttered and streets were cleared across China’s Hubei province as authorities ordered residents to stay home to stop the spread of the coronavirus.
It seems the lockdown had an unintended benefit — blue skies.
The average number of “good quality air days” increased 21.5% in February, compared to the same period last year, according to China’s Ministry of Ecology and Environment.
NASA, which promotes climate change on its website, released images that show a reduction of nitrogen dioxide emissions from power plants and industrial plants during January and February — the height of the coronavirus pandemic in China.
“This is the first time I have seen such a dramatic drop-off over such a wide area for a specific event,” Fei Liu, an air quality researcher at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, said in the CNN report.
“I am not surprised because many cities nationwide have taken measures to minimize the spread of the virus.”
The Center for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA), an “air pollution research organization,” hailed the reduction of coal production, an energy source that helps save lives in China as a source for warming homes.
Leftists hope this trend continues.
“We would very much advocate for China to foster this opportunity to transform its economy, to break apart from the old,” Li Shuo, a senior climate policy adviser for Greenpeace East Asia, said in the CNN report.
“There might be a round of economic stimulus which would inject cheap credits to heavy industries in China, and as a result of that we might see increasing pollutants and also carbon emissions in the second half of this year,” Li said.
But communist China is planning to reboot its economy.
“President Xi has made clear that workers and factories need to ramp up activity as soon as possible if the country is to avoid a steeper economic downturn,” CNN reported.
Read more at Breitbart
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-03-19--Cruz Missile: Ted Cruz Destroys MSNBC’s Chris Hayes’ Clueless Green New Deal Tweet

Written by Joseph Vazquez on .
Posted in Latest news MSNBC just can not seem to help itself .
All In host Chris Hayes sent out a flippant tweet in response to reports that the Trump administration will be asking Congress for “ more than $ 800 billion in economic stimulus : $ 500 billion in a payroll tax cut , $ 250 billion in Small Business Association loans , $ 58 billion for the airlines , and a smattering of other items.
” Hayes tweeted , “ BREAKING : We can , of course , afford a Green New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all along.
” [ Emphasis added . ]
He must have forgotten how much that monstrosity of an idea costs , and Sen. Ted Cruz ( R-TX ) , was sure to remind him in a brutal tweet : “ $ 800 billion is not equal to $ 93 trillion .
Even on MSNBC.
” [ Emphasis added ] .
In fact , $ 800 billion is less than 9/1,000th of what Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ’ s ( D-NY ) gargantuan Green New Deal would potentially cost taxpayers .
This is just the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talking heads tweeting miscues .
Just recently , Hayes tweeted that Congress should pass a $ 1 trillion stimulus in “ direct cash ” to Americans .
MSNBC ’ s Joy Reid also recently made an embarrassing tweet on March 11 , which drew criticism from Fox Business ’ s Melissa Francis .
MSNBC ’ s Joy Reid sent out a flippant tweet in an attempt to denigrate the Trump administration ’ s plan to direct the Small Business Administration to provide liquidity to states and small business owners through low-interest loans to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Another MSNBC talking head did not fare much better on the air either .
Earlier in March , MSNBC ’ s Brian Williams pulled fake news from Twitter to suggest on his 11th Hour show ( alongside New York Times ’ editorial board member Mara Gay ) that former presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg ’ s massive $ 500 million in campaign spending would have been enough to give each of the 327 million American citizens “ $ 1 million.
” The actual estimate would only be about $ 1.50 each .

Written by Joseph Vazquez on Mar 19, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
MSNBC just cannot seem to help itself.
All In host Chris Hayes sent out a flippant tweet in response to reports that the Trump administration will be asking Congress for “more than $800 billion in economic stimulus: $500 billion in a payroll tax cut, $250 billion in Small Business Association loans, $58 billion for the airlines, and a smattering of other items.”
Hayes tweeted, “BREAKING: We can, of course, afford a Green New Deal. That’s been true all along.” [Emphasis added.]
He must have forgotten how much that monstrosity of an idea costs, and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), was sure to remind him in a brutal tweet: “$800 billion is not equal to $93 trillion. Even on MSNBC.” [Emphasis added].
BREAKING: We can, of course, afford a Green New Deal. That’s been true all along. https://t.co/NRsOLF87H1 — Chris Hayes (@chrislhayes) March 17, 2020
Ouch.
In fact, $800 billion is less than 9/1,000th of what Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s (D-NY) gargantuan Green New Deal would potentially cost taxpayers.
$800 billion is not equal to $93 trillion. Even on MSNBC. https://t.co/fYaszofqnR — Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) March 17, 2020
This is just the latest example in a lineup of MSNBC talking heads tweeting miscues.
Just recently, Hayes tweeted that Congress should pass a $1 trillion stimulus in “direct cash” to Americans.
MSNBC’s Joy Reid also recently made an embarrassing tweet on March 11, which drew criticism from Fox Business’s Melissa Francis.
MSNBC’s Joy Reid sent out a flippant tweet in an attempt to denigrate the Trump administration’s plan to direct the Small Business Administration to provide liquidity to states and small business owners through low-interest loans to provide economic relief from the coronavirus impact.
Another MSNBC talking head did not fare much better on the air either.
Earlier in March, MSNBC’s Brian Williams pulled fake news from Twitter to suggest on his 11th Hour show (alongside New York Times’ editorial board member Mara Gay) that former presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg’s massive $500 million in campaign spending would have been enough to give each of the 327 million American citizens “$1 million.”
The actual estimate would only be about $1.50 each.
Read more at NewsBusters
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-03-19--Fear Of (Everybody Else) Flying

Fear Of (Everybody Else) Flying

Written by Duggan Flanakin , guest post on .
Posted in Latest news Just over a year ago , newly elected U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ( D-NY ) and U.S. Sen. Edward Markey ( D-MA ) shocked the world by proposing a Green New Deal .
One of its more controversial provisions was a proposal to build high-speed rail at a scale that would make air travel unnecessary .
In 2013 , Elizabeth Rosenthal told New York Times readers that air travel is the “ most serious environmental sin ” for many Americans .
A single round-trip flight from New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2 or 3 tons of carbon dioxide per passenger to the atmosphere , she claimed .
Air travel emissions are rising because the volume of air travel is increasing much faster than gains in flight fuel efficiency .
The website Green Choices calls air travel “ one of the most greenhouse-gas-rich forms of transport in existence , ” and laments that the lack of fuel taxes on aviation fuel is a subsidy that makes air travel “ surprisingly ” ( and unacceptably ) cheap .
In addition to carbon dioxide , air travel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which also contribute to the greenhouse effect .
In the view of allegedly Green Choices , aviation industry growth is incompatible with efforts to combat climate change .
The European Union brought aviation into its emission trading system in 2012 .
However , protests from China , the USA , and other countries confined that program to intra-EU flights through 2024 .
Transport & Environment , which bills itself as “ Europe ’ s leading clean transport campaign group , ” claims the aviation sector has a climate impact that “ continues to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ no sign of abating.
” Over in the United Kingdom , which just left the European Union and supposedly EU climate doctrines behind , decades-old plans to build a third runway at London ’ s busy Heathrow Airport ran into yet another roadblock , as the UK ’ s Court of Appeal ruled that the runway proposal was “ illegal ” because it did not take into consideration the government ’ s own climate change commitments .
London Mayor Sadiq Khan and his environmentalist allies cheered the decision , which Heathrow Airport @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) promises to appeal to the country ’ s Supreme Court .
Khan has long condemned the third runway plans , calling them “ the wrong decision for London and the whole of Britain , ” and claiming its construction and the increased number of flights it would allow would be “ devastating for air quality across London.
” The much-needed runway would increase airport capacity from 85.5 million passengers a year to 130 million and increase annual total flights from 474,000 to 740,000 .
It would result in up to $ 228 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kingdom and create up to 180,000 new jobs nationwide – all at a cost estimated at under $ 20 billion .
Even if Heathrow ultimately wins the right to build its third runway , the delays brought about largely by Britain signing the Paris climate agreement will surely raise the price of construction , hugely inconvenience travelers , and postpone much-needed revenues from landing fees and commerce .
The Confederation of British Industry in June 2018 had lauded the decision by then-Prime Minister Theresa May and her full cabinet to approve the airport @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Johnson does not favor it .
CBI Deputy Director-General Josh Hardie has said , “ Our aviation capacity is set to run out as early as 2025 , so it ’ s crucial we get spades in the ground as soon as possible.
” Those who hope we can replace jet engines with “ clean ” energy will be sad to learn that , while there are solar airplanes , they are slow ( maximum speed 100 kilometers or 65 miles per hour ) , unable to carry passengers , and dependent on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ narrow margins of error for pilots .
As Dan Reed explained in a 2019 Forbes op-ed , applying the Green New Deal just to air travel would devastate the U.S. economy while addressing only the 3.5 % of greenhouse gas emissions attributable to air travel .
Severe cutbacks in air travel would eliminate many of the nation ’ s 700,000-plus airline jobs ( average 2016 salary $ 86,000 ) , and severely impact industry vendors , airports , cargo-hauling companies , hotels , other travel-related companies , and all who rely on goods @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flu and COVID test kits , cures and vaccinations for every corner of America and the world .
Such an action by the United States would also threaten U.S. dominance in aircraft manufacturing , advanced aviation , and aerospace technology , as well as aircraft design and production , Reed noted .
Meanwhile , UN climate conferences involve thousands of activists , bureaucrats , politicians , and reporters , who fly to distant places , stay at 5-star hotels and eat lavishly while hectoring us average citizens about our travel and emissions , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with an iron fist .
( Why do so many have to attend these gabfests , and why can ’ t they conduct these meetings via videoconference ? )
Meanwhile , Prince Charles and his entourage of family , servants , and security staff tour the realm and planet by private jetliner , to warn us that climate change and lost biodiversity are “ the greatest threats ” humanity ever faced .
Former President Obama and his family and entourage still enjoy Hawaiian vacations .
Al Gore and Leo DiCaprio are ( in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SUVs and limousines to get to climate events , where they lecture us lesser mortals on what we must do to protect Planet Earth from catastrophic warming caused by ( other ) humans ( than themselves ) .
Ultra-billionaire Mike Bloomberg tries to justify his use of private jets and helicopters by explaining that they are essential if he is to continue his global quest to eliminate fossil fuels ( and fossil fuel jobs ) and end the supposed climate crisis .
None of them have any intention of ending their private travel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end our modest and occasional use of commercial travel .
They ’ re not afraid of flying .
They ’ re afraid of everyone else flying .
Or more accurately , they don ’ t think the rest of us deserve the opportunity , joy or necessity of flying for vacation , business or any other matter .
They are privileged .
We are not .
Instead of airplanes flying overhead through the atmosphere – and landing at airports near urban centers large and small – they want hundreds of new rail lines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slicing through forests , grasslands , farmlands , and backyards , placed there largely through powers of eminent domain , however much locals might object .
( The trains would be electric , of course , powered by “ clean , green , ” intermittent , unreliable wind and solar power , and requiring vastly more mining , wind turbines , solar panels , batteries , and child labor . )
The impacts on property rights and biodiversity would be significant .
Meanwhile , in 2018 China announced plans to build 216 new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number of airports in that country today , to meet “ the growing demands for air travel.
” China had 552 million air passengers in 2017 and wants to connect its far-flung cities and people more quickly and efficiently .
COVID-19 may have delayed those plans , but it will be fixed and will not “ derail ” the plans .
India has launched a truly ambitious plan to build 100 new airports by 2024 , to spur economic growth .
The plan will also double the domestic aircraft fleet and upgrade existing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ World War II .
Just four years ago , only 75 of India ’ s 450 runways were operational .
These are important issues .
But will air travel bans and a Green New Deal benefit people and planet ?
As my CFACT colleague Paul Driessen has pointed out ( here , here and here ) the GND would require mining on massive , unprecedented scales .
It would blanket hundreds of millions of acres of cropland , scenic areas and wildlife habitats with wind turbines and solar panels .
The impacts on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ human rights would be monumental and catastrophic .
For the USA to shutter its airline industry is highly unlikely .
However , 67 Members of Congress cosponsored the Green New Deal plan , including Senator Bernie Sanders ( I-VT ) .
Sanders later introduced his own ( slightly scaled-down ) GND to transform America – away from modernity and prosperity and back to the pre-reliable-electricity “ good old days ” when living standards were a fraction of today .
Meanwhile , climate and extreme weather patterns will continue doing what they always have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worst of all possible outcomes would be a cooler planet , with less atmospheric carbon dioxide , combined with organic and subsistence farming .
Biodiversity loss and starvation would be rampant .
Duggan Flanakin is Director of Policy Research at the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow ( www.CFACT.org ) and author of many articles on energy , environmental and climate issues .

Written by Duggan Flanakin, guest post on Mar 19, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Just over a year ago, newly elected U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and U.S. Sen. Edward Markey (D-MA) shocked the world by proposing a Green New Deal.
One of its more controversial provisions was a proposal to build high-speed rail at a scale that would make air travel unnecessary.
In 2013, Elizabeth Rosenthal told New York Times readers that air travel is the “most serious environmental sin” for many Americans.
A single round-trip flight from New York to Europe or San Francisco adds 2 or 3 tons of carbon dioxide per passenger to the atmosphere, she claimed.
Air travel emissions are rising because the volume of air travel is increasing much faster than gains in flight fuel efficiency.
The website Green Choices calls air travel “one of the most greenhouse-gas-rich forms of transport in existence,” and laments that the lack of fuel taxes on aviation fuel is a subsidy that makes air travel “surprisingly” (and unacceptably) cheap.
In addition to carbon dioxide, air travel generates nitrogen oxides and water vapor, which also contribute to the greenhouse effect.
In the view of allegedly Green Choices, aviation industry growth is incompatible with efforts to combat climate change.
The European Union brought aviation into its emission trading system in 2012. However, protests from China, the USA, and other countries confined that program to intra-EU flights through 2024.
Transport & Environment, which bills itself as “Europe’s leading clean transport campaign group,” claims the aviation sector has a climate impact that “continues to spiral out of control,” with “no sign of abating.”
Over in the United Kingdom, which just left the European Union and supposedly EU climate doctrines behind, decades-old plans to build a third runway at London’s busy Heathrow Airport ran into yet another roadblock, as the UK’s Court of Appeal ruled that the runway proposal was “illegal” because it did not take into consideration the government’s own climate change commitments.
London Mayor Sadiq Khan and his environmentalist allies cheered the decision, which Heathrow Airport Holdings (but not the British government) promises to appeal to the country’s Supreme Court.
Khan has long condemned the third runway plans, calling them “the wrong decision for London and the whole of Britain,” and claiming its construction and the increased number of flights it would allow would be “devastating for air quality across London.”
The much-needed runway would increase airport capacity from 85.5 million passengers a year to 130 million and increase annual total flights from 474,000 to 740,000.
It would result in up to $228 billion in economic growth across the United Kingdom and create up to 180,000 new jobs nationwide – all at a cost estimated at under $20 billion.
Even if Heathrow ultimately wins the right to build its third runway, the delays brought about largely by Britain signing the Paris climate agreement will surely raise the price of construction, hugely inconvenience travelers, and postpone much-needed revenues from landing fees and commerce.
The Confederation of British Industry in June 2018 had lauded the decision by then-Prime Minister Theresa May and her full cabinet to approve the airport expansion.
But current Prime Minister Boris Johnson does not favor it. CBI Deputy Director-General Josh Hardie has said, “Our aviation capacity is set to run out as early as 2025, so it’s crucial we get spades in the ground as soon as possible.”
Those who hope we can replace jet engines with “clean” energy will be sad to learn that, while there are solar airplanes, they are slow (maximum speed 100 kilometers or 65 miles per hour), unable to carry passengers, and dependent on good weather. They also provide very narrow margins of error for pilots.
As Dan Reed explained in a 2019 Forbes op-ed, applying the Green New Deal just to air travel would devastate the U.S. economy while addressing only the 3.5% of greenhouse gas emissions attributable to air travel.
Severe cutbacks in air travel would eliminate many of the nation’s 700,000-plus airline jobs (average 2016 salary $86,000), and severely impact industry vendors, airports, cargo-hauling companies, hotels, other travel-related companies, and all who rely on goods and services – including I would add flu and COVID test kits, cures and vaccinations for every corner of America and the world.
Such an action by the United States would also threaten U.S. dominance in aircraft manufacturing, advanced aviation, and aerospace technology, as well as aircraft design and production, Reed noted.
Meanwhile, UN climate conferences involve thousands of activists, bureaucrats, politicians, and reporters, who fly to distant places, stay at 5-star hotels and eat lavishly while hectoring us average citizens about our travel and emissions, and devising new agreements to rule humanity with an iron fist. (Why do so many have to attend these gabfests, and why can’t they conduct these meetings via videoconference?)
Meanwhile, Prince Charles and his entourage of family, servants, and security staff tour the realm and planet by private jetliner, to warn us that climate change and lost biodiversity are “the greatest threats” humanity ever faced.
Former President Obama and his family and entourage still enjoy Hawaiian vacations.
Al Gore and Leo DiCaprio are (in)famous for using private jets, SUVs and limousines to get to climate events, where they lecture us lesser mortals on what we must do to protect Planet Earth from catastrophic warming caused by (other) humans (than themselves).
Ultra-billionaire Mike Bloomberg tries to justify his use of private jets and helicopters by explaining that they are essential if he is to continue his global quest to eliminate fossil fuels (and fossil fuel jobs) and end the supposed climate crisis.
None of them have any intention of ending their private travel extravagances. They just think we should end our modest and occasional use of commercial travel. They’re not afraid of flying. They’re afraid of everyone else flying.
Or more accurately, they don’t think the rest of us deserve the opportunity, joy or necessity of flying for vacation, business or any other matter. They are privileged. We are not.
Instead of airplanes flying overhead through the atmosphere – and landing at airports near urban centers large and small – they want hundreds of new rail lines, with thousands of miles of track slicing through forests, grasslands, farmlands, and backyards, placed there largely through powers of eminent domain, however much locals might object.
(The trains would be electric, of course, powered by “clean, green,” intermittent, unreliable wind and solar power, and requiring vastly more mining, wind turbines, solar panels, batteries, and child labor.) The impacts on property rights and biodiversity would be significant.
Meanwhile, in 2018 China announced plans to build 216 new airports by 2035, almost doubling the number of airports in that country today, to meet “the growing demands for air travel.”
China had 552 million air passengers in 2017 and wants to connect its far-flung cities and people more quickly and efficiently. COVID-19 may have delayed those plans, but it will be fixed and will not “derail” the plans.
India has launched a truly ambitious plan to build 100 new airports by 2024, to spur economic growth. The plan will also double the domestic aircraft fleet and upgrade existing runways, many of which date to World War II. Just four years ago, only 75 of India’s 450 runways were operational.
These are important issues. But will air travel bans and a Green New Deal benefit people and planet?
As my CFACT colleague Paul Driessen has pointed out (here, here and here) the GND would require mining on massive, unprecedented scales.
It would blanket hundreds of millions of acres of cropland, scenic areas and wildlife habitats with wind turbines and solar panels. The impacts on wildlife, biodiversity, living standards and human rights would be monumental and catastrophic.
For the USA to shutter its airline industry is highly unlikely. However, 67 Members of Congress cosponsored the Green New Deal plan, including Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT).
Sanders later introduced his own (slightly scaled-down) GND to transform America – away from modernity and prosperity and back to the pre-reliable-electricity “good old days” when living standards were a fraction of today.
Meanwhile, climate and extreme weather patterns will continue doing what they always have: change.
In fact, the worst of all possible outcomes would be a cooler planet, with less atmospheric carbon dioxide, combined with organic and subsistence farming. Biodiversity loss and starvation would be rampant.
Duggan Flanakin is Director of Policy Research at the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of many articles on energy, environmental and climate issues.
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-03-20--Extinction Rebellion Moving Climate Activism Online Over WuFlu

Written by John Sexton on .
Posted in Latest news What do you do if you have a climate activist group whose basic strategy is to create a public spectacle but suddenly a dangerous virus is keeping everyone home ?
The plan for some of these groups , including Extinction Rebellion ( XR ) , is to move the activism online .
The coronavirus outbreak has prompted climate activists to abandon public demonstrations , one of their most powerful tools for raising public awareness , and shift to online protests… A coalition of climate movements had planned huge protests around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in April .
Those have now been canceled or moved online .
One group , Earth Initiative and March for Science New York City , plans to live-stream speakers and performers at an online event .
Greta Thunberg has also moved her activism online in light of the virus : But not everyone is convinced the online activism will have the same impact : Some experts , however , said reaching world leaders and the general public would be more difficult now as the pandemic shuts down large parts of public life .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ end up doing is amplifying within an echo chamber , which is really different from what the movement wants , ” said Dana Fisher , a professor of sociology at the University of Maryland whose research focuses on activism .
Twitter hashtags , like # ClimateStrikeOnline and # DigitalClimateStrike , are far less visible than huge crowds in the streets , she said .
But Extinction Rebellion is trying to keep its supporters optimistic about online activism : The group has promoted this guidance for supporters which includes advice like this once in-person @ @ @ @ @ @ @ PROTEST : Ask those who in normal times would have attended the protest to write a sign and take a photo of themselves ( w friends and/or family ) .
Organizers can print out all the photos and attach to cardboard to display publicly .
For example , they could be laid out in front of a Chase Bank or other target , possibly with a chalk outline of a person around it .
Your group could also make a sign explaining that for public health reasons people are protesting at home… SOCIAL @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time to be on a computer and post negative reviews of your target ’ s products .
Organize a coordinated take-down of various publicly reviewed products and brands to apply pressure on your target .
I ’ m not convinced they are going to get the same level of public attention with this sort of thing , which happens online all the time , as they have been with stunts like digging up the lawn at Trinity College .
The whole energy behind Extinction Rebellion was the idea that the kind of climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the real world .
Taking that activity back to digital space seems like a retreat .
I suspect it won ’ t be as successful , but I guess we ’ ll have to wait and see .

Written by John Sexton on Mar 20, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
What do you do if you have a climate activist group whose basic strategy is to create a public spectacle but suddenly a dangerous virus is keeping everyone home?
The plan for some of these groups, including Extinction Rebellion (XR), is to move the activism online.
The coronavirus outbreak has prompted climate activists to abandon public demonstrations, one of their most powerful tools for raising public awareness, and shift to online protests…
A coalition of climate movements had planned huge protests around commemorations for the 50th annual Earth Day in April. Those have now been canceled or moved online. One group, Earth Initiative and March for Science New York City, plans to live-stream speakers and performers at an online event.
Greta Thunberg has also moved her activism online in light of the virus:
School strike week 82. In a crisis we change our behaviour and adapt to the new circumstances for the greater good of society. Join the #DigitalStrike – post a pic of you with a sign and use #ClimateStrikeOnline ! #schoolstrike4climate #fridaysforfuture #climatestrike #COVIDー19 pic.twitter.com/fZkjqN3DOw — Greta Thunberg (@GretaThunberg) March 13, 2020
But not everyone is convinced the online activism will have the same impact:
Some experts, however, said reaching world leaders and the general public would be more difficult now as the pandemic shuts down large parts of public life.
“What you’re going to end up doing is amplifying within an echo chamber, which is really different from what the movement wants,” said Dana Fisher, a professor of sociology at the University of Maryland whose research focuses on activism.
Twitter hashtags, like #ClimateStrikeOnline and #DigitalClimateStrike, are far less visible than huge crowds in the streets, she said.
But Extinction Rebellion is trying to keep its supporters optimistic about online activism:
The Rebellion will continue, and while we make sure to #StayHome and not infect each others, we are re-organizing on our online platforms!
👉Join us on MATTERMOST: https://t.co/QAjWnhnN09
👉Join us on DISCOURSE:https://t.co/ysVv7h5jfM
Take care of yourselfs and others💆♀💆 pic.twitter.com/v5BKOknoXO — Extinction Rebellion Belgium (@XR_Belgium) March 18, 2020
The group has promoted this guidance for supporters which includes advice like this once in-person gatherings are no longer allowed/recommended:
VIRTUAL PROTEST: Ask those who in normal times would have attended the protest to write a sign and take a photo of themselves (w friends and/or family). Organizers can print out all the photos and attach to cardboard to display publicly. For example, they could be laid out in front of a Chase Bank or other target, possibly with a chalk outline of a person around it. Your group could also make a sign explaining that for public health reasons people are protesting at home…
SOCIAL MEDIA BARRAGE: people may have more time to be on a computer and post negative reviews of your target’s products. Organize a coordinated take-down of various publicly reviewed products and brands to apply pressure on your target.
I’m not convinced they are going to get the same level of public attention with this sort of thing, which happens online all the time, as they have been with stunts like digging up the lawn at Trinity College.
The whole energy behind Extinction Rebellion was the idea that the kind of climate extremism we routinely see online was entering the real world.
Taking that activity back to digital space seems like a retreat. I suspect it won’t be as successful, but I guess we’ll have to wait and see.
Read more at Hot Air
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-03-20--WaPo Fact Checker: Biden ‘Misspoke’ About His Fracking Ban

Written by Alex Griswold on .
Posted in Latest news A Washington Post fact-checker ruled Thursday that Joe Biden hadn ’ t lied when he said he supported a fracking ban during Sunday ’ s Democratic presidential debate .
Rather , Biden had simply “ described his fracking stance inaccurately.
” The Post gave Biden “ Zero Pinocchios ” for saying during the most recent Democratic debate that he opposed fracking entirely .
Instead , the paper pointed to the Biden campaign ’ s explanation that the candidate had “ misspoken ” and that “ his position was the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on public lands .
Meanwhile , the Post criticized those who quoted Biden ’ s remarks verbatim .
“ Critics pounced , ” the fact-checker wrote .
“ Republican operatives cut a short video of Biden ’ s remarks , to use as a cudgel in races against moderate House Democrats .
Sanders supporters accused Biden of misleading voters about his policy , which doesn ’ t ban fracking outright , as Sanders would.
” During Sunday ’ s debate , Sanders said that he was pushing for a ban on future fracking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden responded .
“ Well , I ’ m not sure your proposal does that , ” Sanders replied .
Later , the Vermont senator said , “ You can not continue , as I understand , Joe believes , to continue fracking.
” “ No more—no new fracking , ” Biden said in response .
“ The Trump campaign also used a Biden video snippet from the debate in a tweet claiming he would ‘ ban fracking , ' ” the Post complained .
“ Right-wing media outlets including the Washington Free @ @ @ @ @ @ @ News all reported on Biden ’ s remarks as though he had adopted a tougher line.
” The Free Beacon article quoting Biden ’ s remarks , to which the Post did not link , covered Biden ’ s statement during the debate that there ’ d be “ no more drilling ” under his administration and only mentioned the fracking comments as an aside .
The Free Beacon accurately wrote that “ Biden , confronted by Sanders for not taking dramatic enough steps to combat climate change , also said there would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ not another coal plant will be built ’ under his administration.
” Biden ’ s drilling comments , another instance of the candidate “ misspeaking ” in a way that made his environmental platform more palatable to his party ’ s left-wing base , was not acknowledged in the Post fact-check .
Biden previously said he “ misspoke , ” avoiding a bad rating from the Post fact-checker , after he was caught falsely claiming on two separate occasions that he opposed the Iraq war from the moment it started .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when a politician admits error .
Biden was on his way to Four Pinocchios until his staff acknowledged that he misspoke , ” the Post wrote .
“ So we will leave this unrated and let readers make their own decision .
”

Written by Alex Griswold on Mar 20, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
A Washington Post fact-checker ruled Thursday that Joe Biden hadn’t lied when he said he supported a fracking ban during Sunday’s Democratic presidential debate. Rather, Biden had simply “described his fracking stance inaccurately.”
The Post gave Biden “Zero Pinocchios” for saying during the most recent Democratic debate that he opposed fracking entirely.
Instead, the paper pointed to the Biden campaign’s explanation that the candidate had “misspoken” and that “his position was the same as ever,” opposing fracking only on public lands.
Meanwhile, the Post criticized those who quoted Biden’s remarks verbatim. “Critics pounced,” the fact-checker wrote.
“Republican operatives cut a short video of Biden’s remarks, to use as a cudgel in races against moderate House Democrats. Sanders supporters accused Biden of misleading voters about his policy, which doesn’t ban fracking outright, as Sanders would.”
During Sunday’s debate, Sanders said that he was pushing for a ban on future fracking. “So am I,” Biden responded.
“Well, I’m not sure your proposal does that,” Sanders replied. Later, the Vermont senator said, “You cannot continue, as I understand, Joe believes, to continue fracking.”
“No more—no new fracking,” Biden said in response.
“The Trump campaign also used a Biden video snippet from the debate in a tweet claiming he would ‘ban fracking,'” the Post complained. “Right-wing media outlets including the Washington Free Beacon, the Daily Caller and Fox News all reported on Biden’s remarks as though he had adopted a tougher line.”
The Free Beacon article quoting Biden’s remarks, to which the Post did not link, covered Biden’s statement during the debate that there’d be “no more drilling” under his administration and only mentioned the fracking comments as an aside.
The Free Beacon accurately wrote that “Biden, confronted by Sanders for not taking dramatic enough steps to combat climate change, also said there would be no ‘new fracking’ and ‘not another coal plant will be built’ under his administration.”
Biden’s drilling comments, another instance of the candidate “misspeaking” in a way that made his environmental platform more palatable to his party’s left-wing base, was not acknowledged in the Post fact-check.
Biden previously said he “misspoke,” avoiding a bad rating from the Post fact-checker, after he was caught falsely claiming on two separate occasions that he opposed the Iraq war from the moment it started.
“Regular readers know that we withhold Pinocchios when a politician admits error. Biden was on his way to Four Pinocchios until his staff acknowledged that he misspoke,” the Post wrote. “So we will leave this unrated and let readers make their own decision.”
Read more at Free Beacon
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-03-20--Activists Find More Silver Linings In Deadly Chinese Virus

Written by Chris White on .
Posted in Latest news Environmentalists and activists say they ’ ve found a way to better sell climate change to a skeptical American public : paint global warming as a pandemic on par with the likes of coronavirus .
Environmentalists are pointing to drastic dips in carbon emissions in China and Europe during the coronavirus scourge to craft a new climate message .
They also suggest that there are some positive lessons to be learned from the virus , which has killed more than 8,000 people globally .
“ If we can think about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a pandemic , maybe there will be a positive outcome to all of this , ” Christopher Jones , an environmental researcher at the University of California , Berkeley , told NBC News in a report published Wednesday .
He added : “ We can help prevent crises in the future if we are prepared .
I think there are some big-picture lessons here that could be very useful.
” NBC News ’ s report cited a March 13 Washington Post report that analyzed data from one of the European Space Agency ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nitrogen dioxide , or NO2 , fell dramatically over Northern Italy , a portion of Europe that has been the most negatively impacted .
More than 1,800 people who were exposed to the virus have died in Italy over the last several weeks as the country has seen nearly 25,000 cases overall .
Nearly 430 people died in the country one day after contracting coronavirus , which originated in Wuhan , China in November 2019 .
“ As we move to restart these economies , we need to use this moment to think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Klopp , co-director of the Center for Sustainable Urban Development at Columbia University in New York City , told NBC .
“ Do we want to go back to the status quo , ” she rhetorically asked before adding : “ or do we want to tackle these big structural problems and restructure our economy and reduce emissions and pollution ?
” One environmentalist journalist pointed out that China ’ s draconian crackdown is creating the most benefits .

Written by Chris White on Mar 20, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Environmentalists and activists say they’ve found a way to better sell climate change to a skeptical American public: paint global warming as a pandemic on par with the likes of coronavirus.
Environmentalists are pointing to drastic dips in carbon emissions in China and Europe during the coronavirus scourge to craft a new climate message.
They also suggest that there are some positive lessons to be learned from the virus, which has killed more than 8,000 people globally.
“If we can think about how to prepare for climate change like a pandemic, maybe there will be a positive outcome to all of this,” Christopher Jones, an environmental researcher at the University of California, Berkeley, told NBC News in a report published Wednesday.
He added: “We can help prevent crises in the future if we are prepared. I think there are some big-picture lessons here that could be very useful.”
NBC News’s report cited a March 13 Washington Post report that analyzed data from one of the European Space Agency’s satellites that seemed to suggest that nitrogen dioxide, or NO2, fell dramatically over Northern Italy, a portion of Europe that has been the most negatively impacted.
More than 1,800 people who were exposed to the virus have died in Italy over the last several weeks as the country has seen nearly 25,000 cases overall.
Nearly 430 people died in the country one day after contracting coronavirus, which originated in Wuhan, China in November 2019.
Other academics are offering similar critiques.
“As we move to restart these economies, we need to use this moment to think about what we value,” Jacqueline Klopp, co-director of the Center for Sustainable Urban Development at Columbia University in New York City, told NBC.
“Do we want to go back to the status quo,” she rhetorically asked before adding: “or do we want to tackle these big structural problems and restructure our economy and reduce emissions and pollution?”
One environmentalist journalist pointed out that China’s draconian crackdown is creating the most benefits.
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