climatechangedispatch--2020-08-04--At Peak Of Last Ice Age, Fires Raged As Summer Temps Were 3-4C Warmer

Written by Kenneth Richard on .
Posted in Latest news A new study finds that 26 to 19 thousand years ago , with CO2 concentrations as low as 180 ppm , fire activity was [ 10 times more common ] than today near the southern tip of Africa – mostly because summer temperatures were 3-4°C warmer .
We usually assume the last glacial maximum – the peak of the last ice age – was significantly colder than it is today .
But evidence has been uncovered that wild horses fed on exposed grass year-round in the Arctic , Alaska ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 17,000 years ago , when CO2 concentrations were at their lowest and yet “ summer temperatures were higher here than they are today ” ( Kuzmina et al.
, 2019 ) .
Horses had a “ substantial dietary volume ” of dried grasses year-round , even in winter at this time , but the Arctic is currently “ no place for horses ” because there is too little for them to eat , and the food there is “ deeply buried by snow ” ( Guthrie and Stoker , 1990 ) .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 2020 ) find evidence that “ the number of days per annum with high or higher fire danger scores was almost an order of magnitude larger during the LGM [ last glacial maximum , 19-26 ka BP ] than under contemporary conditions ” near Africa ’ s southernmost tip , and that “ daily maximum temperatures were 3-4°C higher than present in summer ( and 2-4°C lower than present in winter ) , which would have contributed to the high severity of fire weather during LGM summers.
” Neither conclusion – that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fires would be more common – would seem to be consistent with the position that CO2 variations drive climate or heavily contribute to fire patterns .
Read more at No Tricks Zone

Written by Kenneth Richard on Aug 4, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
A new study finds that 26 to 19 thousand years ago, with CO2 concentrations as low as 180 ppm, fire activity was [10 times more common] than today near the southern tip of Africa – mostly because summer temperatures were 3-4°C warmer.
We usually assume the last glacial maximum – the peak of the last ice age – was significantly colder than it is today.
But evidence has been uncovered that wild horses fed on exposed grass year-round in the Arctic, Alaska’s North Slope, about 20,000 to 17,000 years ago, when CO2 concentrations were at their lowest and yet “summer temperatures were higher here than they are today” (Kuzmina et al., 2019).
Horses had a “substantial dietary volume” of dried grasses year-round, even in winter at this time, but the Arctic is currently “no place for horses” because there is too little for them to eat, and the food there is “deeply buried by snow” (Guthrie and Stoker, 1990).
In a new study (Kraaij et al., 2020) find evidence that “the number of days per annum with high or higher fire danger scores was almost an order of magnitude larger during the LGM [last glacial maximum, 19-26 ka BP] than under contemporary conditions” near Africa’s southernmost tip, and that “daily maximum temperatures were 3-4°C higher than present in summer (and 2-4°C lower than present in winter), which would have contributed to the high severity of fire weather during LGM summers.”
Neither conclusion – that surface temperatures would be warmer or that fires would be more common – would seem to be consistent with the position that CO2 variations drive climate or heavily contribute to fire patterns.
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--2020-08-05--Comrade de Blasio Declares Isaias A ‘Result Of Global Warming’

Written by Nick Kangadis on .
Posted in Latest news This is a perfect illustration of what a moron sounds like when they are a . )
feckless and b . )
use fact-free talking points .
Data shows we are not having more hurricanes , they are not more intense and have been around long before we settled North America .
In fact , Isaias is only the fourth tropical storm to hit NYC since 1821 ( when recordkeeping began ) .
-CCD Editor Do communists actually hear what comes out of their mouths ?
They can make a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said claim a minute later .
Their level of confident ignorance can only be described as impressive because a lazy person wouldn ’ t put this much work into sounding so ridiculous on such a consistent basis .
New York City Mayor Comrade Bill de Blasio held a press conference on Tuesday to talk about and warn New Yorkers of the progression and arrival of Tropical Storm Isaias .
De Blasio took a decent portion of his time to point out specifically that storms like Isaias are the “ result of global warming.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the bigger reality , ” de Blasio said in propagandistic fashion .
“ What we ’ re seeing here , and what we ’ ve been seeing now for years , is the result of global warming .
We ’ ve been seeing more and more pressure on coastal areas all around the world.
” The mayor spoke about how big storms are more frequent in the age of increased global warming , but de Blasio kind of contradicted himself with the very first statement in this address that he made to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just want to emphasize , when we talk about a tornado warning , it ’ s such a rarity here in New York City .
It may sound to some people like that ’ s not something to worry about.
” Of course , a tornado of any size is something for people to worry about .
But , how can tornadoes be rare while global warming is making storms like what Isaias is bringing to the area more frequently ?
I thought storms were supposed to be stronger and happen more often @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want us to think , right ?
So which is it ?
That first line contradicted most of what de Blasio said after it .
Oh , and just as a quick note , I thought it was “ climate change ?
” It was originally “ global cooling.
” Then , it was “ global warming.
” What gives ?
De Blasio also made the claim that after Hurricane Sandy in 2012 , “ there were no more climate change deniers in New York City.
” That ’ s a bold claim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has seen the effects of 11 hurricanes and four tropical storms , including Isaias .
For those playing the home game , that makes for an average of one major storm about every 13 years .
To be fair , weather technology has exponentially increased in the last 50 years .
The main gripe here is that de Blasio took time from legitimately informing people about the particulars of the storm to push a political talking point — which global warming is at this point .
No one gives a crap about that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one at a time when people should be preparing for whatever storm might bring their way .
Just another instance of de Blasio on his soapbox .

Written by Nick Kangadis on Aug 5, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
This is a perfect illustration of what a moron sounds like when they are a.) feckless and b.) use fact-free talking points. Data shows we are not having more hurricanes, they are not more intense and have been around long before we settled North America. In fact, Isaias is only the fourth tropical storm to hit NYC since 1821 (when recordkeeping began). -CCD Editor
Do communists actually hear what comes out of their mouths? They can make a claim in one sentence and then contradict said claim a minute later.
Their level of confident ignorance can only be described as impressive because a lazy person wouldn’t put this much work into sounding so ridiculous on such a consistent basis.
New York City Mayor Comrade Bill de Blasio held a press conference on Tuesday to talk about and warn New Yorkers of the progression and arrival of Tropical Storm Isaias.
De Blasio took a decent portion of his time to point out specifically that storms like Isaias are the “result of global warming.”
“Let’s talk about the bigger reality,” de Blasio said in propagandistic fashion. “What we’re seeing here, and what we’ve been seeing now for years, is the result of global warming. We’ve been seeing more and more pressure on coastal areas all around the world.”
The mayor spoke about how big storms are more frequent in the age of increased global warming, but de Blasio kind of contradicted himself with the very first statement in this address that he made to the people of New York.
“I just want to emphasize, when we talk about a tornado warning, it’s such a rarity here in New York City. It may sound to some people like that’s not something to worry about.”
Of course, a tornado of any size is something for people to worry about. But, how can tornadoes be rare while global warming is making storms like what Isaias is bringing to the area more frequently?
I thought storms were supposed to be stronger and happen more often. That’s what they all want us to think, right? So which is it?
That first line contradicted most of what de Blasio said after it.
Oh, and just as a quick note, I thought it was “climate change?” It was originally “global cooling.” Then, it was “global warming.” What gives?
De Blasio also made the claim that after Hurricane Sandy in 2012, “there were no more climate change deniers in New York City.” That’s a bold claim.
Since 1821, New York City has seen the effects of 11 hurricanes and four tropical storms, including Isaias.
For those playing the home game, that makes for an average of one major storm about every 13 years. To be fair, weather technology has exponentially increased in the last 50 years.
The main gripe here is that de Blasio took time from legitimately informing people about the particulars of the storm to push a political talking point — which global warming is at this point.
No one gives a crap about that. That “information” helps no one at a time when people should be preparing for whatever storm might bring their way.
Just another instance of de Blasio on his soapbox.
Watch his comments below:
Read more at MRC TV
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-05--Does Climate Change Optimism Make You Pro-Trump?

Written by John Horgan on .
Posted in Latest news My views on climate change—and , more generally , on humanity ’ s future—have never been stable .
Depending on what I ’ m reading , and perhaps shifts in my neural weather , I ricochet between optimism and dread .
Last spring I was feeling pretty glum about , well , everything when iconoclastic environmental activist Michael Shellenberger sent me a prepublication copy of his book Apocalypse Never : Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All .
Before I weigh in on the book , some background .
Shellenberger is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he has urged his fellow greens to adopt a more optimistic outlook , which he insists is more conducive to activism than fear .
His influential 2007 book Break Through : From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility , co-written with his fellow activist Ted Nordhaus , accused environmentalists of being hostile to science , technology , and economic progress .
We need economic and technological development to overcome climate change and other environmental threats , Shellenberger and Nordhaus insisted .
People are unlikely to care about polar bears , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re worried about feeding their children .
Shellenberger and Nordhaus also faulted the environmental movement for being reluctant to acknowledge its successes , as if doing so will foster complacency .
The book annoyed some greens , but I liked its can-do spirit , and I thought my students would too .
So , in 2008 I invited Shellenberger and Nordhaus to speak at my school , Stevens Institute of Technology , and I gave them a $ 5,000 prize that I created , the Green Book Award .
( I also gave @ @ @ @ @ @ @ oceanographer Sylvia Earle , and climatologist James Hansen before my funding ran out . )
I chatted with Shellenberger on Bloggingheads.tv in 2008 and interviewed him and Nordhaus here at Scientific American in 2011 .
Later I attended conferences organized by their think tank , the Breakthrough Institute ( see my reports here and here ) .
These gatherings challenged conventional green thinking in ways that I found stimulating and healthy .
Some speakers critiqued the positions of Shellenberger and Nordhaus—for example , their support for nuclear energy .
At a 2014 meeting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nuclear power has a hard time competing with other energy sources , because , following a kind of reverse learning curve , its costs tend to rise over time .
( Grubler lays out his arguments in this paper . )
Back to Shellenberger ’ s new book , Apocalypse Never .
He asserts that human-induced climate change , while quite real , is less of a threat than many journalists and activists claim .
He presents evidence that the risks of extreme weather events , wildfires , and species extinction have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to higher sea levels and temperatures .
In an online excerpt from his book , Shellenberger notes that according to 2019 study death rates and economic damage from extreme weather events have “ dropped by 80 to 90 percent during the last four decades.
” He noted that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ) estimates that by the end of this century “ the global economy would be three to six times larger than it is today and that the costs of adapting to a high ( 4 degrees Celsius @ @ @ @ @ @ @ product ( GDP ) just 4.5 percent.
” Shellenberger asked : “ Does any of that really sound like the end of the world ?
” Apocalypse Never cheered me up at a moment when I badly needed it .
It serves as a counterweight to , for example , the claims of journalist David Wallace-Wells , a self-described alarmist .
In his recent bestseller , The Uninhabitable Earth , Wallace-Wells contends , all too persuasively , that climate change is “ worse , much worse , than you think ” ( see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if I ’ d write a blurb for his book , and I came up with this : “ Apocalypse Never will make some green progressives mad .
But I see it as a useful and even necessary counterpoint to the alarmism being peddled by some activists and journalists , including me .
Let the arguments begin !
” Shellenberger also got blurbs from heavyweights such as psychologists Steven Pinker and Jonathan Haidt and climate scientists Tom Wigley and Kerry Emanuel .
Apocalypse Never has indeed angered green progressives , as I predicted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with which Shellenberger promoted it unsettled some of his blurbers .
The book has been criticized even by members of the Breakthrough Institute , which Shellenberger recently left .
“ While it is useful to push back against claims that climate change will lead to the end of the world or human extinction , ” writes Zeke Hausfather , the institute ’ s director of climate and energy , “ to do so by inaccurately downplaying real climate risks is deeply problematic and counterproductive.
” Conversely , the book has been praised in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mail and the Wall Street Journal .
In the latter , journalist John Tierney writes : “ Mr .
Shellenberger makes a persuasive case , lucidly blending research data and policy analysis with a history of the green movement and vignettes of people in poor countries suffering the consequences of ‘ environmental colonialism.
’ ” The polarized reactions to Shellenberger remind me of those to John Ioannidis , the Stanford epidemiologist who has warned that our reaction to COVID-19 might be overblown .
People judge the claims of Shellenberger and Ioannidis based less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perceived political implications .
Optimism , whether toward the pandemic or global warming , is viewed as a conservative , pro-Trump position .
Now more than ever , political polarization makes it hard to have a rational argument about scientific issues .
Although I stand by my blurb for Apocalypse Never , parts of the book made me wince .
Shellenberger argues so aggressively for nuclear power that a former colleague , Alex Trembath of the Breakthrough Institute , accuses him of “ nuclear fetishism.
” Shellenberger is so pro-nuclear that he even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of eliminating nuclear weapons , he suggests that they can serve as a memento mori , a reminder of death that makes us cherish our fleeting lives .
Shellenberger ’ s positions on nuclear energy and arms strike me as discordant with his optimism and faith in human ingenuity .
If a nuclear-energy revival doesn ’ t happen in this country—and it probably won ’ t , not because of green opposition but because its up-front costs are too high—surely we will be smart enough to adapt , to fulfill our needs with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ find a way to get rid of nuclear weapons as part of a global movement toward demilitarization .
In short , my main gripe with Shellenberger isn ’ t that he ’ s too optimistic ; it ’ s that he ’ s not optimistic enough .
He and I recently talked on Bloggingheads.tv about climate change , nuclear energy , war , the Green New Deal , and other issues , and he defended his positions energetically and eloquently .
I urge readers to watch the video and check out his book @ @ @ @ @ @ @ set aside your political biases before you jump to any conclusions .

Written by John Horgan on Aug 5, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
My views on climate change—and, more generally, on humanity’s future—have never been stable. Depending on what I’m reading, and perhaps shifts in my neural weather, I ricochet between optimism and dread.
Last spring I was feeling pretty glum about, well, everything when iconoclastic environmental activist Michael Shellenberger sent me a prepublication copy of his book Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All.
Before I weigh in on the book, some background. Shellenberger is a controversial figure. For years, he has urged his fellow greens to adopt a more optimistic outlook, which he insists is more conducive to activism than fear.
His influential 2007 book Break Through: From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility, co-written with his fellow activist Ted Nordhaus, accused environmentalists of being hostile to science, technology, and economic progress.
We need economic and technological development to overcome climate change and other environmental threats, Shellenberger and Nordhaus insisted. People are unlikely to care about polar bears, they point out, when they’re worried about feeding their children.
Shellenberger and Nordhaus also faulted the environmental movement for being reluctant to acknowledge its successes, as if doing so will foster complacency.
The book annoyed some greens, but I liked its can-do spirit, and I thought my students would too.
So, in 2008 I invited Shellenberger and Nordhaus to speak at my school, Stevens Institute of Technology, and I gave them a $5,000 prize that I created, the Green Book Award. (I also gave the award to biologist Edward Wilson, oceanographer Sylvia Earle, and climatologist James Hansen before my funding ran out.)
I chatted with Shellenberger on Bloggingheads.tv in 2008 and interviewed him and Nordhaus here at Scientific American in 2011.
Later I attended conferences organized by their think tank, the Breakthrough Institute (see my reports here and here). These gatherings challenged conventional green thinking in ways that I found stimulating and healthy.
Some speakers critiqued the positions of Shellenberger and Nordhaus—for example, their support for nuclear energy.
At a 2014 meeting, energy analyst Arnulf Grubler contended that nuclear power has a hard time competing with other energy sources, because, following a kind of reverse learning curve, its costs tend to rise over time. (Grubler lays out his arguments in this paper.)
Back to Shellenberger’s new book, Apocalypse Never. He asserts that human-induced climate change, while quite real, is less of a threat than many journalists and activists claim.
He presents evidence that the risks of extreme weather events, wildfires, and species extinction have been overblown, and that humanity is adapting to higher sea levels and temperatures.
In an online excerpt from his book, Shellenberger notes that according to 2019 study death rates and economic damage from extreme weather events have “dropped by 80 to 90 percent during the last four decades.”
He noted that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that by the end of this century “the global economy would be three to six times larger than it is today and that the costs of adapting to a high (4 degrees Celsius) temperature rise would reduce gross domestic product (GDP) just 4.5 percent.”
Shellenberger asked: “Does any of that really sound like the end of the world?”
Apocalypse Never cheered me up at a moment when I badly needed it. It serves as a counterweight to, for example, the claims of journalist David Wallace-Wells, a self-described alarmist.
In his recent bestseller, The Uninhabitable Earth, Wallace-Wells contends, all too persuasively, that climate change is “worse, much worse, than you think” (see my review here).
Shellenberger asked if I’d write a blurb for his book, and I came up with this: “Apocalypse Never will make some green progressives mad. But I see it as a useful and even necessary counterpoint to the alarmism being peddled by some activists and journalists, including me. Let the arguments begin!”
Shellenberger also got blurbs from heavyweights such as psychologists Steven Pinker and Jonathan Haidt and climate scientists Tom Wigley and Kerry Emanuel.
Apocalypse Never has indeed angered green progressives, as I predicted, and a mock “apology” with which Shellenberger promoted it unsettled some of his blurbers.
The book has been criticized even by members of the Breakthrough Institute, which Shellenberger recently left.
“While it is useful to push back against claims that climate change will lead to the end of the world or human extinction,” writes Zeke Hausfather, the institute’s director of climate and energy, “to do so by inaccurately downplaying real climate risks is deeply problematic and counterproductive.”
Conversely, the book has been praised in conservative media, such as the Daily Mail and the Wall Street Journal.
In the latter, journalist John Tierney writes: “Mr. Shellenberger makes a persuasive case, lucidly blending research data and policy analysis with a history of the green movement and vignettes of people in poor countries suffering the consequences of ‘environmental colonialism.’”
The polarized reactions to Shellenberger remind me of those to John Ioannidis, the Stanford epidemiologist who has warned that our reaction to COVID-19 might be overblown.
People judge the claims of Shellenberger and Ioannidis based less on their actual merits than on their perceived political implications.
Optimism, whether toward the pandemic or global warming, is viewed as a conservative, pro-Trump position. Now more than ever, political polarization makes it hard to have a rational argument about scientific issues.
Although I stand by my blurb for Apocalypse Never, parts of the book made me wince. Shellenberger argues so aggressively for nuclear power that a former colleague, Alex Trembath of the Breakthrough Institute, accuses him of “nuclear fetishism.”
Shellenberger is so pro-nuclear that he even defends nuclear weapons. Dismissing the possibility of eliminating nuclear weapons, he suggests that they can serve as a memento mori, a reminder of death that makes us cherish our fleeting lives.
Shellenberger’s positions on nuclear energy and arms strike me as discordant with his optimism and faith in human ingenuity.
If a nuclear-energy revival doesn’t happen in this country—and it probably won’t, not because of green opposition but because its up-front costs are too high—surely we will be smart enough to adapt, to fulfill our needs with other technologies.
And surely we can find a way to get rid of nuclear weapons as part of a global movement toward demilitarization. In short, my main gripe with Shellenberger isn’t that he’s too optimistic; it’s that he’s not optimistic enough.
He and I recently talked on Bloggingheads.tv about climate change, nuclear energy, war, the Green New Deal, and other issues, and he defended his positions energetically and eloquently.
I urge readers to watch the video and check out his book and other writings. Please try to set aside your political biases before you jump to any conclusions.
Read more at Scientific American
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-05--For Climate Skeptics, Free Speech On Facebook Is Dangerous

Written by Brian Maloney on .
Posted in Latest news As America ’ s political middle ground gives way to sharp left-right divisions and even violence , there are winners and losers in the war on ideas .
What in the recent past would have been considered up for debate now shifts firmly into the “ settled science ” category by those who are intolerant of differing viewpoints .
In 2020 , “ winners ” consist of those who control social media networks , of which a mere handful now have a stranglehold on the national conversation .
Because these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ San Francisco Bay Area , their hiring pool has long consisted primarily of left-leaning employees .
With the inevitable temptation to use this incredible power to influence public sentiment and elections , leftists have had the inside advantage , leaving conservatives , moderates and others shut out of the debate almost entirely .
Twitter , for example , is facing a public relations nightmare over recent revelations that 1100 insiders and contractors had access to the disturbingly-named “ God Mode , ” which allows almost total control over user accounts and content .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ such a powerful access level , this led to a major security breach affecting celebrities and political leaders .
No stranger to accusations of unfair control over user speech is Facebook , a platform originally designed to bring people together .
It has recently come under fire for suppressing debate over so-called “ climate change.
” The dispute is over the ability of one group to control another ’ s free expression via the Menlo Park-based company ’ s Orwellian Oversight Board and moderation team .
Reeling from the 2016 election ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reforms to regulate user content .
That opened a Pandora ’ s box of criticism and scrutiny over censorship and the outright de-platforming of voices .
A central target of that debate has become the suppression of voices that challenge left-leaning scientists ’ prevailing opinions .
When it comes to climate change , Facebook has cared little for honest discussion and debate , instead of tipping the scales in favor of alarmists .
It has already banned site users from seeing and sharing factual content created by credentialed climate scientists .
Even worse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ former Denmark Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt , who now co-chairs the company ’ s Oversight Board , leftist zealots want Facebook to go a step further .
They claim that “ the integrity of the Oversight Board ” is at risk unless they begin this troubling process again for opinion pieces that challenge the “ progressive ” climate change orthodoxy .
“ When you were Prime Minister , you knew for certain that climate change was fact , not opinion , and needs to be treated as such , ” wrote its signers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 350.org , and the Center for American Progress .
“ In your current role as an overseer of Facebook ’ s dangerous misinformation practice , our plea is grave : please , Ms. Thorning-Schmidt , take action now.
” Meanwhile , many of these same groups have endorsed legislators like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ( D-NY ) , who proclaims that “ the world is going to end in 12 years if we don ’ t address climate change.
” Despite sophomoric and outlandish assertions , they seemingly want to force a new Facebook @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ever countering radical viewpoints .
To say that energy science is settled law is not only untrue , it ’ s downright dangerous .
On June 29th , for example , Biomass supplier Enviva revealed that a sizable portion of their product wasn ’ t carbon neutral as previously believed .
This finding runs counter to the European Union ’ s longstanding belief that biomass is the prime option for reducing carbon emissions .
Now , regulators must reassess their polices for a source that accounts for over 60 percent of their clean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never learned that if public skepticism were banned .
Without the protection of free thought and discussion , scientific work can not proceed .
We need to share ideas , opinions , and perspectives to allow for the uncovering of truth , not suppress it .
Perhaps the Sierra Club doesn ’ t want a debate because other groups within their school of thought could challenge them .
Take , for example , the process of making EVs , which some have found can actually be highly destructive to the environment .
Sierra @ @ @ @ @ @ @ finds dissenting arguments “ dangerous.
” When the debate is shut down , the public fails to hear about the horrendous misuse of child labor at cobalt mines in the Congo and other disturbing details .
As Mark Zuckerberg put it , “ Powerful people are always going to have a voice .
I feel like someone needs to stand up for giving everyone a voice.
” Facebook ’ s platform is unique in its ability to allow for the sharing of ideas worldwide .
By attempting to stifle our ability to speak @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are working to shut it down .
Zuckerberg and Facebook have been right to reject calls for suppression to date .
As science and society will be better as a result , they should hold firm under pressure from these narrowminded special interest groups .

Written by Brian Maloney on Aug 5, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
As America’s political middle ground gives way to sharp left-right divisions and even violence, there are winners and losers in the war on ideas.
What in the recent past would have been considered up for debate now shifts firmly into the “settled science” category by those who are intolerant of differing viewpoints.
In 2020, “winners” consist of those who control social media networks, of which a mere handful now have a stranglehold on the national conversation.
Because these firms are primarily located in the ultra-liberal San Francisco Bay Area, their hiring pool has long consisted primarily of left-leaning employees.
With the inevitable temptation to use this incredible power to influence public sentiment and elections, leftists have had the inside advantage, leaving conservatives, moderates and others shut out of the debate almost entirely.
Twitter, for example, is facing a public relations nightmare over recent revelations that 1100 insiders and contractors had access to the disturbingly-named “God Mode,” which allows almost total control over user accounts and content.
As there was no internal oversight over such a powerful access level, this led to a major security breach affecting celebrities and political leaders.
No stranger to accusations of unfair control over user speech is Facebook, a platform originally designed to bring people together. It has recently come under fire for suppressing debate over so-called “climate change.”
The dispute is over the ability of one group to control another’s free expression via the Menlo Park-based company’s Orwellian Oversight Board and moderation team.
Reeling from the 2016 election’s outcome and aftermath, Facebook began site reforms to regulate user content. That opened a Pandora’s box of criticism and scrutiny over censorship and the outright de-platforming of voices.
A central target of that debate has become the suppression of voices that challenge left-leaning scientists’ prevailing opinions.
When it comes to climate change, Facebook has cared little for honest discussion and debate, instead of tipping the scales in favor of alarmists. It has already banned site users from seeing and sharing factual content created by credentialed climate scientists.
Even worse, in a recent open letter to former Denmark Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt, who now co-chairs the company’s Oversight Board, leftist zealots want Facebook to go a step further.
They claim that “the integrity of the Oversight Board” is at risk unless they begin this troubling process again for opinion pieces that challenge the “progressive” climate change orthodoxy.
“When you were Prime Minister, you knew for certain that climate change was fact, not opinion, and needs to be treated as such,” wrote its signers, which included the Sierra Club, 350.org, and the Center for American Progress.
“In your current role as an overseer of Facebook’s dangerous misinformation practice, our plea is grave: please, Ms. Thorning-Schmidt, take action now.”
Meanwhile, many of these same groups have endorsed legislators like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), who proclaims that “the world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change.”
Despite sophomoric and outlandish assertions, they seemingly want to force a new Facebook policy that will prevent the public from ever countering radical viewpoints.
To say that energy science is settled law is not only untrue, it’s downright dangerous.
On June 29th, for example, Biomass supplier Enviva revealed that a sizable portion of their product wasn’t carbon neutral as previously believed.
This finding runs counter to the European Union’s longstanding belief that biomass is the prime option for reducing carbon emissions.
Now, regulators must reassess their polices for a source that accounts for over 60 percent of their clean energy needs. But we would have never learned that if public skepticism were banned.
Without the protection of free thought and discussion, scientific work cannot proceed. We need to share ideas, opinions, and perspectives to allow for the uncovering of truth, not suppress it.
Perhaps the Sierra Club doesn’t want a debate because other groups within their school of thought could challenge them.
Take, for example, the process of making EVs, which some have found can actually be highly destructive to the environment. Sierra Club has preached EVs for years and finds dissenting arguments “dangerous.”
When the debate is shut down, the public fails to hear about the horrendous misuse of child labor at cobalt mines in the Congo and other disturbing details.
As Mark Zuckerberg put it, “Powerful people are always going to have a voice. I feel like someone needs to stand up for giving everyone a voice.”
Facebook’s platform is unique in its ability to allow for the sharing of ideas worldwide. By attempting to stifle our ability to speak freely, the signers of this letter are working to shut it down.
Zuckerberg and Facebook have been right to reject calls for suppression to date. As science and society will be better as a result, they should hold firm under pressure from these narrowminded special interest groups.
Read more at RealClearEnergy
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-05--Thank God For Fossil Fuels

Thank God For Fossil Fuels

Written by John Stossel on .
Posted in Latest news Yesterday afternoon , Hurricane Isaias tore through New England leaving most of us without electricity .
Nearly 12 hours later , power was finally restored .
I have never been more grateful for fossil fuels .
With no natural gas lines , there was no electricity for cooking or the hot water heater , no way to power the stove , fans , air conditioners , refrigerator , TV , WiFi , or any of the million little contrivances we take for granted .
Some of my neighbors had gas-powered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turned in the insufferable heat , they echoed throughout the neighborhood like beacons of civilization .
–CCD Editor Was the power on in your house this morning ?
If so , thank fossil fuels !
A few parts of America do get energy from other sources .
Washington state has fast-flowing rivers that allow Washingtonians to get most of its electricity from hydroelectric power .
Iowa now gets about 40 percent of its electricity from wind .
But most of us get power from the much-hated fossil fuels , primarily natural gas and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ although government-mandated ( Yes , government has done some useful things . )
controls like scrubbers in smokestacks have nearly eliminated the dangerous pollutants , such as sulfur dioxide .
… Now , Black Lives Matter protesters say fossil fuels create “ environmental racism ” because black neighborhoods are often located in low-lying floodplains or are close to refineries and other energy infrastructure .
Activist Jane Fonda recently joined them to say , “ The fossil fuel industry will have to pay !
” But I suspect Fonda and other anti-fossil fuel protesters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that powers their electric cars comes from .
Today , Americans still get 81 percent of our energy and 62.7 percent of our electricity from fossil fuels .
Oil fuels about 91 percent of all transportation .
Without fossil fuels , much of the world would freeze in the dark .
We just don ’ t yet have enough alternatives .
One country almost does : Iceland .
Iceland has hot springs , so geothermal power provides 25 percent of its juice , and hydropower provides most of the rest .
But even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enough .
Iceland still burns oil .
The protesters ought to watch the new documentary , “ Juice : How Electricity Explains the World.
” My new video this week is a short ( 4 minute ) version of it .
“ Electricity doesn ’ t guarantee wealth , ” says energy journalist Robert Bryce , “ but not having it almost always means poverty .
The defining inequality in the world today is the disparity between the electricity-rich and the electricity-poor .
Three billion people in the world today use less electricity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kitchen refrigerator .
To empower the low-watt world , we ’ re going to need a lot more juice.
” Hate coal all you want , but it still accounts for about 38 percent of global electricity production .
Even Japan , home to the Kyoto Protocol , plans to build 22 new coal-fired power plants .
Americans take electric light for granted , but Bryce ’ s film reminds us : “ Electricity allowed us to conquer our oldest foe : darkness .
For millennia , the cost of having well-lit spaces @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the very rich could afford it.
” That ’ s still true in much of the world .
About 300 million people in India have no access to electricity .
Many cook and heat their homes by burning cow dung .
It ’ s why about 1.3 million Indians die from indoor air pollution each year .
Cooking with cow dung , Bryce says , “ is akin to burning 400 cigarettes an hour in your kitchen.
” Pollution like that is a much bigger threat to disadvantaged people than greenhouse gasses American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate change ?
I ’ m told that ’ s why we must move to renewable energy .
Renewables , Bryce replies , simply can not supply “ the enormous amount of electricity the world needs at prices consumers can afford.
” Environmental activist Michael Shellenberger points out that he hears environmentalists say : “ People must reduce energy consumption !
( But ) the only people in the world who say that are rich people.
” “ Energy poverty vs climate change .
There is no easy , one-size-fits-all solution , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about three billion people in the world without adequate access to electricity… and they will do whatever they have to do to get the electricity they need.
” Read more at The Epoch Times

Written by John Stossel on Aug 5, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Yesterday afternoon, Hurricane Isaias tore through New England leaving most of us without electricity. Nearly 12 hours later, power was finally restored. I have never been more grateful for fossil fuels.
With no natural gas lines, there was no electricity for cooking or the hot water heater, no way to power the stove, fans, air conditioners, refrigerator, TV, WiFi, or any of the million little contrivances we take for granted.
Some of my neighbors had gas-powered generators, and as I tossed and turned in the insufferable heat, they echoed throughout the neighborhood like beacons of civilization. –CCD Editor
* * * * *
Was the power on in your house this morning?
If so, thank fossil fuels!
A few parts of America do get energy from other sources. Washington state has fast-flowing rivers that allow Washingtonians to get most of its electricity from hydroelectric power. Iowa now gets about 40 percent of its electricity from wind.
But most of us get power from the much-hated fossil fuels, primarily natural gas and coal.
Burning them does pollute, although government-mandated (Yes, government has done some useful things.) controls like scrubbers in smokestacks have nearly eliminated the dangerous pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide. …
Now, Black Lives Matter protesters say fossil fuels create “environmental racism” because black neighborhoods are often located in low-lying floodplains or are close to refineries and other energy infrastructure. Activist Jane Fonda recently joined them to say, “The fossil fuel industry will have to pay!”
But I suspect Fonda and other anti-fossil fuel protesters have no clue about where the electricity that powers their electric cars comes from.
Today, Americans still get 81 percent of our energy and 62.7 percent of our electricity from fossil fuels. Oil fuels about 91 percent of all transportation.
Without fossil fuels, much of the world would freeze in the dark. We just don’t yet have enough alternatives.
One country almost does: Iceland.
Iceland has hot springs, so geothermal power provides 25 percent of its juice, and hydropower provides most of the rest.
But even in Iceland, that’s not enough. Iceland still burns oil.
The protesters ought to watch the new documentary, “Juice: How Electricity Explains the World.” My new video this week is a short (4 minute) version of it.
“Electricity doesn’t guarantee wealth,” says energy journalist Robert Bryce, “but not having it almost always means poverty. The defining inequality in the world today is the disparity between the electricity-rich and the electricity-poor. Three billion people in the world today use less electricity than what’s used by my kitchen refrigerator. To empower the low-watt world, we’re going to need a lot more juice.”
Hate coal all you want, but it still accounts for about 38 percent of global electricity production. Even Japan, home to the Kyoto Protocol, plans to build 22 new coal-fired power plants.
Pitiful and expensive American “green” mandates won’t dent the world’s greenhouse gas emissions.
Americans take electric light for granted, but Bryce’s film reminds us: “Electricity allowed us to conquer our oldest foe: darkness. For millennia, the cost of having well-lit spaces at night was so high, only the very rich could afford it.”
That’s still true in much of the world. About 300 million people in India have no access to electricity.
Many cook and heat their homes by burning cow dung. It’s why about 1.3 million Indians die from indoor air pollution each year. Cooking with cow dung, Bryce says, “is akin to burning 400 cigarettes an hour in your kitchen.”
Pollution like that is a much bigger threat to disadvantaged people than greenhouse gasses American activists complain about.
“Darkness kills human potential. Electricity nourishes it,” says Bryce.
But what about climate change? I’m told that’s why we must move to renewable energy.
Renewables, Bryce replies, simply cannot supply “the enormous amount of electricity the world needs at prices consumers can afford.”
Environmental activist Michael Shellenberger points out that he hears environmentalists say: “People must reduce energy consumption! (But) the only people in the world who say that are rich people.”
“Energy poverty vs climate change. There is no easy, one-size-fits-all solution,” concludes Bryce. “But there are about three billion people in the world without adequate access to electricity… and they will do whatever they have to do to get the electricity they need.”
Read more at The Epoch Times
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-05--End Of Snow? Snow Line In Alps Drops To 2,300 Meters Elevation

Written by Pierre Gosselin on .
Posted in Latest news It ’ s been a rather cool summer in much of Europe so far .
And just before some hot weather is about to sweep across Central Europe starting tomorrow , winter made a brief comeback – at the peak of summer – in the Alps !
“ At high altitudes of the Alps , the precipitation turned into snow overnight , ” reported Wetteronline.de here .
“ In some areas , the snowfall line dropped to an altitude of around 2,300 meters.
” Wetteronline.de also noted that on Germany @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ about 30 centimeters of fresh snow fell in the morning at minus 2 degrees.
” “ Employees of the Zugspitzbahn were in continuous operation to clear paths and the visitor platforms from the summer snow masses.
” Meanwhile , Germany ’ s DWD national weather service recently issued what I ’ d call a press release that is designed especially for stupid and lazy journalists who won ’ t bother fact-checking .
In its preliminary report on July weather in Germany , the DWD announced that the mid-summer month this year was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ DWD , the average temperature in July for Germany was 17.7°C ( 64°F ) , which was “ 0.8°C ( 1.44°F ) above the value for the internationally valid reference period 1961 to 1990.
” But what the DWD fails to tell us is that the 1961-1990 period was a cold one .
And not only that , the World Meteorological Organization ( WMO ) no longer uses the 1961-1990 reference period .
Instead , it uses the 1981-2010 period to calculate the means .
The DWD does mention that July 2020 was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the valid reference period 1981 to 2010 .
So at the DWD , 0.3°C below the valid mean is in their eyes “ rather warm.
” Read more at No Tricks Zone

Written by Pierre Gosselin on Aug 5, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
It’s been a rather cool summer in much of Europe so far.
And just before some hot weather is about to sweep across Central Europe starting tomorrow, winter made a brief comeback – at the peak of summer – in the Alps!
Snow down to 2300 meters
“At high altitudes of the Alps, the precipitation turned into snow overnight,” reported Wetteronline.de here. “In some areas, the snowfall line dropped to an altitude of around 2,300 meters.”
A foot of snow
Wetteronline.de also noted that on Germany’s highest mountain, Zugspitze, “about 30 centimeters of fresh snow fell in the morning at minus 2 degrees.”
“Employees of the Zugspitzbahn were in continuous operation to clear paths and the visitor platforms from the summer snow masses.”
DWD national weather service labels a cooler than normal July “quite warm”
Meanwhile, Germany’s DWD national weather service recently issued what I’d call a press release that is designed especially for stupid and lazy journalists who won’t bother fact-checking.
In its preliminary report on July weather in Germany, the DWD announced that the mid-summer month this year was “rather warm.”
According to the DWD, the average temperature in July for Germany was 17.7°C (64°F), which was “0.8°C (1.44°F) above the value for the internationally valid reference period 1961 to 1990.”
But what the DWD fails to tell us is that the 1961-1990 period was a cold one. And not only that, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) no longer uses the 1961-1990 reference period. Instead, it uses the 1981-2010 period to calculate the means.
The DWD does mention that July 2020 was 0.3°C (0.54°F) too cold compared with the valid reference period 1981 to 2010. So at the DWD, 0.3°C below the valid mean is in their eyes “rather warm.”
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--2020-08-06--Defying Joe Biden, Four Unions Reach Deal To Build Keystone XL

Written by Joel B. Pollak on .
Posted in Latest news TC Energy , the Canadian company responsible for the Keystone XL pipeline , announced a deal with four unions on Wednesday for the project ’ s construction — defying former Vice President Joe Biden ’ s promise to cancel it .
The Keystone XL pipeline would run from Canada ’ s oil sands in Alberta across the border and into Nebraska .
From there , the oil would be pumped through existing pipelines to refineries in the Gulf of Mexico .
The project passed environmental reviews under the Obama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from environmental groups concerned about climate .
( Supporters of the pipeline noted the oil would be extracted , regardless : the alternative was export to China . )
President Donald Trump issued an executive order on his third full day in office effectively giving the green light to Keystone XL , inviting it to re-apply for permits and instructing federal agencies to move the project along rapidly .
Biden , who is the presumptive Democratic Party nominee , promised in May that he would stop the Keystone XL pipeline “ for good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That promise was bolstered by Biden ’ s support for a version of the “ Green New Deal ” that would eliminate carbon emissions — hence fossil fuels — from U.S. energy production by 2035 .
A year ago , at the second Democratic presidential debate , Biden promised to “ eliminate ” all fossil fuels , including the use of fracking .
( He has since tried to walk that back because of the importance of fracking to the battleground state of Pennsylvania . )
But TC Energy is going ahead — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Brotherhood of Teamsters , the International Union of Operating Engineers , the Laborers International Union of North America ( LiUNA ) , and the United Association of Union Plumbers and Pipefitters .
In a press statement , TC Energy announced that the four unions had reached a project labor agreement ( PLA ) with the company “ that will inject hundreds of millions of dollars in middle-class wages into the American economy while ensuring this pipeline will be built by the highest-skilled and highest-trained workforce.
” Project construction will support the creation of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including more than 10,000 high-paying construction jobs that will be filled primarily by union workers .
Keystone XL pipeline construction will generate $ 2 billion in earnings for U.S. workers , according to the 2014 Final Environmental Impact Statement done by the U.S. State Department .
Keystone XL will create jobs and energy security in North America , by ensuring a reliable source of crude oil to the United States .
Construction of Keystone XL will inject approximately $ 3.4 billion into the U.S. GDP .
Once complete , Keystone XL will continue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adding approximately $ 55 million in property taxes to local communities in Montana , South Dakota and Nebraska during the first year of operation .
The announcement signaled that Biden would , if elected , struggle to fulfill a crucial campaign promise to his supporters on the left — and catches Democrats between radical environmentalists on the one hand , and labor unions on the other .
It also indicates that Biden ’ s positions on climate change and fossil fuels are far to the left of the organized labor union constituency that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the polls , especially in the Midwest .
Biden ’ s opposition to Keystone XL could also frustrate his ambition to “ turn Texas blue , ” as the oil pipeline would serve Texas refineries .

Written by Joel B. Pollak on Aug 6, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
TC Energy, the Canadian company responsible for the Keystone XL pipeline, announced a deal with four unions on Wednesday for the project’s construction — defying former Vice President Joe Biden’s promise to cancel it.
The Keystone XL pipeline would run from Canada’s oil sands in Alberta across the border and into Nebraska. From there, the oil would be pumped through existing pipelines to refineries in the Gulf of Mexico.
The project passed environmental reviews under the Obama administration but was stalled due to opposition from environmental groups concerned about climate. (Supporters of the pipeline noted the oil would be extracted, regardless: the alternative was export to China.)
President Donald Trump issued an executive order on his third full day in office effectively giving the green light to Keystone XL, inviting it to re-apply for permits and instructing federal agencies to move the project along rapidly.
Biden, who is the presumptive Democratic Party nominee, promised in May that he would stop the Keystone XL pipeline “for good” if he was elected president.
That promise was bolstered by Biden’s support for a version of the “Green New Deal” that would eliminate carbon emissions — hence fossil fuels — from U.S. energy production by 2035.
A year ago, at the second Democratic presidential debate, Biden promised to “eliminate” all fossil fuels, including the use of fracking. (He has since tried to walk that back because of the importance of fracking to the battleground state of Pennsylvania.)
But TC Energy is going ahead — along with four unions: the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the International Union of Operating Engineers, the Laborers International Union of North America (LiUNA), and the United Association of Union Plumbers and Pipefitters.
In a press statement, TC Energy announced that the four unions had reached a project labor agreement (PLA) with the company “that will inject hundreds of millions of dollars in middle-class wages into the American economy while ensuring this pipeline will be built by the highest-skilled and highest-trained workforce.”
The statement added:
Project construction will support the creation of 42,000 family-sustaining jobs in the U.S, including more than 10,000 high-paying construction jobs that will be filled primarily by union workers. Keystone XL pipeline construction will generate $2 billion in earnings for U.S. workers, according to the 2014 Final Environmental Impact Statement done by the U.S. State Department. … Keystone XL will create jobs and energy security in North America, by ensuring a reliable source of crude oil to the United States. Construction of Keystone XL will inject approximately $3.4 billion into the U.S. GDP. Once complete, Keystone XL will continue to contribute to the local economy, adding approximately $55 million in property taxes to local communities in Montana, South Dakota and Nebraska during the first year of operation.
The announcement signaled that Biden would, if elected, struggle to fulfill a crucial campaign promise to his supporters on the left — and catches Democrats between radical environmentalists on the one hand, and labor unions on the other.
It also indicates that Biden’s positions on climate change and fossil fuels are far to the left of the organized labor union constituency that he promised Democrats he would bring to the polls, especially in the Midwest.
Biden’s opposition to Keystone XL could also frustrate his ambition to “turn Texas blue,” as the oil pipeline would serve Texas refineries.
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--2020-08-06--Kamala, AOC Want Climate Bills Based On Their Impact To Blacks

Written by Chris White on .
Posted in Latest news Sen. Kamala Harris of California and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York are teaming up on a proposal requiring lawmakers who introduce climate bills to consider the impact such legislation will have on black people and poor communities .
The two Democrats introduced the Climate Equity Act Thursday that would if passed , require Congress to score future climate bills based on how much they may negatively impact poor and minority communities , The Washington Post reported .
The two Democrats initially unveiled a draft of the bill in 2019 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for president , media reports show .
The equity score would be similar to the economic scores the Congressional Budget Office applies to other legislation , WaPo reported .
The Climate Equity Act would also apply to regulations the Trump administration proposes in the future .
“ COVID-19 has laid bare the realities of systemic racial , health , economic , and environmental injustices that persist in our country , ” Harris said in a statement to the Post .
“ The environment we live in can not be disentangled from the rest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as reports indicate former Vice President Joe Biden , the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee , is considering Harris to be his running mate .
Biden pledged early during the presidential campaign to pick a female running mate .
The bill “ is a really big deal , ” Kerene Tayloe , director of federal legislative affairs at WE ACT for Environmental Justice , told the Post , referring to the scoring system .
“ Nothing like that has ever existed , ” Tayloe added .
The New York-based environmental group helped Ocasio-Cortez and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Green New Deal in 2019 , which sought to aggressively cut carbon emissions over the next decade .
The resolution , drafted by Ocasio-Cortez , called for “ 10-year national mobilizations ” toward addressing climate change .
A fact sheet published alongside the proposal said the plan would “ mobilize every aspect of American society on a scale not seen since World War 2.
” Ocasio-Cortez ’ s GND would reportedly phase out fossil fuel usage within 12 years .
Studies show the plan would come with a hefty price .
Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 93 trillion to implement the Green New Deal over a decade , the conservative-leaning American Action Forum ( AAF ) noted in a study in February 2019 .

Written by Chris White on Aug 6, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Sen. Kamala Harris of California and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York are teaming up on a proposal requiring lawmakers who introduce climate bills to consider the impact such legislation will have on black people and poor communities.
The two Democrats introduced the Climate Equity Act Thursday that would if passed, require Congress to score future climate bills based on how much they may negatively impact poor and minority communities, The Washington Post reported.
The two Democrats initially unveiled a draft of the bill in 2019, when Harris began her unsuccessful run for president, media reports show.
The equity score would be similar to the economic scores the Congressional Budget Office applies to other legislation, WaPo reported.
The Climate Equity Act would also apply to regulations the Trump administration proposes in the future.
“COVID-19 has laid bare the realities of systemic racial, health, economic, and environmental injustices that persist in our country,” Harris said in a statement to the Post. “The environment we live in cannot be disentangled from the rest of our lives.”
The bill comes as reports indicate former Vice President Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, is considering Harris to be his running mate.
Biden pledged early during the presidential campaign to pick a female running mate.
The bill “is a really big deal,” Kerene Tayloe, director of federal legislative affairs at WE ACT for Environmental Justice, told the Post, referring to the scoring system.
“Nothing like that has ever existed,” Tayloe added. The New York-based environmental group helped Ocasio-Cortez and Harris craft the legislation.
Harris backed the Green New Deal in 2019, which sought to aggressively cut carbon emissions over the next decade.
The resolution, drafted by Ocasio-Cortez, called for “10-year national mobilizations” toward addressing climate change.
A fact sheet published alongside the proposal said the plan would “mobilize every aspect of American society on a scale not seen since World War 2.”
Ocasio-Cortez’s GND would reportedly phase out fossil fuel usage within 12 years. Studies show the plan would come with a hefty price.
Americans could be forced to pay up to $93 trillion to implement the Green New Deal over a decade, the conservative-leaning American Action Forum (AAF) noted in a study in February 2019.
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--2020-08-06--Bill Gates: Climate Change Deaths Will Match COVID-19’s In 40 Years

Written by Sam Dorman on .
Posted in Latest news Billionaire Bill Gates wants the United States to treat climate change with the “ same sense of urgency ” with which it has responded to COVID-19 , arguing that the impacts of the former will be much worse without corrective action .
“ If you want to understand the kind of damage that climate change will inflict , look at COVID-19 and spread the pain out over a much longer period of time , ” the Microsoft co-founder wrote on his blog Tuesday .
“ The loss of life and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ sic ] on par with what will happen regularly if we do not eliminate the world ’ s carbon emissions.
” Gates estimated that the death toll from climate change would match that of the pandemic by 2060 , and exceed it fivefold by 2100 .
The economic impact of climate change over the next two decades , he added , could be “ as bad as having a COVID-sized pandemic every ten years.
” Early in the pandemic , some drew comparisons between the virus and climate change , and credited @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gates acknowledged this effect but said such temporary restrictions aren ’ t nearly enough to address rising emissions .
“ What ’ s remarkable is not how much emissions will go down because of the pandemic , but how little , ” he said , pointing to a July report estimating the cost of emissions reductions .
“ Has closing off major parts of the economy avoided emissions at anything close to $ 100 per ton ?
” Gates asked .
“ No .
In the United States , according to data from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between $ 3,200 and $ 5,400 per ton .
In the European Union , it ’ s roughly the same amount .
In other words , the shutdown is reducing emissions at a cost between 32 and 54 times the $ 100 per ton that economists consider a reasonable price.
” At the end of his blog post , Gates called for drastic change and noted that flying or driving less wasn ’ t going to cut it .
“ So just as we need new tests , treatments , and vaccines for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tools for fighting climate change : zero-carbon ways to produce electricity , make things , grow food , keep our buildings cool and warm , and move people and goods around the world , ” he said .
“ And we need new seeds and other innovations to help the world ’ s poorest people — many of whom are smallholder farmers — adapt to a less predictable climate.
” Meanwhile , a Duke University professor told lawmakers Wednesday that the U.S. could prevent 4.5 million premature deaths if it worked towards to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Conservatives have generally argued that climate fears are overblown , citing apocalyptic predictions from prior decades .
The cost of implementing large-scale reform , they claim , would be unsustainable and inflict massive losses on the U.S. economy .
The Green New Deal ( GND ) , which Gates did not mention , has become the latest touchstone of the environmental movement in the U.S. and been championed by leading Democrats .
The right-leaning Competitive Enterprise Institute , which is funded by companies in the energy , automotive and technology sectors , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the GND ’ s mandates would cost swing-state households around $ 75,000 per year .
You can pretty much prophesize anything these days because long after you ’ re dead , no one can question you or your failed predictions .
–CCD Editor

Written by Sam Dorman on Aug 6, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Billionaire Bill Gates wants the United States to treat climate change with the “same sense of urgency” with which it has responded to COVID-19, arguing that the impacts of the former will be much worse without corrective action.
“If you want to understand the kind of damage that climate change will inflict, look at COVID-19 and spread the pain out over a much longer period of time,” the Microsoft co-founder wrote on his blog Tuesday.
“The loss of life and economic misery caused by this pandemic are [sic] on par with what will happen regularly if we do not eliminate the world’s carbon emissions.”
Gates estimated that the death toll from climate change would match that of the pandemic by 2060, and exceed it fivefold by 2100.
The economic impact of climate change over the next two decades, he added, could be “as bad as having a COVID-sized pandemic every ten years.”
Early in the pandemic, some drew comparisons between the virus and climate change, and credited economic shutdowns with reducing carbon emissions.
Gates acknowledged this effect but said such temporary restrictions aren’t nearly enough to address rising emissions.
“What’s remarkable is not how much emissions will go down because of the pandemic, but how little,” he said, pointing to a July report estimating the cost of emissions reductions.
“Has closing off major parts of the economy avoided emissions at anything close to $100 per ton?” Gates asked.
“No. In the United States, according to data from the Rhodium Group, it comes to between $3,200 and $5,400 per ton. In the European Union, it’s roughly the same amount. In other words, the shutdown is reducing emissions at a cost between 32 and 54 times the $100 per ton that economists consider a reasonable price.”
At the end of his blog post, Gates called for drastic change and noted that flying or driving less wasn’t going to cut it.
“So just as we need new tests, treatments, and vaccines for the novel coronavirus, we need new tools for fighting climate change: zero-carbon ways to produce electricity, make things, grow food, keep our buildings cool and warm, and move people and goods around the world,” he said.
“And we need new seeds and other innovations to help the world’s poorest people — many of whom are smallholder farmers — adapt to a less predictable climate.”
Meanwhile, a Duke University professor told lawmakers Wednesday that the U.S. could prevent 4.5 million premature deaths if it worked towards to keep temperature increases below two degrees Celsius.
Conservatives have generally argued that climate fears are overblown, citing apocalyptic predictions from prior decades.
The cost of implementing large-scale reform, they claim, would be unsustainable and inflict massive losses on the U.S. economy.
The Green New Deal (GND), which Gates did not mention, has become the latest touchstone of the environmental movement in the U.S. and been championed by leading Democrats.
The right-leaning Competitive Enterprise Institute, which is funded by companies in the energy, automotive and technology sectors, recently found that even a portion of the GND’s mandates would cost swing-state households around $75,000 per year.
You can pretty much prophesize anything these days because long after you’re dead, no one can question you or your failed predictions. –CCD Editor
Read more at Fox News
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-06--The High Costs And Low Benefits Of Electric Cars

Written by Duggan Flanakin on .
Posted in Latest news The rush to decarbonize every nation in the world in one or maybe two decades reflects the “ I want it all NOW !
” philosophy imbued through modern education systems .
Current and recent former students – and their teachers – demand a perfect world ( since they can envision one ) and exhibit zero patience ( hence the nationwide riots in the U.S. ) .
Hopefully , the mad stampede to destroy the West ’ s ability to use fossil fuels at all will be sidelined by harsh @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resource availability ( including a hoped-for reticence to rely on child slave labor to satisfy their blood lust ) .
Yet the United Kingdom , formerly a bastion of sanity , has mandated , as part of its drive toward an all-electric society , the installation of electric vehicle charging stations in every home by 2030 and that all new cars and vans be hydrogen or electric vehicles ( and not hybrids ) .
Let ’ s start with the use of child labor in the intensive effort just to obtain raw materials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As international energy economist Tilak Doshi reports , the most important component in the EV , the lithium-ion rechargeable battery , relies on critical mineral commodities such as cobalt , graphite , lithium , and manganese .
According to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development , two-thirds of the global output of cobalt comes from the Democratic Republic of Congo , a quarter of which from dangerous small-scale ( artisanal ) mines that employ child labor .
Moreover , a recent Global Warming Policy Foundation report by Michael Kelly found @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s fleet of petrol-powered vehicles with electric vehicles ( as has been mandated ) will require nearly twice the annual global production of cobalt , three-quarters of the world ’ s production of lithium carbonate , nearly the entire world ’ s production of neodymium , and more than half the world ’ s production of copper .
Replacing every internal combustion engine in the U.S. would take likely five or six times as much of these costly ores .
Add in the rest of Europe ( including Russia ) and the Americas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , India , and the rest of Asia , you begin to realize that the world can not find , much less permit and extract , enough of these minerals to build a worldwide EV fleet by 2040 ( let alone sooner ) .
It takes almost that much time these days just to get a permit to start up a new mining operation – if you can get past the environmental and NIMBY objections .
And , as Kelly concludes , The environmental and social impacts of vastly expanded mining for these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ toxic when mined , transported , and processed – in countries afflicted by corruption and poor human rights records can only be imagined .
Okay , so maybe you are fine with accelerated permitting ( no environmental impact statements or public comment periods ) to dig up or even import ore from Mars or the Moon .
Whether children or AI robots do the work , in either case by slaves .
The next hurdle is overcoming the shock of learning that you are not doing that much for the environment by imposing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reports that about half the lifetime CO2 emissions from an electric vehicle come from the energy used to produce the car – largely the mining and processing of raw materials needed for the battery .
Only about 17 percent of lifetime CO2 emissions from gasoline-powered vehicles are attributed to their manufacture .
Moreover , manufacturing an EV expends about 30,000 pounds of CO2 , while manufacturing a gasoline vehicle expends only about 14,000 pounds of CO2 .
Doshi explains that the on-road CO2 emissions of EVs depend on the power generation fuel used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a coal power plant , it amounts to about 15 ounces of CO2 for every mile driven – 3 ounces MORE than from a similar gasoline-powered car .
If an EV is only driven about 50,000 miles over its lifetime , it will put more CO2 into the atmosphere than a comparable gasoline vehicle .
Yet over 90,000 miles with the battery charged by cleaner natural-gas power plants , the EV will generate just 24 percent less CO2 than its gasoline-powered twin .
A 2012 peer-reviewed Yale University study had found that electric @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent decrease in “ global warming potential , ” yet they also exhibit the potential for significant increases in human toxicity , freshwater eco-toxicity , freshwater eutrophication , and metal depletion impacts .
The study concluded that with a vehicle lifetime of 100,000 kilometers ( about 62,000 miles ) , the global warming potential of EVs is no more than 14 percent with respect to gasoline vehicles and indistinguishable in impacts compared to diesel vehicles .
And you thought “ zero-emissions vehicle ” ACTUALLY meant zero emissions .
But in the UK , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problem .
The wise owls of London are just as eager to phase out natural gas to operate home appliances ( including heating systems ) .
Yet , retired engineer Mike Travers argues that decarbonizing the UK economy will likely require homeowners ( and landlords ) to install electric heat pumps , EV charging points , and electric stoves and showers .
This extra demand will require the installation of larger breaker boxes , along with new circuit breakers and distribution boards – plus rewiring between the breaker box and the distribution network @ @ @ @ @ @ @ electric cabling is underground , trenches will have to be dug between the home and the feeder circuits in the street .
All of this will vastly increase electricity costs .
The same goes for Californians , whose governor just signed a law mandating 100 percent renewable energy by 2045 .
Travers notes that many EV advocates envision “ vehicle to grid ” charging , in which vehicle owners feed electricity back into the grid from their vehicle ’ s battery when demand is high .
Duh !
One problem : The EV @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grid requires alternating current .
To feed the grid , the homeowner would have to spend a grand on a DC-AC converter , and why would anyone do that – or drain his own vehicle ’ s battery during unstable times ?

Written by Duggan Flanakin on Aug 6, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
The rush to decarbonize every nation in the world in one or maybe two decades reflects the “I want it all NOW!” philosophy imbued through modern education systems.
Current and recent former students – and their teachers – demand a perfect world (since they can envision one) and exhibit zero patience (hence the nationwide riots in the U.S.).
Hopefully, the mad stampede to destroy the West’s ability to use fossil fuels at all will be sidelined by harsh realities of economics, logistics, and resource availability (including a hoped-for reticence to rely on child slave labor to satisfy their blood lust).
Yet the United Kingdom, formerly a bastion of sanity, has mandated, as part of its drive toward an all-electric society, the installation of electric vehicle charging stations in every home by 2030 and that all new cars and vans be hydrogen or electric vehicles (and not hybrids).
Let’s start with the use of child labor in the intensive effort just to obtain raw materials for electric vehicle (EV) batteries.
As international energy economist Tilak Doshi reports, the most important component in the EV, the lithium-ion rechargeable battery, relies on critical mineral commodities such as cobalt, graphite, lithium, and manganese.
According to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, two-thirds of the global output of cobalt comes from the Democratic Republic of Congo, a quarter of which from dangerous small-scale (artisanal) mines that employ child labor.
Moreover, a recent Global Warming Policy Foundation report by Michael Kelly found that replacing just the United Kingdom’s fleet of petrol-powered vehicles with electric vehicles (as has been mandated) will require nearly twice the annual global production of cobalt, three-quarters of the world’s production of lithium carbonate, nearly the entire world’s production of neodymium, and more than half the world’s production of copper.
Replacing every internal combustion engine in the U.S. would take likely five or six times as much of these costly ores.
Add in the rest of Europe (including Russia) and the Americas – and even ignoring Africa, China, India, and the rest of Asia, you begin to realize that the world cannot find, much less permit and extract, enough of these minerals to build a worldwide EV fleet by 2040 (let alone sooner).
It takes almost that much time these days just to get a permit to start up a new mining operation – if you can get past the environmental and NIMBY objections. And, as Kelly concludes,
The environmental and social impacts of vastly expanded mining for these materials — some of which are highly toxic when mined, transported, and processed – in countries afflicted by corruption and poor human rights records can only be imagined.
Okay, so maybe you are fine with accelerated permitting (no environmental impact statements or public comment periods) to dig up or even import ore from Mars or the Moon. Whether children or AI robots do the work, in either case by slaves.
The next hurdle is overcoming the shock of learning that you are not doing that much for the environment by imposing electric vehicles on entire populations.
Doshi reports that about half the lifetime CO2 emissions from an electric vehicle come from the energy used to produce the car – largely the mining and processing of raw materials needed for the battery.
Only about 17 percent of lifetime CO2 emissions from gasoline-powered vehicles are attributed to their manufacture.
Moreover, manufacturing an EV expends about 30,000 pounds of CO2, while manufacturing a gasoline vehicle expends only about 14,000 pounds of CO2.
Doshi explains that the on-road CO2 emissions of EVs depend on the power generation fuel used to recharge its battery.
If from a coal power plant, it amounts to about 15 ounces of CO2 for every mile driven – 3 ounces MORE than from a similar gasoline-powered car.
If an EV is only driven about 50,000 miles over its lifetime, it will put more CO2 into the atmosphere than a comparable gasoline vehicle.
Yet over 90,000 miles with the battery charged by cleaner natural-gas power plants, the EV will generate just 24 percent less CO2 than its gasoline-powered twin.
A 2012 peer-reviewed Yale University study had found that electric vehicles offer only a 10 to 24 percent decrease in “global warming potential,” yet they also exhibit the potential for significant increases in human toxicity, freshwater eco-toxicity, freshwater eutrophication, and metal depletion impacts.
The study concluded that with a vehicle lifetime of 100,000 kilometers (about 62,000 miles), the global warming potential of EVs is no more than 14 percent with respect to gasoline vehicles and indistinguishable in impacts compared to diesel vehicles.
And you thought “zero-emissions vehicle” ACTUALLY meant zero emissions. But in the UK, at least, there is an added problem. The wise owls of London are just as eager to phase out natural gas to operate home appliances (including heating systems).
Yet, retired engineer Mike Travers argues that decarbonizing the UK economy will likely require homeowners (and landlords) to install electric heat pumps, EV charging points, and electric stoves and showers.
This extra demand will require the installation of larger breaker boxes, along with new circuit breakers and distribution boards – plus rewiring between the breaker box and the distribution network.
In urban areas, where most electric cabling is underground, trenches will have to be dug between the home and the feeder circuits in the street.
All of this will vastly increase electricity costs. The same goes for Californians, whose governor just signed a law mandating 100 percent renewable energy by 2045.
But wait! There’s MORE!
Travers notes that many EV advocates envision “vehicle to grid” charging, in which vehicle owners feed electricity back into the grid from their vehicle’s battery when demand is high.
Duh! One problem: The EV battery is direct current, while the grid requires alternating current.
To feed the grid, the homeowner would have to spend a grand on a DC-AC converter, and why would anyone do that – or drain his own vehicle’s battery during unstable times?
Read more at CFACT
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-06--Record Crops Discredit Latest Alarmist Drivel From Denver Channel

Written by H. Sterling Burnett on .
Posted in Latest news Among the top Google News results from today for “ climate change , ” the Denver Channel published an article asserting climate change is devastating crop production .
The Denver Channel is either inexcusably unaware of on-point United Nations ’ crop data , or The Denver Channel is deliberately telling falsehoods .
Objective data show consistent , steady growth in global crop yields , with new records set virtually every year .
Tally The Denver Channel as yet another purveyor of fake climate news .
The Denver Channel article @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world worried about climate change impacting their crops.
” The theme of the article is summarized by a quote the article provides from a Syngenta spokesperson : “ Climate change is impacting agriculture and farmers ’ abilities .
… It ’ s coming down to , especially in the United States , is the unpredictable weather patterns that are beginning to emerge.
” The article especially emphasizes drought as ruining American crop yields .
“ It ’ s drier than it used to be , ” says a struggling farmer in the article @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change , drought , and negative crop impacts .
Let ’ s take a look at the objective data .
Global crop yields during the period of modest global average warming have boomed .
As my colleague James Taylor , president of The Heartland Institute , recently noted in a Climate Realism article , the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization ( FAO ) reports global cereal production ( the vitally important corn , wheat , and rice crops ) set an all-time record in 2019 .
Moreover , FAO expects 2020 crop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ See Figure 1 , below .
The same game-changing growth in global production is occurring in the United States .
Yields per acre in the U.S. are 50 percent higher than was the case just 20 years ago , and double what they were in 1980 .
New records are set virtually every year .
See Figure 2 , below .
The good news about crop yields tell us that the Denver Channel ’ s claim about worsening drought is likely false .
Here are some additional facts to support that : As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Drought , the United States is undergoing its longest period in recorded history without at least 40 percent of the country experiencing “ very dry ” conditions .
Peaks in drought intensity occurred around 1978 , 1954 , 1930 , and 1900 – between 40 and 120 years of global warming ago .
By contrast , in 2017 the United States set a record for its smallest percentage of land area experiencing drought in recorded history .
Then , the United States broke that record again in 2019 .
To be fair @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do fear the effects of climate change on their livelihoods .
If they do , however , their fear is driven by media alarmism like the Denver Channel article rather than by nonexistent declines in real-world crop production .

Written by H. Sterling Burnett on Aug 6, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Among the top Google News results from today for “climate change,” the Denver Channel published an article asserting climate change is devastating crop production.
The Denver Channel is either inexcusably unaware of on-point United Nations’ crop data, or The Denver Channel is deliberately telling falsehoods.
Objective data show consistent, steady growth in global crop yields, with new records set virtually every year. Tally The Denver Channel as yet another purveyor of fake climate news.
The Denver Channel article is titled, “Farmers across the world worried about climate change impacting their crops.”
The theme of the article is summarized by a quote the article provides from a Syngenta spokesperson: “Climate change is impacting agriculture and farmers’ abilities. … It’s coming down to, especially in the United States, is the unpredictable weather patterns that are beginning to emerge.”
The article especially emphasizes drought as ruining American crop yields. “It’s drier than it used to be,” says a struggling farmer in the article.
Those are bold assertions about climate change, drought, and negative crop impacts. Let’s take a look at the objective data.
Global crop yields during the period of modest global average warming have boomed.
As my colleague James Taylor, president of The Heartland Institute, recently noted in a Climate Realism article, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) reports global cereal production (the vitally important corn, wheat, and rice crops) set an all-time record in 2019.
Moreover, FAO expects 2020 crop production to surpass the 2019 record. See Figure 1, below.
The same game-changing growth in global production is occurring in the United States. Yields per acre in the U.S. are 50 percent higher than was the case just 20 years ago, and double what they were in 1980.
New records are set virtually every year. See Figure 2, below.
The good news about crop yields tell us that the Denver Channel’s claim about worsening drought is likely false. Here are some additional facts to support that:
As reported in, Climate at a Glance: Drought, the United States is undergoing its longest period in recorded history without at least 40 percent of the country experiencing “very dry” conditions.
Peaks in drought intensity occurred around 1978, 1954, 1930, and 1900 – between 40 and 120 years of global warming ago.
By contrast, in 2017 the United States set a record for its smallest percentage of land area experiencing drought in recorded history. Then, the United States broke that record again in 2019.
To be fair, many farmers around the world likely do fear the effects of climate change on their livelihoods.
If they do, however, their fear is driven by media alarmism like the Denver Channel article rather than by nonexistent declines in real-world crop production.
Read more at Climate Realism
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print


climatechangedispatch--2020-08-06--Biden Touts Electric Corvettes While Firing Up Traditional Car

Written by Hannah Bleau on .
Posted in Latest news Presidential candidate Joe Biden ( D ) released a video on Wednesday featuring himself revving a hunter green Corvette Stingray — an American classic — while promising to move the country to electric vehicles .
“ I like to drive .
I used to think I was a pretty good driver , ” Biden said in the video showing the presidential hopeful revving up the engine with a mask on .
“ I didn ’ t get a chance to flat-shift into second .
I was afraid I ’ d @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said , laughing .
The video then showed Biden opening the hood of the car and reminiscing over his “ incredible memories ” associated with the vehicle .
“ Nothing but incredible memories .
Every time I get in , I think of my dad and Beau , ” he said , marveling over the setup of the American classic .
“ This is just boom , ” he continued .
“ This is an iconic industry .
How can American-made vehicles no longer be out there ?
” he asked .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ market again by moving to electric vehicles .
And by the way , they tell me — and I ’ m looking forward if it ’ s true to driving one — that they ’ re making an electric Corvette that can go 200 mph , ” Biden said .
“ You think I ’ m kidding .
I ’ m not kidding , ” he said , chuckling .
“ So , I ’ m excited about it ” : Biden ’ s $ 2 trillion climate change proposal , which bears @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ocasio-Cortez ’ s ( D-NY ) radical Green New Deal , promises to move the U.S. economy to 100 percent renewable energy sources by 2035 , five years after the New York lawmaker ’ s original goal .
Such a move would effectively put the fossil fuel industry out of business , as Breitbart News detailed .
Notably , Biden ’ s plan “ would also create subsidized replacement schemes for electric cars to wean Americans away from gasoline , ” according to Forbes .
There are now one million electric vehicles on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But a key barrier to further deployment of these greenhouse-gas reducing vehicles is the lack of charging stations and coordination across all levels of government .
As President , Biden will work with our nation ’ s governors and mayors to support the deployment of more than 500,000 new public charging outlets by the end of 2030 .
In addition , Biden will restore the full electric vehicle tax credit to incentivize the purchase of these vehicles .
He will ensure the tax credit is designed to targeted middle class consumers and , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prioritize the purchase of vehicles made in America .
The plan adds that Biden will “ develop a new fuel economy standard that goes beyond what the Obama-Biden Administration put in place .
”

Written by Hannah Bleau on Aug 6, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
Presidential candidate Joe Biden (D) released a video on Wednesday featuring himself revving a hunter green Corvette Stingray — an American classic — while promising to move the country to electric vehicles.
“I like to drive. I used to think I was a pretty good driver,” Biden said in the video showing the presidential hopeful revving up the engine with a mask on.
“I didn’t get a chance to flat-shift into second. I was afraid I’d go through those guys,” he said, laughing.
The video then showed Biden opening the hood of the car and reminiscing over his “incredible memories” associated with the vehicle.
“Nothing but incredible memories. Every time I get in, I think of my dad and Beau,” he said, marveling over the setup of the American classic.
“This is just boom,” he continued.
“This is an iconic industry. How can American-made vehicles no longer be out there?” he asked.
“I believe we can own the 21st-century market again by moving to electric vehicles. And by the way, they tell me — and I’m looking forward if it’s true to driving one — that they’re making an electric Corvette that can go 200 mph,” Biden said.
“You think I’m kidding. I’m not kidding,” he said, chuckling. “So, I’m excited about it”:
There’s been a lot of talk about my vetting process lately. Here’s an inside look: pic.twitter.com/tFRKJOE3hi — Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) August 5, 2020
Biden’s $2 trillion climate change proposal, which bears some of the markings of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s (D-NY) radical Green New Deal, promises to move the U.S. economy to 100 percent renewable energy sources by 2035, five years after the New York lawmaker’s original goal.
Such a move would effectively put the fossil fuel industry out of business, as Breitbart News detailed.
Notably, Biden’s plan “would also create subsidized replacement schemes for electric cars to wean Americans away from gasoline,” according to Forbes.
According to Biden’s plan:
There are now one million electric vehicles on the road in the United States. But a key barrier to further deployment of these greenhouse-gas reducing vehicles is the lack of charging stations and coordination across all levels of government. As President, Biden will work with our nation’s governors and mayors to support the deployment of more than 500,000 new public charging outlets by the end of 2030. In addition, Biden will restore the full electric vehicle tax credit to incentivize the purchase of these vehicles. He will ensure the tax credit is designed to targeted middle class consumers and, to the greatest extent possible, to prioritize the purchase of vehicles made in America.
The plan adds that Biden will “develop a new fuel economy standard that goes beyond what the Obama-Biden Administration put in place.”
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--2020-08-07--Court Rules Dakota Access Pipeline Won’t Have To Be Drained

Written by Valerie Richardson on .
Posted in Latest news A federal court ruled Wednesday that the Dakota Access Pipeline won ’ t have to be drained of oil , as a lower court had ordered , but the three-year-old pipeline may still have to undertake an environmental review to stay in operation .
The U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruling , which fell on the initial deadline for DAPL to be emptied , lifted the stay on the order for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to prepare an environmental impact statement on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in North Dakota .
“ This ruling represents another victory in the fight for North Dakota energy , ” said Sen. Kevin Cramer , North Dakota Republican .
“ On the day DAPL was originally ordered to be shut down and emptied , we receive another assurance the pipeline can keep playing its important part in bolstering America ’ s energy dominance.
” U.S. District Court Judge James E. Boasberg invalidated in March a four-year-old permit issued by the corps , handing a win to the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe , which has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pipeline that passes underground about a half-mile from the reservation .
Last month , Judge Boasberg ruled that the pipeline , which went into operation in June 2017 , must be emptied no later than Aug. 5 while the corps conducts the review , although the appeals court temporarily stayed his order a week later .
Earthjustice attorney Jan Hasselman , who represents the tribe , said the Standing Rock Sioux would continue to push for the pipeline to be shuttered .
“ Dakota Access is an affront to Tribal sovereignty and a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Everyone would be safer if operations were halted , ” said Mr. Hasselman in a statement .
“ The pipeline is now operating illegally : we are confident that it will be shut down eventually.
” The court ’ s decision signals more litigation over the 1,172-mile pipeline that carries oil from North Dakota ’ s Bakken shale formation to an energy terminal in Patoka , Illinois , and from there to refineries along the Gulf Coast and in the Midwest .
Paul G. Afonso , senior vice president for the American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allow the pipeline to remain in operation during the second-guessing on the permitting process .
“ The Court rightly stayed the decision to shut down and empty the Dakota Access Pipeline , which has been operating for over three years and provides millions of tax dollars to states , affordable energy to the entire region , and thousands of jobs along its route , ” said Mr. Afonso .
“ However , the failure to uphold the easement granted years ago by the federal government exemplifies the problems with our outdated permitting system.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ allows protracted challenges to advance within the courts and ultimately take away jobs , tax dollars , and investments that pipelines bring to communities that sorely need them.
” Energy Transfer Partners , the Texas firm that owns DAPL , calls the infrastructure “ one of the safest and most technologically advanced and safest pipelines ever built , ” pointing out that it never crosses the reservation and that the tribe ’ s water intake is now about 75 miles away .
Nearly all the pipeline is built on private property , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including the Lake Oahe segment .

Written by Valerie Richardson on Aug 7, 2020 . Posted in Latest news
A federal court ruled Wednesday that the Dakota Access Pipeline won’t have to be drained of oil, as a lower court had ordered, but the three-year-old pipeline may still have to undertake an environmental review to stay in operation.
The U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruling, which fell on the initial deadline for DAPL to be emptied, lifted the stay on the order for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to prepare an environmental impact statement on the pipeline segment that runs under Lake Oahe in North Dakota.
“This ruling represents another victory in the fight for North Dakota energy,” said Sen. Kevin Cramer, North Dakota Republican.
“On the day DAPL was originally ordered to be shut down and emptied, we receive another assurance the pipeline can keep playing its important part in bolstering America’s energy dominance.”
U.S. District Court Judge James E. Boasberg invalidated in March a four-year-old permit issued by the corps, handing a win to the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, which has fought for years the $3.8 billion pipeline that passes underground about a half-mile from the reservation.
Last month, Judge Boasberg ruled that the pipeline, which went into operation in June 2017, must be emptied no later than Aug. 5 while the corps conducts the review, although the appeals court temporarily stayed his order a week later.
Earthjustice attorney Jan Hasselman, who represents the tribe, said the Standing Rock Sioux would continue to push for the pipeline to be shuttered.
“Dakota Access is an affront to Tribal sovereignty and a threat to public health and clean water. Everyone would be safer if operations were halted,” said Mr. Hasselman in a statement.
“The pipeline is now operating illegally: we are confident that it will be shut down eventually.”
The court’s decision signals more litigation over the 1,172-mile pipeline that carries oil from North Dakota’s Bakken shale formation to an energy terminal in Patoka, Illinois, and from there to refineries along the Gulf Coast and in the Midwest.
Paul G. Afonso, senior vice president for the American Petroleum Institute, praised the decision to allow the pipeline to remain in operation during the second-guessing on the permitting process.
“The Court rightly stayed the decision to shut down and empty the Dakota Access Pipeline, which has been operating for over three years and provides millions of tax dollars to states, affordable energy to the entire region, and thousands of jobs along its route,” said Mr. Afonso.
“However, the failure to uphold the easement granted years ago by the federal government exemplifies the problems with our outdated permitting system.”
The process, he said, “allows protracted challenges to advance within the courts and ultimately take away jobs, tax dollars, and investments that pipelines bring to communities that sorely need them.”
Energy Transfer Partners, the Texas firm that owns DAPL, calls the infrastructure “one of the safest and most technologically advanced and safest pipelines ever built,” pointing out that it never crosses the reservation and that the tribe’s water intake is now about 75 miles away.
Nearly all the pipeline is built on private property, with 0.02% constructed on federal land, including the Lake Oahe segment.
Read rest at Washington Times
Be Social And Share! Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
TruthSocial
Gab
Telegram
Mastodon
Buffer
Email
More
Reddit
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Pocket
Tumblr
Print