committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-10-05--CFACT official comment: EPA should retain current ozone standards

I am pleased to comment on EPA ’ s proposal to retain , without revision , the current national ambient air quality ( NAAQS ) standards for photochemical oxidants , including ozone .
EPA ’ s proposal concerns the primary ( health-based ) and secondary ( welfare-based ) ozone NAQQS pursuant to the periodic review required by the Clean Air Act ( CAA ) .
In light of the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ’ s 2015 decision remanding the Obama administration ’ s proposed tightening of the secondary ozone NAQQS to EPA for justification @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID-19-related slowdown in U.S. economic activity , I will limit my remarks to the welfare-based aspects of retaining the current standards for ozone .
Citing the abundant scientific literature on the formation of ozone , EPA identifies precursor emissions such as nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds ( VOCs ) from man-made sources ( e.g.
, motor vehicles and power plants ) and natural sources ( e.g.
, vegetation and wildfires ) and the interaction of both sources with solar radiation .
Under a more stringent ozone NAQQS standard , motor-vehicle use , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power plants , and related commercial activity would be more tightly regulated , directly affecting the welfare of communities suddenly thrust into NAQQS non-attainment under the CAA .
A predictable , and desirable , consequence of EPA ’ s proposal not to tighten the ozone NAQQS is that those metropolitan areas that have only recently emerged from non-attainment status under the CAA will now not be facing the imminent threat of non-attainment status under the CAA because of a movement of the regulatory goal posts .
Consider the alternative .
Communities that are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the CAA would find it difficult to impossible to attract businesses and other forms of economic development .
This burden would weigh disproportionately on those least able to cope in a hostile economic environment .
The ability of people to earn a living and provide for their families goes to the very heart of what EPA should consider when assessing the welfare effects of its proposal .
EPA ’ s review of the ozone NAQQS dates to 2018 and thus predates the outbreak of COVID-19 .
The economic disruptions brought on by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them will be long lasting .
Although EPA ’ s proposal was made independently of the coronavirus , the agency ’ s action will be beneficial , because EPA has chosen not to impose further burdens at a time when the country can least afford them .
Finally , EPA cites wildfires as a source of ozone formation .
As these comments are being submitted , firefighters are battling more than 100 wildfires across the West that have killed dozens of people , burned millions of acres , and forced more than 300,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The conflagrations ’ effect on people ’ s lives and air quality will certainly linger for an extended period of time .
Given the buildup of fuel in many of the region ’ s overgrown forests , this year ’ s disastrous fire season will certainly be followed by many more .
The wildfires ’ effect on air quality as it relates to ozone formation will be enough to push many metropolitan areas in the West out of compliance with the NAQQS .
In light of the devastation many of the region @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s decision to retain the current standards turns out to be a wise and humane one .
Thank you very much .

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
October 1,2020
I am pleased to comment on EPA’s proposal to retain, without revision, the current national ambient air quality (NAAQS) standards for photochemical oxidants, including ozone.
EPA’s proposal concerns the primary (health-based) and secondary (welfare-based) ozone NAQQS pursuant to the periodic review required by the Clean Air Act (CAA). In light of the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia’s 2015 decision remanding the Obama administration’s proposed tightening of the secondary ozone NAQQS to EPA for justification or reconsideration, and considering the current COVID-19-related slowdown in U.S. economic activity, I will limit my remarks to the welfare-based aspects of retaining the current standards for ozone.
Citing the abundant scientific literature on the formation of ozone, EPA identifies precursor emissions such as nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from man-made sources (e.g., motor vehicles and power plants) and natural sources (e.g., vegetation and wildfires) and the interaction of both sources with solar radiation. Under a more stringent ozone NAQQS standard, motor-vehicle use, generation of electricity at certain types of power plants, and related commercial activity would be more tightly regulated, directly affecting the welfare of communities suddenly thrust into NAQQS non-attainment under the CAA.
A predictable, and desirable, consequence of EPA’s proposal not to tighten the ozone NAQQS is that those metropolitan areas that have only recently emerged from non-attainment status under the CAA will now not be facing the imminent threat of non-attainment status under the CAA because of a movement of the regulatory goal posts. Consider the alternative. Communities that are stigmatized because of their non-attainment status under the CAA would find it difficult to impossible to attract businesses and other forms of economic development.
This burden would weigh disproportionately on those least able to cope in a hostile economic environment. The ability of people to earn a living and provide for their families goes to the very heart of what EPA should consider when assessing the welfare effects of its proposal.
EPA’s review of the ozone NAQQS dates to 2018 and thus predates the outbreak of COVID-19. The economic disruptions brought on by the pandemic are severe, and many of them will be long lasting. Although EPA’s proposal was made independently of the coronavirus, the agency’s action will be beneficial, because EPA has chosen not to impose further burdens at a time when the country can least afford them.
Finally, EPA cites wildfires as a source of ozone formation. As these comments are being submitted, firefighters are battling more than 100 wildfires across the West that have killed dozens of people, burned millions of acres, and forced more than 300,000 people to abandon their homes in Oregon. The conflagrations’ effect on people’s lives and air quality will certainly linger for an extended period of time. Given the buildup of fuel in many of the region’s overgrown forests, this year’s disastrous fire season will certainly be followed by many more. The wildfires’ effect on air quality as it relates to ozone formation will be enough to push many metropolitan areas in the West out of compliance with the NAQQS. In light of the devastation many of the region’s residents are facing, EPA’s decision to retain the current standards turns out to be a wise and humane one.
Thank you very much.
Bonner R. Cohen, Ph. D.
Senior Policy Analyst
Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow
Washington, D.C.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-10-06--A history of global temperature for those who never studied geology

We have long thought that if more people had been required to take a course in Geology in High School , the human-caused global warming exaggerations would be more difficult to pull off on an unsuspecting public .
Our simplified version of what is going on in and around the Earth should help fill the void .
The way the Earth formed , its rotational path around our sun , and its own axis are typically taught in Geology but ignored by the well-financed climate modelers .
They are arrogant enough to throw a few variables into an equation claiming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ temperature decades hence .
Sadly you and they disregard the known fact that your TV weatherman is correct on his 7-day forecast only 56 % of the time .
The modelers will tell you that climate and weather are two different things if you believe that they may have an island in New York ’ s Hudson River to sell you too .
Generally , the climate is considered a 30-year compilation of weather .
If we can not predict the weather 7-days hence with any certainty , how do they expect to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last 50-million years of Earth temperatures .
There is a great deal of information on this chart , but just focus on two critical points : • First , the unmistakable trend ( green arrow ) in the global temperature IS relentlessly downward .
• Equally important is how much the temperatures dropped – It went from a global maximum of about 80 degrees Fahrenheit to about 55 degrees F , a 45 % drop .
we go back as far as data allows us and see other trends .
On the bottom-right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 50 million years in context .
But then we note that : • For more than half a billion years , the Earth ’ s temperature remained at a steady 78-80 F. Even after it was interrupted by three cataclysmic events ; the temperature bounced back up to this steady 78-80 F. • Secondly , starting 525 million years ago , we see a 225 million year period of declining levels of CO2 .
Then CO2 remained at this dangerously low 180 ppm level for about 70 million years when all life on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Luckily , the Earth ’ s volcanic and tectonic activities drove temperatures and CO2 back up to habitable levels .
But starting 175 million years ago , the CO2 level was again on a steady decline .
This decline continued until the end of the Little Ice Age about 250 years ago and fortunately has now reached a safer level of 420 ppm .
• Now , here ’ s what we don ’ t see , over a 550 million year period , any relationship between CO2 and global temperature .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has all that CO2 been going ?
But , in fact , we do know that it is being used by a wide range of calcifying critters like corals , crabs , clams , and marine plankton .
Much also becomes locked up in limestone rocks , such as the well known White Cliffs of Dover and the Alps .
Over this entire 550 million year period , CO2 fell from more than 0.7 % of the atmosphere to 0.018 % 20,000 years ago .
We are fortunate that we are now putting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and all life on Earth will not survive on less than 0.015 % .
Geological considerations [ iii ] : The Heat History of the Earth .
shows us that the Today the Earth remains geologically and biologically active and evolves because there are two sources of energy .
One source of energy is from the Earth ’ s molten core ( which plays a role in the Earth ’ s geology ) , and the second is , of course , from the sun ( that supports life in the atmosphere and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ) tells us that for the Earth must be climatically in balance , or we will have either global warming or global cooling .
However , IPCC reports recognize the sun as the only source of heat supplied to our planet .
Therefore , the Earth must radiate to space as much heat as it receives from the sun each day .
Ignoring the planetary heat from its molten core , which likely provides as much as 5 % of the Earth ’ s heat .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ meteorites and asteroids impacting with each other over about 200 million years .
A large moon or mini-planet struck this mass a glancing blow : the resulting heat and mass-created a molten planet .
The heaviest , hottest materials sank to the center , and the lighter materials floated in the outer shell area .
Over the last 4.5 billion years , the planet cooled and continues to cool to this day , but remaining heat is sufficient to drive all continental , volcanic , and tectonic activities .
By the simple laws @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Earth-mass a mere 500 Km away from the near absolute zero temperature of outer space .
Therefore , until the Earth cools to near absolute zero , the natural state for the Earth is to keep on cooling .
Of course , the natural ( thermodynamic ) role of the sun is to delay this Earth ’ s cooling trend for a few more billions of years .
We already know plants love CO2 – so should we .
is a photo from the New York Times bestseller by Alex Epstein , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In this controlled experiment , these four plants are identical species and in age and growing environments .
So , why are they so different ?
Here we see how much faster and healthier trees grow as we increase the amount of CO2 .
NASA [ v ] tells us that over 35 years in the late 20th century , the planet Greened ( more plants ) by the equivalent of half the size of Australia .
It also increased Leafing ( bigger , denser plants ) by twice the size of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at higher levels of CO2 , plants use 35 % -70 % less water .
They do not need to draw in CO2 as often while losing more of their moisture to the atmosphere .
The result is more plants can grow in drier climates .
In addition , the small increase in global temperature of the last half of the 20th century contributed to increased plant growth by extending the agricultural range 100 miles to the north .
In fig 5 , [ vi ] , we see the Satellite global temperature @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We use satellite data because , as revealed in the Climategate emails , the so-called , “ Surface Temperatures ” have been corrupted in two ways : a ) adjusted , “ aka-fudged ” at least four times and b ) The number of reporting stations have been coming offline at a record pace and replaced by computer-generated temperatures of what the station temperatures should have been , and then adjusted .
[ vii ] The three great peaks of the last 20-years were powerful El Niño years .
We hit a peak @ @ @ @ @ @ @ warming of less than 0.5 C in the last 40-years .
But you are not reading about this from the media , press , politicians , and the CO2 industry ?
They say “ The Science Says….fill in as required , ” …….. All that increased C O2 will cause more global warming and melt the poles and perhaps drown all of us !
The existential threat you hear so much about .
But there is no data !
Show us the experiments and results , and who has duplicated them ?
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ output of computer models is not data ; that ’ s garbage in and dogma out .
Finally , if in doubt , choose sanity and hard data over fear .
Unfortunately , fear is the tool used by alarmists to obtain power and money .
Your common sense should tell you that any small addition of life-giving carbon dioxide that supports all life on our planet does not place any of us in peril .
Unless a greater majority of the public begins to recognize the absurdity and arrogance of believing that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on our planet , our standard of living will dramatically decline .
This will be the result of the decline in the use of fossil fuels and the continued financial investments being made to control our climate , which can never be achieved .

We have long thought that if more people had been required to take a course in Geology in High School, the human-caused global warming exaggerations would be more difficult to pull off on an unsuspecting public. Our simplified version of what is going on in and around the Earth should help fill the void.
The way the Earth formed, its rotational path around our sun, and its own axis are typically taught in Geology but ignored by the well-financed climate modelers. They are arrogant enough to throw a few variables into an equation claiming its solution predicts our Earth’s temperature decades hence. Sadly you and they disregard the known fact that your TV weatherman is correct on his 7-day forecast only 56% of the time. The modelers will tell you that climate and weather are two different things if you believe that they may have an island in New York’s Hudson River to sell you too. Generally, the climate is considered a 30-year compilation of weather. If we can not predict the weather 7-days hence with any certainty, how do they expect to predict climate?
Historical considerations. The Earth’s climate records.
In Fig 1 [i] , we see the last 50-million years of Earth temperatures. There is a great deal of information on this chart, but just focus on two critical points:
First, the unmistakable trend (green arrow) in the global temperature IS relentlessly downward.
Equally important is how much the temperatures dropped – It went from a global maximum of about 80 degrees Fahrenheit to about 55 degrees F, a 45% drop.
In Fig 2 [ii] , we go back as far as data allows us and see other trends. On the bottom-right corner, we first note the above 50 million years in context. But then we note that:
For more than half a billion years, the Earth’s temperature remained at a steady 78-80 F. Even after it was interrupted by three cataclysmic events; the temperature bounced back up to this steady 78-80 F.
Secondly, starting 525 million years ago, we see a 225 million year period of declining levels of CO2. Then CO2 remained at this dangerously low 180 ppm level for about 70 million years when all life on Earth was in danger of extinction. Luckily, the Earth’s volcanic and tectonic activities drove temperatures and CO2 back up to habitable levels. But starting 175 million years ago, the CO2 level was again on a steady decline. This decline continued until the end of the Little Ice Age about 250 years ago and fortunately has now reached a safer level of 420 ppm.
Now, here’s what we don’t see, over a 550 million year period, any relationship between CO2 and global temperature.
We are immediately left to wonder, where has all that CO2 been going? But, in fact, we do know that it is being used by a wide range of calcifying critters like corals, crabs, clams, and marine plankton. Much also becomes locked up in limestone rocks, such as the well known White Cliffs of Dover and the Alps. Over this entire 550 million year period, CO2 fell from more than 0.7% of the atmosphere to 0.018% 20,000 years ago. We are fortunate that we are now putting some back in the air because plants and all life on Earth will not survive on less than 0.015%.
Geological considerations[iii]: The Heat History of the Earth.
Fig 3. shows us that the Earth is a heat engine . Today the Earth
remains geologically and biologically active and evolves because there are two sources of energy. One source of energy is from the Earth’s molten core (which plays a role in the Earth’s geology), and the second is, of course, from the sun (that supports life in the atmosphere and the oceans.) The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) tells us that for the Earth must be climatically in balance, or we will have either global warming or global cooling. However, IPCC reports recognize the sun as the only source of heat supplied to our planet. Therefore, the Earth must radiate to space as much heat as it receives from the sun each day. Ignoring the planetary heat from its molten core, which likely provides as much as 5% of the Earth’s heat.
The Earth formed from the accumulation of meteorites and asteroids impacting with each other over about 200 million years. A large moon or mini-planet struck this mass a glancing blow: the resulting heat and mass-created a molten planet. The heaviest, hottest materials sank to the center, and the lighter materials floated in the outer shell area. Over the last 4.5 billion years, the planet cooled and continues to cool to this day, but remaining heat is sufficient to drive all continental, volcanic, and tectonic activities. By the simple laws of thermodynamics, we have a hot Earth-mass a mere 500 Km away from the near absolute zero temperature of outer space. Therefore, until the Earth cools to near absolute zero, the natural state for the Earth is to keep on cooling. Of course, the natural (thermodynamic) role of the sun is to delay this Earth’s cooling trend for a few more billions of years.
We already know plants love CO2 – so should we.
Fig 4 [iv] is a photo from the New York Times bestseller by Alex Epstein, “The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels.” In this controlled experiment, these four plants are identical species and in age and growing environments. So, why are they so different? Here we see how much faster and healthier trees grow as we increase the amount of CO2. NASA[v] tells us that over 35 years in the late 20th century, the planet Greened (more plants) by the equivalent of half the size of Australia. It also increased Leafing (bigger, denser plants) by twice the size of the USA.
An added bonus is that at higher levels of CO2, plants use 35%-70% less water. They do not need to draw in CO2 as often while losing more of their moisture to the atmosphere. The result is more plants can grow in drier climates. In addition, the small increase in global temperature of the last half of the 20th century contributed to increased plant growth by extending the agricultural range 100 miles to the north.
In fig 5,[vi], we see the Satellite global temperature records of the past 40 years. We use satellite data because, as revealed in the Climategate emails, the so-called, “Surface Temperatures” have been corrupted in two ways: a) adjusted, “aka-fudged” at least four times and b) The number of reporting stations have been coming offline at a record pace and replaced by computer-generated temperatures of what the station temperatures should have been, and then adjusted.[vii] The three great peaks of the last 20-years were powerful El Niño years. We hit a peak temperature in 1998, yielding total global warming of less than 0.5 C in the last 40-years.
But you are not reading about this from the media, press, politicians, and the CO2 industry? They say “The Science Says….fill in as required,”…….. All that increased C O2 will cause more global warming and melt the poles and perhaps drown all of us! The existential threat you hear so much about.
But there is no data ! Show us the experiments and results, and who has duplicated them? And please enough with climate models. The output of computer models is not data; that’s garbage in and dogma out. Finally, if in doubt, choose sanity and hard data over fear. Unfortunately, fear is the tool used by alarmists to obtain power and money. Your common sense should tell you that any small addition of life-giving carbon dioxide that supports all life on our planet does not place any of us in peril.
Unless a greater majority of the public begins to recognize the absurdity and arrogance of believing that humanity’s actions negatively impact life on our planet, our standard of living will dramatically decline. This will be the result of the decline in the use of fossil fuels and the continued financial investments being made to control our climate, which can never be achieved.
[i] http://landscapesandcycles.net/antarctic-refrigeration-effect.html
[ii]https://www.google.com/search?q=600+million+years+of+global+temperature&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS877US877&sxsrf=ALeKk00Qvft8mBTC1V9Fr5k81HqMvzc-Lw:1600703482708&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=F7u392we92M6MM%252CeHVaZFr21jCv1M%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kTrhhwT5IfMd65W-qsl4CPPq7EVXg&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj4z-iTzfrrAhUDwVkKHScABwMQ9QF6BAgKEAM
[iii] https://csmgeo.csm.jmu.edu/geollab/Fichter/PlateTect/heathistory.html
[iv] A hitchhiker’s Journey Through Climate Change, p 156.
[v] https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
[vi] https://i0.wp.com/www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_February_2018_v6.jpg
[vii] https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-10-07--A new abnormal of rolling blackouts under Biden energy plan

Power blackouts that rolled across California cities and towns during an August 13-14 heat wave offer a warning glimpse of much more dire consequences we can absolutely count on occurring with enactment of the Biden campaign ’ s “ Build Back Better ” proposal to immediately eliminate fracking on all public lands , and virtually eliminate fossil-fueled power plants over the next 15 years .
In concert with the aspirational Green New Deal co-sponsored by his running mate Senator Kamala Harris , D-Calif. , Biden ’ s plan calls for humongous expenditures in renewable energy , including installing 500 million @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Add to this that Biden proposes to have taxpayers finance a half-million electric car chargers across America – along with funding to help car makers convert their factories to electric vehicle ( EV ) production .
Meanwhile , California Gov .
Gavin Newson has now ordered his state to ban new gas vehicles by 2035 in order to weaponize its gigantic car market as a hammer to force automakers to concentrate on EVs .
All of this , of course , will shift even greater energy demand from petroleum to the electrical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ EVs will require that energy sufficiency is constantly available .
That wasn ’ t the case when that August heatwave left millions of perspiring Californians in the dark as power demand outstripped supplies .
For a reality check , let ’ s first recognize that about 80 percent of all U.S. energy ( always measured in BTUs ) comes from fossil sources , with another 8.6 percent contributed by nuclear .
Of that total U.S. energy amount , solar and wind combined presently contribute barely over three percent , with solar contributing less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wind power and sunlight systems produce energy averaged over the year at 25 % -30 % of the time or less .
By comparison , conventional natural gas plants have very high availability in the 80 % -95 % range , and often higher .
Wind and solar energy intermittency demand an equal amount of “ spinning reserve ” power typically provided by natural gas turbines that must be inefficiently throttled up and down like a car driving in stop-and-go traffic to balance the energy grid .
Any excess energy that is produced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ times when it will be useful – like , for example at night when large populations of EV owners will simultaneously wish to replenish their large power-thirsty batteries .
There ’ s also another big problem with producing those batteries .
China controls about 70 % of the world ’ s lithium supply and 83 % of the anodes to make them .
And a lithium project that has been seeking approval to mine the material in a Nevada desert has been blocked from doing so for more than a decade by environmental @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Diversity .
Nevertheless , limited capacities and unreliability issues aside ( and they are big ones ) , wasn ’ t that “ green energy ” still supposed to be environmentally clean ?
Certainly not when we consider what goes into making those systems .
As reported by my friend Mark Mills at the Manhattan Institute , building wind turbines and solar panels to generate electricity , as well as batteries to fuel electric vehicles , requires , on average , more than 10 times the quantity of materials , compared with building @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same amount of energy .
Consider the massive material requirements needed to replace a single 100-MW gas-fired turbine about the size of a typical residential house with at least 20 wind turbines , each about the size of the Washington Monument and covering about 10 square miles of land .
The wind alternative would consume about 30,000 tons of iron ore and 50,000 tons of concrete , as well as 900 tons of non-recyclable plastics for the huge blades .
A solar plant with the same output – enough power to supply about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more tonnage in cement , steel and glass .
Adding to that , also imagine periodically replacing a utility-scale battery storage system for that same 100-MW wind farm comprising at least 10,000 tons of Tesla-class batteries .
Producing each of them requires mining , moving , and processing more than 500,000 pounds of materials using hydrocarbon-fueled equipment .
This amounts to some 20 times more than the 25,000 pounds of petroleum that an internal combustion engine uses over the life of a car .
Applied for transportation , and averaged over a 1,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ each mile of driving an electric vehicle “ consumes ” about five pounds of earth moved by hydrocarbon powered devices , whereas a comparable petroleum-fueled vehicle only consumes about 0.2 pounds of liquids per mile .
Again , for comparison with hydrocarbons , it requires the energy equivalent of about 100 barrels of oil to fabricate a quantity of storage batteries that can store a single barrel of oil-equivalent energy .
Put still another way , about 60 pounds of batteries are needed to store the energy equivalent to that in one pound @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that by 2050 , with current plans , the quantity of worn-out , non-recyclable solar panels will double the tonnage of all today ’ s global plastic waste , along with over 3 million tons per year of unrecyclable plastics from worn-out wind turbine blades .
By 2030 , more than 10 million tons per year of batteries , including rare earth elements such as dysprosium they contain , will become landfill garbage .
As a 2017 World Bank study concludes , “ Technologies assumed to populate the clean energy shift … are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their composition than current traditional fossil-fuel-based energy supply systems.
” In addition , banning gasoline vehicles is going to cost California lots of funding needed for roads and public works , including the state ’ s bullet train to nowhere .
The state currently collects about $ 8 billion in fuel taxes and $ 3 billion in cap-and trade revenues annually .
Getting to 100 % electric by 2035 will require massively more money for subsidies to pay for those cars and an enormous vehicle-charging network to expand from a mere 6.2 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sales last year .
Finally , as for wind , solar and EV ’ s eliminating either “ carbon pollution ” or climate change , don ’ t believe that for a moment .
The only thing “ green ” about any of them will come from the pocketbooks of taxpayer subsidies and hiked-up energy cost consumers .

Power blackouts that rolled across California cities and towns during an August 13-14 heat wave offer a warning glimpse of much more dire consequences we can absolutely count on occurring with enactment of the Biden campaign’s “Build Back Better” proposal to immediately eliminate fracking on all public lands, and virtually eliminate fossil-fueled power plants over the next 15 years.
In concert with the aspirational Green New Deal co-sponsored by his running mate Senator Kamala Harris, D-Calif., Biden’s plan calls for humongous expenditures in renewable energy, including installing 500 million solar panels and manufacturing 60,000 wind turbines.
Add to this that Biden proposes to have taxpayers finance a half-million electric car chargers across America – along with funding to help car makers convert their factories to electric vehicle (EV) production.
Meanwhile, California Gov. Gavin Newson has now ordered his state to ban new gas vehicles by 2035 in order to weaponize its gigantic car market as a hammer to force automakers to concentrate on EVs.
All of this, of course, will shift even greater energy demand from petroleum to the electrical power sector. Producing and recharging those EVs will require that energy sufficiency is constantly available. That wasn’t the case when that August heatwave left millions of perspiring Californians in the dark as power demand outstripped supplies.
Now imagine adding several tens of thousands of EVs to drain further dwindling supplies of reliable energy. Not explained are any bright ideas regarding how to recharge all those power-hungry plug-ins on windless nights.
For a reality check, let’s first recognize that about 80 percent of all U.S. energy (always measured in BTUs) comes from fossil sources, with another 8.6 percent contributed by nuclear. Of that total U.S. energy amount, solar and wind combined presently contribute barely over three percent, with solar contributing less than 0.1 percent.
Even the best wind power and sunlight systems produce energy averaged over the year at 25%-30% of the time or less. By comparison, conventional natural gas plants have very high availability in the 80%-95% range, and often higher.
Wind and solar energy intermittency demand an equal amount of “spinning reserve” power typically provided by natural gas turbines that must be inefficiently throttled up and down like a car driving in stop-and-go traffic to balance the energy grid.
Any excess energy that is produced must either be dumped or stored for times when it will be useful – like, for example at night when large populations of EV owners will simultaneously wish to replenish their large power-thirsty batteries.
There’s also another big problem with producing those batteries.
China controls about 70% of the world’s lithium supply and 83% of the anodes to make them. And a lithium project that has been seeking approval to mine the material in a Nevada desert has been blocked from doing so for more than a decade by environmental groups such as the Center for Biological Diversity.
Nevertheless, limited capacities and unreliability issues aside (and they are big ones), wasn’t that “green energy” still supposed to be environmentally clean?
Certainly not when we consider what goes into making those systems.
As reported by my friend Mark Mills at the Manhattan Institute, building wind turbines and solar panels to generate electricity, as well as batteries to fuel electric vehicles, requires, on average, more than 10 times the quantity of materials, compared with building equivalent systems using hydrocarbons to deliver the same amount of energy.
Consider the massive material requirements needed to replace a single 100-MW gas-fired turbine about the size of a typical residential house with at least 20 wind turbines, each about the size of the Washington Monument and covering about 10 square miles of land.
Wind and solar power also require huge amounts of more land and expansive transmission lines to deliver electricity from remote sites to high power demand metropolitan centers. Those long-distance power transfers also add significant transmission losses.
The wind alternative would consume about 30,000 tons of iron ore and 50,000 tons of concrete, as well as 900 tons of non-recyclable plastics for the huge blades. A solar plant with the same output – enough power to supply about 75,000 homes – would require half again more tonnage in cement, steel and glass.
Adding to that, also imagine periodically replacing a utility-scale battery storage system for that same 100-MW wind farm comprising at least 10,000 tons of Tesla-class batteries. Producing each of them requires mining, moving, and processing more than 500,000 pounds of materials using hydrocarbon-fueled equipment. This amounts to some 20 times more than the 25,000 pounds of petroleum that an internal combustion engine uses over the life of a car.
Applied for transportation, and averaged over a 1,000 pound EV battery life, imagine that each mile of driving an electric vehicle “consumes” about five pounds of earth moved by hydrocarbon powered devices, whereas a comparable petroleum-fueled vehicle only consumes about 0.2 pounds of liquids per mile.
Again, for comparison with hydrocarbons, it requires the energy equivalent of about 100 barrels of oil to fabricate a quantity of storage batteries that can store a single barrel of oil-equivalent energy. Put still another way, about 60 pounds of batteries are needed to store the energy equivalent to that in one pound of hydrocarbons.
Mark Mills reminds us that by 2050, with current plans, the quantity of worn-out, non-recyclable solar panels will double the tonnage of all today’s global plastic waste, along with over 3 million tons per year of unrecyclable plastics from worn-out wind turbine blades.
By 2030, more than 10 million tons per year of batteries, including rare earth elements such as dysprosium they contain, will become landfill garbage.
As a 2017 World Bank study concludes, “Technologies assumed to populate the clean energy shift … are in fact significantly more material intensive in their composition than current traditional fossil-fuel-based energy supply systems.”
In addition, banning gasoline vehicles is going to cost California lots of funding needed for roads and public works, including the state’s bullet train to nowhere. The state currently collects about $8 billion in fuel taxes and $3 billion in cap-and trade revenues annually.
Getting to 100% electric by 2035 will require massively more money for subsidies to pay for those cars and an enormous vehicle-charging network to expand from a mere 6.2% of the auto market represented by EV sales last year.
Finally, as for wind, solar and EV’s eliminating either “carbon pollution” or climate change, don’t believe that for a moment. The only thing “green” about any of them will come from the pocketbooks of taxpayer subsidies and hiked-up energy cost consumers.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-10-07--CFACT to EPA: Wrong time for new Clean Air Act burdens

The Clean Air Act has been a great success — until eco-radicals got a hold of it .
America enjoys our cleanest air and water since pre-industrial times .
Basic economics teaches us that free markets are efficient , but government must protect us from problems such as over-pollution .
Pollution is an example of what economists term “ externalities ; ” impacts caused by producers who do not bare the costs .
We can all be proud of the work we ’ ve done to curb pollution .
We must be on guard , however , against efforts to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Our laws were written to clean and conserve , not as tools for an anti-capitalist Left that never saw a constructive activity it wouldn ’ t thwart .
CFACT senior policy analyst Bonner Cohen sent a detailed official comment to EPA on clean air standards which focuses on ozone .
We posted it to CFACT.org .
Bonner makes a compelling case that EPA would be foolish to further tighten ozone standards at a time when America can least afford them .
The costs would be too high , while the benefits would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wisely working to keep current high clean air standards in place , without foolishly expanding them to the point of destruction .

The Clean Air Act has been a great success — until eco-radicals got a hold of it.
America enjoys our cleanest air and water since pre-industrial times.
Basic economics teaches us that free markets are efficient, but government must protect us from problems such as over-pollution. Pollution is an example of what economists term “externalities;” impacts caused by producers who do not bare the costs.
We can all be proud of the work we’ve done to curb pollution.
We must be on guard, however, against efforts to misuse our anti-pollution laws and regulations. Our laws were written to clean and conserve, not as tools for an anti-capitalist Left that never saw a constructive activity it wouldn’t thwart.
CFACT senior policy analyst Bonner Cohen sent a detailed official comment to EPA on clean air standards which focuses on ozone. We posted it to CFACT.org.
Bonner makes a compelling case that EPA would be foolish to further tighten ozone standards at a time when America can least afford them. The costs would be too high, while the benefits would be too little to matter.
EPA is wisely working to keep current high clean air standards in place, without foolishly expanding them to the point of destruction.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-10-09--California brown-outs illustrate the dystopian outcomes of utopian targets

One of the most damaging fallacies of our time might be the “ Field of Dreams ” fallacy , which holds that “ If you build it , they will come.
” This fallacy , what might also be called the enabling myth of those who favor planned societies over market-economies , persists year after year , despite a nearly unbroken record of failure spanning decades and in some cases centuries .
Fittingly enough , no state better embodies the fantastical thinking behind “ If you build it ” than California , where planners have floated an endless array of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ air purity , to employee ridesharing , to mass transit ridership , to expanded bicycling , electric car deployment , greenhouse gas emission reduction targets , and of course , to renewable energy targets : specifically the dream of a society powered by puffs of air , rays of sunshine , hot rocks , and wishful thinking .
But in the year of our Plague 2020 , California ’ s renewable Field of Dreams fantasy may have finally failed so visibly and undeniably as to give one hope the benighted citizens of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ based on actual experience of “ here ’ s what we have done , here ’ s our next incremental , achievable goal , ” also known as pragmatism .
I know , having grown up in California , that ’ s probably wishful thinking , but unlike California , I actually admit that !
As those who care about things like keeping the air conditioning running will remember , California has been chasing the renewable power dream for decades .
As that unimpeachable font of knowledge , Wikipedia observes : In 2006 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Warming Solutions Act of 2006 which set a goal for 33 % of electricity consumption in California to be generated by renewable sources by 2020 .
In 2015 , SB350 mandated that electric utilities purchase 50 % of their electricity from renewable sources by 2030 .
Then in 2018 , Senate Bill 100 was passed which increased the renewables requirement for electric utilities to 50 % by 2026 , 60 % by 2030 , and 100 % by 2045 .
How ’ s that all working out for California ?
Not so well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ California had its first unplanned blackouts in 20 years on August 18 , when hundreds of thousands of Californians sweltered in one of California ’ s utterly predictable summer heat waves .
And the power has gone out again since then , as reported on September 7th , “ The sweltering temperatures are fueling wildfires that have , just this weekend , taken down power plants , forced evacuations and cut power to about 70,000 homes and businesses .
Of course , all of this has California policymakers and green power hucksters “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” trying to figure out just what on Earth might have happened .
The fingers of blame are out in force pointing to just about every possible cause ( they ’ re even blaming California ’ s bungled energy “ deregulation ” and the Enron debacle ) , or dumping on the poor system operators , who have about zero say in how power is actually generated in the state .
But , not everyone is buying the “ baffling !
” or “ bad management !
” exclamations of the renewable hawks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ability to produce almost 6,000 megawatts , or about 15 percent of the electricity on California ’ s grid , were reported as being offline when temperatures surged last Friday .
The shortfall , which experts believe officials should have been able to avoid , forced managers of the grid to order rolling blackouts in the middle of a pandemic and as wildfires across the state were spreading .
But even if all of the missing capacity had been available , California would probably still have struggled to deliver enough electricity to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That ’ s because the manager of the grid and state regulators were relying on power from plants that either had permanently shut down or could not have realistically achieved the targets set for them .
( emphasis mine ) And what kind of power plants were those ?
Natural gas power plants , that ’ s what kind , the type ( along with nuclear power plants ) that are not welcome in California ’ s renewable Field of Dreams .
Hastings , quoted above , wins the brevity prize on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a cloudy day should not be able to shut down the fifth-largest economy in the world.
” But it has , and it will continue to do so , until California replaces Hollywood fantasy policies , and embraces pragmatic power policies that will keep the a/c running .

One of the most damaging fallacies of our time might be the “Field of Dreams” fallacy, which holds that “If you build it, they will come.” This fallacy, what might also be called the enabling myth of those who favor planned societies over market-economies, persists year after year, despite a nearly unbroken record of failure spanning decades and in some cases centuries.
Fittingly enough, no state better embodies the fantastical thinking behind “If you build it” than California, where planners have floated an endless array of “aspirational targets” for everything from air purity, to employee ridesharing, to mass transit ridership, to expanded bicycling, electric car deployment, greenhouse gas emission reduction targets, and of course, to renewable energy targets: specifically the dream of a society powered by puffs of air, rays of sunshine, hot rocks, and wishful thinking.
But in the year of our Plague 2020, California’s renewable Field of Dreams fantasy may have finally failed so visibly and undeniably as to give one hope the benighted citizens of the Golden State will start demanding better policies based on actual experience of “here’s what we have done, here’s our next incremental, achievable goal,” also known as pragmatism. I know, having grown up in California, that’s probably wishful thinking, but unlike California, I actually admit that!
As those who care about things like keeping the air conditioning running will remember, California has been chasing the renewable power dream for decades. As that unimpeachable font of knowledge, Wikipedia observes:
In 2006, the California legislature passed the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 which set a goal for 33% of electricity consumption in California to be generated by renewable sources by 2020. In 2015, SB350 mandated that electric utilities purchase 50% of their electricity from renewable sources by 2030. Then in 2018, Senate Bill 100 was passed which increased the renewables requirement for electric utilities to 50% by 2026, 60% by 2030, and 100% by 2045.
How’s that all working out for California? Not so well. An article in Politico observes that California had its first unplanned blackouts in 20 years on August 18, when hundreds of thousands of Californians sweltered in one of California’s utterly predictable summer heat waves. And the power has gone out again since then, as reported on September 7th, “The sweltering temperatures are fueling wildfires that have, just this weekend, taken down power plants, forced evacuations and cut power to about 70,000 homes and businesses.
Of course, all of this has California policymakers and green power hucksters “baffled,” and “stumped,” trying to figure out just what on Earth might have happened. The fingers of blame are out in force pointing to just about every possible cause (they’re even blaming California’s bungled energy “deregulation” and the Enron debacle), or dumping on the poor system operators, who have about zero say in how power is actually generated in the state.
But, not everyone is buying the “baffling!” or “bad management!” exclamations of the renewable hawks:
All told, power plants with the ability to produce almost 6,000 megawatts, or about 15 percent of the electricity on California’s grid, were reported as being offline when temperatures surged last Friday. The shortfall, which experts believe officials should have been able to avoid, forced managers of the grid to order rolling blackouts in the middle of a pandemic and as wildfires across the state were spreading.
But even if all of the missing capacity had been available, California would probably still have struggled to deliver enough electricity to homes where families were cranking up air-conditioners. That’s because the manager of the grid and state regulators were relying on power from plants that either had permanently shut down or could not have realistically achieved the targets set for them. (emphasis mine)
And what kind of power plants were those? Natural gas power plants, that’s what kind, the type (along with nuclear power plants) that are not welcome in California’s renewable Field of Dreams.
Hastings, quoted above, wins the brevity prize on this one: “Hot weather and a cloudy day should not be able to shut down the fifth-largest economy in the world.” But it has, and it will continue to do so, until California replaces Hollywood fantasy policies, and embraces pragmatic power policies that will keep the a/c running.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-10-09--More Green denial by Kamala Harris

More Green denial by Kamala Harris

The Democratic presidential ticket has , during the first two debates , effectively denied ownership of the Green New Deal .
What gives ?
Last week , former Vice President Joe Biden said , “ I don ’ t support the Green New Deal , ” even though he has supported it for more than a year .
Biden ’ s “ Unity Task Force ” recommendations issued jointly with Sen. Bernie Sanders endorsed the tenets of the Green New Deal , and his campaign ’ s website embraces it .
At the Vice Presidential debate this week , Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Harris , was asked about Biden ’ s denial of supporting the GND and her own co-sponsorship of the plan in the Senate .
She dodged the question by claiming Biden supports hydro-fracturing for natural gas , and that he will create jobs .
Harris also mentioned the wildfires in California and storms on the Gulf Coast , and claimed , “ the science is telling us this.
” Climate change , she said , is “ an existential threat to us as human beings.
” Curiously , Sen. Harris never mentioned the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perhaps because it has never polled well .
It is hugely expensive , in the multi-trillions of dollars , and envisions replacing fossil fuels , destroying jobs and empowering government with far greater control over the private economy and lifestyles of Americans .
In the abstract , Americans may like “ green energy ” and “ carbon free ” concepts when push-polled , but they mostly oppose the socialistic specifics of what is required to get there .
This explains why not a single senator , including Harris , supported the GND when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year on the Senate floor .
Another factor is that every version of the Green New Deal is anti-fracking .
Throughout the Democratic presidential primaries , Mr. Biden , Sen. Harris , Sen. Sanders and the other two dozen candidates were tripping over each other to tout their support for banning fracking .
There were no caveats or ambiguity from Biden or Harris .
The general election is a different matter since at least two battleground states , Pennsylvania and Ohio , have a large energy sectors dependent on fracking natural gas .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Joe Biden will not ban fracking .
That is a fact.
” Considering her own emphatic commitment to ban fracking , and Biden ’ s repeated prior statements to do likewise , her reassurance falls flat .
I was next expecting her to don a Pittsburgh Steelers helmet to claim she was a fan since her days riding the school bus in suburban California .
The GND ’ s original sponsor in the U.S. House of Representatives is the one-and-only Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , who happened to co-chair the committee that drafted the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Force .
AOC responded to Harris after the debate by saying “ fracking is bad , actually.
” As with the first debate , the “ moderator , ” Susan Page of USA Today asked several loaded questions to Vice President Mike Pence , including on climate change .
She asked , “ Do you believe , as the scientific community has concluded , that man-made climate change has made wildfires bigger , hotter and more deadly ?
And it made hurricanes wetter , slower and more damaging ( emphasis mine ) ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the “ scientific community , ” it has not “ concluded ” any such connection between a changing climate and wildfires and hurricanes .
Yet , Ms .
Page , a lifelong journalist , incuriously embraces such trope .
At least she eschewed debating the subject with Pence , in contrast to the impervious Chris Wallace in the first presidential debate .
The Vice President properly responded with mention of the Trump administration ’ s environmental record that is impactful on people in the present day , namely , cleaner water and air @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conservation .
He also dismissed any connection to hurricanes , which haven ’ t changed in frequency in a century ; and wildfires , which are caused by mismanaged forests .
Pence then turned to challenge Sen. Harris on her and Biden ’ s embrace of the Green New Deal and their anti-fracking positions .
Mr. Pence also avoided the directly the issue whether climate change is “ an existential threat ” to humanity .
His careful response stated , “ Climate is changing .
We ’ ll follow the science.
” He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and its threat to American jobs , though he could have added that the climate was much warmer in centuries past .
A more robust climate discussion should involve “ moderators ” challenging politicians who insist on trillions of taxpayer dollars to attempt to lower global temperature by a single degree .
Make them justify reducing America ’ s energy sources , job market and economy by explaining the actual science and data that purports to necessitate such drastic action .
Instead , both debates peddled climate shibboleths .
Americans lose when alarmists—politicians @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ science ” generically to promote destructive and foolhardy climate policies .

The Democratic presidential ticket has, during the first two debates, effectively denied ownership of the Green New Deal. What gives?
Last week, former Vice President Joe Biden said, “I don’t support the Green New Deal,” even though he has supported it for more than a year. Biden’s “Unity Task Force” recommendations issued jointly with Sen. Bernie Sanders endorsed the tenets of the Green New Deal, and his campaign’s website embraces it.
At the Vice Presidential debate this week, Biden’s running mate, Senator Kamala Harris, was asked about Biden’s denial of supporting the GND and her own co-sponsorship of the plan in the Senate. She dodged the question by claiming Biden supports hydro-fracturing for natural gas, and that he will create jobs. Harris also mentioned the wildfires in California and storms on the Gulf Coast, and claimed, “the science is telling us this.” Climate change, she said, is “an existential threat to us as human beings.”
Curiously, Sen. Harris never mentioned the words “Green New Deal,” perhaps because it has never polled well. It is hugely expensive, in the multi-trillions of dollars, and envisions replacing fossil fuels, destroying jobs and empowering government with far greater control over the private economy and lifestyles of Americans. In the abstract, Americans may like “green energy” and “carbon free” concepts when push-polled, but they mostly oppose the socialistic specifics of what is required to get there. This explains why not a single senator, including Harris, supported the GND when it was put to a vote last year on the Senate floor.
Another factor is that every version of the Green New Deal is anti-fracking. Throughout the Democratic presidential primaries, Mr. Biden, Sen. Harris, Sen. Sanders and the other two dozen candidates were tripping over each other to tout their support for banning fracking. There were no caveats or ambiguity from Biden or Harris. The general election is a different matter since at least two battleground states, Pennsylvania and Ohio, have a large energy sectors dependent on fracking natural gas.
Sen. Harris claimed in the debate, “Joe Biden will not ban fracking. That is a fact.” Considering her own emphatic commitment to ban fracking, and Biden’s repeated prior statements to do likewise, her reassurance falls flat. I was next expecting her to don a Pittsburgh Steelers helmet to claim she was a fan since her days riding the school bus in suburban California.
The GND’s original sponsor in the U.S. House of Representatives is the one-and-only Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who happened to co-chair the committee that drafted the climate provisions of the Biden-Bernie Unity Task Force. AOC responded to Harris after the debate by saying “fracking is bad, actually.”
As with the first debate, the “moderator,” Susan Page of USA Today asked several loaded questions to Vice President Mike Pence, including on climate change. She asked, “Do you believe, as the scientific community has concluded, that man-made climate change has made wildfires bigger, hotter and more deadly? And it made hurricanes wetter, slower and more damaging (emphasis mine)?
Whatever inchoate description one can make of the “scientific community,” it has not “concluded” any such connection between a changing climate and wildfires and hurricanes. Yet, Ms. Page, a lifelong journalist, incuriously embraces such trope. At least she eschewed debating the subject with Pence, in contrast to the impervious Chris Wallace in the first presidential debate.
The Vice President properly responded with mention of the Trump administration’s environmental record that is impactful on people in the present day, namely, cleaner water and air, and investments in national parks and conservation. He also dismissed any connection to hurricanes, which haven’t changed in frequency in a century; and wildfires, which are caused by mismanaged forests. Pence then turned to challenge Sen. Harris on her and Biden’s embrace of the Green New Deal and their anti-fracking positions.
Mr. Pence also directly avoided the issue whether climate change is “an existential threat” to humanity. His careful response stated, “Climate is changing. We’ll follow the science.” He returned to criticize the Green New Deal and its threat to American jobs, though he could have added that the climate was much warmer in centuries past.
A more robust climate discussion should involve “moderators” challenging politicians who insist on trillions of taxpayer dollars to attempt to lower global temperature by a single degree. Make them justify reducing America’s energy sources, job market and economy by explaining the actual science and data that purports to necessitate such drastic action. Instead, both debates peddled climate shibboleths.
Americans lose when alarmists—politicians and journalists alike— emotionally continue to invoke “science” generically to promote destructive and foolhardy climate policies.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-10-10--The carbon vs silicon election

The carbon vs silicon election

Last April , a Yale University report stated that “ U.S .
communities from California to Massachusetts are instituting bans on natural gas in new construction .
Proponents say the measures are critical for speeding the transition to an all-electric future powered by renewable energy.
” Dozens more U.S. [ Democrat-run ] cities are reportedly contemplating gas bans or all-electric mandates , motivated primarily by “ climate concerns.
” The 2020 Presidential and down-ballot elections , should Democrats emerge victorious , will doubtless expedite this stampede toward an all-electric society with few exemptions .
While some predict a rosy future @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thus , in just a few days , Americans will choose whether to abandon their comfortable carbon-based world and entrust their futures to Silicon Valley ’ s favored wind and solar future .
On a deeper level , the divide is not between “ old , dirty ” energy and “ new , clean ” energy .
The high-tech lords of the sun and wind view humanity quite differently than the generations that overthrew feudal aristocracies and birthed an Industrial Revolution .
That society rekindled an interest in human liberation from oppressive monarchs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Rights that asserted no government dare contravene .
The new tech lords have amassed outlandish fortunes ( even in a time of pandemic ) and virtual veto power over any ideas or movements that do not serve their interests .
Should their candidates prevail in November , the U.S. – and the entire world – will have forfeited all its freedoms and come to the end of what Friedrich Hayek called “ The Road to Serfdom.
” As Travis Hoium reported in 2017 , Silicon Valley is driving the renewable energy revolution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Their standard bearer , as reported by Nish Acharya in Forbes , is not the 20th Century relic Joe Biden but Vice Presidential nominee ( who could quickly ascend ) Kamara Harris .
Acharya , a Senior Fellow with the Center for American Progress , says that Harris “ understands the Bay Area and Silicon Valley in a way few national politicians could… .
She understands [ and approves of , we believe ] its extraordinary power to create transformative technology and its callous disregard for the way those technologies impact society @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disregard was well spoken by the 2016 Democratic Party nominee , who called the 60 million who voted against her “ irredeemable deplorables.
” That view was apparently shared by many in official Washington .
The Internal Revenue Service gained notoriety a decade ago for targeting conservative nonprofits so as to delay or even deny their nonprofit status .
Attorney General Jeff Sessions acknowledged it was “ clear ” that the Obama IRS was “ using inappropriate criteria to screen applications ” for tax-exempt status from conservative groups .
Yet , despite multiple @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never brought any criminal charges against rogue IRS officials .
Perhaps emboldened by this ineptitude , the social media giants , along with the near-monopoly search engine giant Alphabet , Inc. , ( which owns Google and YouTube ) , began using data mining to profile and manipulate what users get to see .
They also began censoring ideas , individuals , businesses , nonprofits , and others whose views their “ fact checkers ” found objectionable – by ever-shifting , unpublished standards .
Summit News reported in July that Google Search had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Breitbart , the Daily Caller , Infowars , Human Events , Red State , and many more – by removing them from results in what appeared to be a major new censorship purge .
YouTube has for several years barred videos from Jewish commentator Dennis Prager for various violations of its “ standards.
” Under America ’ s convoluted legal framework , the platform , despite boasting that “ everyone deserves to have a voice , ” is a private forum , “ not a state actor ” subject to the First Amendment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what they thought were a “ free ” Internet and “ public ” forums are neither free nor public .
These self-styled arbiters of truth have gone overboard censoring information about the COVID 19 virus .
The Wall Street Journal objected to no avail to YouTube ’ s abrupt decision to remove a 50-minute video with Hoover Institution neuroradiologist Dr. Scott Atlas which presented solid evidence that strict coronavirus lockdowns cause social harm .
* [ * In just five days , over 14,000 scientists and medical practitioners , and over 100,000 individuals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lockdown measures … saying that they are causing “ irreparable damage.
” ] Twitter and Facebook even censored the President !
Social media sites , network news , and leftist politicians have also censored climate realists .
NASA ’ s James Hansen , whose salary is paid by taxpayers , demanded prosecution of climate skeptics for “ high crimes against humanity.
” Robert F. Kennedy , Jr. , said that doubting the infallibility of the UN IPCC is “ treason , and we need to start treating them as traitors.
” [ CFACT @ @ @ @ @ @ @ target .
Both of its Climate Hustle films have been flagged by YouTube and Amazon Prime Video .
Twitter even disabled CFACT ’ s account .
Climate Depot ’ s Marc Morano warns [ should the Silicon Lords prevail ] of a coming “ climate lockdown ” in which “ our lives are going to be ruled by nameless , faceless bureaucrats …for our safety and for the good of the planet.
” This first silicon versus carbon election is also a financial record-breaker .
Some estimates are that spending will approach ELEVEN @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The stakes are high .
The future of America – and the planet – is on the auction block .
The media have become a siren chorus demanding a single result : Get rid of the orange monkey ( and all of the irredeemable deplorables too ) who is interfering with our plans .
“ Don ’ t put all your eggs in one basket ” Rumor has it that Don Quixote said it first .
The Free Dictionary defines this idiom as meaning “ to invest , devote , or commit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resources into a single venture , opportunity , or goal , generally at the risk of losing everything in the event that that thing fails or does not come to fruition.
” Cervantes ’ laughable character ( who tilts at windmills ) well illustrates the all-electric , all wind and solar folly quickly sweeping through Western society ( but not India , China , Russia , or power-short Africa ) .
The tech billionaires have hosen Kamala Harris as their modern-day Saint Georgina to finally slay the fire-breathing , carbon-based dragon .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ succeed ?
California and Hawaii have both locked in a path toward 100 percent renewable energy by 2045 , while 80 British cities and towns boast they will be carbon-free by 2050 .
Harris-Biden promises the Green New Deal ’ s carbon-free world in California time .
Can wind and solar replace ALL of the world ’ s conventional energy in 25 years ?
Or is that not their real intent ?
Their machines and their robots may be sufficient for the Beautiful People – just not for a vastly larger group of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Silicon Valley callously spit on freedom of the press , speech , assembly , and religion , the right to bear arms .
and every other tenet of the Bill of Rights .
What makes anyone think they value human life at all ?
Just yesterday , children played outdoors , learned about nature , and hoped for their futures .
Today , even their schools are glorified X-Box screens , and they cringe when masked “ intruders ” invade their “ sacred spaces.
” Virtual reality quickly fades to black when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will .

Last April, a Yale University report stated that “U.S. communities from California to Massachusetts are instituting bans on natural gas in new construction. Proponents say the measures are critical for speeding the transition to an all-electric future powered by renewable energy.” Dozens more U.S. [Democrat-run] cities are reportedly contemplating gas bans or all-electric mandates, motivated primarily by “climate concerns.”
The 2020 Presidential and down-ballot elections, should Democrats emerge victorious, will doubtless expedite this stampede toward an all-electric society with few exemptions. While some predict a rosy future, others are not so certain. Thus, in just a few days, Americans will choose whether to abandon their comfortable carbon-based world and entrust their futures to Silicon Valley’s favored wind and solar future.
On a deeper level, the divide is not between “old, dirty” energy and “new, clean” energy. The high-tech lords of the sun and wind view humanity quite differently than the generations that overthrew feudal aristocracies and birthed an Industrial Revolution. That society rekindled an interest in human liberation from oppressive monarchs who enriched themselves and penned a Bill of Rights that asserted no government dare contravene.
The new tech lords have amassed outlandish fortunes (even in a time of pandemic) and virtual veto power over any ideas or movements that do not serve their interests. Should their candidates prevail in November, the U.S. – and the entire world – will have forfeited all its freedoms and come to the end of what Friedrich Hayek called “The Road to Serfdom.”
“Elections have consequences”
As Travis Hoium reported in 2017, Silicon Valley is driving the renewable energy revolution and thus the push to “decarbonization.” Their standard bearer, as reported by Nish Acharya in Forbes, is not the 20th Century relic Joe Biden but Vice Presidential nominee (who could quickly ascend) Kamala Harris.
Acharya, a Senior Fellow with the Center for American Progress, says that Harris “understands the Bay Area and Silicon Valley in a way few national politicians could…. She understands [and approves of, we believe] its extraordinary power to create transformative technology and its callous disregard for the way those technologies impact society and the human condition.”
That callous disregard was well spoken by the 2016 Democratic Party nominee, who called the 60 million who voted against her “irredeemable deplorables.” That view was apparently shared by many in official Washington. The Internal Revenue Service gained notoriety a decade ago for targeting conservative nonprofits so as to delay or even deny their nonprofit status.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions acknowledged it was “clear” that the Obama IRS was “using inappropriate criteria to screen applications” for tax-exempt status from conservative groups. Yet, despite multiple investigations and lawsuits, the Trump Administration never brought any criminal charges against rogue IRS officials.
“Dead men tell no tales”
Perhaps emboldened by this ineptitude, the social media giants, along with the near-monopoly search engine giant Alphabet, Inc., (which owns Google and YouTube), began using data mining to profile and manipulate what users get to see. They also began censoring ideas, individuals, businesses, nonprofits, and others whose views their “fact checkers” found objectionable – by ever-shifting, unpublished standards.
Summit News reported in July that Google Search had blacklisted numerous major conservative websites – including Breitbart, the Daily Caller, Infowars, Human Events, Red State, and many more – by removing them from results in what appeared to be a major new censorship purge.
YouTube has for several years barred videos from Jewish commentator Dennis Prager for various violations of its “standards.” Under America’s convoluted legal framework, the platform, despite boasting that “everyone deserves to have a voice,” is a private forum, “not a state actor” subject to the First Amendment. Americans have only recently learned that what they thought were a “free” Internet and “public” forums are neither free nor public.
These self-styled arbiters of truth have gone overboard censoring information about the COVID 19 virus. The Wall Street Journal objected to no avail to YouTube’s abrupt decision to remove a 50-minute video with Hoover Institution neuroradiologist Dr. Scott Atlas which presented solid evidence that strict coronavirus lockdowns cause social harm.*
[* In just five days, over 14,000 scientists and medical practitioners, and over 100,000 individuals, signed a petition against COVID 19 lockdown measures … saying that they are causing “irreparable damage.”]
Twitter and Facebook even censored the President!
Social media sites, network news, and leftist politicians have also censored climate realists. NASA’s James Hansen, whose salary is paid by taxpayers, demanded prosecution of climate skeptics for “high crimes against humanity.” Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., said that doubting the infallibility of the UN IPCC is “treason, and we need to start treating them as traitors.”
[CFACT, too, has been a censorship target. Both of its Climate Hustle films have been flagged by YouTube and Amazon Prime Video. Twitter even disabled CFACT’s account. Climate Depot’s Marc Morano warns [should the Silicon Lords prevail] of a coming “climate lockdown” in which “our lives are going to be ruled by nameless, faceless bureaucrats …for our safety and for the good of the planet.”
This first silicon versus carbon election is also a financial record-breaker. Some estimates are that spending will approach ELEVEN BILLION DOLLARS for the various 2020 campaigns. The stakes are high. The future of America – and the planet – is on the auction block. The media have become a siren chorus demanding a single result: Get rid of the orange monkey (and all of the irredeemable deplorables too) who is interfering with our plans.
“Don’t put all your eggs in one basket”
Rumor has it that Don Quixote said it first. The Free Dictionary defines this idiom as meaning “to invest, devote, or commit all of one’s energy or resources into a single venture, opportunity, or goal, generally at the risk of losing everything in the event that that thing fails or does not come to fruition.”
Cervantes’ laughable character (who tilts at windmills) well illustrates the all-electric, all wind and solar folly quickly sweeping through Western society (but not India, China, Russia, or power-short Africa). The tech billionaires have chosen Kamala Harris as their modern-day Saint Georgina to finally slay the fire-breathing, carbon-based dragon.
But even given the power, can they succeed? California and Hawaii have both locked in a path toward 100 percent renewable energy by 2045, while 80 British cities and towns boast they will be carbon-free by 2050. Harris-Biden promises the Green New Deal’s carbon-free world in California time. Can wind and solar replace ALL of the world’s conventional energy in 25 years?
Or is that not their real intent? Their machines and their robots may be sufficient for the Beautiful People – just not for a vastly larger group of “irredeemable deplorables.
The dark lords of Silicon Valley callously spit on freedom of the press, speech, assembly, and religion, the right to bear arms. and every other tenet of the Bill of Rights. What makes anyone think they value human life at all?
Just yesterday, children played outdoors, learned about nature, and hoped for their futures. Today, even their schools are glorified X-Box screens, and they cringe when masked “intruders” invade their “sacred spaces.” Virtual reality quickly fades to black when the power goes out.
And it will.
If they win.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-10-12--Washington State blows away wind fantasies

The Northwest has spoken loudly as the Benton Public Utility District ( BPUD ) has documented their actual battleground experiences with intermittent electricity from wind farms that should be a wake-up call to our policy makers .
Their message is “ no more wind ” .
The Washington state utility 16-page report titled “ Wind Power and Clean Energy Policy Perspectives ” of July 14 , 2020 provides a devastating counter attack to the wind lobbyists that they question the efficacy of wind farms for power generation and resulted in the utility ’ s commissioners saying they “ do not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Northwest.
” Kudos to this Washington state public utility for speaking up after seeing the costs and dangers of California ’ s experience with an overreliance on intermittent electricity from wind and solar .
In a statement and report , the utility said overly aggressive clean energy policies bring about an unacceptably high risk of power grid blackouts .
They go on to say the development of wind farms may be “ politically fashionable ” and appeal to many in the general public , but science and economics show that attempting to power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and solar will come at a high financial and environmental cost .
The report is consistent with what has happened in Germany and Australia , as power prices in Germany are among the highest in Europe .
Today , German households pay almost 50 % more for electricity than they did in 2006 .
Shockingly , America , from California to New York , continues to take giant steps toward following Germany ’ s failed climate goals which should be a wake-up call for governments everywhere .
• Further wind power development will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ retail electricity rates which could erode the economic development advantage low rates has given the region for many years .
Establishing preferences for wind and solar energy with no accompanying targets for greenhouse gas ( GHG ) emission reductions in the electricity sector has been shown through comprehensive study to result in unnecessary increases in the cost of electricity while not reducing GHG emissions in the most cost-effective manner possible • The best long-term , sustainable , more cost-effective , potentially less risky , and environmentally responsible strategy toward meeting the CETA goal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ State by 2045 could be to transition coal power to natural gas and then natural gas to nuclear .
Benton ’ s position is 100 percent opposite of California ’ s mission to eliminate most natural gas power plants that generate continuous uninterruptible electricity , and all nuclear that generate the only known source of continuous zero emission electricity .
• Customers and citizens throughout the region are desirous of the natural beauty and open spaces that are part of their way of life .
This is the reason for the report and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does not support further development of wind power in the PNW .
The PUD ’ s position is consistent with a recent decision in California as the San Bernardino County ’ s Board of Supervisors slammed the brakes on big industrial solar projects and highlighted a challenge for the huge landscaping demands of renewable intermittent electricity • Lifecycle economic and environmental impacts expected to result from further development of wind power needs to be scrutinized to a much higher degree with greater recognition of issues like the global impacts of raw materials mining @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which are currently destined for landfills .
i.e .
environmental degradation and humanity atrocities occurring from the mining in the countries that dominate the supply of the exotic minerals and metals to support wind , solar , and EV batteries .
The Benton PUD beliefs are consistent with the U.N. trade body , United Nations Conference on Trade and Development ( UNCTAD , ) that issued a report breaking down some of the unintended negative consequences of the shift , which include ecological degradation as well as human rights abuses .
The U.N @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Electric Car Boom .
Further support of the Benton PUD beliefs are numerous documentaries about the atrocities the workers are put through in the cobalt mines , i.e .
actually digging the mines by hand along with the horrendous living conditions .
Amnesty International has also documented children and adults mining cobalt in narrow man-made tunnels along with the exposure to the dangerous gases emitted during the procurement of these rare minerals .
The wind and solar lobbyists and government policymakers continue their fast-stepping dance to the detriment of those that can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ignorant to the more than 6,000 products derived from the derivatives from oil that did not even exist before 1900 that are the basis of today ’ s societies and economies around .
The world needs to follow a prudent multi-decadal adaptation and energy strategy that is technically feasible , economically affordable , and socially enhancing ( particularly in the developing world ) .
Societies around the world need to be cognizant of understanding a world without fossil fuels , which the recent book “ Just GREEN Electricity ” does an excellent job @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hospitals run efficiently , but electricity alone can not make products derived from the derivatives from oil that produce all the critical medical equipment like ultrasound systems , mechanical ventilators , exhalation valves , inhalation valves , CT systems , X-ray , medicines , masks , gloves , soap and hand sanitizers for hospitals , and protective gowns , gloves and face shields gear for doctors and nurses .
• Electricity can charge your iPhone and EV battery , but electricity alone can not make all the electronics and communications equipment .
• @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world function , but electricity alone can not make any of the military equipment : aircraft carriers , battleships , destroyers , submarines , planes , tanks and armor , trucks , troop carriers , and weaponry .
The Benton PUD believes it is reasonable to question whether continuing to favor investments in intermittent wind electricity and putting up roadblocks to the development of dispatchable natural-gas power plants is more about environmental virtue signaling than it is about serving the best interests of the citizens of Washington State .
In addition , this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the environmental degradations and humanity atrocities occurring around the world to supply exotic minerals and metals required by wind , solar , and EV batteries .

The Northwest has spoken loudly as the Benton Public Utility District (BPUD) has documented their actual battleground experiences with intermittent electricity from wind farms that should be a wake-up call to our policy makers. Their message is “no more wind”.
The Washington state utility 16-page report titled “Wind Power and Clean Energy Policy Perspectives” of July 14, 2020 provides a devastating counter attack to the wind lobbyists that they question the efficacy of wind farms for power generation and resulted in the utility’s commissioners saying they “do not support further wind power development in the Northwest.”
Kudos to this Washington state public utility for speaking up after seeing the costs and dangers of California’s experience with an overreliance on intermittent electricity from wind and solar. In a statement and report, the utility said overly aggressive clean energy policies bring about an unacceptably high risk of power grid blackouts. They go on to say the development of wind farms may be “politically fashionable” and appeal to many in the general public, but science and economics show that attempting to power modern civilization with intermittent electricity from wind and solar will come at a high financial and environmental cost.
The report is consistent with what has happened in Germany and Australia, as power prices in Germany are among the highest in Europe. Today, German households pay almost 50% more for electricity than they did in 2006. Shockingly, America, from California to New York, continues to take giant steps toward following Germany’s failed climate goals which should be a wake-up call for governments everywhere.
The Benton PUD believes:
Further wind power development will unnecessarily contribute to increases in northwest utility retail electricity rates which could erode the economic development advantage low rates has given the region for many years. Establishing preferences for wind and solar energy with no accompanying targets for greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions in the electricity sector has been shown through comprehensive study to result in unnecessary increases in the cost of electricity while not reducing GHG emissions in the most cost-effective manner possible
The best long-term, sustainable, more cost-effective, potentially less risky, and environmentally responsible strategy toward meeting the CETA goal of 100% clean electricity in Washington State by 2045 could be to transition coal power to natural gas and then natural gas to nuclear. Benton’s position is 100 percent opposite of California’s mission to eliminate most natural gas power plants that generate continuous uninterruptible electricity, and all nuclear that generate the only known source of continuous zero emission electricity.
Customers and citizens throughout the region are desirous of the natural beauty and open spaces that are part of their way of life. This is the reason for the report and for their formal declaration that Benton PUD does not support further development of wind power in the PNW. The PUD’s position is consistent with a recent decision in California as the San Bernardino County’s Board of Supervisors slammed the brakes on big industrial solar projects and highlighted a challenge for the huge landscaping demands of renewable intermittent electricity
Lifecycle economic and environmental impacts expected to result from further development of wind power needs to be scrutinized to a much higher degree with greater recognition of issues like the global impacts of raw materials mining and the disposal of wind turbine blades which are currently destined for landfills. i.e. environmental degradation and humanity atrocities occurring from the mining in the countries that dominate the supply of the exotic minerals and metals to support wind, solar, and EV batteries.
The Benton PUD beliefs are consistent with the U.N. trade body, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD,) that issued a report breaking down some of the unintended negative consequences of the shift, which include ecological degradation as well as human rights abuses. The U.N. Warns of Devastating Environmental Side Effects of Electric Car Boom.
Further support of the Benton PUD beliefs are numerous documentaries about the atrocities the workers are put through in the cobalt mines, i.e. actually digging the mines by hand along with the horrendous living conditions. Amnesty International has also documented children and adults mining cobalt in narrow man-made tunnels along with the exposure to the dangerous gases emitted during the procurement of these rare minerals.
The wind and solar lobbyists and government policymakers continue their fast-stepping dance to the detriment of those that can least afford expensive electricity. They remain ignorant to the more than 6,000 products derived from the derivatives from oil that did not even exist before 1900 that are the basis of today’s societies and economies around.
The world needs to follow a prudent multi-decadal adaptation and energy strategy that is technically feasible, economically affordable, and socially enhancing (particularly in the developing world). Societies around the world need to be cognizant of understanding a world without fossil fuels, which the recent book “Just GREEN Electricity” does an excellent job of discussing.
Electricity can make hospitals run efficiently, but electricity alone cannot make products derived from the derivatives from oil that produce all the critical medical equipment like ultrasound systems, mechanical ventilators, exhalation valves, inhalation valves, CT systems, X-ray, medicines, masks, gloves, soap and hand sanitizers for hospitals, and protective gowns, gloves and face shields gear for doctors and nurses.
Electricity can charge your iPhone and EV battery, but electricity alone cannot make all the electronics and communications equipment.
Electricity can help the militaries around the world function, but electricity alone cannot make any of the military equipment: aircraft carriers, battleships, destroyers, submarines, planes, tanks and armor, trucks, troop carriers, and weaponry.
The Benton PUD believes it is reasonable to question whether continuing to favor investments in intermittent wind electricity and putting up roadblocks to the development of dispatchable natural-gas power plants is more about environmental virtue signaling than it is about serving the best interests of the citizens of Washington State. In addition, this political posturing for renewables is silently supporting the environmental degradations and humanity atrocities occurring around the world to supply exotic minerals and metals required by wind, solar, and EV batteries.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-10-12--EP 111: Congressman Westerman, Lone Forester in Congress

In Episode 111 of District of Conservation , Gabriella spoke to Congressman Bruce Westerman ( R-AR ) of Arkansas ’ 4th Congressional District .
They chatted about the history of forest management in the US , how to manage wildfires , the congressman ’ s legislative priorities , his love of duck hunting , why free market environmentalism is the future , and more .
Here ’ s Westerman ’ s Bio : U.S. Rep. Bruce Westerman is a Hot Springs native currently serving his third term as representative from the Fourth District of Arkansas , having first been elected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Committee on Natural Resources and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure , where he is Ranking Member of the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee .
Westerman also serves on the Minority Whip Team under the leadership of House Minority Whip Steve Scalise .
Prior to serving in Congress , Westerman was elected to two terms in the Arkansas General Assembly , where he was the state ’ s first Republican House Majority Leader since Reconstruction following the 2013 GOP takeover of the Arkansas House of Representatives .
An engineer and forester by trade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mid-South Engineering in Hot Springs .
He was named Engineer of the Year by the Arkansas Society of Professional Engineers in 2013 .
A 1990 graduate of the University of Arkansas with a Bachelor of Science degree in Biological and Agricultural Engineering , Westerman was a four-year walk-on member of the Razorback football team .
He was awarded the Outstanding Young Alumni Award in 2005 and the Distinguished Alumni Award in 2012 .
Westerman is also a graduate of Yale University , earning a Master of Forestry degree in 2001 .
Westerman lives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sharon , and their four children .
He enjoys hunting and fishing .
Follow the Congressman on Facebook , Instagram , Twitter , and YouTube .
Visit his Congressional website or check out his re-election website .

In Episode 111 of District of Conservation, Gabriella spoke to Congressman Bruce Westerman (R-AR) about how to manage wildfires and his love of duck hunting.
Author Gabriella Hoffman Gabriella Hoffman is a Media Strategist and Award-Winning Outdoor Writer. She hosts the "District of Conservation" podcast and CFACT's original YouTube series "Conservation Nation." Learn more about her work at www.gabriellahoffman.com


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-10-13--The potential power of politicians is astounding

“ Combating The Climate Crisis and Pursuing Environmental Justice ” is the title of the segment of the 2020 democratic platform that , if ever successfully implemented could send America back to the days before the industrial revolution .
It ’ s nearly 3000 words opens with the following paragraph .
“ Climate change is a global emergency .
We have no time to waste in taking action to protect Americans ’ lives and futures .
The last four years have seen record-breaking storms , devastating wildfires , and historic floods .
Urban and rural communities alike have suffered tens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dams have failed catastrophically in Michigan .
Farmers ’ crops have been drowned in their fields across the Midwest .
Coastal communities from Florida to New Jersey are facing an existential crisis as a result of sea level rise and stronger storms .
Thousands of Americans have died .
And President Trump still callously and willfully denies the science that explains why so many are suffering .
” The Democratic Party platform goes on to describe how they will decarbonize the nation and bring all activities to zero emissions , with power plants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by 2035 .
In the next five years they plan to install 500 million solar panels , 8 million solar roofs along with community solar grids , 60,000 wind turbines , and turn American ingenuity into jobs manufacturing renewable energy solutions .
A democratic administration will not likely achieve any of these wrong headed plans , but amidst their effort , the damage to our economy , which has long run on inexpensive energy will be extraordinary .
But wait , it is my strong opinion that in order to accomplish what they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sections of the Old Testament of the Bible where God himself and through his subjects was able to part rivers .
In the New Living Translation of the Bible in Genesis 1:6-7 , God “ separated the waters of the heavens from the waters of the Earth ” .
In the New King James Version of the Bible , God parted the water of the Red Sea in Exodus 14:15-22 and God parted the Jordan River in Joshua 4:1-18 , Kings 2:5-9 and Kings 2:12 .
If our Presidential election is decided in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plan to equal the feats described of God in the Bible by performing the following amazing controls of our planet and solar system .
While the politicians will not need part any rivers they will have to : Stop the variation of the Earth ’ s tilt on its axis .
Stop the sun from varying its intensity .
Regulate evaporation of water from the oceans .
Stop the molten core of the Earth from varying its rotation .
All of the aforementioned activities are major variables that control our earth ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has experienced ice ages and warm periods , little vegetation and lush vegetation .
None of which was then or is now impacted by the presence of mankind on our planet .
Below are three illustrations of forces in our universe which must be taken control of in order to impact Earth ’ s climate .
Can anyone seriously believe that eliminating additional carbon dioxide emissions in order to maintain its present concentration of 420 parts per million in our atmosphere is worth sacrificing the American economy ?
The standard of living of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whose energy bills make up the largest percentage of their annual budget will be the hardest hit .
If ever there was an illustrated article to share with your doubting friends , this may be it .
As they say a picture can be worth a 1000 words .

“Combating The Climate Crisis and Pursuing Environmental Justice” is the title of the segment of the 2020 democratic platform that, if ever successfully implemented could send America back to the days before the industrial revolution. It’s nearly 3000 words opens with the following paragraph.
“Climate change is a global emergency. We have no time to waste in taking action to protect Americans’ lives and futures. The last four years have seen record-breaking storms, devastating wildfires, and historic floods. Urban and rural communities alike have suffered tens of billions dollars in economic losses. Dams have failed catastrophically in Michigan. Farmers’ crops have been drowned in their fields across the Midwest. Coastal communities from Florida to New Jersey are facing an existential crisis as a result of sea level rise and stronger storms. Thousands of Americans have died. And President Trump still callously and willfully denies the science that explains why so many are suffering .”
The Democratic Party platform goes on to describe how they will decarbonize the nation and bring all activities to zero emissions, with power plants leading the way within 15 years, by 2035. In the next five years they plan to install 500 million solar panels, 8 million solar roofs along with community solar grids, 60,000 wind turbines, and turn American ingenuity into jobs manufacturing renewable energy solutions.
A democratic administration will not likely achieve any of these wrong headed plans, but amidst their effort, the damage to our economy, which has long run on inexpensive energy will be extraordinary.
Thanks
But wait, it is my strong opinion that in order to accomplish what they claim they will do is tantamount to sections of the Old Testament of the Bible where God himself and through his subjects was able to part rivers.
In the New Living Translation of the Bible in Genesis 1:6-7, God “separated the waters of the heavens from the waters of the Earth”. In the New King James Version of the Bible, God parted the water of the Red Sea in Exodus 14:15-22 and God parted the Jordan River in Joshua 4:1-18, Kings 2:5-9 and Kings 2:12. If our Presidential election is decided in the favor of the Democratic Party they plan to equal the feats described of God in the Bible by performing the following amazing controls of our planet and solar system.
While the politicians will not need part any rivers they will have to :
Stop the Earth’s orbit from changing.
Stop the variation of the Earth’s tilt on its axis.
Stop the Earth’s rotational axis from wobbling.
Stop the sun from varying its intensity.
Stop the ocean currents from changing.
Regulate reflectivity from snow and ice.
Regulate evaporation of water from the oceans.
Stop the molten core of the Earth from varying its rotation.
All of the aforementioned activities are major variables that control our earth’s climate through its geologic history. Earth has experienced ice ages and warm periods, little vegetation and lush vegetation. None of which was then or is now impacted by the presence of mankind on our planet.
Below are three illustrations of forces in our universe which must be taken control of in order to impact Earth’s climate.
Can anyone seriously believe that eliminating additional carbon dioxide emissions in order to maintain its present concentration of 420 parts per million in our atmosphere is worth sacrificing the American economy? The standard of living of the least well off segment of society whose energy bills make up the largest percentage of their annual budget will be the hardest hit.
If ever there was an illustrated article to share with your doubting friends, this may be it. As they say a picture can be worth a 1000 words.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-10-13--EP 112: Problems with Colorado Proposition 114, Forced Wolf Reintroduction (ft. Mia Anstine)

In Episode 112 of District of Conservation , Gabriella spoke with Mia Anstine—a jill of all trades based in Colorado .
Her titles include : hunting guide , writer , podcast host , outdoor tv guest host , commentator , keynote speaker , and firearms , archery , hunter-ed instructor , and POMA Board Member .
One thing on Mia ’ s mind is Proposition 114 , if passed at the ballot box , would lead to forced reintroduction of gray wolves into Colorado .
Hunters like Mia and other stakeholders are concerned this would upend wildlife management efforts in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : She grew up in a small house on a dirt road along the San Juan River .
Her father hunted to put food on the table .
Mia ’ s mom grew a garden , sewed , and taught her daughter how to fish .
Her great-grandfather used to visit the area for annual hunting trips and passed on his skills to Mia ’ s father , who passed them on to her .
From her rural home base , Mia ’ s traveled to pursue wild animals around the world .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ deer , black bears , and Merriam ’ s turkeys in southwest Colorado and northern New Mexico .
Growing up , Mia learned about all things wonderful through a simple , pioneer way of life .
Most people these days will never have the opportunity to experience , or even understand , the ways of living independent of technology .
It ’ s that basic style of living in the Colorado mountains that inspired her to encourage others to get outside , hunt , fish , shoot , cook , eat , survive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a positive way .
Mia ’ s work has been featured on television , radio , and in newspapers and magazines .
She is a hunting guide and instructor in archery , firearms , and other outdoor-related skills .
She ’ s an engaging speaker , commentator , and instructor .
Mia has been featured in numerous interviews , and her passion for influencing others projected Mia to becoming the first American woman to be featured on the cover of Field & Stream magazine ( the August 2016 issue ) .
Mia , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , are “ feet-on-the-ground , ” everyday women who are making a difference in the outdoor and hunting industries .
She ’ s also been featured in KJ Houtman ’ s “ Why Women Hunt ” and Chris Crisman ’ s “ Women ’ s Work.
” With her inspiration and passion to share , Mia has created her business , MAC Outdoors , where you ’ ll find her articles , videos , podcasts , apparel , accessories , homemade creations , recipes , and more .
If you would like to @ @ @ @ @ @

Gabriella Hoffman is a Media Strategist and Award-Winning Outdoor Writer. She hosts the "District of Conservation" podcast and CFACT's original YouTube series "Conservation Nation." Learn more about her work at www.gabriellahoffman.com