committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-11-23--EU’s “Farm to Fork” initiative: A disaster in the making

The European Commission has introduced a “ Farm to Fork ” initiative for its member states to follow .
Though the initiative sounds like something that might help the Europeans access healthy food and help farmers make profit , it is anything but that .
A closer look at the tenets of the initiative indicate that it is potentially dangerous to the agricultural sector in Europe .
According the European commission , the initiative ’ s objective is to assure Europeans access to healthy , affordable and sustainable food , ensure a fair economic return in the supply chain , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Those are good objectives .
But the strategies laid out in the Farm to Fork initiative act antithetical to its objectives .
The following are the key strategies recommended to achieve the objectives of the initiative : • None Develop Organic farming and help the EU ’ s organic farming sector to grow , with the goal of 25 % of total farmland being used for organic farming by 2030 ; • None Reduce fertilizer use by at least 20 % ; • None Reduce the use of chemical and more hazardous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s why these strategies antithetical to their praiseworthy objectives .
Organic Farming Means Destruction of More Trees and Loss of Biodiversity Contrary to popular opinion , Organic farming is not necessarily an environment-friendly practice .
When it comes to large scale agriculture where mass produce is needed for the billions of people on this world , Organic farming is not the future .
Growing organic plants for an average person ’ s organic diet requires 40 % more land than that is required to grow plants and raise animals that are part of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on organic yield data collected from over 10,000 organic farmers representing nearly 800,000 hectares of organic farmland , organic yield averaged 67 % of conventional yield .
It found out that organic farms produce one-third less of wheat and soybean than conventional method and up to 62 % lower Potato production .
That is not good news .
Going organic would mean utilization of more land , eventually resulting in clearance of more habitat for agriculture and a possible loss of biodiversity .
Reducing Pesticide and Fertilizer Use will Usher in Farmer Loss @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of pesticides , including insecticides , fungicides , herbicides , rodenticides , and others helped famers to protect crops from pests .
It significantly reduced the losses and improved the yield of common crops such as corn , maize , potatoes , cotton , and various types of vegetables .
It also protected livestocks from diseases and ticks , and humans from vector borne diseases like malaria .
The drawback and the potential harm from pesticide and fertilizer use is only when there is an excessive use , as is the case in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use is unregulated and there is an absence of quality monitoring .
When used in an appropriate quantity both pesticides and fertilizers will assure farmers a guaranteed income and keep the demand-supply gap in check in the EU .
According to the Food and Agricultural Organization ( FAO ) of the United Nation—which is globally recognized as a forerunner in helping countries with their agricultural sector and food security—the use of Fertilizer is extremely critical in ensuring productivity from the crops .
And where fertilizer use is not so prominent , there is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The FAO says that the lack of Fertilizer use has been one of the foremost reasons why Africa is still behind in crop productivity : “ FAO data reveal that the use of productivity enhancing agricultural inputs in Africa in general , and in some sub-regions such as Eastern Africa , in particular , tend to be lower compared to other regions of the world .
This extremely low fertilizer use per hectare is one of the most important limiting factors to increase crop productivity and production .
In this regard , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ significantly vary fertilizer application rates according to perceived soil fertility.
” Even in regions of the world which have gone 100 % organic , farmers are struggling to offset this yield ratio .
One such place is the remote Indian state of Sikkim , where farmers have experienced heavy loss due to their transition to organic farming .
“ When chemicals were allowed , I could grow 280 to 300 kg of pulses and now , after 4 years , I barely manage to grow 80 to 85 kg ” , a farmer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pest attacks for his monumental loss in yield .
Research has also showed that organic farming results in the depletion of nutrients in the soil .
The study showed that besides causing a decrease in crop yield and efficiency , organic farming also caused a decrease in organic matter-related soil quality .
Contrary to public perception , organic farming is actually bad for the soil .
One of the other key objectives mentioned in the initiative is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions .
However , using organic farming to do so is counterproductive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ results in a 21 % increase in emissions as compared to growing conventional farm products .
Even scientists who view organic products as superior varieties have reservations about the increasing use of organic farming .
One such person is Alexander Ruane , a research physical scientist at NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies , who says , “ the goal of organic farming in developed countries currently is about meeting the needs of those who can afford the luxury to buy the highest quality food .
If the needs of this luxury interfere @ @ @ @ @ @ @ population , then you have the potential for conflicts.
” It is simply impossible to produce organic crops at a mass scale for the population .
Even if we do manage to produce , it won ’ t be possible without a widespread destruction of forests and a destabilizing impact on our agricultural sector , farmer revenues and affordability at markets .
The European Commission ’ s proposal to reduce pesticide and fertilizer use will usher in a new era of European farmer poverty and imperil the food security of its member countries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ soil or to the environment .
It is time for Europeans to request their respective governments to resist the Farm to Fork initiative .

The European Commission has introduced a “Farm to Fork” initiative for its member states to follow. Though the initiative sounds like something that might help the Europeans access healthy food and help farmers make profit, it is anything but that. A closer look at the tenets of the initiative indicate that it is potentially dangerous to the agricultural sector in Europe.
According the European commission, the initiative’s objective is to assure Europeans access to healthy, affordable and sustainable food, ensure a fair economic return in the supply chain, protect the environment, and preserve biodiversity.
Those are good objectives. But the strategies laid out in the Farm to Fork initiative act antithetical to its objectives. The following are the key strategies recommended to achieve the objectives of the initiative:
Develop Organic farming and help the EU’s organic farming sector to grow, with the goal of 25 % of total farmland being used for organic farming by 2030;
Reduce fertilizer use by at least 20%;
Reduce the use of chemical and more hazardous pesticides by 50%.
Here’s why these strategies antithetical to their praiseworthy objectives.
Organic Farming Means Destruction of More Trees and Loss of Biodiversity
Contrary to popular opinion, Organic farming is not necessarily an environment-friendly practice. When it comes to large scale agriculture where mass produce is needed for the billions of people on this world, Organic farming is not the future.
Growing organic plants for an average person’s organic diet requires 40% more land than that is required to grow plants and raise animals that are part of a conventional diet.
A study based on organic yield data collected from over 10,000 organic farmers representing nearly 800,000 hectares of organic farmland, organic yield averaged 67% of conventional yield. It found out that organic farms produce one-third less of wheat and soybean than conventional method and up to 62% lower Potato production.
That is not good news. Going organic would mean utilization of more land, eventually resulting in clearance of more habitat for agriculture and a possible loss of biodiversity.
Reducing Pesticide and Fertilizer Use will Usher in Farmer Loss and Food Poverty
Traditionally, the use of pesticides, including insecticides, fungicides, herbicides, rodenticides, and others helped famers to protect crops from pests. It significantly reduced the losses and improved the yield of common crops such as corn, maize, potatoes, cotton, and various types of vegetables. It also protected livestocks from diseases and ticks, and humans from vector borne diseases like malaria.
The drawback and the potential harm from pesticide and fertilizer use is only when there is an excessive use, as is the case in some of the developing countries where their use is unregulated and there is an absence of quality monitoring.
When used in an appropriate quantity both pesticides and fertilizers will assure farmers a guaranteed income and keep the demand-supply gap in check in the EU.
According to the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) of the United Nation—which is globally recognized as a forerunner in helping countries with their agricultural sector and food security—the use of Fertilizer is extremely critical in ensuring productivity from the crops. And where fertilizer use is not so prominent, there is a very stark difference in crop productivity.
The FAO says that the lack of Fertilizer use has been one of the foremost reasons why Africa is still behind in crop productivity: “FAO data reveal that the use of productivity enhancing agricultural inputs in Africa in general, and in some sub-regions such as Eastern Africa, in particular, tend to be lower compared to other regions of the world. This extremely low fertilizer use per hectare is one of the most important limiting factors to increase crop productivity and production. In this regard, recent figures show that farmers do not significantly vary fertilizer application rates according to perceived soil fertility.”
Even in regions of the world which have gone 100% organic, farmers are struggling to offset this yield ratio. One such place is the remote Indian state of Sikkim, where farmers have experienced heavy loss due to their transition to organic farming. “When chemicals were allowed, I could grow 280 to 300 kg of pulses and now, after 4 years, I barely manage to grow 80 to 85 kg”, a farmer notes, blaming the low productivity and pest attacks for his monumental loss in yield.
Research has also showed that organic farming results in the depletion of nutrients in the soil. The study showed that besides causing a decrease in crop yield and efficiency, organic farming also caused a decrease in organic matter-related soil quality. Contrary to public perception, organic farming is actually bad for the soil.
One of the other key objectives mentioned in the initiative is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. However, using organic farming to do so is counterproductive. Climate alarmists argue that organic farming results in a 21% increase in emissions as compared to growing conventional farm products.
Even scientists who view organic products as superior varieties have reservations about the increasing use of organic farming. One such person is Alexander Ruane, a research physical scientist at NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who says, “the goal of organic farming in developed countries currently is about meeting the needs of those who can afford the luxury to buy the highest quality food. If the needs of this luxury interfere with the need to feed the entire population, then you have the potential for conflicts.”
It is simply impossible to produce organic crops at a mass scale for the population. Even if we do manage to produce, it won’t be possible without a widespread destruction of forests and a destabilizing impact on our agricultural sector, farmer revenues and affordability at markets.
The European Commission’s proposal to reduce pesticide and fertilizer use will usher in a new era of European farmer poverty and imperil the food security of its member countries. It does no good to the soil or to the environment. It is time for Europeans to request their respective governments to resist the Farm to Fork initiative.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-11-24--Animal instincts could be inherited expert knowledge

In addition to studying complex , I have been observing complex instinctive reasoning in animals for many years .
Instinctive behavior is often thought of as simple , perhaps even mindless .
I came to a very different conclusion , that an instinct is basically inherited expert knowledge .
Instinctive behavior is often very complex , involving sophisticated concepts , expert knowledge and a lot of decision making .
So I wrote up my observations and hypotheses , in the form of a four year long series of 46 short .
The blog title is Horse cognition and other critters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It runs around 30,000 words so there is lots of stuff .
My approach is one I call “ robotic analysis ” which means asking what a robot would have to sense , understand , know and decide in order to do what the animal does instinctively .
This does not mean the animal ’ s behavior is robotic , far from it .
Artificial intelligence robotics tries to model intelligent behavior .
For example , developing the self driving car required a lot of study on precisely what we do when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a pedestrian , which can move , and a mailbox which can not ( except under extreme circumstances ) .
Here are snapshots of a few of the many blog articles , to give you the flavor of the findings : A small herd of cows and their calves is threatened by dogs .
The cows do not all face the dogs .
Instead they form a defensive ring with each cow facing out .
The calves go to the middle of the ring .
Consider what is required .
The cows have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a circle .
They have to know how to form that circle , which is far from simple , especially since some are facing away from the dogs .
The calves have to know to go to the center .
A baby bird hides under my riding mower as I approach , planning to mow .
When I sit on the mower it runs out and hides under my truck .
This baby knows when to hide , where to hide and how to hide .
It also knows when to change hiding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A bird building a nest flies long distances to specific places to get materials .
The bird must know what it wants at that point in construction and it must have already learned where the right stuff was .
Not knowing how to trot .
October 2013 Two legged critters like us can only walk forward one step at a time , but four legged folks can do it a variety of ways .
In horses one of these ways is the trot .
However , most Tennessee Walking Houses can not trot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ capable as other breeds that do trot , which is most of them .
Walkers lack this instinctive knowledge .
I began this research many years ago when my wife and I , avid backpackers , camped near an active beaver pond .
The beaver pair was still building their dam .
My first career was designing earth dams for the US flood control program , so the dam interested me .
I was amazed to find that it was much more sophisticated than our dams , which are basically carefully prepared piles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a lattice of sticks , supporting a mud and rock wall on the upstream face .
Building this complex structure is an equally complex process , including felling trees for the wood materials .
I discuss this in the December 2013 article .
There is also a lot on the robotic analysis , as well as on the overall of an instinct as an unlearned body of expert knowledge .
When an expert looks at a situation that falls under their domain of expertise , they see and think things that non-experts can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ behavior in animals is just like that .
Animals live complex lives that we do not understand .
Both domestic animal husbandry and wildlife management depend on how well we understand the animals we are caring for or care about .
Robotic analysis is a way to understand a lot more .

In addition to studying complex human reasoning , I have been observing complex instinctive reasoning in animals for many years. Instinctive behavior is often thought of as simple, perhaps even mindless. I came to a very different conclusion, that an instinct is basically inherited expert knowledge. Instinctive behavior is often very complex, involving sophisticated concepts, expert knowledge and a lot of decision making.
So I wrote up my observations and hypotheses, in the form of a four year long series of 46 short blog articles . The blog title is Horse cognition and other critters (of which many are discussed). It runs around 30,000 words so there is lots of stuff.
My approach is one I call “robotic analysis” which means asking what a robot would have to sense, understand, know and decide in order to do what the animal does instinctively.
This does not mean the animal’s behavior is robotic, far from it. Artificial intelligence robotics tries to model intelligent behavior. For example, developing the self driving car required a lot of study on precisely what we do when we drive. Knowing the difference between a pedestrian, which can move, and a mailbox which cannot (except under extreme circumstances).
Here are snapshots of a few of the many blog articles, to give you the flavor of the findings:
The amazing cow circle . June 2015
A small herd of cows and their calves is threatened by dogs. The cows do not all face the dogs. Instead they form a defensive ring with each cow facing out. The calves go to the middle of the ring. Consider what is required. The cows have to recognize the threat as calling for a circle. They have to know how to form that circle, which is far from simple, especially since some are facing away from the dogs. The calves have to know to go to the center.
Baby behavior . May 2016
A baby bird hides under my riding mower as I approach, planning to mow. When I sit on the mower it runs out and hides under my truck. This baby knows when to hide, where to hide and how to hide. It also knows when to change hiding places. These are complex behaviors.
Instinctive learning . April 2016
A bird building a nest flies long distances to specific places to get materials. The bird must know what it wants at that point in construction and it must have already learned where the right stuff was.
Not knowing how to trot . October 2013
Two legged critters like us can only walk forward one step at a time, but four legged folks can do it a variety of ways. In horses one of these ways is the trot. However, most Tennessee Walking Houses cannot trot, even though they are as physically capable as other breeds that do trot, which is most of them. Walkers lack this instinctive knowledge.
I began this research many years ago when my wife and I, avid backpackers, camped near an active beaver pond. The beaver pair was still building their dam. My first career was designing earth dams for the US flood control program, so the dam interested me.
I was amazed to find that it was much more sophisticated than our dams, which are basically carefully prepared piles of dirt. The beaver dam was a lattice of sticks, supporting a mud and rock wall on the upstream face. Building this complex structure is an equally complex process, including felling trees for the wood materials. I discuss this in the December 2013 article Meet the beaver .
There is also a lot on the robotic analysis research method , as well as on the overall concept of an instinct as an unlearned body of expert knowledge.
When an expert looks at a situation that falls under their domain of expertise, they see and think things that non-experts cannot do. In many cases instinctive behavior in animals is just like that.
Animals live complex lives that we do not understand. Both domestic animal husbandry and wildlife management depend on how well we understand the animals we are caring for or care about. Robotic analysis is a way to understand a lot more.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-11-21--EP 121: Wild Stories With NJOA’s Cody McLaughlin

In Episode 121 of District of Conservation , Gabriella welcomes back friend of the podcast and NJOA ’ s Cody McLaughlin !
They discuss their hunting successes thus far , the future of conservation under a new presidential administration , how spending time outdoors is the ultimate social distancing , urban fisheries , Cody ’ s new house in Alaska , the case for eating catfish , and four wildlife stories that slipped under your radar .
According to the New Jersey Outdoor Alliance , Cody is “ a noted conservationist and conservative thought leader on public policy issues including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , gun rights , free-market tax and wage policy and the environment .
In his free time , he runs several social justice-centered fishing programs in his home state of New Jersey , teaching at-risk youth and adults in disaffected areas the joys of fishing and the skills to go along with it.
” Cody McLaughlin is an Account Manager at the Prosper Group .
He facilitates digital strategy and provides advice to campaigns from the national to the local level .
A battle-hardened veteran of over 100 political , public affairs and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cody is often touted as a “ Jack of all trades ” who thrives in environments that require composure and steadfast determination in the face of stress .
Before joining PG , Cody served as the Director of Campaigns for Go BIG Media , where he led a broad range of political and public affairs campaigns — advancing conservative causes everywhere from Congress to state legislatures to town councils and everywhere in between .
As a self-described dyed-in-the-wool political operative , Cody loves hard-won results from tough campaigns .
Cody is an avid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time in the outdoors as he can spare .
He resides in Trenton , New Jersey .

In Episode 121 of District of Conservation, Gabriella welcomes back friend of the podcast and NJOA’s Cody McLaughlin!
They discuss their hunting successes thus far, the future of conservation under a new presidential administration, how spending time outdoors is the ultimate social distancing, urban fisheries, Cody’s new house in Alaska, the case for eating catfish, and four wildlife stories that slipped under your radar.
According to the New Jersey Outdoor Alliance, Cody is “a noted conservationist and conservative thought leader on public policy issues including hunting, fishing, public land access, gun rights, free-market tax and wage policy and the environment. In his free time, he runs several social justice-centered fishing programs in his home state of New Jersey, teaching at-risk youth and adults in disaffected areas the joys of fishing and the skills to go along with it.”
Here’s more on Cody’s background:
Cody McLaughlin is an Account Manager at the Prosper Group. He facilitates digital strategy and provides advice to campaigns from the national to the local level. A battle-hardened veteran of over 100 political, public affairs and public relations campaigns across the country, Cody is often touted as a “Jack of all trades” who thrives in environments that require composure and steadfast determination in the face of stress.
Before joining PG, Cody served as the Director of Campaigns for Go BIG Media, where he led a broad range of political and public affairs campaigns — advancing conservative causes everywhere from Congress to state legislatures to town councils and everywhere in between. As a self-described dyed-in-the-wool political operative, Cody loves hard-won results from tough campaigns.
Cody is an avid sportsman and conservationist who spends as much time in the outdoors as he can spare. He resides in Trenton, New Jersey.
Listen on Apple Podcasts:
Listen on Spotify
Photo Credit: Cody McLaughlin (Facebook)


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-11-25--National parks are a national treasure

National parks are a national treasure

National parks are about more than a place to vacation .
They preserve our national heritage and are places for teaching and learning about history , geography and nature .
The park system from its very beginning included the purpose of preserving the natural environment and protecting biodiversity .
The National Park System is not only a national treasure and American success story for nearly 150 years , its success comes from government and private sector endeavors to preserve and sustain the system over time .
That legacy was reaffirmed in 2020 .
Last summer , the federal government committed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to undertake much need repair of the parks infrastructure , which was the largest investment in more than six decades .
When one thinks of national parks , famous places like Yellowstone , Yosemite , and the Grand Canyon come to mind .
These locations may be the top three sites to visit , but there is so much more .
Part of the national park system includes the scores of national historic sites , battlefields , monuments , and natural preserves .
Prominent examples are Independence Hall in Philadelphia , the Statute @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gettysburg National Military Park in south-central Pennsylvania , and the Everglades in south Florida .
The national park system dates back to 1872 with the enactment of the Yellowstone National Park Act , which designated two million acres in northwest Wyoming and parts of Montana as a public park under the management of the U.S. Department of the Interior .
As such , this land was off-limits to settlement , mining and logging .
The Antiquities Act in 1906 gave the President of the United States the power to preserve historic landmarks and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ environmental interest and importance .
By 1916 , the National Park Service was created to manage the growing number of designated parks and monuments .
Subsequent legislation expanded the Park Service jurisdiction to preserve historic places , lakeshores , scenic trails and rivers , and more .
The present-day national park system includes 422 areas covering 85 million acres across the fifty states plus American territories , which are listed here .
The National Park Service has an annual budget of more than $ 3 billion and employs 20,000 workers .
Nearly 300,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In 2019 , there were 327 million visitors to a site managed by the Park Service – a number about equal to the U.S. population ( this number , of course , counts the multiple sites by the same person , and tourists from overseas ) .
Though the Park System ’ s budget has been steadily growing , it has not kept up with the vast maintenance and capital needs of so many properties .
The Pew Charitable Trust , working with hundreds of local organizations , compiled a list of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ estimated cost more than $ 13 billion .
For example , Glacier National Park in Montana was estimated to need $ 100 million of work , mostly involving road repairs .
The largest category of upkeep , in fact , is roadways , as the Park System has more than 5,500 miles with an estimated need of $ 5 billion .
Buildings , bridges , marinas , parking areas , wastewater systems and many other needs add the to the Pew ’ s total estimate .
Protecting and upgrading the park system are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including local businesses dependent on tourism , chambers of commerce , conservation and environmental organizations , veterans groups , Indian tribes and , of course , contractors and firms willing and able to undertake repair and restoration .
Deteriorating roads , battlefields and structures led Congress and the Trump administration last summer to pass the Great American Outdoors Act which provides nearly $ 10 billion in funding over the next five years for park repairs and forest management .
This funding , ironically , comes not from the taxpayer , but from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ billion in annual royalties from offshore oil and gas drilling are now earmarked to repair our national parks , historic sites , natural preserves and forests .
This also constitutes the largest investment in the park system since 1956 when Congress authorized $ 1 billion over the following decade .
If you have not been to a national park in the United States , you are missing out .
If you haven ’ t explored any lately , make plans .
When the Covid-19 pandemic finally dissipates , hopefully with the new vaccines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ visiting several sites in 2021 .
If you have teenage children , invest in a family vacation ; the memories will last a lifetime .

National parks are about more than a place to vacation. They preserve our national heritage and are places for teaching and learning about history, geography and nature. The park system from its very beginning included the purpose of preserving the natural environment and protecting biodiversity.
The National Park System is not only a national treasure and American success story for nearly 150 years, its success comes from government and private sector endeavors to preserve and sustain the system over time. That legacy was reaffirmed in 2020. Last summer, the federal government committed to a multi-year, multi-billion dollar investment to undertake much need repair of the parks infrastructure, which was the largest investment in more than six decades.
When one thinks of national parks, famous places like Yellowstone, Yosemite, and the Grand Canyon come to mind. These locations may be the top three sites to visit, but there is so much more. Part of the national park system includes the scores of national historic sites, battlefields, monuments, and natural preserves. Prominent examples are Independence Hall in Philadelphia, the Statute of Liberty in New York Harbor, Gettysburg National Military Park in south-central Pennsylvania, and the Everglades in south Florida.
The national park system dates back to 1872 with the enactment of the Yellowstone National Park Act, which designated two million acres in northwest Wyoming and parts of Montana as a public park under the management of the U.S. Department of the Interior. As such, this land was off-limits to settlement, mining and logging.
The Antiquities Act in 1906 gave the President of the United States the power to preserve historic landmarks and structures, and lands of historic and environmental interest and importance. By 1916, the National Park Service was created to manage the growing number of designated parks and monuments. Subsequent legislation expanded the Park Service jurisdiction to preserve historic places, lakeshores, scenic trails and rivers, and more.
The present-day national park system includes 422 areas covering 85 million acres across the fifty states plus American territories, which are listed here.
The National Park Service has an annual budget of more than $3 billion and employs 20,000 workers. Nearly 300,000 Americans annually volunteer for the agency mission. In 2019, there were 327 million visitors to a site managed by the Park Service – a number about equal to the U.S. population (this number, of course, counts the multiple sites by the same person, and tourists from overseas).
Though the Park System’s budget has been steadily growing, it has not kept up with the vast maintenance and capital needs of so many properties. The Pew Charitable Trust, working with hundreds of local organizations, compiled a list of repair needs throughout the system with an estimated cost more than $13 billion. For example, Glacier National Park in Montana was estimated to need $100 million of work, mostly involving road repairs.
The largest category of upkeep, in fact, is roadways, as the Park System has more than 5,500 miles with an estimated need of $5 billion. Buildings, bridges, marinas, parking areas, wastewater systems and many other needs add the to the Pew’s total estimate.
Protecting and upgrading the park system are objectives shared by a variety of groups, including local businesses dependent on tourism, chambers of commerce, conservation and environmental organizations, veterans groups, Indian tribes and, of course, contractors and firms willing and able to undertake repair and restoration.
Deteriorating roads, battlefields and structures led Congress and the Trump administration last summer to pass the Great American Outdoors Act which provides nearly $10 billion in funding over the next five years for park repairs and forest management.
This funding, ironically, comes not from the taxpayer, but from the oil companies. Nearly $2 billion in annual royalties from offshore oil and gas drilling are now earmarked to repair our national parks, historic sites, natural preserves and forests. This also constitutes the largest investment in the park system since 1956 when Congress authorized $1 billion over the following decade.
If you have not been to a national park in the United States, you are missing out. If you haven’t explored any lately, make plans. When the Covid-19 pandemic finally dissipates, hopefully with the new vaccines coming soon, it is well worth visiting several sites in 2021. If you have teenage children, invest in a family vacation; the memories will last a lifetime.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-11-26--An immodest proposal: Let’s eat Bill Gates

Jonathan Swift once modestly proposed alleviating the Irish famine by dining on the young .
I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London , that a young healthy child well nursed , is , at a year old , a most delicious nourishing and wholesome food , whether stewed , roasted , baked , or boiled ; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricasee , or a ragoust .
For Bernie Sanders , Elizabeth Warren , Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and others on the Left , what ’ s on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Surely cannibalizing the wealthy will provide a far more satisfying feast than children .
They somehow never tell us who will be on the menu next year after we ’ ve finished feasting on Bill Gates , polished off Bezos on a bun , and made pot pie from whatever ’ s left over from devouring Warren Buffet .
“ A system that allows billionaires to exist when there are parts of Alabama where people are still getting ringworm because they don ’ t have access to public health , is wrong , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Her senior policy staffer Dan Riffle actually changed his Twitter handle to “ Every Billionaire is a Policy Failure.
” Whether its global warming “ solutions , ” socialized medicine , loan “ forgiveness , ” racial “ reparations , ” or just plain old redistribution ( free stuff ) , every day we hear calls on the Left for new spending that totals high into the trillions .
When asked how to pay for it , they pretend their largesse won ’ t cost you or me a dime , by calling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Left-wing math never adds up .
It ’ s one of the main reasons that Socialism is so effective at laying nations low .
and maintain lists that track the daily wealth of the the world ’ s richest people .
Today they peg Bill Gates at around $ 96 billion and Jeff Bezos at a stunning $ 131 billion !
Why not confiscate all of it today ?
We could immediately end hunger and homelessness shout the furthest Left .
Why limit ourselves to a mere ?
If we set aside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by a crucial measue , the world ’ s two richest men aren ’ t as wealthy as you might think .
A billionaire ’ s wealth may be vast when compared to that of an average American ( including everyone at CFACT ) , but pales when compared to the vast sums spent every day by government .
The U.S. “ ” reveals America ’ s national debt at over 23 TRILLION DOLLARS .
Confiscating Bill Gate ’ s 96 billion would reduce the debt from 23 trillion and 75 billion dollars @ @ @ @ @ @ @ With Gates down to zero , we can go on working our way down the rich list grabbing , taking and redistributing ( as if the Left would do anything as responsible with a one-time windfall as pay off debt ) .
Now what ?
The federal government spends four and a half trillion dollars per year .
Combine that with state and local governments and we ’ re spending over !
Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates may be the world ’ s two richest men .
They are pipsqueaks when measured against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for one and three quarter TRILLION DOLLARS , and have unfunded pension liablities of $ 6.8 TRILLION .
Gates and Bezos both hail from Washington State which is on track to spend over $ 94 billion this year and is over $ 89 billion in debt .
Confiscate everything they have and they can pay the Evergreen State ’ s finances for one year .
Then the money ’ s gone , and to a great extent Amazon and Microsoft along with it .
The deep thinkers on the Left apparently think that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a big box we could open and share .
Their wealth is actually found in the value of the businesses they created and the investments they ’ ve made since .
Imagine the economic earthquake were it all suddenly gone .
While the Left still dips into the well of Marx and Engels when they theorize about our economy , their recent favorite is French economist Thomas Pikkety , whose book Capital in the Twenty-First Century topped the New York Times best sellers list .
In that and other books Pikkety proposes high @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the curious notion that governments can allocate resources more efficiently than individuals .
Economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman are the architeccts of Elizabeth Warren ’ s proposed wealth tax .
In their just released , The Triumph of Injustice they call for massive increases in income and wealth taxes to create what they call “ tax justice ” to stop wealth “ accumulating with hardly any barrier.
” A small group of fashionably left-wing , very rich people have issued a call for confiscatory taxes on wealth to level the playing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ever controversial George Soros and the granddaughter of Roy Disney signed An Open Letter to the 2020 Presidential Candidates : It ’ s Time to Tax Us More .
Although Abigail Disney received a “ class traitor award ” for her activism , none of the signatories has led the way by voluntarily giving away enough of their wealth to join the ranks of the average .
Liesel Pritzker Simmons one of the heirs of a fortune that stems largely from Hyatt Hotels signed the letter as did Ian Simmons , heir to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Munger , daughter of Berkshire Hathaway ’ s Charlie Munger .
They believe that their wealth could be allocated more “ efficiently ” by the democratic processes of government .
None of these spoiled scions of wealth seem to reflect much on how much societal good was created by their uber-creative forebears .
Consider the massive economic contributions of Disney , Hyatt , Montgomery Ward and Berkshire Hathaway .
Could committees of government planners have housed , fed , clothed and entertained us better ?
Mark Zuckerberg hasn ’ t had his $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still coming to grips with it .
“ I think if you do something that ’ s good , you get rewarded , ” he recently said , “ but I do think some of the wealth that can be accumulated is unreasonable.
” Zuckerberg himself , however , is a powerful argument for free markets , unless it is your belief that a government planning committee could have done a better job of creating an online social network that could link billions of people together , or even have conceived that such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who think government economic decision-making is more efficient than free markets ( and have never visited the DMV ) , the lessons of history are plain to see .
( Well , they would be if history was still taught in schools ) .
Soviet-style economic planning failed miserably .
India and China stagnated for half a century under Democratic Socialism and full-blown Communism respectively .
Only the embrace of free-market competition allowed them to advance .
People flee from North Korea to the South , never the other way round .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fresh .
The new American Left makes intuitive assumptive leaps that don ’ t hold up .
For instance , the Americans who top the billionaire lists are overwhelmigly recent additions .
Bezos , Gates , Warren Buffet , Larry Ellison , Mark Zuckerberg , Michael Bloomberg , Larry Page , Sergey Brin and not the heirs of inter-generational wealth , which seldom lasts .
The Walton family fortune got going in the 1960s , the Koch family in the 1920s .
Any professional fundraiser can tell you that inter-generational wealth in America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you search the billionaire lists you won ’ t find any Rockefellers , Duponts , Astors , Morgans , Cabots , Lowells , or Guggenheims .
You won ’ t find the descendants of Thomas Edison , nor his rival Westinghouse .
Dennis Washington is number 290 on the Forbes list with an estmiated forture of $ 5.9 billion .
He is a self-made man in construction with no financial connection to George Washington and his Mt .
Vernon wealth .
You won ’ t find any Franklins , Adams , Hancocks , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
You won ’ t even find any Roosevelts .
The Left relies on misleading factoids to justify their weath inequality push .
The Foundation for Economic Education did a great job of debunking one of them .
Consider this whopper : “ Three US billionaires are now collectively worth more than the 160 million Americans in the bottom half of the wealth distribution… Few of the bottom 160 million hold any stocks or bonds.
” How do they come up with this one ?
By using demographics to lump together kids and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people who do not save .
Most kids and teenagers haven ’ t started building their nest eggs yet .
The figure that results is meaningless .
You know who else has more money than the hundreds of millions of kids and people with zero or negative net worths combined ?
Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders whom Forbes pegs as possessing $ 12 million and $ 2.3 million respectively .
To put it in left-wing propaganda terms , Bernie Sanders has more wealth than the bottom half of America combined .
As Monty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Wait a tic … blimey , this redistribution of wealth is trickier than I thought.
” Should we feast on billionaires this Thanksgiving ?
Aesop told a story of a goose that every day laid a golden egg .
The couple that owned it cut it open to extract all the gold at once , but found only an ordinary dead goose inside .
That was the end of the golden eggs .
As Margaret Thatcher famously said , “ the trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s nest egg do you think they ’ ll crack next ?

Jonathan Swift once modestly proposed alleviating the Irish famine by dining on the young.
I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed, is, at a year old, a most delicious nourishing and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricasee, or a ragoust.
For Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and others on the Left, what’s on the menu this year is billionaires. Surely cannibalizing the wealthy will provide a far more satisfying feast than children. They somehow never tell us who will be on the menu next year after we’ve finished feasting on Bill Gates, polished off Bezos on a bun, and made pot pie from whatever’s left over from devouring Warren Buffet.
“A system that allows billionaires to exist when there are parts of Alabama where people are still getting ringworm because they don’t have access to public health, is wrong,” Ocasio-Cortez told an MLK event. Her senior policy staffer Dan Riffle actually changed his Twitter handle to “Every Billionaire is a Policy Failure.”
Whether its global warming “solutions,” socialized medicine, loan “forgiveness,” racial “reparations,” or just plain old redistribution (free stuff), every day we hear calls on the Left for new spending that totals high into the trillions. When asked how to pay for it, they pretend their largesse won’t cost you or me a dime, by calling for wealth taxes on the richest Americans.
Left-wing math never adds up. It’s one of the main reasons that Socialism is so effective at laying nations low.
Let’s check the billionaire facts.
Bloomberg and Forbes maintain lists that track the daily wealth of the the world’s richest people. Today they peg Bill Gates at around $96 billion and Jeff Bezos at a stunning $131 billion! Why not confiscate all of it today? We could immediately end hunger and homelessness shout the furthest Left. Why limit ourselves to a mere Warren or Sanders-style 2-5% annual confiscation ?
If we set aside envy as a powerful motivating force, by a crucial measue, the world’s two richest men aren’t as wealthy as you might think.
A billionaire’s wealth may be vast when compared to that of an average American (including everyone at CFACT), but pales when compared to the vast sums spent every day by government.
The U.S. “ debt clock ” reveals America’s national debt at over 23 TRILLION DOLLARS. Confiscating Bill Gate’s 96 billion would reduce the debt from 23 trillion and 75 billion dollars to 22 trillion and 979 billion. With Gates down to zero, we can go on working our way down the rich list grabbing, taking and redistributing (as if the Left would do anything as responsible with a one-time windfall as pay off debt). Now what?
The federal government spends four and a half trillion dollars per year. Combine that with state and local governments and we’re spending over $8.14 trillion per year !
Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates may be the world’s two richest men. They are pipsqueaks when measured against Leviathan.
The states are in debt for one and three quarter TRILLION DOLLARS, and have unfunded pension liablities of $6.8 TRILLION.
Gates and Bezos both hail from Washington State which is on track to spend over $94 billion this year and is over $89 billion in debt. Confiscate everything they have and they can pay the Evergreen State’s finances for one year. Then the money’s gone, and to a great extent Amazon and Microsoft along with it.
The deep thinkers on the Left apparently think that Gates and Bezos keep their money in a big box we could open and share. Their wealth is actually found in the value of the businesses they created and the investments they’ve made since. Imagine the economic earthquake were it all suddenly gone.
While the Left still dips into the well of Marx and Engels when they theorize about our economy, their recent favorite is French economist Thomas Pikkety, whose book Capital in the Twenty-First Century topped the New York Times best sellers list. In that and other books Pikkety proposes high taxation to level “economic inequality” with the curious notion that governments can allocate resources more efficiently than individuals.
Economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman are the architeccts of Elizabeth Warren’s proposed wealth tax. In their just released, The Triumph of Injustice they call for massive increases in income and wealth taxes to create what they call “tax justice” to stop wealth “accumulating with hardly any barrier.”
A small group of fashionably left-wing, very rich people have issued a call for confiscatory taxes on wealth to level the playing field. Twenty of them including the ever controversial George Soros and the granddaughter of Roy Disney signed An Open Letter to the 2020 Presidential Candidates: It’s Time to Tax Us More. Although Abigail Disney received a “class traitor award” for her activism, none of the signatories has led the way by voluntarily giving away enough of their wealth to join the ranks of the average.
Liesel Pritzker Simmons one of the heirs of a fortune that stems largely from Hyatt Hotels signed the letter as did Ian Simmons, heir to one-time retail giant Montgomery Ward and Molly Munger, daughter of Berkshire Hathaway’s Charlie Munger. They believe that their wealth could be allocated more “efficiently” by the democratic processes of government. None of these spoiled scions of wealth seem to reflect much on how much societal good was created by their uber-creative forebears. Consider the massive economic contributions of Disney, Hyatt, Montgomery Ward and Berkshire Hathaway. Could committees of government planners have housed, fed, clothed and entertained us better?
Mark Zuckerberg hasn’t had his $70 billion fortune long and he is still coming to grips with it. “I think if you do something that’s good, you get rewarded,” he recently said, “but I do think some of the wealth that can be accumulated is unreasonable.” Zuckerberg himself, however, is a powerful argument for free markets, unless it is your belief that a government planning committee could have done a better job of creating an online social network that could link billions of people together, or even have conceived that such a thing could exist.
For those who think government economic decision-making is more efficient than free markets (and have never visited the DMV), the lessons of history are plain to see. (Well, they would be if history was still taught in schools). Soviet-style economic planning failed miserably. India and China stagnated for half a century under Democratic Socialism and full-blown Communism respectively. Only the embrace of free-market competition allowed them to advance. People flee from North Korea to the South, never the other way round. The Venezuelan example couldn’t be more fresh.
The new American Left makes intuitive assumptive leaps that don’t hold up. For instance, the Americans who top the billionaire lists are overwhelmigly recent additions. Bezos, Gates, Warren Buffet, Larry Ellison, Mark Zuckerberg, Michael Bloomberg, Larry Page, Sergey Brin and not the heirs of inter-generational wealth, which seldom lasts. The Walton family fortune got going in the 1960s, the Koch family in the 1920s. Any professional fundraiser can tell you that inter-generational wealth in America seldom lasts beyond three generations.
If you search the billionaire lists you won’t find any Rockefellers, Duponts, Astors, Morgans, Cabots, Lowells, or Guggenheims. You won’t find the descendants of Thomas Edison, nor his rival Westinghouse. Dennis Washington is number 290 on the Forbes list with an estmiated forture of $5.9 billion. He is a self-made man in construction with no financial connection to George Washington and his Mt. Vernon wealth. You won’t find any Franklins, Adams, Hancocks, Jeffersons or Madisons atop the rich list. You won’t even find any Roosevelts.
The Left relies on misleading factoids to justify their weath inequality push. The Foundation for Economic Education did a great job of debunking one of them. Consider this whopper: “Three US billionaires are now collectively worth more than the 160 million Americans in the bottom half of the wealth distribution… Few of the bottom 160 million hold any stocks or bonds.” How do they come up with this one? By using demographics to lump together kids and students with prisoners, the disabled and people who do not save. Most kids and teenagers haven’t started building their nest eggs yet. The figure that results is meaningless. You know who else has more money than the hundreds of millions of kids and people with zero or negative net worths combined? Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders whom Forbes pegs as possessing $12 million and $2.3 million respectively.
To put it in left-wing propaganda terms, Bernie Sanders has more wealth than the bottom half of America combined.
As Monty Python’s Dennis Moore said, “Wait a tic … blimey, this redistribution of wealth is trickier than I thought.”
Should we feast on billionaires this Thanksgiving?
Aesop told a story of a goose that every day laid a golden egg. The couple that owned it cut it open to extract all the gold at once, but found only an ordinary dead goose inside. That was the end of the golden eggs.
As Margaret Thatcher famously said, “the trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”
Who’s nest egg do you think they’ll crack next?


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-11-27--Summing up the northern hemisphere tropical season

I have been told we should think globally when it comes to climate .
At least that is what people pushing this as a man controlled item say .
Even now , I am hearing tales of people that may be coming to power wanting to distribute the very Covid Vaccine that the president , by pulling together the public , private partnership in the greatest effort to combat an enemy since world war 2 , got done in record time , to others first , the kind of attitude that is designed to go from “ Make America Great @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Again ” Obviously solving our problems first would help facilitate the former , so why would you not wish to take care of yourself ?
.
Now I say this because in my book , The Weaponization of Weather in the Phony Climate War , there are a couple of chapters on the Covid Climate linkage strategy I knew would be used as we got to the end of the Covid situation .
But the point is these people want you to think globally about the doom and gloom that they say climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ okay and lets use the hurricane season we just had 1 ) Yes , we had most named storms in the Atlantic .
I was underdone on total names .
I had .
20 before the season .
But we are going to find out whats in a name below , and in this case there is a story behind what you are being bombarded with , that you are not being told .
Gee where have we seen that before 2 ) Yes it was the highest impact year on the US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a huge deal about that from April ) Look at this impact forecast from April 7th .
For WHERE THEY WOULD GO , NOT JUST NUMBERS .
No one else has been doing this , I have been since 2014 for clients and we show it Now look at what happened .
( .
The numbers are the phases of the MJO that these hit in , to show that by correctly forecasting that to be in certain phases for the season , we would have the major impact season 3 ) The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ACE range from March !
10th highest on record What is the ACE index .
?
Well while I think the Power and Impact scale I have developed is far more descriptive , the ACE is a far better metric of tropical prowess than the number of storms .
Here is a nice read on it 4 ) Here is where it gets interesting : and what is being hidden from the public as the weaponization of this for climate change would be neutralized with these facts : The ACE/Storm .
Was 6.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ back in Last , as far as ACE/Storm in an active season .
In fact how bad was it ?
The AVERAGE ACE/STORM in the other 21 hyper active seasons was 12. !
The closest to this year was another mega name year 2005 , but that was a respectable 9 .
That 6 per/storm is in the bottom 25 % for any year !
The obvious conclusion to anyone objective is 2 fold , 1 ) some of these should not have been named or would not have been in previous years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want to accept that fine , but it means more storms , but weaker .
It is absolutely astounding to see the ace/storm HALF the average of the all the other samples .
Side fact : We have just finished a decade tied for the LOWEST in major hits on the Saffir Simpson scale in over 100 years !
But it gets worse as far as the hype , sort of .
The total ignoring of the lack of activity in the Pacific Basin .
I keep hearing global this and global that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is going to ignore the fact that the number one area for ACE was so far below normal .
The total between the two is normally 426 .
This year so far 226 .
So the basin with 4 times the normal of Atlantic , is only 53 % of its normal !
For the northern hemisphere was 80 % of normal .
So even with the hyper Atlantic season .
GLOBALLY we were BELOW average .
So there is no question the impact of the western hemisphere is a huge record breaking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , But if you want perspective and the whole picture , there is plenty to counter the idea that this is an example of some kind of atmospheric apocalypse , But you have to look and if you do , you will see that there is plenty to talk about on the other side of the coin .
Nature find a way to balance out things no matter how much money we want to drain out of our economic lifeline to change it .
Of course , the coin that is flipped when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seem to come up one way , and that is to whip up hysteria .
Sound familiar ?

I have been told we should think globally when it comes to climate. At least that is what people pushing this as a man controlled item say. Even now, I am hearing tales of people that may be coming to power wanting to distribute the very Covid Vaccine that the president, by pulling together the public, private partnership in the greatest effort to combat an enemy since world war 2, got done in record time, to others first, the kind of attitude that is designed to go from “Make America Great Again” to “Make America Grovel Again” Obviously solving our problems first would help facilitate the former, so why would you not wish to take care of yourself?.
Now I say this because in my book, The Weaponization of Weather in the Phony Climate War, there are a couple of chapters on the Covid Climate linkage strategy I knew would be used as we got to the end of the Covid situation. But the point is these people want you to think globally about the doom and gloom that they say climate change is, so lets do that okay and lets use the hurricane season we just had
1) Yes , we had most named storms in the Atlantic. I was underdone on total names. I had. 20 before the season. But we are going to find out whats in a name below, and in this case there is a story behind what you are being bombarded with, that you are not being told. Gee where have we seen that before
2) Yes it was the highest impact year on the US coast ( no surprise as we made a huge deal about that from April)
Look at this impact forecast from April 7th. For WHERE THEY WOULD GO, NOT JUST NUMBERS. No one else has been doing this, I have been since 2014 for clients and we show it
Now look at what happened. (. The numbers are the phases of the MJO that these hit in, to show that by correctly forecasting that to be in certain phases for the season, we would have the major impact season
3) The ACE index at. 180 within our ACE range from March! 10th highest on record
What is the ACE index.?Well while I think the Power and Impact scale I have developed is far more descriptive, the ACE is a far better metric of tropical prowess than the number of storms.
Here is a nice read on it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accumulated_cyclone_energy
4) Here is where it gets interesting: and what is being hidden from the public as the weaponization of this for climate change would be neutralized with these facts: The ACE/Storm. Was 6. ranking LAST, DEAD LAST, way back in Last, as far as ACE/Storm in an active season. In fact how bad was it? The AVERAGE ACE/STORM in the other 21 hyper active seasons was 12.! The closest to this year was another mega name year 2005, but that was a respectable 9. That 6 per/storm is in the bottom 25% for any year!
The obvious conclusion to anyone objective is 2 fold, 1) some of these should not have been named or would not have been in previous years. Now if you don’t want to accept that fine, but it means more storms, but weaker. It is absolutely astounding to see the ace/storm HALF the average of the all the other samples.
Side fact: We have just finished a decade tied for the LOWEST in major hits on the Saffir Simpson scale in over 100 years!
But it gets worse as far as the hype, sort of. The total ignoring of the lack of activity in the Pacific Basin. I keep hearing global this and global that which of course applies only if one is going to ignore the fact that the number one area for ACE was so far below normal.
Western Pacific is 52%, the eastern Pacific 56%
The total between the two is normally 426 . This year so far 226. So the basin with 4 times the normal of Atlantic, is only 53% of its normal! For the northern hemisphere was 80% of normal. So even with the hyper Atlantic season. GLOBALLY we were BELOW average.
So there is no question the impact of the western hemisphere is a huge record breaking deal, and should be talked about, But if you want perspective and the whole picture, there is plenty to counter the idea that this is an example of some kind of atmospheric apocalypse, But you have to look and if you do, you will see that there is plenty to talk about on the other side of the coin. Nature find a way to balance out things no matter how much money we want to drain out of our economic lifeline to change it.
Of course, the coin that is flipped when it comes to pushing ideas today always seem to come up one way, and that is to whip up hysteria. Sound familiar?


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-11-28--He’s baaaaack – John Kerry to save the planet!

John F. Kerry is making a political comeback thanks to the election of Joe Biden to the presidency .
Last week the President-elect announced he would name Mr. Kerry as Special Envoy for climate change .
His mission , which he ’ s chosen to accept , is to save planet Earth !
Ethan Hunt in the Mission Impossible movies never had it so difficult .
John Forbes Kerry is the ideal man for this genuine mission impossible since he is a global warming fanatic on par with the Al Gore , Leo DiCaprio crowd , and no less obtuse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wife is Teresa Heinz , who was widowed to one of the heirs to the Heinz ketchup fortune .
His multiple homes , mega-yacht and private jet travel fit well with his fellow climate elites who live so imperviously to their cause .
Mr. Kerry has been wildly successful at getting prominent government positions and wielding influence to a degree many aspire , but few attain .
What he ’ s done as a D.C. fixture is the problem , yet such failures are being rewarded since they fit with the Biden-Harris climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ documented Kerry ’ s many global warming inanities , including his zeal to impose edicts on the country in the name of fighting climate change in similar vein to Covid-19 restrictions .
Typical in political circles , Kerry ’ s climate pronouncements come bereft of actual science .
Mr. Kerry ’ s D.C. career began when he was elected in 1984 to the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts .
At the time he was Lieutenant Governor of the Commonwealth , but was well known as a prominent member of Vietnam Veterans Against the War @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about alleged atrocities by American soldiers , which was broad-based slander and rife with falsehoods .
Though he lost his first race for Congress in 1972 , Kerry was nonetheless able to parlay his Vietnam soldier and protester fame into a long political career that nearly got him elected president .
As the Democratic nominee in 2004 , he made his military service in Vietnam a prominent feature of his campaign , which came back to bite .
His narrow loss to President George W. Bush was due @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about his military service that were used against him by other Vietnam veterans who formed a group called the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth .
Sen. Kerry finished his Senate career in 2012 when a re-elected President Barack Obama tapped him to be U.S. Secretary of State .
Among the foreign policy achievements Kerry would claim was the Paris Climate Accords – except the treaty was so flawed , Obama pretended it wasn ’ t a treaty and never submitted it to the Senate for the required two-thirds approval .
President Trump wisely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Biden promised to rejoin “ on day one.
” The Paris Accords , which have been discussed extensively by CFACT ( e.g.
, here ) , require the U.S. and other industrialized nations to reduce carbon emissions , while the People ’ s Republic of China , with the world ’ s second largest economy , largest military , and a growing adversary to the U.S. , need not bother until after 2030 .
Kerry and Obama were so desperate to get China as a signatory , they gave it a free @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This further makes a mockery of the incessant claims from climate alarmists that 2030 or thereabouts is a “ tipping point ” for the planet ’ s doomsday climate trajectory .
John Kerry ’ s style of diplomacy believes being nice to U.S. enemies and adversaries will somehow pay dividends for America .
History suggests the opposite is true .
The Paris Accords is one example that echoes the approach of some during the Cold War with the Soviet Union , to wit : make concessions to the other side by unilaterally disarming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , economically ( Paris Accords ) , and the other side will eventually do the right thing .
As Special Envoy for climate change , Mr. Kerry will lead the nation ’ s effort toward unilaterally eliminating fossil fuels and redistributing billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars for “ Green ” projects in the developing world ; all for the theoretical effort to lower global average temperature by a degree or so in 30 years .
The bitter fruits of such policies will weaken U.S. energy independence and harm global economic competitiveness .
Meanwhile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nations will not cease to expand fossil fuel production and consumption to gain economic and military power , no matter how much Mr. Kerry pleads .
Personnel is policy , the saying goes .
Joe Biden ’ s embrace of climate extremism is buttressed with the appointment of John Kerry as Special Envoy , which also comes with a seat on the National Security Council .
That means climate policies will be very much intertwined with American foreign policy , along with economics .
Yet , the planet ’ s climate will go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ America ’ s new Special Envoy attempts to affect it otherwise .

John F. Kerry is making a political comeback thanks to the election of Joe Biden to the presidency. Last week the President-elect announced he would name Mr. Kerry as Special Envoy for climate change. His mission, which he’s chosen to accept, is to save planet Earth!
Ethan Hunt in the Mission Impossible movies never had it so difficult.
John Forbes Kerry is the ideal man for this genuine mission impossible since he is a global warming fanatic on par with the Al Gore, Leo DiCaprio crowd, and no less obtuse and hypocritical. His second and current wife is Teresa Heinz, who was widowed to one of the heirs to the Heinz ketchup fortune. His multiple homes, mega-yacht and private jet travel fit well with his fellow climate elites who live so imperviously to their cause.
Mr. Kerry has been wildly successful at getting prominent government positions and wielding influence to a degree many aspire, but few attain. What he’s done as a D.C. fixture is the problem, yet such failures are being rewarded since they fit with the Biden-Harris climate agenda.
Climate Depot (here) documented Kerry’s many global warming inanities, including his zeal to impose edicts on the country in the name of fighting climate change in similar vein to Covid-19 restrictions. Typical in political circles, Kerry’s climate pronouncements come bereft of actual science.
Mr. Kerry’s D.C. career began when he was elected in 1984 to the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts. At the time he was Lieutenant Governor of the Commonwealth, but was well known as a prominent member of Vietnam Veterans Against the War. In 1971, Kerry testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about alleged atrocities by American soldiers, which was broad-based slander and rife with falsehoods.
Though he lost his first race for Congress in 1972, Kerry was nonetheless able to parlay his Vietnam soldier and protester fame into a long political career that nearly got him elected president. As the Democratic nominee in 2004, he made his military service in Vietnam a prominent feature of his campaign, which came back to bite. His narrow loss to President George W. Bush was due in part to this testimony and embellishments about his military service that were used against him by other Vietnam veterans who formed a group called the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
Sen. Kerry finished his Senate career in 2012 when a re-elected President Barack Obama tapped him to be U.S. Secretary of State. Among the foreign policy achievements Kerry would claim was the Paris Climate Accords – except the treaty was so flawed, Obama pretended it wasn’t a treaty and never submitted it to the Senate for the required two-thirds approval.
President Trump wisely withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Accords. Biden promised to rejoin “on day one.”
The Paris Accords, which have been discussed extensively by CFACT (e.g., here), require the U.S. and other industrialized nations to reduce carbon emissions, while the People’s Republic of China, with the world’s second largest economy, largest military, and a growing adversary to the U.S., need not bother until after 2030. Kerry and Obama were so desperate to get China as a signatory, they gave it a free pass from any near-term treaty commitments. This further makes a mockery of the incessant claims from climate alarmists that 2030 or thereabouts is a “tipping point” for the planet’s doomsday climate trajectory.
John Kerry’s style of diplomacy believes being nice to U.S. enemies and adversaries will somehow pay dividends for America. History suggests the opposite is true. The Paris Accords is one example that echoes the approach of some during the Cold War with the Soviet Union, to wit: make concessions to the other side by unilaterally disarming militarily (Cold War) and now, economically (Paris Accords), and the other side will eventually do the right thing.
As Special Envoy for climate change, Mr. Kerry will lead the nation’s effort toward unilaterally eliminating fossil fuels and redistributing billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars for “Green” projects in the developing world; all for the theoretical effort to lower global average temperature by a degree or so in 30 years.
The bitter fruits of such policies will weaken U.S. energy independence and harm global economic competitiveness. Meanwhile, China, Russia, and other nations will not cease to expand fossil fuel production and consumption to gain economic and military power, no matter how much Mr. Kerry pleads.
Personnel is policy, the saying goes. Joe Biden’s embrace of climate extremism is buttressed with the appointment of John Kerry as Special Envoy, which also comes with a seat on the National Security Council. That means climate policies will be very much intertwined with American foreign policy, along with economics.
Yet, the planet’s climate will go on changing, no matter how hard America’s new Special Envoy attempts to affect it otherwise.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-11-29--Renewables and nuclear: False hopes and unfounded fears

The world is becoming an increasingly hostile place for power plants that use traditional fossil fuels to generate power .
Even Joe Biden , who is expected to become President of the U.S. soon , has made it a priority to abolish traditional fossil fuel-based power .
But among the available alternative energy sources , the focus has mainly been on renewables and rarely does the media address the importance of Nuclear energy .
Here we will analyze which of these two holds the potential to deliver us the power we need and the surprising facts that the media refuses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Solar are the most commonly highlighted renewable sources .
The other renewable sources ( like biomass and geothermal ) are not practically viable options for large scale power generations globally and hence hardly of interest to any large country that is serious about their energy independence .
But even the hype surrounding Wind and Solar are now appearing to be impractical .
I grew up in a scenic countryside that was .
The concept of wind energy was familiar to me .
Solar was not uncommon as even rural areas in India @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What I was not familiar with was the problems associated with both Wind and Solar .
I began to hear negative feedback from my friends whose industrial machines were impacted due to the intermittent energy supply from these windmills .
Energy from those windmills gave plenty of headache to the consumers and energy companies .
This is because both Wind and Solar are .
They are not capable of producing–even with backup sources–continuous baseload power in the same way that a coal plant or a nuclear plant produce .
This means that when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sunlight , the lack of power from these sources has to be substituted with energy from conventional sources like Thermal power plants , nuclear plants , and hydro power stations .
There is no indication on whether this will change in the near future .
Nuclear plants , on the other hand , is a proven and reliable source of power generators .
However , nuclear energy has received a lot of pushback in recent decades because of the accidents at Fukushima and Chernobyl , and the subsequent claims about their unsafe nature @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is far different to the public perception .
Chernobyl nuclear accident happened partly because of intentional negligence of a faulty reactor at the plant .
The media has too .
The United Nations says that only two workers were killed in the accident .
that the children that have been born close to Chernobyl had no detectable abnormalities during their birth .
Michael Shellenberger , an environmentalist , that , “ Radiation from Chernobyl ( accident in the past ) will kill , at most , 200 people , while the radiation from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ major nuclear accidents ) will kill zero people.
” Unlike wind and solar , Nuclear energy has been subjected to biased media treatment despite being superior to the renewables .
For example , nuclear power plants per unit of energy generated than the so called “ clean ” Solar power .
Wind energy too comes with .
Further , Nuclear energy is a resource efficient .
Wind farms require up to 360 times more land area to produce the same amount of electricity as a nuclear energy facility .
While Solar and Wind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nuclear plants produce power at an affordable cost and keep the electricity prices in check .
Renewables have been promoted based on a promised future even after their proven inability to provide reliable baseload power and a lack of a non-fossil backup source to support them when they do not work .
In contrast , Nuclear has been blacklisted for safety concerns despite a proven safety standard and no major life loss from the three major accidents in the recent past .
If we are truly about diversifying our energy sources , making @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a stable source of power that can support the booming economy , then it is time we lay aside false fears and adopt nuclear energy .

The world is becoming an increasingly hostile place for power plants that use traditional fossil fuels to generate power. Even Joe Biden, who is expected to become President of the U.S. soon, has made it a priority to abolish traditional fossil fuel-based power.
But among the available alternative energy sources, the focus has mainly been on renewables and rarely does the media address the importance of Nuclear energy. Here we will analyze which of these two holds the potential to deliver us the power we need and the surprising facts that the media refuses to inform the people about.
Wind and Solar are the most commonly highlighted renewable sources. The other renewable sources (like biomass and geothermal) are not practically viable options for large scale power generations globally and hence hardly of interest to any large country that is serious about their energy independence. But even the hype surrounding Wind and Solar are now appearing to be impractical.
I grew up in a scenic countryside that was littered with windmills . The concept of wind energy was familiar to me. Solar was not uncommon as even rural areas in India had houses which boasted solar panels.
What I was not familiar with was the problems associated with both Wind and Solar. I began to hear negative feedback from my friends whose industrial machines were impacted due to the intermittent energy supply from these windmills. Energy from those windmills gave plenty of headache to the consumers and energy companies.
This is because both Wind and Solar are intermittent sources of Energy . They are not capable of producing–even with backup sources–continuous baseload power in the same way that a coal plant or a nuclear plant produce. This means that when there is not enough wind or enough sunlight, the lack of power from these sources has to be substituted with energy from conventional sources like Thermal power plants, nuclear plants, and hydro power stations. There is no indication on whether this will change in the near future.
Nuclear plants, on the other hand, is a proven and reliable source of power generators. However, nuclear energy has received a lot of pushback in recent decades because of the accidents at Fukushima and Chernobyl, and the subsequent claims about their unsafe nature in the media.
But the reality is far different to the public perception. Chernobyl nuclear accident happened partly because of intentional negligence of a faulty reactor at the plant. The media has over-hyped the accident’s impact too. The United Nations says that only two workers were killed in the accident.
UCLA physicians say that the children that have been born close to Chernobyl had no detectable abnormalities during their birth. Michael Shellenberger, an environmentalist, reminds us that, “Radiation from Chernobyl (accident in the past) will kill, at most, 200 people, while the radiation from Fukushima and Three Mile Island (other major nuclear accidents) will kill zero people.”
Unlike wind and solar, Nuclear energy has been subjected to biased media treatment despite being superior to the renewables. For example, nuclear power plants emit 300 times less toxic waste per unit of energy generated than the so called “clean” Solar power. Wind energy too comes with a toxic tag .
Further, Nuclear energy is a resource efficient. Wind farms require up to 360 times more land area to produce the same amount of electricity as a nuclear energy facility. While Solar and Wind are infamous for increasing energy prices, Nuclear plants produce power at an affordable cost and keep the electricity prices in check.
Renewables have been promoted based on a promised future even after their proven inability to provide reliable baseload power and a lack of a non-fossil backup source to support them when they do not work. In contrast, Nuclear has been blacklisted for safety concerns despite a proven safety standard and no major life loss from the three major accidents in the recent past.
If we are truly about diversifying our energy sources, making energy affordable to our communities, have a stable source of power that can support the booming economy, then it is time we lay aside false fears and adopt nuclear energy.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-11-30--Solar desert deep-sixed in rural Virginia

For the second time in 15 months , residents of rural Culpeper County , Virginia have risen up against a proposed massive solar array project , forcing the would-be developers to withdraw their application to put the renewable energy facility in the county ’ s picturesque rolling farmlands .
North Carolina-based Strata Solar had planned to build the $ 200 million , 1,700-acre , 149 megawatts project on cleared timberland in southern Culpepper .
The land on which the industrial-sized solar array was to be built was zoned agricultural in keeping with the rural character of the area .
Maroon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the project , was supposed to be another step on the way to a “ carbon-free ” energy future , but local officials and nearby residents raised strong objections .
The Culpepper County Board of Supervisors ( BOS ) evaluated the project and , on Nov. 12 , held a well-attended , four-hour public hearing on a request by Strata for a conditional-use permit for Maroon Solar .
While some supporters of renewable energy , joined by a few property-rights advocates , spoke out in favor of the project , far more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Solar ’ s effect on natural resources , property values , and the area ’ s scenery .
In the end , county officials did not approve the request for a permit due to the scope of the project .
A week later , Strata abruptly withdrew its request to go ahead with the project .
While the developer has the right to resubmit its application , it would have to start the whole process all over again .
Not an appealing prospect .
Susan Ralston , president and founder of Citizens for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the developer had yanked its request for a permit .
“ The Planning Commission heard our appeals and their unanimous vote sent an important message that the current solar policy , regarding the size of the project and its impact on the rural character of the county , were important factors in denying Maroon ’ s application , ” she said in an email to starexponent.com .
The apparent demise of Maroon Solar is similar to the fate that befell Cricket Solar , a project of California-based BaWa , in August 2019 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1,600-acre project , failed to secure a permit from the Culpepper BOS , the developer walked away , but has since expressed an interest in renewing its application .
That , however , was before Maroon Solar ’ s setback .
The county did approve a smaller , 1,000-acre project in 2018 , known as Greenwood Solar .
However , the project ’ s neighbors sued , and Greenwood Solar has been tied up in litigation .
Meanwhile , the original permit has expired .
More Battles Nationwide Set to Come With an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that will go out of its way to promote giant wind and solar projects , battles such as just took place in central Virginia will become commonplace across the country .
The Culpepper example , shows , however , that these projects that deface the countryside , create serious environmental cleanup problems , and ultimately fail to deliver reliable energy can be stopped by determined citizens .

For the second time in 15 months, residents of rural Culpeper County, Virginia have risen up against a proposed massive solar array project, forcing the would-be developers to withdraw their application to put the renewable energy facility in the county’s picturesque rolling farmlands.
North Carolina-based Strata Solar had planned to build the $200 million, 1,700-acre, 149 megawatts project on cleared timberland in southern Culpepper. The land on which the industrial-sized solar array was to be built was zoned agricultural in keeping with the rural character of the area.
Maroon Solar, the name the developer gave to the project, was supposed to be another step on the way to a “carbon-free” energy future, but local officials and nearby residents raised strong objections. The Culpepper County Board of Supervisors (BOS) evaluated the project and, on Nov. 12, held a well-attended, four-hour public hearing on a request by Strata for a conditional-use permit for Maroon Solar. While some supporters of renewable energy, joined by a few property-rights advocates, spoke out in favor of the project, far more of those present expressed alarm over Maroon Solar’s effect on natural resources, property values, and the area’s scenery.
Permit Request Denied
In the end, county officials did not approve the request for a permit due to the scope of the project. A week later, Strata abruptly withdrew its request to go ahead with the project. While the developer has the right to resubmit its application, it would have to start the whole process all over again. Not an appealing prospect.
Susan Ralston, president and founder of Citizens for Responsible Solar, was pleased to hear that the developer had yanked its request for a permit.
“The Planning Commission heard our appeals and their unanimous vote sent an important message that the current solar policy, regarding the size of the project and its impact on the rural character of the county, were important factors in denying Maroon’s application,” she said in an email to starexponent.com.
The apparent demise of Maroon Solar is similar to the fate that befell Cricket Solar, a project of California-based BaWa, in August 2019. After Cricket Solar, a proposed 1,600-acre project, failed to secure a permit from the Culpepper BOS, the developer walked away, but has since expressed an interest in renewing its application. That, however, was before Maroon Solar’s setback.
The county did approve a smaller, 1,000-acre project in 2018, known as Greenwood Solar. However, the project’s neighbors sued, and Greenwood Solar has been tied up in litigation. Meanwhile, the original permit has expired.
More Battles Nationwide Set to Come
With an administration set to take power in Washington that will go out of its way to promote giant wind and solar projects, battles such as just took place in central Virginia will become commonplace across the country. The Culpepper example, shows, however, that these projects that deface the countryside, create serious environmental cleanup problems, and ultimately fail to deliver reliable energy can be stopped by determined citizens.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-12-01--Movie Review:  I Am Greta

Movie Review:  I Am Greta

It is not easy being famous – especially if you are a child .
Greta Thunberg , a teenager from Sweden , knows this as well as anyone , and she admits as much during the just released documentary film by Hulu , I Am Greta , which chronicles one year of her life when she becomes the world ’ s best known political activist .
To be clear , this film is about the meteoric rise of Greta Thunberg .
It does not discuss science .
It is not about the veracity—or lack thereof—of man-made global warming .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate change assertions .
The film starts out with Greta , then age 15 , sitting by herself in front of the Parliament building in Stockholm , Sweden with a sign , “ School Strike for the Climate.
” It is fall 2018 , just prior to that nation ’ s elections where she hopes to have an impact .
People start to take notice of her , and she makes news .
Greta ’ s impact on the Swedish elections , the film shows shortly thereafter , is basically nil .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a newscaster is heard saying , as she intensely watches the returns from her home .
“ Politicians don ’ t have a single clue about this [ climate ] issue , ” Greta sighs .
Her efforts , though , are not in vain .
A United Nations official named Niclas Svenningsen of the UN Climate Secretariat soon calls to invite her to speak at the upcoming climate conference at Katowice , Poland in December .
This is Greta ’ s big break , and she will soon thereafter become widely known @ @ @ @ @ @ @ next to UN General Secretary Antonio Guterres himself , who listens politely to her brief and pointed remarks .
Before she spoke , the film shows her appalled that the conference is serving meat and dairy .
The film shows Greta ’ s subsequent travels throughout Europe in 2019 , including Brussels , where she visits the European Union ; Paris , where she meets with the President of France , Emmanuel Macron , who is congenial and charming ; and Rome , where she gets brief face time with Pope Francis walking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Schwarzenegger , also makes a vapid cameo appearance in a sit-down with her .
During her travels , Greta participates in protests to demand action on the climate , and she is the main attraction .
The crowd in Vatican square repeatedly chants “ Go Greta !
Save the planet !
” Her message is consistent : The planet ’ s tipping point is imminent ; climate change is an existential threat ; change is ( supposedly ) causing floods , hurricanes , droughts and deforestation ; species are dying ; carbon emissions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political leaders who “ failed us ” and are “ behaving like children.
” The film concludes with Greta ’ s triumphant arrival to New York City for the UN Climate Action Summit in September 2019 .
It shows excerpts of her well publicized “ how dare you ” speech , which was more petulant than prior occasions .
Her patience was wearing thin , evidently .
“ You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words , ” she says , and accused the planet ’ s political class @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by displaying the growing climate protests where 7 million people have participated , but that the world has failed to live up to the Paris Climate Accords .
It ’ s quite an amazing year , in fact , for Greta Thunberg .
Time magazine recognized her impact by making her “ Person of the Year ” for 2019 ( omitted from the film ) .
This film struck me in several ways that go beyond the extraordinary public appearances and rapid celebrity status attained by this teenager , especially since it came @ @ @ @ @ @ @ television show or movie , or in a rock band .
Greta Thunberg is a political activist , and very insightful for someone so young ( but for her narrow understanding of climate change ) .
She seems not at all wowed by famous and powerful people .
She sees though many in the political class by their lack of seriousness and hypocrisy on climate .
Her famous boat trip across the Atlantic Ocean seemed a publicity stunt , except she genuinely views air travel as anathema to fighting climate change , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It seems like politicians “ never heard of the climate crisis because they are not treating it like a crisis , ” she said .
“ All they want is to be spotlighted to make it look like they care as if they were doing something .
They know what to say ; they know what sells .
But in fact they ’ re doing nothing.
” Plenty of UN bureaucrats , politicians and celebrities in fact want to deal fatuously with climate change by curtailing fossil fuels and controlling the economy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that end , they are happy to be seen with–and to exploit–Greta .
Unlike most people , the moneyed and powerful will evade the resultant costs and disruption .
Lastly , the film provides a confirmation about Greta Thunberg that I ’ ve suspected and written about .
She is a sad and burdened figure to be pitied .
The film does not sugarcoat this , and contains several poignant , revealing moments , including being open about her Asperger ’ s .
This teenager really believes the world is threatened .
Asked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says , “ Why would I need an education if there is no future ?
” ( It should be noted the film later shows her academically excelling among her classmates . )
Greta admits , “ I don ’ t like making small talk with people or socializing .
I go quiet.
” Her interest in climate appears to have begun by watching a skewed , exploitive film in elementary school .
“ That was when I started getting depressed ; I got anxiety and stopped eating and stopped talking.
” Though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have any friends her age .
Rather , she bonds with her dog and her family ’ s horse .
While the film at times showed a mirthful side of her , she was mostly morose .
On the boat while crossing the Atlantic , she is in tears lamenting , “ It is such a responsibility .
I don ’ t want to have to do all this .
It ’ s too much for me , around the clock.
” This famous , but lonely , often unhappy individual , still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a long life ahead .
We should hope Greta Thunberg ’ s celebrity from climate hysteria does not ruin her adulthood as celebrity youth status did to so many others .

It is not easy being famous – especially if you are a child.
Greta Thunberg, a teenager from Sweden, knows this as well as anyone, and she admits as much during the just released documentary film by Hulu, I Am Greta, which chronicles one year of her life when she becomes the world’s best known political activist fighting climate change.
To be clear, this film is about the meteoric rise of Greta Thunberg. It does not discuss science. It is not about the veracity—or lack thereof—of man-made global warming. It makes no scientific or scholarly defense of climate change assertions.
The film starts out with Greta, then age 15, sitting by herself in front of the Parliament building in Stockholm, Sweden with a sign, “School Strike for the Climate.” It is fall 2018, just prior to that nation’s elections where she hopes to have an impact. People start to take notice of her, and she makes news.
Greta’s impact on the Swedish elections, the film shows shortly thereafter, is basically nil. The environment was not a high priority, a newscaster is heard saying, as she intensely watches the returns from her home.
“Politicians don’t have a single clue about this [climate] issue,” Greta sighs.
Her efforts, though, are not in vain. A United Nations official named Niclas Svenningsen of the UN Climate Secretariat soon calls to invite her to speak at the upcoming climate conference at Katowice, Poland in December. This is Greta’s big break, and she will soon thereafter become widely known. At the conference, she sits next to UN General Secretary Antonio Guterres himself, who listens politely to her brief and pointed remarks. Before she spoke, the film shows her appalled that the conference is serving meat and dairy.
The film shows Greta’s subsequent travels throughout Europe in 2019, including Brussels, where she visits the European Union; Paris, where she meets with the President of France, Emmanuel Macron, who is congenial and charming; and Rome, where she gets brief face time with Pope Francis walking by. Former A-list actor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, also makes a vapid cameo appearance in a sit-down with her.
During her travels, Greta participates in protests to demand action on the climate, and she is the main attraction. The crowd in Vatican square repeatedly chants “Go Greta! Save the planet!” Her message is consistent: The planet’s tipping point is imminent; climate change is an existential threat; change is (supposedly) causing floods, hurricanes, droughts and deforestation; species are dying; carbon emissions must be reduced immediately. She rebukes political leaders who “failed us” and are “behaving like children.”
The film concludes with Greta’s triumphant arrival by sailboat to New York City for the UN Climate Action Summit in September 2019. It shows excerpts of her well publicized “how dare you” speech, which was more petulant than prior occasions. Her patience was wearing thin, evidently. “You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words,” she says, and accused the planet’s political class of “betrayal.”
The film ends by displaying the growing climate protests where 7 million people have participated, but that the world has failed to live up to the Paris Climate Accords. It’s quite an amazing year, in fact, for Greta Thunberg. Time magazine recognized her impact by making her “Person of the Year” for 2019 (omitted from the film).
This film struck me in several ways that go beyond the extraordinary public appearances and rapid celebrity status attained by this teenager, especially since it came about not for being on a hit television show or movie, or in a rock band.
Greta Thunberg is a political activist, and very insightful for someone so young (but for her narrow understanding of climate change). She seems not at all wowed by famous and powerful people. She sees through many in the political class by their lack of seriousness and hypocrisy on climate. Her famous boat trip across the Atlantic Ocean seemed a publicity stunt, except she genuinely views air travel as anathema to fighting climate change, in contrast to every other celebrity climate activist.
It seems like politicians “never heard of the climate crisis because they are not treating it like a crisis,” she said. “All they want is to be spotlighted to make it look like they care as if they were doing something. They know what to say; they know what sells. But in fact they’re doing nothing.”
Plenty of UN bureaucrats, politicians and celebrities in fact want to deal fatuously with climate change by curtailing fossil fuels and controlling the economy and lifestyles of everyone else. To that end, they are happy to be seen with–and to exploit–Greta. Unlike most people, the moneyed and powerful will evade the resultant costs and disruption.
Lastly, the film provides a confirmation about Greta Thunberg that I’ve suspected and written about. She is a sad and burdened figure to be pitied. The film does not sugarcoat this, and contains several poignant, revealing moments, including being open about her Asperger’s.
Greta’s interest in climate appears to have begun by watching a skewed, exploitive film in elementary school. “That was when I started getting depressed; I got anxiety and stopped eating and stopped talking.” This teenager really believes the world is threatened. Asked about not being in school, she says, “Why would I need an education if there is no future?” (It should be noted the film later shows her academically excelling among her classmates.)
Though esteemed worldwide, Greta seems not to have any friends her age. Rather, she bonds with her dog and her family’s horse. Greta admits, “I don’t like making small talk with people or socializing. I go quiet.” While the film at times showed a mirthful side of her, she was mostly morose. On the boat while crossing the Atlantic, she is in tears lamenting, “It is such a responsibility. I don’t want to have to do all this. It’s too much for me, around the clock.”
This famous, but lonely, often unhappy individual, still only 17 years of age, has a long life ahead. We should hope Greta Thunberg’s fame from climate hysteria does not ruin her adulthood as celebrity youth status did to so many others.