committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-03-25--Fight virus not carbon

Fight virus not carbon

The vast sums proposed to be spent under dubious national Green New Deals should be spent instead on health care , especially virus prevention and protection .
This is the gist of an “ Open Letter to World Leaders ” from the Climate Intelligence Foundation .
Here is what CLINTEL says up front : “ Your Excellencies , compared to COVID-19 climate change is a non-problem !
It is based on immature computer models and it looks into the distant future .
In the current health emergency , however , your attention to the peoples ’ needs is today !
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ your zero carbon emission ambition in a time that the world is dealing with a deadly global crisis .
Yes , there is an emergency , but it is NOT climate.
” CLINTEL specifically speaks to the leaders of the UN and EU , saying “ People need an inspiring narrative that promises them a hopeful future .
Today , for instance , it is totally inappropriate that the billion-dollar Green New Deal focused on climate is still on the agenda of leaders such as Mr. Antonio Guterres of the UN and Mr. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the EU ’ s case green funds could begin to flow to the virus crisis almost immediately .
There is a hundred billion euros of European Green Deal money that could be instantly reprogrammed .
Listen to this : “ The EU will also provide financial support and technical assistance to help people , businesses and regions that are most affected by the move towards the green economy .
This is called the Just Transition Mechanism and will help mobilise at least €100 billion over the period 2021-2027 in the most affected regions.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mechanism ‘ green economy ’ by ‘ corona crisis ’ .
All the EU has to do is abandon this mindless transition to a so-called “ green economy ” .
It would result in a very poor economy with very low returns .
Overall the European Green Plan ( EGP ) proposes spending a trillion euros on a foolish attempt to change the global climate .
CLINTEL says it would be far wiser to spend that money on greatly improving health care , with priority to virus protection .
In reality the EGP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as would the U.S. Green New Deal endorsed by the Democrat presidential candidates .
Candidate Bernie Sanders pegs his pet version at $ 11 trillion , which is still way low .
Estimates run to $ 91 trillion .
Some of that spending should go to upgrading the health care system , while the rest just goes way without harming the economy .
The Democrats should endorse CLINTEL ’ s call for action instead of the foolish Green New Deal .
More broadly , the UN pushes all of the nations in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , preferably as soon as the Glasgow climate summit in November .
Now it is clear that the UN has the very wrong focus , already for decades .
Instead the world needs to fix the present virus problem and prepare for the next .
Again , global warming is a non-problem .
The economic crisis due to the corona pandemic will hit all countries , including those with relatively small virus outbreaks .
With proper prevention and response systems in place there is no reason to have these economic disasters being escalated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the world leaders is : “ To revive the global economy don ’ t further increase government debts .
Instead , apply the money intended for your costly Green New Deal to the present needs of people and society .
Call it the COVID-19 RECOVERY PLAN .
Be aware that in today ’ s crisis the conjectural policy of CO2 reduction is highly counterproductive !
” The letter ’ s eloquent summary statement says it all : “ The world is moving to an open global economy of ten billion people .
Top @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a global health system that makes any pandemic less catastrophic .
Considering COVID-19 , climate alarmists and climate critics should admit that global warming is a non-problem .
Therefore , stop fighting , step over your own shadow and work together against the deadly virus .
In this tough battle we need each other !
” The full letter is here : https : //clintel.org/message-clintel-fight-virus-not-carbon/ The health emergency is real ; the climate emergency is constructed .

The vast sums proposed to be spent under dubious national Green New Deals should be spent instead on health care, especially virus prevention and protection. This is the gist of an “Open Letter to World Leaders” from the Climate Intelligence Foundation.
Here is what CLINTEL says up front: “Your Excellencies, compared to COVID-19 climate change is a non-problem! It is based on immature computer models and it looks into the distant future. In the current health emergency, however, your attention to the peoples’ needs is today! Please, don’t continue pushing your zero carbon emission ambition in a time that the world is dealing with a deadly global crisis. Yes, there is an emergency, but it is NOT climate.”
CLINTEL specifically speaks to the leaders of the UN and EU, saying “People need an inspiring narrative that promises them a hopeful future. Today, for instance, it is totally inappropriate that the billion-dollar Green New Deal focused on climate is still on the agenda of leaders such as Mr. Antonio Guterres of the UN and Mr. Frans Timmermans of the EU.”
In the EU’s case green funds could begin to flow to the virus crisis almost immediately. There is a hundred billion euros of European Green Deal money that could be instantly reprogrammed. Listen to this: “The EU will also provide financial support and technical assistance to help people, businesses and regions that are most affected by the move towards the green economy. This is called the Just Transition Mechanism and will help mobilise at least €100 billion over the period 2021-2027 in the most affected regions.” Hence, just replace in the Mechanism ‘green economy’ by ‘corona crisis’.
See https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en
All the EU has to do is abandon this mindless transition to a so-called “green economy”. It would result in a very poor economy with very low returns. Overall the European Green Plan (EGP) proposes spending a trillion euros on a foolish attempt to change the global climate. CLINTEL says it would be far wiser to spend that money on greatly improving health care, with priority to virus protection.
In reality the EGP would cost many trillions of dollars, as would the U.S. Green New Deal endorsed by the Democrat presidential candidates. Candidate Bernie Sanders pegs his pet version at $11 trillion, which is still way low. Estimates run to $91 trillion. Some of that spending should go to upgrading the health care system, while the rest just goes way without harming the economy. The Democrats should endorse CLINTEL’s call for action instead of the foolish Green New Deal.
More broadly, the UN pushes all of the nations in the world to adopt expensive zero carbon plans, preferably as soon as the Glasgow climate summit in November. Now it is clear that the UN has the very wrong focus, already for decades. Instead the world needs to fix the present virus problem and prepare for the next. Again, global warming is a non-problem. The economic crisis due to the corona pandemic will hit all countries, including those with relatively small virus outbreaks. With proper prevention and response systems in place there is no reason to have these economic disasters being escalated.
CLINTEL’s strong advice to the world leaders is: “To revive the global economy don’t further increase government debts. Instead, apply the money intended for your costly Green New Deal to the present needs of people and society. Call it the COVID-19 RECOVERY PLAN. Be aware that in today’s crisis the conjectural policy of CO2 reduction is highly counterproductive!”
The letter’s eloquent summary statement says it all: “The world is moving to an open global economy of ten billion people. Top priority must be given to significant investments in a global health system that makes any pandemic less catastrophic. Considering COVID-19, climate alarmists and climate critics should admit that global warming is a non-problem. Therefore, stop fighting, step over your own shadow and work together against the deadly virus. In this tough battle we need each other!”
The full letter is here: https://clintel.org/message-clintel-fight-virus-not-carbon/
The health emergency is real; the climate emergency is constructed.
Fight virus, not carbon.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-03-26--Appeals court overturns Obama-era ESA  designation of “critical habitat” for jaguars

In a significant decision involving the Endangered Species Act ( ESA ) , the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals March 17 ruled that the U.S .
Fish & Wildlife Service ’ s ( FWS ) 2014 designation of 764,207 acres ( about 115 square miles ) of land in Arizona and New Mexico as “ critical habitat ” for the jaguar was “ arbitrary and capricious ” and declared FWS ’ s action illegal .
The designation of critical jaguar habitat by the Obama FWS was challenged by the New Mexico Farm and Livestock Bureau , New Mexico Cattle Growers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Federal Lands Council .
In addition to the Interior Department ’ s FWS , the ultimately victorious New Mexico groups named the Arizona-based Center for Biological Diversity in the suit .
The plaintiffs were represented by the Pacific Legal Foundation ( PLF ) .
As pointed out by PLF , the illegal designation obstructed ranchers from getting grazing permits and to build corrals , fences , and stock ponds , even though only a few jaguars have been seen in New Mexico in the past several decades .
The designation also created fire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Forest .
The court ’ s decision comes after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year in Weyerhaeuser v. U.S .
Fish and Wildlife Service that in order to designate property as critical habitat , agencies must prove that the area is both habitat and critical to the conservation of species .
The jaguar ( Panthera onca ) is the largest native cat in the New World and the third-largest in the world , behind the tiger and the lion .
Adult males weigh in at a stately 250 pounds .
The jaguar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ northern Argentina in South America through much of Central America and Mexico , with occasional reports of young , free-ranging males being spotted in parts of the southwestern United States .
FWS ’ s history with the jaguar dates to 1972 when the agency listed the creature as a foreign endangered species under the Endangered Species Conservation Act , a precursor to the ESA .
After the ESA became law in 1973 , the fate of the jaguar languished for four decades until the Obama FWS issued a final rule designating critical habitat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clear whether the Center for Biological Diversity will appeal the decision to the Supreme Court , a risky step in light of last year ’ s Weyerhaeuser ruling .
The Trump administration no doubt welcomes the ruling because it is in line with the White House ’ s 2019 ESA reforms that , among other things , placed limitations on the designation of critical habitat .

In a significant decision involving the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals March 17 ruled that the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s (FWS) 2014 designation of 764,207 acres (about 115 square miles) of land in Arizona and New Mexico as “critical habitat” for the jaguar was “arbitrary and capricious” and declared FWS’s action illegal.
The designation of critical jaguar habitat by the Obama FWS was challenged by the New Mexico Farm and Livestock Bureau, New Mexico Cattle Growers’ Association, and the New Mexico Federal Lands Council. In addition to the Interior Department’s FWS, the ultimately victorious New Mexico groups named the Arizona-based Center for Biological Diversity in the suit. The plaintiffs were represented by the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF).
Consequences of the Illegal Designation
As pointed out by PLF, the illegal designation obstructed ranchers from getting grazing permits and to build corrals, fences, and stock ponds, even though only a few jaguars have been seen in New Mexico in the past several decades. The designation also created fire risks in fire-prone areas like Coronado National Forest.
The court’s decision comes after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year in Weyerhaeuser v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that in order to designate property as critical habitat, agencies must prove that the area is both habitat and critical to the conservation of species.
The jaguar (Panthera onca) is the largest native cat in the New World and the third-largest in the world, behind the tiger and the lion. Adult males weigh in at a stately 250 pounds. The jaguar’s range stretches from Paraguay and northern Argentina in South America through much of Central America and Mexico, with occasional reports of young, free-ranging males being spotted in parts of the southwestern United States.
FWS’s history with the jaguar dates to 1972 when the agency listed the creature as a foreign endangered species under the Endangered Species Conservation Act, a precursor to the ESA. After the ESA became law in 1973, the fate of the jaguar languished for four decades until the Obama FWS issued a final rule designating critical habitat for the cat.
In Line with Trump ESA Reforms
It is not clear whether the Center for Biological Diversity will appeal the decision to the Supreme Court, a risky step in light of last year’s Weyerhaeuser ruling. The Trump administration no doubt welcomes the ruling because it is in line with the White House’s 2019 ESA reforms that, among other things, placed limitations on the designation of critical habitat.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-04-16--Charting a free market approach to protecting Columbia’s rainforests

In the remote San Lucas Mountains of Columbia , earning enough money to survive can be difficult .
Many sadly turn to illegal activities such as farming coca to simply scratch out a living .
A cause like the “ environment , ” one might think , would be of low priority on most people ’ s list .
However , such thinking would be wrong .
A growing number of local citizens in the region are banding together to help protect this wild and exotic ecosystem from over abuse , and the results have been impressive .
The local @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is called WebConserva .
It is using a market-based approach that compensates farmers for pursuing a better , reasoned course in both making a living and protecting nature simultaneously .
Their program is simple .
As explained in a recent feature story in Reuters : “ [ The ] environmental group WebConserva is leading a first-of-its kind project bringing together farmers in San Lucas and roasters across Colombia to produce coffee from plantations that build protective borders around forests to shield the biodiversity within .
So far the project includes 10 families farming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of coffee , which the environmental group covers at a cost of around $ 77,000 a year .
WebConserva hopes eventually to include 200 families , which could protect 20,000 hectares ( 49,420 acres ) or more of virgin forest .
In San Lucas , the families pledge not to fell trees to expand their crops or to hunt the animals that depend on the forests for survival .
Depending on the quality of the product , they receive around $ 250 to $ 300 per 125 kilos ( 275 pounds ) of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country where prices regularly dip below production costs.
” Columbia is home to some 50,000 species of rare animals and plants , including ocelots , pumas , speckled bears , and jaguars .
Deforestation has been taking place at a rampant rate , with some 543,620 acres felled in 2017 alone .
While much of this is for needed economic development , which is a good thing , some of it is done with callous disregard for the environment .
Thus , a program like that employed by WeConserva is an important one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ occurs without harming endangered species , of which according to the International Union for Conservation says there are 1050 in Columbia alone .
For more information , read the full story here at Reuters .

In the remote San Lucas Mountains of Colombia, earning enough money to survive can be difficult. Many sadly turn to illegal activities such as farming coca to simply scratch out a living.
A cause like the “environment,” one might think, would be of low priority on most people’s list. However, such thinking would be wrong.
Share the facts at CFACT.org:
A growing number of local citizens in the region are banding together to help protect this wild and exotic ecosystem from over abuse, and the results have been impressive.
The local organization spearheading this free market environmental initiative is called WebConserva. It is using a market-based approach that compensates farmers for pursuing a better, reasoned course in both making a living and protecting nature simultaneously.
Their program is simple. As explained in a recent feature story in Reuters:
“[The] environmental group WebConserva is leading a first-of-its kind project bringing together farmers in San Lucas and roasters across Colombia to produce coffee from plantations that build protective borders around forests to shield the biodiversity within.
So far the project includes 10 families farming some 400 hectares (988 acres) of coffee, which the environmental group covers at a cost of around $77,000 a year. WebConserva hopes eventually to include 200 families, which could protect 20,000 hectares (49,420 acres) or more of virgin forest.
In San Lucas, the families pledge not to fell trees to expand their crops or to hunt the animals that depend on the forests for survival. Depending on the quality of the product, they receive around $250 to $300 per 125 kilos (275 pounds) of coffee, an enviable return in a country where prices regularly dip below production costs.”
Colombia is home to some 50,000 species of rare animals and plants, including ocelots, pumas, speckled bears, and jaguars. Deforestation has been taking place at a rampant rate, with some 543,620 acres felled in 2017 alone.
While much of this is for needed economic development, which is a good thing, some of it is done with callous disregard for the environment. Thus, a program like that employed by WeConserva is an important one to help ensure at least some development occurs without harming endangered species, of which according to the International Union for Conservation says there are 1050 in Colombia alone.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-04-17--Play ball!  Open the economy

Play ball!  Open the economy

It ’ s time to start the Major League Baseball season .
Fans can decide for themselves whether to attend a game and sit apart from each other .
The games also would be televised .
All other so-called “ non-essential ” businesses should re-open .
People can decide for themselves if they want to patronize a gift shop or restaurant .
At least more people would be working .
COVID-19 is not going to end solely by social distancing .
Rather , it will dissipate over a longer time period as people develop immunity from already being exposed .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the curve ” of cases ( or spreading out infections over time ) so as to minimize the simultaneous number of infected persons and mitigate the impact on the hospital system .
Otherwise , too many infected would overwhelm the ability to treat them .
It has worked , with some brief exceptions , such as the overcrowded hospital in Elmhurst , Queens , in New York City .
Hospital beds are now available in the COVID-19 hotspots , and ventilators are in plentiful supply .
During the 2017-18 season , 61,000 Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and an estimated 45 million people were infected .
The economy remained open .
The COVID-19 pandemic is projected to reach 60,000 deaths and we can not yet know the infection level until ubiquitous testing is implemented .
Hard restrictions on people should focus on elderly and those with underlying health conditions .
Younger people with no underlying health problems are more likely to get killed by or in an automobile than die of coronavirus .
Accordingly , it is time to open schools , too .
Americans also need to recover their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politicians have revealed their inner tyrant .
Gov .
Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan issued a stay-at-home order , which included bans on visiting friends and neighbors .
She also ordered stores not to sell “ non-essential ” products .
Lawsuits resulted , as did protests outside the Michigan statehouse in Lansing .
This governor also threatened physicians for using hydroxychloroquine to treat coronavirus .
Then there is the Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear .
He had a problem with people going to church on Easter Sunday – even on a “ drive-in ” basis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They were violating his stay-at-home order ; he was violating their First Amendment rights .
These two politicians are the latest examples of a power trip : when the going gets tough , constitutional freedoms be damned .
A re-opened U.S. economy would still take a long time to climb back .
But it must begin .
People can then decide for themselves where to shop , whether to eat out , or attend theater or a sports event .
At the very least , the country can avert an economic collapse , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expand COVID-19 testing .
There is risk .
At this writing , more than 32,000 Americans have died from ( or with ) COVID-19 .
This figure is tragic and increasing by more than 1,000 daily .
More than 22 million Americans are unemployed , and that is rising about one million daily .
As mobility increases , so will infections and the number of deaths .
But tens of thousands of lives also are at risk if this economic lockdown continues .
Perspective is needed .
Our nation makes so many tradeoffs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ notice because it is widely accepted .
Legal , prescription opioids help people in physical pain .
But they are addictive and killed nearly 15,000 Americans in 2018 , included among more than 67,000 drug-induced deaths that year .
Alcohol killed nearly 73,000 Americans in 2017 , more than twice the number in 1999 , and 50 percent higher as a ratio of population .
Prohibition of alcohol was attempted a century ago , and ended in 1933 .
Few if anyone seriously thinks it should be reinstated , even though tens of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , more states are legalizing marijuana for recreational use , not just medicinal .
More DUI-related deaths will result .
On our nation ’ s highways , nearly 39,000 people died in 2019 .
More people would live if more people drove slower .
Should we reduce—and enforce—the speed limit below 65 ?
The federal government in the mid 1970 ’ s imposed a national highway speed limit of 55 .
Two decades later , that experiment was scrapped .
Time and money were the reasons , and public support remains .
Green @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thousands more auto-related deaths resulting from fuel efficient , lighter cars by supporting ever higher corporate average fuel economy government mandates .
The Trump administration and governors are considering reopening their economies very soon , and preparing new social distancing guidelines as more people move about .
We need to stop the economic hemorrhaging , and we need our constitutional freedom back , especially from those politicians drunk on their emergency powers .

It’s time to start the Major League Baseball season. Fans can decide for themselves whether they attend a game and sit apart from each other. The games also would be televised.
It is time to open so-called “non-essential” businesses. People can decide for themselves if they want to patronize a gift shop or restaurant. At least more people would be working.
COVID-19 is not going to end by social distancing. Rather, it will dissipate over time when enough people develop immunity from already being exposed.
Social distancing was originally about “flattening the curve” of cases (or spreading out the rate of infection over time) so as to minimize the simultaneous number of infected persons and mitigate the impact on the hospital system. Otherwise, too many infected would overwhelm the ability to treat them. It has worked, with some brief exceptions, such as the overcrowded hospital in Elmhurst, Queens, in New York City. Hospital beds are now available in the COVID-19 hotspots, and ventilators are in plentiful supply.
During the 2017-18 season, 61,000 Americans died of influenza, 808,000 were hospitalized and an estimated 45 million people were infected. The economy remained open. The COVID-19 pandemic is projected to reach 60,000 deaths.
Restrictions on people should focus on elderly and those with underlying health conditions. Younger people with no underlying health problems are more likely to get killed by or in an automobile than die of coronavirus. Accordingly, the schools should re-open, too.
During this social distancing lock-down, our liberties have been assaulted as some politicians have revealed their inner tyrant.
Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan issued a stay-at-home order, which included bans on visiting friends and neighbors. She also ordered stores not to sell “non-essential” products. Lawsuits resulted, as did protests outside the Michigan statehouse in Lansing. The governor also threatened doctors who prescribed hydroxychloroquine.
Then there is the Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear. He had a problem with people going to church on Easter Sunday – even on a “drive-in” basis where people remained in their cars. They were violating his stay-at-home order; he was violating their First Amendment rights.
These two politicians are latest examples of a power trip: when the going gets tough, constitutional freedoms be damned.
Opening the U.S. economy would still take a long time for it to recover. But it must begin. People can then decide for themselves where to shop, whether to eat out, or attend theater or a sports event. At the very least, the country can avert an economic collapse, maintain social distancing and continue to expand COVID-19 testing.
There is risk. At this writing, more than 32,000 Americans have died from (or with) COVID-19. This tragic figure is increasing by at least 1,000 daily. Also, there are 22 million Americans unemployed, which is rising by about one million daily. As mobility increases, so will infections and the number of deaths. But tens of thousands of lives also are at risk if this economic lockdown continues. Balance and perspective are needed.
Our nation makes so many tradeoffs between economics and death, we hardly notice because they are widely accepted.
Legal, prescription opioids help people in physical pain. But they are addictive and killed nearly 15,000 Americans in 2018, included among more than 67,000 drug-induced deaths that year.
Alcohol killed nearly 73,000 Americans in 2017, more than twice the number from 1999, and 50 percent higher as a ratio of population. Prohibition of alcohol was attempted a century ago, and ended in 1933. Few if anyone seriously think it should be reinstated, even though tens of thousands of people die annually. Instead, more states are legalizing marijuana for recreational use, not just medicinal. More people will die of DUI-related deaths as a result.
On our nation’s highways, nearly 39,000 people died in 2019. Fewer people would die if more people drove slower. Should we reduce—and enforce—the speed limit below 65? This idea is nowhere under consideration. The federal government in the mid 1970’s imposed a national highway speed limit of 55. Two decades later, that policy was scrapped. Time and money are the basic reasons; and the public supports speed limits higher than 65.
Green organizations have long been willing to accept thousands more roadway deaths resulting from fuel efficient, lighter cars by supporting ever higher corporate average fuel economy mandates imposed by the government.
The Trump administration and governors are considering reopening their economies, and are preparing new social distancing guidelines as more people move about. We need to stop the economic hemorrhaging, and we need our constitutional freedom back, especially from those politicians drunk on their emergency powers.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-04-17--Robert Bryce: Responding to the Terawatt challenge

In chapter 16 of his seminal book , A Question of Power : Electricity and the Wealth of Nations , Austin-based futurist Robert Bryce speaks of “ the Terawatt Challenge ” – a term coined by the late Nobel laureate Richard Smalley .
Smalley posited that if we can provide sufficient electricity to all the peoples of the world , we can eliminate the massive problems of food security , water quality , poverty , and a clean environment .
Bryce solemnly points out that as a world , we are far from that goal .
But we can get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Pipe Dreams : Greed , Ego , and the Death of Enron , was named one of the best nonfiction books of 2002 , traces the history of harnessed electricity from Benjamin Franklin through Tesla , Edison , and Westinghouse – and the much less well known but equally important Frank Julian Sprague , who developed electric elevator motors ( enabling skyscrapers ) and the nation ’ s first electric rail system .
He next illustrates how Franklin Roosevelt brought affordable electricity to rural America and oversaw construction of massive dams that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Washington State .
It was FDR , Bryce notes , who in 1932 proclaimed that , “ Electricity is no longer a luxury ; it is a definite necessity.
” Bryce then hits us with the uses the stark fact is that roughly 3.3 billion people ( 45 percent of humanity ) live in places where annual per capita electricity consumption is less than 1,000 kilowatt-hours per year ( kWh/yr ) – about what his home refrigerator uses .
These are the Unplugged .
“ Low-Watt ” countries comprise another 2.7 billion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only 19 percent live in “ High-Watt ” countries ( over 4,000 kWh/yr ) – the threshold deemed by Dr. Alan Pasternak as the key dividing line below which countries can not improve their Human Development Index .
A major barrier , therefore , to electricity sufficiency for the Unplugged – and even the Low-Watt – nations is the lack of societal integrity , capital investment , and affordable fuel .
Yet , to ensure that all of humanity can reach its full potential ( including liberating women from drudgery and freeing them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) requires that the human right to electricity is universally available .
That is the goal – but how do we get there ?
An essential component of societal integrity is that governments enforce the rule of law .
The freest and wealthiest countries are those where factions share political and economic power , whereas in the poorest countries the elites organize society for their own benefit at the expense of the vast mass of people .
Capital – and fuel – are much easier to obtain in a free society .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that , at least since the Korean conflict , the U.S. military strategy has begun with sustained attacks on the enemy country ’ s electricity infrastructure .
The idea was to lower public morale by removing the comforts brought by electricity , but nowhere has this policy been effective .
Burning down a village to save it never really connects with those whose villages are being burned .
To illustrate the magnitude of the gap between Unplugged and High-Watt nations , Bryce chronicles the meteoric rise of the Giant Five – Alphabet ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Facebook , and Microsoft – all of whom consume more electricity than many entire countries .
Financial services , from Visa to bitcoin , have giant electricity appetites , as does the marijuana industry .
These businesses all know , from experience , the cost that electricity blackouts impose on them – and their customers .
Both weather and sabotage threaten the integrity of the electric grid , but the greater threat is the folly of those who believe that wind and solar alone can provide sufficient electric energy for a high-tech society @ @ @ @ @ @ @ billions .
Bryce chronicles how four factors – cost , storage , scale , and land use — prevent renewables from taking over our energy and power systems .
Electricity prices are soaring in countries like Germany , which panicked after Fukushima and began shuttering its nuclear power plants .
A third of German businesses , Bryce notes , see high electricity costs as threats to their viability .
Rising electricity costs following enactment of Ontario ’ s Green Energy Act led to political defeat for the Liberal Party and the rescission of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ California , civil rights leaders have filed a lawsuit , now working its way through the legal system , claiming that the state ’ s climate policies discriminate against minority and low-income consumers .
Bryce ’ s reporting suggests that the elitists who are pushing renewable energy – like despots in broken ( Low-Watt or Unplugged ) countries – ignore the poor and middle class and treat rural areas as if they were uninhabited or just irrelevant as they pursue unattainable goals that heavily burden taxpayers while threatening electricity reliability .
To meet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , for example , will require massive increases in costly electric storage because of seasonal variation in wind and solar electricity generation .
Green energy growth today can not even keep up with the increase in global electricity demand , let alone replace all conventional power .
But the final nail in the renewables coffin is land use .
Bryce cites multiple studies showing that an all-wind grid would mean turbine farms would cover a tenth of the nation ’ s total land .
Rural counties , frustrated by the indifference of urban @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health and wildlife , are fighting wind farms with renewed vengeance .
Giant solar arrays also present , as one reporter called it , “ a choice between a vanishing ecosystem and a push toward cleaner energy.
” Despite opposition by environmentalists , developing nations are rapidly turning to nuclear as a fuel for the future .
Bryce notes , it takes a New Deal like national commitment to provide both the political stability and financial backing to construct and operate large nuclear power plants economically .
High-Watt countries have imposed exorbitant permitting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ antinuclear zeal , limit their prospects for nuclear energy .
Natural gas , which thanks to fracking has become abundant and cheap , must , Bryce asserts , be a major part of the world ’ s electricity generation future .
Yet governments in High-Watt countries are already banning fracking , blocking new pipelines , and even demanding that citizens mothball their gas-burning appliances .
Despite all of the attacks on affordable , reliable fuels , Bryce is optimistic about the world ’ s ability and willingness to meet the Terawatt Challenge and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrecking the biosphere .
Consider that in little over a century , a fifth of the world has gone from no electricity to High-Watt usage and another three-eighths is somewhat electrified .
The humanist response to the Terawatt Challenge , Bryce asserts , is to empower the billions who are living in the dark to come into the bright light of modernity and progress .
This will require societal integrity , massive infusions of capital , and the right choices of fuels .
Bryce admits that electrifying the world will take time .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ be done .

“Electricity has become a human right.” – Robert Bryce
In chapter 16 of his seminal book, A Question of Power: Electricity and the Wealth of Nations, Austin-based futurist Robert Bryce speaks of “the Terawatt Challenge” – a term coined by the late Nobel laureate Richard Smalley.
Smalley posited that if we can provide sufficient electricity to all the peoples of the world, we can eliminate the massive problems of food security, water quality, poverty, and a clean environment. And Bryce solemnly points out that as a world, we are far from that goal.
But we can get there.
Bryce, whose first book, Pipe Dreams: Greed, Ego, and the Death of Enron, was named one of the best nonfiction books of 2002, traces the history of harnessed electricity from Benjamin Franklin through Tesla, Edison, and Westinghouse – and the much less well known but equally important Frank Julian Sprague, who developed electric elevator motors (enabling skyscrapers) and the nation’s first electric rail system.
He next illustrates how Franklin Roosevelt brought affordable electricity to rural America and oversaw construction of massive dams that provided cheap electricity from Tennessee to Nevada to Washington State. It was FDR, Bryce notes, who in 1932 proclaimed that, “Electricity is no longer a luxury; it is a definite necessity.”
Bryce then hits us with the uses the stark fact is that roughly 3.3 billion people (45 percent of humanity) live in places where annual per capita electricity consumption is less than 1,000 kilowatt-hours per year (kWh/yr)– about what his home refrigerator uses. These are the Unplugged.
“Low-Watt” countries comprise another 2.7 billion (37 percent) people, while only 19 percent live in “High-Watt” countries (over 4,000 kWh/yr) – the threshold deemed by Dr. Alan Pasternak as the key dividing line below which countries cannot improve their Human Development Index.
A major barrier, therefore, to electricity sufficiency for the Unplugged – and even the Low-Watt – nations is the lack of societal integrity, capital investment, and affordable fuel. Yet, to ensure that all of humanity can reach its full potential (including liberating women from drudgery and freeing them to develop their innate skills and talents) requires that the human right to electricity is universally available.
That is the goal – but how do we get there?
An essential component of societal integrity is that governments enforce the rule of law. The freest and wealthiest countries are those where factions share political and economic power, whereas in the poorest countries the elites organize society for their own benefit at the expense of the vast mass of people. Capital – and fuel – are much easier to obtain in a free society.
But there can be complications. Bryce notes that, at least since the Korean conflict, the U.S. military strategy has begun with sustained attacks on the enemy country’s electricity infrastructure. The idea was to lower public morale by removing the comforts brought by electricity, but nowhere has this policy been effective. Burning down a village to save it never really connects with those whose villages are being burned.
To illustrate the magnitude of the gap between Unplugged and High-Watt nations, Bryce chronicles the meteoric rise of the Giant Five – Alphabet (Google), Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Microsoft – all of whom consume more electricity than many entire countries. Financial services, from Visa to bitcoin, have giant electricity appetites, as does the marijuana industry.
These businesses all know, from experience, the cost that electricity blackouts impose on them – and their customers. Both weather and sabotage threaten the integrity of the electric grid, but the greater threat is the folly of those who believe that wind and solar alone can provide sufficient electric energy for a high-tech society, let alone the world’s billions.
Bryce chronicles how four factors – cost, storage, scale, and land use — prevent renewables from taking over our energy and power systems. Electricity prices are soaring in countries like Germany, which panicked after Fukushima and began shuttering its nuclear power plants. A third of German businesses, Bryce notes, see high electricity costs as threats to their viability.
Rising electricity costs following enactment of Ontario’s Green Energy Act led to political defeat for the Liberal Party and the rescission of 758 renewable energy contracts. Even in California, civil rights leaders have filed a lawsuit, now working its way through the legal system, claiming that the state’s climate policies discriminate against minority and low-income consumers.
Bryce’s reporting suggests that the elitists who are pushing renewable energy – like despots in broken (Low-Watt or Unplugged) countries – ignore the poor and middle class and treat rural areas as if they were uninhabited or just irrelevant as they pursue unattainable goals that heavily burden taxpayers while threatening electricity reliability.
To meet California’s 80 percent renewable mandate, for example, will require massive increases in costly electric storage because of seasonal variation in wind and solar electricity generation. Green energy growth today cannot even keep up with the increase in global electricity demand, let alone replace all conventional power. But the final nail in the renewables coffin is land use.
Bryce cites multiple studies showing that an all-wind grid would mean turbine farms would cover a tenth of the nation’s total land. Rural counties, frustrated by the indifference of urban elites to the real-world impacts on human health and wildlife, are fighting wind farms with renewed vengeance. Giant solar arrays also present, as one reporter called it, “a choice between a vanishing ecosystem and a push toward cleaner energy.”
Despite opposition by environmentalists, developing nations are rapidly turning to nuclear as a fuel for the future. But, Bryce notes, it takes a New Deal like national commitment to provide both the political stability and financial backing to construct and operate large nuclear power plants economically. High-Watt countries have imposed exorbitant permitting and regulatory costs which, together with antinuclear zeal, limit their prospects for nuclear energy.
Natural gas, which thanks to fracking has become abundant and cheap, must, Bryce asserts, be a major part of the world’s electricity generation future. Yet governments in High-Watt countries are already banning fracking, blocking new pipelines, and even demanding that citizens mothball their gas-burning appliances.
Despite all of the attacks on affordable, reliable fuels, Bryce is optimistic about the world’s ability and willingness to meet the Terawatt Challenge and provide electricity to a hungry world without wrecking the biosphere. Consider that in little over a century, a fifth of the world has gone from no electricity to High-Watt usage and another three-eighths is somewhat electrified.
The humanist response to the Terawatt Challenge, Bryce asserts, is to empower the billions who are living in the dark to come into the bright light of modernity and progress. This will require societal integrity, massive infusions of capital, and the right choices of fuels. Bryce admits that electrifying the world will take time.
But it can – and must — be done.


“Demonizing CO2”

To obtain perspective on how minuscule a component of the atmosphere CO2 actually is , imagine that a slice of the Earth ’ s atmosphere containing 10,000 molecules of air were placed in a medium-sized basketball stadium , consisting of 10,000 seats .
The total number of CO2 fans sitting in that stadium – encompassing all known sources , – would be just four .
That ’ s it .
Four out of 10,000 .
And of those four CO2 fans , the number of them which were created by the burning of fossil fuels would be less than one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of that one , single fossil fuel CO2 molecule by the year 2050 – a single “ magjc malignant molecule ” – will be responsible for bringing about catastrophic warming of the planet .
One single fan , sitting in a stadium of 10,0000 people , will dictate the tragic outcome of the climate and the ruination of the Earth .
Many educated , rational people – overwhelmed by massive amounts of propaganda and misinformation regarding the purported evils of CO2 – now believe in this kind of thinking , even though it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ record , sound science , and the most basic common sense .
Several months ago , the Yale Alumni Association of Washington DC sponsored a lecture called “ Climate Change : What You Need to Know.
” I attended with about 100 fellow alumni ( ae ) of all ages , almost all of whom appeared to be fervent believers of the current climate orthodoxy .
At the end of the lecture , I posed the “ CO2 in the basketball court “ scenario to the lecturer , and asked why we should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power of CO2 .
His responsemeandered around the notions of “ scientific consensus ” , “ peer reviewed literature ” , “ precautionary principle ” , and other familiar talking points often offered by proponents of man-made global warming ( AGW ) .
In other words , he couldn ’ t answer the question .
After the lecture ended , several people from the audience rapidly approached me to explain what they ” knew ” to be the obvious answer to the question .
They explained that a single molecule of CO2 derived @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like a cancer cell , a poison pill , or a cyanide capsule buried in the human body , even a tiny portion of which would cause the host to die .
There it was : the demonization of CO2 – the sincere belief by a group of well educated , rational people that man-made CO2 molecules produced by burning fossil fuels are malignant , cancerous , and toxic .
I was somewhat surprised , but perhaps shouldn ’ t have been .
For years the mainstream media , the academic/consultant industrial complex @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been spreading , supporting , and promulgating the fiction that CO2 molecules derived from the combustion of fossil fuels are an evil , toxic material that must be removed , or at least radically reduced , from the face of the Earth if the planet hopes to survive.The finding by the Obama Environmental Protection Agency that CO2 is a “ pollutant ” is Exhibit A of this irrational group think .
Once again , how could such a spectacular fantasy consume the thinking of otherwise rational people ?
Sadly , history tells us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ group-think has happened before in our country .
It was called Prohibition , and the demonized substance was ethyl alcohol .
The Prohibition movement was so powerful and compelling that it succeeded in causing the 18th Amendment to the Constitution to be ratified in 1920 by 46 of the 48 States .
Fully 68 % of the House of Representatives , and 76 % of the US Senate voted in favor of the Amendment .
It was a masterpiece of Progressive social engineering .
First demonize the substance , then criminalize it .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ country , with many woeful consequences – crime , corruption , and the destruction of many legitimate businesses .
It took almost a generation before reason came to bear and the 21st Amendment to the Constitution was passed in 1933 , effectively abolishing Prohibition .
Why is the bogus theory of man-made global warming , like Prohibition , so appealing ?
For one , it gives the social moralist the opportunity to exhibit personal virtue , as well as intellectual superioty .
During Prohibition , virtue signaling was embodied by the “ T-Totaller @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adherence to this fashionable orthodoxy .
The AGW believer buys an electric car , eschews plastic straws , loudly denounces fossil fuels , and applauds industrial strength solar and wind farms .
The more opportunistic ones ride the great green gravy train of cash which fuels the Climate Alarmist movement .
Alarmism is also catnip for politicians of all stripes .
But what really engages modern day social moralists , and the crown jewel of virtue signaling , is the figment that they are “ saving the planet.
” What a noble cause @ @ @ @ @ @ @ save the planet ?
It is a grand and fatuous exercise in self deception .

To obtain perspective on how minuscule a component of the atmosphere CO2 actually is, imagine that a slice of the Earth’s atmosphere containing 10,000 molecules of air were placed in a medium-sized basketball stadium, consisting of 10,000 seats. The total number of CO2 fans sitting in that stadium – encompassing all known sources, – would be just four.
That’s it. Four out of 10,000. And of those four CO2 fans, the number of them which were created by the burning of fossil fuels would be less than one.
Climate Alarmists claim that the addition of that one, single fossil fuel CO2 molecule by the year 2050 – a single “magjc malignant molecule” – will be responsible for bringing about catastrophic warming of the planet.
One single fan, sitting in a stadium of 10,0000 people, will dictate the tragic outcome of the climate and the ruination of the Earth. Many educated, rational people – overwhelmed by massive amounts of propaganda and misinformation regarding the purported evils of CO2 –
now believe in this kind of thinking, even though it flies in the face of the historical record, sound science, and the most basic common sense.
I can provide a recent, personal example.
Several months ago, the Yale Alumni Association of Washington DC sponsored a lecture called “Climate Change: What You Need to Know.” I attended with about 100 fellow alumni(ae) of all ages, almost all of whom appeared to be fervent believers of the current climate orthodoxy. At the end of the lecture, I posed the “CO2 in the basketball court“ scenario to the lecturer, and asked why we should abandon common sense regarding the nature and power of CO2. His responsemeandered around the notions of “scientific consensus”, “peer reviewed literature”, “precautionary principle”, and other familiar talking points often offered by proponents of man-made global warming (AGW). In other words, he couldn’t answer the question.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-04-18--Covid 19: America can’t afford to wait on projections, models

We shouldn ’ t be too hard on modern-day techno-soothsayers for often- badly-failed prophesies ( sometimes they get it pretty close to right ) , neither should we trust them as infallible oracles for establishing enormously important government policies impacting expansive aspects of our national economy , society , and personal lives .
It would be impossible to provide two more dramatic illustrations of consequential model-based influences upon policies than those associated with the very real COVID-19 pandemic , and the purported climate change “ crisis.
” We ’ ve finally been hearing some very good news that early model-based @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fatal casualty numbers .
Though still tragically high , recall that the 60,000 U.S. deaths predicted today are a great deal more fortunate than the estimate of between 100,000 to 240,000 mortalities projected at President Trump ’ s March 31 White House Coronavirus Task Force briefing .
Key White House Coronavirus Task Force member Dr. Anthony Fauci explained the moving target projection dilemma , “ When someone creates a model , they put in various assumptions .
And the models are only as good and as accurate as the assumptions you put into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as the weeks go by , that might change .
We feed the data back into the models and relook at the models.
” Add to this , models are only as good as the number of variables they can handle , and the data quality for every variable .
Whereas no current model can be expected to factor in all of the hundreds of infection , treatment , death and other variables associated with COVID-19 , by comparison , the Earth ’ s climate is vastly more complex .
One of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ) ever got right was in the chapter titled “ Model Evaluation ” of their “ 2001 Summary Report for Policymakers.
” It confesses , “ In climate research and modeling , we should realize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system , and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.
” IPCC demonstrates their predictive incapability through their own consistently failed climate modeling results .
Comparing previous projections of their nearly one hundred different General Circulation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — the most accurate temperature measurements available — they don ’ t match up well at all with reality .
Most run more than 0.5 degree Fahrenheit above observed average temperatures , and where “ highest-ever ” records are quoted , they are typically mere hundredths of a degree above records from 50 to 80 years ago .
Whereas no informed person I know disputes the fact that the Northern Hemisphere has been warming in fits and starts since the end of the Little Ice Age in the mid-1800 ’ s , documented @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no accelerations in rates of sea level rise nor frequencies or severities of extreme weather episodes over more than the past century .
Nevertheless , draconian Green New Deal policy proposals based upon consistently overheated IPCC models call for banishing fossil fuels that provide 80 % of U.S. and global energy ; decimating essential , reliable electricity supplies ; closing down countless industries , companies and jobs ; and impoverishing our quality of life .
Particularly egregious , Climategate scandal emails revealed rampant climate recording and model manipulations .
As one scientist observed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be willing to make billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the projected regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate variability.
” Whereas IPCC has always been more about political science than climate , we should have no such qualms whatsoever regarding the full-blown dedication of many very competent medical research organizations that are now urgently scrambling to contain the coronavirus catastrophe .
This being said , modeling of constantly shifting geographic coronavirus outbreak trend data may be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ promising news here is that conditions in most parts of the nation are less dire than early models predicted .
Projections of the so-called Murray Model of the University of Washington ’ s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation have reportedly been changed substantially downward because their early modeling was based largely on data that came from China .
As stated , “ The time from implementation of social distancing to the peak of the epidemic in the Italy and Spain location is shorter than what was observed in Wuhan.
” The Murray @ @ @ @ @ @ @ report also noted that while its calculations accounted for population age structure , “ many other factors may influence trajectory : the prevalence of chronic lung disease , the prevalence of multi-morbidity , population density , use of public transport , and other factors that can influence the immune response.
” Unfortunately , decisions — such as when and how the country can emerge from this economically and socially destructive shutdown — can ’ t wait until perfect model data is possible .
By that time , recovery opportunities will be far too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our industries and businesses , for our society , and for the health of us all .
When models fail , we ’ ll just have to revert back to depending more on the old school sort of leadership with good common sense judgement that made America great in the first place .

We shouldn’t be too hard on modern-day techno-soothsayers for often- badly-failed prophesies (sometimes they get it pretty close to right), neither should we trust them as infallible oracles for establishing enormously important government policies impacting expansive aspects of our national economy, society, and personal lives.
It would be impossible to provide two more dramatic illustrations of consequential model-based influences upon policies than those associated with the very real COVID-19 pandemic, and the purported climate change “crisis.”
We’ve finally been hearing some very good news that early model-based coronavirus projections have proved to greatly exaggerated fatal casualty numbers.
Though still tragically high, recall that the 60,000 U.S. deaths predicted today are a great deal more fortunate than the estimate of between 100,000 to 240,000 mortalities projected at President Trump’s March 31 White House Coronavirus Task Force briefing.
Key White House Coronavirus Task Force member Dr. Anthony Fauci explained the moving target projection dilemma, “When someone creates a model, they put in various assumptions. And the models are only as good and as accurate as the assumptions you put into them. As we get more data, as the weeks go by, that might change. We feed the data back into the models and relook at the models.”
Add to this, models are only as good as the number of variables they can handle, and the data quality for every variable. Whereas no current model can be expected to factor in all of the hundreds of infection, treatment, death and other variables associated with COVID-19, by comparison, the Earth’s climate is vastly more complex.
One of the few predictions that the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ever got right was in the chapter titled “Model Evaluation” of their “2001 Summary Report for Policymakers.”
It confesses, “In climate research and modeling, we should realize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
IPCC demonstrates their predictive incapability through their own consistently failed climate modeling results. Comparing previous projections of their nearly one hundred different General Circulation Models (GCMs) with satellite records — the most accurate temperature measurements available — they don’t match up well at all with reality.
Most run more than 0.5 degree Fahrenheit above observed average temperatures, and where “highest-ever” records are quoted, they are typically mere hundredths of a degree above records from 50 to 80 years ago.
Whereas no informed person I know disputes the fact that the Northern Hemisphere has been warming in fits and starts since the end of the Little Ice Age in the mid-1800’s, documented records will show that there have been no accelerations in rates of sea level rise nor frequencies or severities of extreme weather episodes over more than the past century.
Nevertheless, draconian Green New Deal policy proposals based upon consistently overheated IPCC models call for banishing fossil fuels that provide 80% of U.S. and global energy; decimating essential, reliable electricity supplies; closing down countless industries, companies and jobs; and impoverishing our quality of life.
Particularly egregious, Climategate scandal emails revealed rampant climate recording and model manipulations. As one scientist observed, “It is inconceivable that policymakers will be willing to make billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the projected regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate variability.”
Whereas IPCC has always been more about political science than climate, we should have no such qualms whatsoever regarding the full-blown dedication of many very competent medical research organizations that are now urgently scrambling to contain the coronavirus catastrophe.
This being said, modeling of constantly shifting geographic coronavirus outbreak trend data may be as much art as science.
The promising news here is that conditions in most parts of the nation are less dire than early models predicted.
Projections of the so-called Murray Model of the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation have reportedly been changed substantially downward because their early modeling was based largely on data that came from China. As stated, “The time from implementation of social distancing to the peak of the epidemic in the Italy and Spain location is shorter than what was observed in Wuhan.”
The Murray Model’s March 26 study team report also noted that while its calculations accounted for population age structure, “many other factors may influence trajectory: the prevalence of chronic lung disease, the prevalence of multi-morbidity, population density, use of public transport, and other factors that can influence the immune response.”
Unfortunately, decisions — such as when and how the country can emerge from this economically and socially destructive shutdown — can’t wait until perfect model data is possible. By that time, recovery opportunities will be far too late; for our nation, for our industries and businesses, for our society, and for the health of us all.
When models fail, we’ll just have to revert back to depending more on the old school sort of leadership with good common sense judgement that made America great in the first place.
This article originally appeared at NewsMax


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-04-18--Checklist of Green Deal cost elements

Checklist of Green Deal cost elements

Green Deal proposals are springing up around the world .
The core concept is zero CO2 emissions via decarbonization .
The proponents of these Green Deals deliberately avoid cost estimates because the costs are horrendous .
To help force these huge costs out into the open I have developed the following simple checklist of Green Deal cost elements .
Any comprehensive cost estimate needs to address all of these elements , most of which are unbelievably expensive .
I have included some comments on the cost drivers as well .
Note that social elements like those in the Green New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . )
are not included .
My list is just about the cost of decarbonization .
4 .
In-building or facility distribution ( behind the meter ) Most existing buildings may need rewired for EVs .
Note : Electrification of transportation and other fossil fuel uses will dramatically increase the amount of electricity required to be generated , transmitted and distributed .
Use of biofuels and offsets , and their cost , are major unknowns .
Can not be electrified , except for short flights .
Can not be electrified , except for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mowers and portable generators .
May be redundant with zero emission generation .
Redundant if cars are zero emission .

Green Deal proposals are springing up around the world. The core concept is zero CO2 emissions via decarbonization. The proponents of these Green Deals deliberately avoid cost estimates because the costs are horrendous.
To help force these huge costs out into the open I have developed the following simple checklist of Green Deal cost elements. Any comprehensive cost estimate needs to address all of these elements, most of which are unbelievably expensive. I have included some comments on the cost drivers as well.
Note that social elements like those in the Green New Deal (free health care, etc.) are not included. My list is just about the cost of decarbonization.
Checklist of decarbonization cost elements (with comments)
A. Electric power grid
(with zero fossil fuel carbon emissions)
1. Generation (from central power plants)
Feasibility of CCS is a major unknown.
2. Transmission
Especially for widely distributed renewable sites.
3. Distribution
EV charging stations are a major addition.
4. In-building or facility distribution (behind the meter)
Most existing buildings may need rewired for EVs.
5. Generation behind the meter
Primarily solar.
Note: Electrification of transportation and other fossil fuel uses will dramatically increase the amount of electricity required to be generated, transmitted and distributed.
B. Transportation
Switch to EVs.
Use of biofuels and offsets, and their cost, are major unknowns.
1. Personal passenger vehicles
2. Medium trucks and vans (short haul)
3. Heavy trucks and busses
4. Trains
5. Airplanes
Cannot be electrified, except for short flights.
6. Ships
Cannot be electrified, except for short trips.
C. Industrial processes presently using fossil fuel combustion
Complete electrification
1. Steel making
2. Cement making
3. Refineries
4. Chemical plants
4. Plastic production from fossil fuels
5. Manufacturing
6. Commercial activity
7. Agriculture
8. Construction
D. Electrifying gas fired systems and equipment (non industrial)
1. Building heating systems
2. Equipment presently powered with internal combustion engines
From bulldozers to lawn mowers and portable generators.
3. Gas fired appliances,
Especially cook stoves and water heaters.
E. Energy efficiency
May be redundant with zero emission generation.
1. Buildings
2. Transportation
3. Industrial processes
F. Building public transit to reduce car usage
Redundant if cars are zero emission.
G. Transition support payments
Unemployment, training, relocation, etc.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-04-19--COVID 19 impacted businesses: Plead the Fifth

There was a lot of angst the day the government announced it had already allocated all of the $ 349 billion from the CARES Act ’ s Paycheck Protection Program ( PPP ) .
This was to be earmarked for forgivable loans to small businesses , and for good reason .
The money was supposed to provide life support to small businesses ( with fewer than 500 employees ) , but that ’ s not exactly what happened .
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is not on the job and has no plans to approve any further money for the program @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get billions more in funding for pet programs unrelated to the corona virus .
CBS News reported that the government sent billions to areas of the country with relatively few coronavirus cases .
Funding was also sent to companies in industries that have not been the hardest hit by the shutdown as well as those that aren ’ t small businesses at all .
You may have heard that Ruth ’ s Chris Steak Houses – with over 5,000 employees and $ 468 million in revenues in 2019 , walked away with $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of 50 publicly traded companies dipping into the pie .
According to economist Gregory Daco of Oxford Economics , “ The bigger firms were better equipped to get the Paycheck Protection loans , ” Daco said .
“ A family-run restaurant with less than 10 employees probably did not have the ability to act quickly enough to get a loan.
” Instead , as CBS reports , University of Chicago accounting professor Michael Minnis says that PPP loans “ appear to be going to the eligible firms most able to retain their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Minnis found few links between the biggest economic need during the corona crisis and where the PPP funds were allocated .
Frustrated businesses have already filed suit , alleging that the government-forced shutdown of their businesses constituted an unlawful “ taking ” of their property without just compensation or due process – both guarantees under the Fifth Amendment .
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has already ruled against three plaintiffs in Friends of Danny DeVito v. Wolf , though three of the seven justices , led by Chief Justice Thomas G. Saylor , filed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provide sufficient fodder for an appeal through the federal court system .
Precedent for the DeVito case includes Nat ’ l Amusements Inc. v. Borough of Palmyra ( 3d Cir .
2013 ) , in which the court of appeals relied on a 2002 Supreme Court case [ Tahoe-Sierra Pres .
Council , Inc. v. Tahoe Reg ’ l Planning Agency ] , which overturned a district court ruling and denied just compensation after two local moratoria essentially prevented any development in the Lake Tahoe area .
The Borough of Palmyra had closed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to safety concerns posed by unexploded munitions left behind at the former weapons testing facility site .
The Court thus stated , “ It is difficult to imagine an act closer to the heartland of a state ’ s traditional police power than abating the danger posed by unexploded artillery shells.
” Given those precedents , the Pennsylvania Supreme Court majority held that temporary moratoria on the use of the property to prevent danger to health and safety are not takings and thus do not require compensation under the federal or state constitutions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some significant objections to the finding .
Justice Saylor wrote , “ I find , however , that several material aspects of the petitioners ’ claims may involve issues of disputed fact .
And it also appears to me that some of the majority ’ s conclusions have mixed legal and factual overtones.
” He went on to state , that , “ while the majority stresses that such closure is temporary … this may in fact not be so for businesses that are unable to endure the associated revenue losses .
Additionally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be vast.
” Then Justice Saylor hit the home run , noting that even in the Tahoe case ( see above ) , the Supreme Court “ has admonished that the impermanent nature of a restriction ‘ should not be given exclusive significance one way or the other ’ in determining whether it is a proper exercise of police power.
” In Justice Saylor ’ s view , “ there seems to be a factual dynamic that should not be dismissed out of hand.
” Further stating , “ It is not clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ liquor stores and department stores are designated as ‘ non-life-sustaining ’ while beer distributors and other general merchandise stores are on the ‘ life-sustaining ’ list.
” In light of these anomalies , Justice Saylor concluded , “ the majority allocates too much weight to temporariness to defeat developed allegations of a lack of due process in the executive branch ’ s determination of which businesses must close and whose must remain closed.
” In reviewing the lengthy history of the Supreme Court ’ s machinations regarding the Fifth Amendment ’ s takings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Research Service states unequivocally that , “ No debate on the proper balance between private property rights and conflicting societal needs is complete without noting the Takings Clause.
” Beginning with the 1922 Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon , 260 U.S. 393 case , the Supreme Court extended the availability of takings actions from government appropriations and physical invasions of property to the mere regulation of property use .
In that case , the Court established a new precedent by finding that purely regulatory interferences with property rights can have economic and other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appropriations and physical invasions .
Though the record since 1922 has seen several shifts between government friendly and property owner friendly , the recent ( 2015 ) case Knick v. Township of Scott established that developers and other property owners suing local governments for alleged takings can file suit in either federal or state court .
Knick further established that a taking without concurrent compensation “ violates ” the Takings Clause .
As Christina Martin , part of the legal team that argued the Knick case before the Supreme Court , explains , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ previous cases that when government takes away all economic use of your property , it violates the Takings Clause .
After all , what good is title to land if you can ’ t make meaningful use of it ?
” Since both the federal government ( via the Paycheck Protection Program ) , state and even local governments ( via the specific shutdown lists ) are directly impacting business activities during the COVID 19 crisis , this is an important addition to the legal framework .
Moreover , the arguments by governments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power ’ has effectively denied affected businesses any avenue to Fifth Amendment due process .
Even in the face of clear evidence that at least SOME forced closures suggest the decisions have been arbitrary and capricious of which have resulted in violations of the Fourteenth Amendment ’ s right to equal protection under the law .
To date , government attempts to placate an angry public – via direct cash , forgivable loans ( but only so many ) , and so forth – have failed to address the fundamental issue of ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Americans who through no fault of their own have had their livelihoods threatened , temporarily suspended or effectively taken away forever , have no recourse but to shut up and take it .
Only by recognizing that everyone whose business has been forced to close , or even to substantially limit operations , is being negatively impacted by these government shutdowns .
By taking action to equally and justly compensate each affected business for such losses ( whether fully or partially ) will the United States be able to recover from this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Congress , by refusing to acknowledge these fundamental principles , has horribly acted to protect its members ( while not even taking a pay cut ) against the law – or at the very least , against justice , equitable treatment for every citizen , and against the very future of the Republic .
Yet no significant player even brought up the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment protections when devising schemes to placate an angry and frightened population .
This abomination can not stand if we are to continue to be a government of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FOR the people .

There was a lot of angst the day the government announced it had already allocated all of the $349 billion from the CARES Act’s Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). This was to be earmarked for forgivable loans to small businesses, and for good reason.
The money was supposed to provide life support to small businesses (with fewer than 500 employees), but that’s not exactly what happened. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is not on the job and has no plans to approve any further money for the program. At least not unless she can get billions more in funding for pet programs unrelated to the corona virus.
CBS News reported that the government sent billions to areas of the country with relatively few coronavirus cases. Funding was also sent to companies in industries that have not been the hardest hit by the shutdown as well as those that aren’t small businesses at all. You may have heard that Ruth’s Chris Steak Houses – with over 5,000 employees and $468 million in revenues in 2019 – walked away with $20 million. Yet it was only one of 50 publicly traded companies dipping into the pie.
According to economist Gregory Daco of Oxford Economics, “The bigger firms were better equipped to get the Paycheck Protection loans,” Daco said. “A family-run restaurant with less than 10 employees probably did not have the ability to act quickly enough to get a loan.”
Instead, as CBS reports, University of Chicago accounting professor Michael Minnis says that PPP loans “appear to be going to the eligible firms most able to retain their workforces, even before receiving assistance.” Minnis found few links between the biggest economic need during the corona crisis and where the PPP funds were allocated.
Frustrated businesses have already filed suit, alleging that the government-forced shutdown of their businesses constituted an unlawful “taking” of their property without just compensation or due process – both guarantees under the Fifth Amendment.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has already ruled against three plaintiffs in Friends of Danny DeVito v. Wolf, though three of the seven justices, led by Chief Justice Thomas G. Saylor, filed a concurring and dissenting opinion that should provide sufficient fodder for an appeal through the federal court system.
Precedent for the DeVito case includes Nat’l Amusements Inc. v. Borough of Palmyra (3d Cir. 2013), in which the court of appeals relied on a 2002 Supreme Court case [Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency], which overturned a district court ruling and denied just compensation after two local moratoria essentially prevented any development in the Lake Tahoe area.
The Borough of Palmyra had closed a flea market for five months due to safety concerns posed by unexploded munitions left behind at the former weapons testing facility site. The Court thus stated, “It is difficult to imagine an act closer to the heartland of a state’s traditional police power than abating the danger posed by unexploded artillery shells.”
Given those precedents, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court majority held that temporary moratoria on the use of the property to prevent danger to health and safety are not takings and thus do not require compensation under the federal or state constitutions. To wit Chief Justice Saylor expressed some significant objections to the finding.
Justice Saylor wrote, “I find, however, that several material aspects of the petitioners’ claims may involve issues of disputed fact. And it also appears to me that some of the majority’s conclusions have mixed legal and factual overtones.”
He went on to state, that, “while the majority stresses that such closure is temporary … this may in fact not be so for businesses that are unable to endure the associated revenue losses. Additionally, the damage to surviving businesses may be vast.”
Then Justice Saylor hit the home run, noting that even in the Tahoe case (see above), the Supreme Court “has admonished that the impermanent nature of a restriction ‘should not be given exclusive significance one way or the other’ in determining whether it is a proper exercise of police power.”
In Justice Saylor’s view, “there seems to be a factual dynamic that should not be dismissed out of hand.” Further stating, “It is not clear, why beer, wine, and liquor stores and department stores are designated as ‘non-life-sustaining’ while beer distributors and other general merchandise stores are on the ‘life-sustaining’ list.”
In light of these anomalies, Justice Saylor concluded, “the majority allocates too much weight to temporariness to defeat developed allegations of a lack of due process in the executive branch’s determination of which businesses must close and whose must remain closed.”
In reviewing the lengthy history of the Supreme Court’s machinations regarding the Fifth Amendment’s takings and due process clauses, the Congressional Research Service states unequivocally that, “No debate on the proper balance between private property rights and conflicting societal needs is complete without noting the Takings Clause.”
Beginning with the 1922 Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 case, the Supreme Court extended the availability of takings actions from government appropriations and physical invasions of property to the mere regulation of property use. In that case, the Court established a new precedent by finding that purely regulatory interferences with property rights can have economic and other consequences for property owners as significant as appropriations and physical invasions.
Though the record since 1922 has seen several shifts between government friendly and property owner friendly, the recent (2015) case Knick v. Township of Scott established that developers and other property owners suing local governments for alleged takings can file suit in either federal or state court. Knick further established that a taking without concurrent compensation “violates” the Takings Clause.
As Christina Martin, part of the legal team that argued the Knick case before the Supreme Court, explains, “the Supreme Court has held in previous cases that when government takes away all economic use of your property, it violates the Takings Clause. After all, what good is title to land if you can’t make meaningful use of it?”
Since both the federal government (via the Paycheck Protection Program), state and even local governments (via the specific shutdown lists) are directly impacting business activities during the COVID 19 crisis, this is an important addition to the legal framework.
Moreover, the arguments by governments that the shutdowns constitute a ‘necessary use of police power’ has effectively denied affected businesses any avenue to Fifth Amendment due process. Even in the face of clear evidence, at least SOME forced closures suggest the decisions have been arbitrary and capricious and have resulted in violations of the Fourteenth Amendment’s right to equal protection under the law.
To date, government attempts to placate an angry public – via direct cash, forgivable loans (but only so many), and so forth – have failed to address the fundamental issue of ‘equal protection’. [Such that] Thus, millions of Americans who through no fault of their own have had their livelihoods threatened, suspended temporarily, or effectively taken away forever, have no recourse but to shut up and take it.
We must recognize that everyone whose business has been forced to close, or even to substantially limit operations, is being negatively impacted by these government shutdowns. Only by acting to equally and justly compensate each affected business for such losses (whether fully or partially) will the United States be able to recover from this devastating blow to its economic system.
Congress, by refusing to acknowledge these fundamental principles, has horribly acted to protect its members (while not even taking a pay cut) against the law – or at the very least, against justice, against equitable treatment for every citizen, and against the very future of the Republic. Yet no significant player even brought up the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment protections when devising schemes to placate an angry and frightened population.
This abomination cannot stand if we are to continue to be a government of the people, by the people and FOR the people.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-04-19--New Wyoming law could let you buy meat directly from the ranch

As may be unknown to many consumers , it is actually illegal to buy cuts of meat directly from farmers and ranchers .
That ’ s right , if you wanted to go down the street to Rancher Joe and buy some juicy steak for dinner that night , that ’ s technically illegal .
Many of you have probably been doing this for a long time !
Well , we ’ re not here to rain on your parade…in fact , it may not be so illegal for that much longer , at least in Wyoming , that is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new amendment to a law called the “ Food Freedom Act ” would allow consumers to buy meat directly from ranchers .
This is illegal in the rest of the nation , mainly because it circumvents the U.S. Department of Agriculture ’ s meat safety inspection process .
Now , there are some nuances to the amendment that are worth explaining .
The way it would work , is that ranchers and farmers would be able to sell “ herd shares ” for their livestock , so that the animals are in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plan to purchase the meat .
That way , the consumers do not have to go through the federal meat inspection standards , since technically , it was their animal they are going to be eating .
Now , of course meat inspections are important .
But if a local rancher has trust within the community to handle animals and meat with care , it is up to the consumers participating in the herd share program whether they want to trust this process .
If you ’ re that concerned about the quality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on buying your meat from the grocery store .
No one is stopping you .
The so-called “ loophole ” here that Wyoming is looking to take advantage of has been on the books for a while .
In the Federal Meat Inspection Act , there are exemptions for custom slaughtering of animals by and for the animals ’ owners .
Keep in mind , this Wyoming amendment is only applicable to direct sales to private consumers .
A restaurant can not make a deal with a local rancher to then resell the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ share agreement .
Neither can a supermarket or any other store .
Kudos to Wyoming for thinking of unique , outside-the-box ways of reducing prices for customers to get fresh meat directly to the dinner table .
As our country recovers economically from the coronavirus crisis , we ’ ll need as many of these free market ideas as we can get .
You can read the full article at Reason.com .

As may be unknown to many consumers, it is actually illegal to buy cuts of meat directly from farmers and ranchers.
That’s right, if you wanted to go down the street to Rancher Joe and buy some juicy steak for dinner that night, that’s technically illegal.
Many of you have probably been doing this for a long time! Well, we’re not here to rain on your parade…in fact, it may not be so illegal for that much longer, at least in Wyoming, that is.
As reported by Reason, a new amendment to a law called the “Food Freedom Act” would allow consumers to buy meat directly from ranchers.
This is illegal in the rest of the nation, mainly because it circumvents the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s meat safety inspection process.
Now, there are some nuances to the amendment that are worth explaining. The way it would work, is that ranchers and farmers would be able to sell “herd shares” for their livestock, so that the animals are in a way, owned by those who eventually plan to purchase the meat. That way, the consumers do not have to go through the federal meat inspection standards, since technically, it was their animal they are going to be eating.
Now, of course meat inspections are important. But if a local rancher has trust within the community to handle animals and meat with care, it is up to the consumers participating in the herd share program whether they want to trust this process.
If you’re that concerned about the quality with a local rancher, then keep on buying your meat from the grocery store. No one is stopping you.
The so-called “loophole” here that Wyoming is looking to take advantage of has been on the books for a while. In the Federal Meat Inspection Act, there are exemptions for custom slaughtering of animals by and for the animals’ owners.
Keep in mind, this Wyoming amendment is only applicable to direct sales to private consumers. A restaurant cannot make a deal with a local rancher to then resell the meat they have obtained through their herd share agreement. Neither can a supermarket or any other store.
Kudos to Wyoming for thinking of unique, outside-the-box ways of reducing prices for customers to get fresh meat directly to the dinner table.
As our country recovers economically from the coronavirus crisis, we’ll need as many of these free market ideas as we can get.
You can read the full article at Reason.com.