committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-08-04--California loses thousands of jobs and crucial fuel as Marathon Matinez refinery goes idle

California just experienced a catastrophic loss from the COIVD-19 impact on the economy , as one of its major refineries , Marathon Martinez , has just announced it will be idled indefinitely .
With airlines and cruise ships virtually shut down , and vehicle transportation at an all-time low , the demand for fuels and petroleum derivative products manufactured from petroleum , are at an all-time low , the Northern California refinery , one of the largest in the state has just become a COVID victim .
We have all seen the photos of those foreign tankers with crude oil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the refineries had no use to manufacture products that were in limited demand .
With in-state crude oil production at an all-time low and going lower with pressure from the Governor , California ’ s dependency on other suppliers has increased imported crude oil from foreign countries from 5 percent in 1992 to 58 percent today of total consumption .
The imported crude oil costs California more than $ 60 million dollars a day , yes , every day , being paid to oil-rich foreign countries , depriving Californians of jobs , careers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looks very bleak for ALL 40 million residents of the state as the economy starts to recover back to near-normal fuel demands for the 5th largest economy in the world .
The near-normal daily energy use for California ’ s 145 airports ( inclusive of 33 military , 10 majors , and more than 100 general aviation ) was 13 million gallons of aviation fuels , or one-fifth of the nation ’ s jet fuel consumption .
California ’ s 31 million registered vehicles were consuming 10 million gallons a day of diesel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gasoline .
Collectively , that is about 65 million gallons of various fuels needed daily to run the CA economy , but now with Marathon Martinez out of business the future supply may not be able to meet the demand .
The immediate impact on the California economy will ONLY be 1,000 ’ s of jobs , most of Marathons ’ 700 employees and those of the companies that have been providing products and services to support the refinery .
Most of the 40 million residents of the state will not be impacted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recover from the pandemic , the economy demands for fuels will not be readily available .
With the state being an energy island and an energy hog , California is heavily dependent on in-state manufacturing for its fuel demands .
California is an “ energy island ” situated between the Pacific Ocean and the Arizona/Nevada Stateline , with no existing pipelines over the Sierra Nevada Mountains .
The state is inhabited by roughly 40 million citizens and is an energy hog demanding more than 65 million gallons of various transportation fuels daily from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) the 5th largest economy in the world .
Californians already pay almost $ 1.00 more per gallon of fuel than the rest of the country due to a ) the state sales tax per gallon which are some of the highest in the country ; b ) refinery reformatting costs per gallon ; c ) cap and trade program compliance costs per gallon ; d ) low-carbon fuel standard program compliance costs per gallon ; and e ) renewable fuels standard program compliance costs per gallon .
With the future supply unlikely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fuel prices will most likely rise further , just for the 40 million residents of the state .
Over the years , we have all seen the impact on California fuel prices when one of the few refinery manufacturers goes down for maintenance , or what the industry refers to as a ’ turnaround ’ .
Gas prices spike during these temporary outages , but with Marathon going idle indefinitely , the outage will NOT be temporary , but permanent .
Ironically , it wasn ’ t the bizarre laws and regulation from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agreements , or the other business unfriendly regulations , but COVID-19 that will impact the state for the foreseeable future .
Hispanics and African Americans that represent 45 % of the 40 million residents of California are some of the folks that can least afford more expensive energy in perpetuity and make California ’ s economic recovery from the pandemic even more challenging .

California just experienced a catastrophic loss from the COIVD-19 impact on the economy, as one of its major refineries, Marathon Martinez, has just announced it will be idled indefinitely.
With airlines and cruise ships virtually shut down, and vehicle transportation at an all-time low, the demand for fuels and petroleum derivative products manufactured from petroleum, are at an all-time low. The Northern California refinery, one of the largest in the state has just become a COVID victim.
We have all seen the photos of those foreign tankers with crude oil parked off the coast of California. This, as the refineries had no use to manufacture products that were in limited demand. With in-state crude oil production at an all-time low and going lower with pressure from the Governor, California’s dependency on other suppliers has increased imported crude oil from foreign countries from 5 percent in 1992 to 58 percent today of total consumption. The imported crude oil costs California more than $60 million dollars a day, yes, every day, being paid to oil-rich foreign countries, depriving Californians of jobs, careers, and business opportunities.
The future looks very bleak for ALL 40 million residents of the state as the economy starts to recover back to near-normal fuel demands for the 5th largest economy in the world. The near-normal daily energy use for California’s 145 airports (inclusive of 33 military, 10 majors, and more than 100 general aviation) was 13 million gallons of aviation fuels, or one-fifth of the nation’s jet fuel consumption. California’s 31 million registered vehicles were consuming 10 million gallons a day of diesel and 42 million gallons a day of gasoline.
Collectively, that is about 65 million gallons of various fuels needed daily to run the CA economy, but now with Marathon Martinez out of business the future supply may not be able to meet the demand.
The immediate impact on the California economy will ONLY be 1,000’s of jobs, most of Marathons’ 700 employees and those of the companies that have been providing products and services to support the refinery. Most of the 40 million residents of the state will not be impacted immediately, but later. As we recover from the pandemic, the economy demands for fuels will not be readily available.
With the state being an energy island and an energy hog, California is heavily dependent on in-state manufacturing for its fuel demands. California is an “energy island” situated between the Pacific Ocean and the Arizona/Nevada Stateline, with no existing pipelines over the Sierra Nevada Mountains. The state is inhabited by roughly 40 million citizens and is an energy hog demanding more than 65 million gallons of various transportation fuels daily from suppliers to drive (no pun intended) the 5th largest economy in the world.
Californians already pay almost $1.00 more per gallon of fuel than the rest of the country due to a) the state sales tax per gallon which are some of the highest in the country; b) refinery reformatting costs per gallon; c) cap and trade program compliance costs per gallon; d) low-carbon fuel standard program compliance costs per gallon; and e) renewable fuels standard program compliance costs per gallon. With the future supply unlikely to meet the states’ demands, fuel prices will most likely rise further, just for the 40 million residents of the state.
Over the years, we have all seen the impact on California fuel prices when one of the few refinery manufacturers goes down for maintenance, or what the industry refers to as a ’turnaround’. Gas prices spike during these temporary outages, but with Marathon going idle indefinitely, the outage will NOT be temporary, but permanent.
Ironically, it wasn’t the bizarre laws and regulation from the AQMD, or the union labor agreements, or the other business unfriendly regulations, but COVID-19 that will impact the state for the foreseeable future. Hispanics and African Americans that represent 45% of the 40 million residents of California are some of the folks that can least afford more expensive energy in perpetuity and make California’s economic recovery from the pandemic even more challenging.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-08-04--California loses thousands of jobs and crucial fuel as Marathon Martinez refinery goes idle

California just experienced a catastrophic loss from the COIVD-19 impact on the economy , as one of its major refineries , Marathon Martinez , has just announced it will be idled indefinitely .
With airlines and cruise ships virtually shut down , and vehicle transportation at an all-time low , the demand for fuels and petroleum derivative products manufactured from petroleum , are at an all-time low .
The Northern California refinery , one of the largest in the state has just become a COVID victim .
We have all seen the photos of those foreign tankers with crude oil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This , as the refineries had no use to manufacture products that were in limited demand .
With in-state crude oil production at an all-time low and going lower with pressure from the Governor , California ’ s dependency on other suppliers has increased imported crude oil from foreign countries from 5 percent in 1992 to 58 percent today of total consumption .
The imported crude oil costs California more than $ 60 million dollars a day , yes , every day , being paid to oil-rich foreign countries , depriving Californians of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The future looks very bleak for ALL 40 million residents of the state as the economy starts to recover back to near-normal fuel demands for the 5th largest economy in the world .
The near-normal daily energy use for California ’ s 145 airports ( inclusive of 33 military , 10 majors , and more than 100 general aviation ) was 13 million gallons of aviation fuels , or one-fifth of the nation ’ s jet fuel consumption .
California ’ s 31 million registered vehicles were consuming 10 million gallons a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a day of gasoline .
Collectively , that is about 65 million gallons of various fuels needed daily to run the CA economy , but now with Marathon Martinez out of business the future supply may not be able to meet the demand .
The immediate impact on the California economy will ONLY be 1,000 ’ s of jobs , most of Marathons ’ 700 employees and those of the companies that have been providing products and services to support the refinery .
Most of the 40 million residents of the state will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As we recover from the pandemic , the economy demands for fuels will not be readily available .
With the state being an energy island and an energy hog , California is heavily dependent on in-state manufacturing for its fuel demands .
California is an “ energy island ” situated between the Pacific Ocean and the Arizona/Nevada Stateline , with no existing pipelines over the Sierra Nevada Mountains .
The state is inhabited by roughly 40 million citizens and is an energy hog demanding more than 65 million gallons of various transportation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no pun intended ) the 5th largest economy in the world .
Californians already pay almost $ 1.00 more per gallon of fuel than the rest of the country due to a ) the state sales tax per gallon which are some of the highest in the country ; b ) refinery reformatting costs per gallon ; c ) cap and trade program compliance costs per gallon ; d ) low-carbon fuel standard program compliance costs per gallon ; and e ) renewable fuels standard program compliance costs per gallon .
With the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ demands , fuel prices will most likely rise further , just for the 40 million residents of the state .
Over the years , we have all seen the impact on California fuel prices when one of the few refinery manufacturers goes down for maintenance , or what the industry refers to as a ’ turnaround ’ .
Gas prices spike during these temporary outages , but with Marathon going idle indefinitely , the outage will NOT be temporary , but permanent .
Ironically , it wasn ’ t the bizarre laws @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the union labor agreements , or the other business unfriendly regulations , but COVID-19 that will impact the state for the foreseeable future .
Hispanics and African Americans that represent 45 % of the 40 million residents of California are some of the folks that can least afford more expensive energy in perpetuity and make California ’ s economic recovery from the pandemic even more challenging .


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-08-05--“Going Green” good for the economy?

“Going Green” good for the economy?

Massive increases in government spending , subsidies and further economic control with a blizzard of added regulations are the recipe for economic downturn .
History shows this time and again .
History also shows the opposite is true ; restraining government spending growth and reducing regulations and taxes on the private sector spurs economic growth and job creation .
The “ Green ” agenda invariably comprises major new government mandates , subsidies and regulations that will harm the country ’ s economy and citizens , whether one believes fully in human-caused climate change or not .
The Green cure is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of how many studies authored by climate alarmists claim otherwise .
There are plenty of studies ( using that term loosely ) that claim Green policies for energy transformation will “ stimulate ” the economy .
But they always come back to massive new government spending , debt and private sector mandates to subsidize the efforts and label it economic stimulus .
Whatever multi-trillion dollar version of the Green New Deal is examined , including the recent unveiling by presidential candidate Joe Biden , the essence is the same : vast new government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , transportation and pretty much every other industry .
Energy is the lifeblood of our national and global economy .
Affecting its supply and price impacts far and wide .
Abundant energy supplies enable the economy to grow .
Restricting energy—namely , fossil fuels and nuclear—in the hopes of forcing its replacement with “ renewables ” will lead to economic contraction .
Proponents of a Green New Deal would reorder of energy policy to phase our use of coal , natural gas and oil and nuclear to replace them with electricity and so-called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and solar .
While I am a strong believer in technological progress , no one can plausibly explain how renewable energy can replace fossil fuels in the coming decades , if ever .
Many states and cities already have passed energy plans that mandate greater use of renewable energy and less fossil fuel .
If this piecemeal effort becomes widespread , America as a whole , like California , will soon suffer higher energy costs , power outages , deforestation , landscape blight , harm to wildlife , and more .
These outcomes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Green New Deal advocates are defending the new costs and control in two primary ways .
First , they believe the planet itself is at greater risk by doing nothing ; and the jobs lost from the energy industry will be replaced with “ Green ” jobs .
First , the planet is not “ at risk ” if the global average temperature increases by 1.5 degrees by 2050 ; still , no one can claim with certainty that it will .
Nor will reducing carbon emissions in the United States necessarily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ factors influence climate .
Other industrialized nations like China and Russia will avoid such masochistic economic policy while they happily watch their U.S. adversary relinquish its fossil fuel production and harm its economic and military capacity in the process .
Second , the promise of “ Green Jobs ” is as vacuous as any from politicians attempting to reassure the public .
Nonetheless , they are itching to undertake a borrowing a spending binge to “ create ” jobs to produce solar panels , batteries and other components to foist them on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and gross inefficiency .
That is why every Green New Deal is priced at trillions of taxpayer dollars and constitutes a wasteful “ spoon-ready ” approach to creating jobs , as the late economist Milton Friedman would sardonically describe .
The Obama administration ’ s boondoggle taxpayer guarantees for the Solyndra company to produce solar panels , which cost at least $ 500 million , is emblematic of the problem .
So also is the example of California ’ s mandate for solar panels on all new homes .
More such Green economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
A further problem comes from the current federal spending spree on the coronavirus , with $ 2.5 trillion added to the national debt and another trillion dollars on deck .
America is that much closer to economic risk , including runaway inflation from printing money electronically to finance this unprecedented spending .
From a financial standpoint , the Covid pandemic makes the unaffordable Green New Deal much more so .
Government has a role in spearheading research and development in many areas of the economy , including in energy .
When practical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its own will make the investment , assume the risk , and profit accordingly from Green energy .
Done foolishly , as proposed by the climate alarmists pushing Green New Deals , trillions of dollars will be printed and wasted , and jobs and livelihoods will be squandered .

Massive increases in government spending, subsidies and further economic control with a blizzard of added regulations are the recipe for economic downturn. History shows this time and again. History also shows the opposite is true; restraining government spending growth and reducing regulations and taxes on the private sector spurs economic growth and job creation.
The “Green” agenda invariably comprises major new government mandates, subsidies and regulations that will harm the country’s economy and citizenry, whether one believes fully in human-caused climate change or not. The Green cure is worse than the purported illness, regardless of how many studies authored by climate alarmists claim otherwise.
There are plenty of studies (using that term loosely) that claim Green policies for energy transformation will “stimulate” the economy. But they always come back to massive new government spending, debt and private sector mandates to subsidize the efforts and label it economic stimulus.
Whichever multi-trillion dollar version of the Green New Deal is examined, including the recent unveiling by presidential candidate Joe Biden, the essence is the same: vast new government regulation and mandates over energy, construction, transportation and pretty much every other industry.
Energy is the lifeblood of our national and global economy. Affecting its supply and price impacts far and wide. Abundant energy supplies enable the economy to grow. Restricting energy—namely, fossil fuels and nuclear—in the hopes of forcing its replacement with “renewables” will lead to economic contraction.
Proponents of a Green New Deal would reorder of energy policy to phase our use of coal, natural gas and oil and nuclear to replace them with electricity and so-called “renewable” energy sources, wind and solar. While I am a strong believer in technological progress, no one can plausibly explain how renewable energy can replace fossil fuels in the coming decades, if ever.
Many states and cities already have passed energy plans that mandate greater use of renewable energy and less fossil fuel. If this piecemeal effort becomes widespread, America as a whole, like California, will soon suffer higher energy costs, power outages, deforestation, landscape blight, harm to wildlife, and more. These outcomes are not the ingredients for economic growth.
Green New Deal advocates are defending the new costs and control in two primary ways. First, they believe the planet itself is at greater risk by doing nothing; and the jobs lost in the energy industry are promised to be replaced with “Green” jobs.
First, the planet is not “at risk” if the global average temperature increases by 1.5 degrees by 2050; though no one can claim with certainty that it will. Nor will reducing carbon emissions in the United States necessarily affect global average temperature since many additional factors influence climate. Other industrialized nations like China and Russia will avoid such masochistic economic policy while they happily watch their U.S. adversary relinquish its fossil fuel production and harm its economic and military capacity in the process.
Second, the promise of “Green Jobs” is as vacuous as any from politicians attempting to reassure the public. Nonetheless, they are itching to undertake a borrowing a spending binge to “create” jobs to produce solar panels, batteries and other components to foist them on the public, regardless of lack of demand and gross inefficiency. That is why every Green New Deal is priced at trillions of taxpayer dollars and constitutes a wasteful “spoon-ready” approach to creating jobs, as the late economist Milton Friedman would sardonically describe.
The Obama administration’s boondoggle taxpayer guarantees for the Solyndra company to produce solar panels, which cost at least $500 million, is emblematic of the problem. So also is the example of California’s mandate for solar panels on all new homes. More such Green economic policy would exponentially produce the same folly.
A further problem comes from the current federal spending spree on the coronavirus, with $2.5 trillion added to the national debt and another trillion dollars on deck. America is that much closer to economic risk, including runaway inflation from printing money electronically to finance this unprecedented spending. From a financial standpoint, the Covid pandemic makes the unaffordable Green New Deal much more so.
Government has a role in spearheading research and development in many areas of the economy, including in energy. When practical and feasible, the private sector on its own will make the investment, assume the risk, and profit accordingly from Green energy. Done foolishly, as proposed by the climate alarmists pushing Green New Deals, trillions of dollars will be printed and wasted, and jobs and livelihoods will be squandered.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-08-05--Rough energy news for California

Rough energy news for California

Marathon Martinez , one of their major refineries , announced that it will go idle indefinitely .
This will cost the Golden State thousands of jobs and hamper its economic recovery .
Californians already suffer the highest fuel costs in the continental United States .
The loss of this refinery will make energy even more scarce and expensive .
With the state being both an energy island and an energy hog , California is heavily dependent on in-state manufacturing for its fuel demands .
California is an “ energy island ” situated between the Pacific Ocean and the Arizona/Nevada Stateline @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sierra Nevada Mountains .
The state is inhabited by roughly 40 million citizens and is an energy hog demanding more than 65 million gallons of various transportation fuels daily from suppliers to drive ( no pun intended ) the 5th largest economy in the world… Over the years , we have all seen the impact on California fuel prices when one of the few refinery manufacturers goes down for maintenance , or what the industry refers to as a ’ turnaround ’ .
Gas prices spike during these temporary outages , but with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will NOT be temporary , but permanent .
High energy prices and bad government policy hit the poor hardest .
They are exacerbating a mass exodus from California .
U-Haul reported that it costs significantly more to book a move from California to Texas than the other way around .
Anyone moving into California receives a sweet , yet frightening discount .
Californians are starved for affordable , efficient energy .
The loss of this crucial refinery is a blow they can ill afford .

Californians just received terrible news.
Marathon Martinez, one of their major refineries, announced that it will go idle indefinitely. This will cost the Golden State thousands of jobs and hamper its economic recovery.
Californians already suffer the highest fuel costs in the continental United States. The loss of this refinery will make energy even more scarce and expensive.
Energy analyst Ron Stein reports at CFACT.org:
With the state being both an energy island and an energy hog, California is heavily dependent on in-state manufacturing for its fuel demands. California is an “energy island” situated between the Pacific Ocean and the Arizona/Nevada Stateline, with no existing pipelines over the Sierra Nevada Mountains. The state is inhabited by roughly 40 million citizens and is an energy hog demanding more than 65 million gallons of various transportation fuels daily from suppliers to drive (no pun intended) the 5th largest economy in the world…
Over the years, we have all seen the impact on California fuel prices when one of the few refinery manufacturers goes down for maintenance, or what the industry refers to as a ’turnaround’. Gas prices spike during these temporary outages, but with Marathon going idle indefinitely, the outage will NOT be temporary, but permanent.
High energy prices and bad government policy hit the poor hardest. They are exacerbating a mass exodus from California. U-Haul reported that it costs significantly more to book a move from California to Texas than the other way around. Anyone moving into California receives a sweet, yet frightening discount.
Californians are starved for affordable, efficient energy. The loss of this crucial refinery is a blow they can ill afford.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-08-06--The high costs and low benefits of electric vehicles

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

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


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-08-06--Will “vertical farming” help grow food in the Arabian desert?

Situated on the Arabian desert , the United Arab Emirates is known for its hot climate and shopping outlets .
But could it also be known for its farming ?
Well maybe so , at least according to a recent story in EcoWatch which reports that the UAE is investing heavily in so-called high-tech “ vertical farms ” as a means to improve food security .
As noted in the article , if successful in its ambitions , this undertaking could make the UAE an unlikely “ agricultural pioneer.
” Vertical farms are indoor operations that can grow a rich @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in layers under LED lighting in climate-controlled greenhouses .
Typically , they employ mist or drip systems that are tailored to each crop ’ s specific needs , resulting in high-yield , year-round harvests .
For the UAE , such a high-tech option is crucial when dealing with desert geography .
As further explained in the EcoWatch story : “ In 2018 , the UAE set out its vision to become a hub for high-tech local food production .
Companies and investors have flocked to the region , attracted by the 0 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and cheap energy .
With their help , UAE aims to reduce its reliance on imports and make its food system more resilient … “ The technology uses minimal land and up to 95 % less water than conventional agriculture .
The hydroponics system places the plants ’ roots directly into a water-based and nutrient-rich solution instead of soil .
This ‘ closed loop ’ system captures and recirculates all the water , rather than allowing it to drain away — useful for a country like the UAE suffering from extremely high water @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for 70 % of freshwater withdrawals , and UAE is extracting groundwater faster than it can be replenished , according to the International Center for Biosaline Agriculture ( ICBA ) .
” To read the full story in EcoWatch , click here .

Situated on the Arabian desert, the United Arab Emirates is known for its hot climate and shopping outlets. But could it also be known for its farming?
Well maybe so, at least according to a recent story in EcoWatch which reports that the UAE is investing heavily in so-called high-tech “vertical farms” as a means to improve food security. As noted in the article, if successful in its ambitions, this undertaking could make the UAE an unlikely “agricultural pioneer.”
Vertical farms are indoor operations that can grow a rich variety of different crops by stacking them in layers under LED lighting in climate-controlled greenhouses. Typically, they employ mist or drip systems that are tailored to each crop’s specific needs, resulting in high-yield, year-round harvests.
For the UAE, such a high-tech option is crucial when dealing with desert geography.
As further explained in the EcoWatch story:
“In 2018, the UAE set out its vision to become a hub for high-tech local food production.
Companies and investors have flocked to the region, attracted by the 0% corporate tax rate, low labor costs and cheap energy. With their help, UAE aims to reduce its reliance on imports and make its food system more resilient …
“The technology uses minimal land and up to 95% less water than conventional agriculture.
The hydroponics system places the plants’ roots directly into a water-based and nutrient-rich solution instead of soil. This ‘closed loop’ system captures and recirculates all the water, rather than allowing it to drain away — useful for a country like the UAE suffering from extremely high water stress.
“Globally, agriculture accounts for 70% of freshwater withdrawals, and UAE is extracting groundwater faster than it can be replenished, according to the International Center for Biosaline Agriculture (ICBA).”
To read the full story in EcoWatch, click here.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-08-07--Mendacious Media enables climate alarmism

I have been a news junkie since high school .
Media bias favoring left-of-center public policies and politicians is nothing new , yet this 40-year-plus reality never gets shopworn .
The flagrancy of skewed news coverage to favor a political agenda and oppose another is worse than ever and still surprises .
There is no shortage of examples of media slant and mendacity , including coronavirus reporting , downplaying the riots in American cities , and peddling the bogus Russia collusion narrative .
The climate change issue is another glaring example that goes beyond mere bias .
Most media coverage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that is , human exhaling and industry are causing the planet to warm to an imminent doomsday .
Typically , no other evidence or viewpoints are acknowledged , much less given credence .
The prevailing media treatment of climate change and other issues exhibits a combination of myopia , laziness , dishonesty and censorship , which CFACT itself has been recipient .
It has gotten so bad , two major media outlets recently were exposed by very public resignations .
Chief among this journalistic dereliction is NBC ’ s Chuck Todd , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ former congressional aide .
Todd announced he would give no airtime to skeptics of the prevailing mantra of man-made global warming .
No counterpoint allowed is standard for “ mainstream ” climate reporting .
Time magazine , another substantial media outlet , has long obsessed about the “ Endangered Earth , ” as far back as the late 1980 ’ s .
By then , global warming had replaced the coming-ice-age mantra from the 1970 ’ s .
Time ’ s annual “ Person of the Year ” was replaced for 1988 as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been beating the same drum in the 30-plus years since , even as Earth ’ s environment improved , global poverty declined , and U.S. carbon emissions more recently dropped .
No matter , its 2019 “ Person of the Year ” was the indefatigable and exploited Greta Thunberg .
Media myopia toward climate change issues is so widespread , some younger reporters themselves may not realize it having grown up in the “ Captain Planet ” generation when Ted Turner ’ s cartoon began the brainwashing process .
Journalists have long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who make absurd catastrophic climate assertions .
Reporters surely know how pervasive is lying in politics , yet so many accept climate sound-bites without scrutiny .
Has any reporter ever questioned the many preposterous claims by Sen. Bernie Sanders or Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ?
Has either been asked how cooling the planet by one degree in 30 years would stop icebergs from melting in summer , or how wind and solar can “ replace ” fossil fuels when they rely on them so extensively ?
The list goes on .
Now and then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Foxnews host Chris Wallace interviewed Al Gore in 2017 , and pushed back some .
Yet , even in that instance , Wallace let pass several ludicrous claims by Gore , including supposed rising sea level from global warming that allegedly resulted in ocean fish on Miami streets .
Part of the problem is that while climate change ideology is now unchallenged dogma among Democratic politicians , few Republicans are willing to go on the record with reporters to counter them beyond complaining about the multi-trillion dollar price tag of the Green @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the calculation is to avoid controversy , rather than offer perspective on–much less rebut–the underlying assumptions of the climate agenda .
Commonplace in climate reporting is when a new global warming “ study ” is released with some outlandish prediction in 12 to 80 years that is accepted at face value by reporters .
Regardless of political leanings or personal bias , every journalist should be a skeptic and report both sides since there are numerous scientists on either side of the climate change issue .
Last spring , for example , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ study that claimed half the world ’ s beaches would disappear by the year 2100 due to climate change .
Every media outlet I found which reported on the study parroted its findings , with nary a perfunctory critic to round out the story .
More impactful media negligence has been its reporting on findings of the International Panel on Climate Change .
Michael Shellenberger , in his new book , Apocalypse Never , documents how this sensationalist reporting is regularly at variance with the actual IPCC research .
The cumulative effect of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ warming trope has contributed to the growth and political power of the climate change industry .
If not countered , it will further lead to a misinformed public , and gullible politicians imposing more destructive and wasteful climate policies on the populace in America and worldwide .

I have been a news junkie since high school. Media bias favoring left-of-center public policies and politicians is nothing new, yet this 40-year-plus reality never gets shopworn. The flagrancy of skewed news coverage to favor one political agenda and oppose another is worse than ever and still surprises.
There is no shortage of examples of media slant and mendacity, including coronavirus reporting, downplaying the riots in American cities, and peddling the bogus Russia collusion narrative. The climate change issue is another glaring example that goes beyond mere bias. Most media coverage portrays the subject as a singular truth, that is, human exhaling and industry are causing the planet to warm to an imminent doomsday. Typically, no other evidence or viewpoints are acknowledged, much less given credence.
The prevailing media treatment of climate change and other issues exhibits a combination of myopia, laziness, dishonesty and censorship, which CFACT itself has been recipient. It has gotten so bad, two major media outlets recently were exposed by very public resignations and several newsrooms displayed infantile wokeness.
Chief among this journalistic dereliction is NBC’s Chuck Todd, a wind-up doll for climate credulity and former congressional aide. Todd announced he would give no airtime to skeptics of the prevailing mantra of man-made global warming. No counterpoint allowed is standard for “mainstream” climate reporting.
Time magazine, another substantial media outlet, has long obsessed about the “Endangered Earth,” as far back as the late 1980’s. By then, global warming had replaced the coming-ice-age mantra from the 1970’s. Time’s annual “Person of the Year” was replaced for 1988 as “Planet of the Year.” Time has been beating the same drum in the 30-plus years since, even as Earth’s environment improved, global poverty declined, and U.S. carbon emissions more recently dropped. No matter, its 2019 “Person of the Year” was the indefatigable and exploited Greta Thunberg.
Media myopia toward climate change issues is so widespread, some younger reporters themselves may not realize it having grown up in the “Captain Planet” generation when Ted Turner’s cartoon began the brainwashing process.
Journalists have long practiced as stenographers for celebrities and politicians who make absurd catastrophic climate assertions. Reporters surely know how pervasive is lying in politics, yet so many accept climate sound-bites without scrutiny. Has any reporter ever questioned the many preposterous claims by Sen. Bernie Sanders or Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez? Has either been asked how cooling the planet by one degree in 30 years would stop icebergs from melting in summer, or how wind and solar can “replace” fossil fuels when they rely on them so extensively? The list goes on.
Now and then there are modest exceptions, as when Foxnews host Chris Wallace interviewed Al Gore in 2017, and pushed back some. Yet, even in that instance, Wallace let pass several ludicrous claims by Gore, including supposed rising sea level from global warming that allegedly resulted in ocean fish on Miami streets.
Part of the problem is that while climate change ideology is now unchallenged dogma among Democratic politicians, few Republicans are willing to go on the record with reporters to counter them beyond complaining about the multi-trillion dollar price tag of the Green New Deal. For such Republicans, the calculation is to avoid controversy, rather than offer perspective on–much less rebut–the underlying assumptions of the climate agenda.
Commonplace in climate reporting is when a new global warming “study” is released with some outlandish prediction in 12 to 80 years that is accepted at face value by reporters. Regardless of political leanings or personal bias, every journalist should be a skeptic and report both sides since there are numerous scientists on either side of the climate change issue.
Last spring, for example, the journal Nature Climate Change published a whimsical study that claimed half the world’s beaches would disappear by the year 2100 due to climate change. Every media outlet I found which reported on the study parroted its findings, with nary a perfunctory critic to round out the story.
More impactful media negligence has been its reporting on findings of the International Panel on Climate Change. Michael Shellenberger, in his new book, Apocalypse Never, documents how this sensationalist reporting is regularly at variance with the actual IPCC research.
The cumulative effect of years of robotic reporting of man-made global warming trope has contributed to the growth and political power of the climate change industry. If not countered, it will further lead to a misinformed public, and gullible politicians imposing more destructive and wasteful climate policies on the populace in America and worldwide.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-08-07--Countering the global warming blame game on Isaias

Likely more predictable than the weather , which btw we warned our clients on the East Coast about what happened from over a week away with this storm , we see one of the usual suspects blaming climate change for Isaias .
Suppose I say , ok , you are right .
( he is not , but suppose I do ) then is the record low amount of activity in the western Pacific also a sign of climate change ?
And given the advocacy of a global community , since the number one producing area of tropical cyclones is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ positive ?
I doubt any of the people pushing this know any of this .
Now before any of my detractors say I am insincere , remember I took on President Trump on his Dorian situation .
It was here on CFACT .
Hopefully we don ’ t hear this more than once as the president kept doubling down of what many of us 7 days out look at and smirk .
.
But between things like what president Trump said , or Gov Cuomo saying tornadoes don ’ t hit New York @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change , and now this , I would suggest that they get other opinions Which is something I love to do for people no matter what their politics..
The weather is the weather and transcends all the stuff that is being thrown at the wall with it today . )
Now here is another question .
Why was this not worse ?
After all the water is warmer than average off the east coast ?
Why did it weaken off the Fla coast ?
( I know the answer as we covered it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not know and does not care ) And how did we have a hurricane like the 1821 hurricane which was a cat 3 when it hit around NYC , or the 1938 hurricane ?
Or 1933 which had wind gusts higher than this across Long Island and was hitting at Va beach !
Or Hurricane Hazel in 1954 with a gust of 113 mph at the battery , dwarfing Sandy , Isaias , and Irene .
All these were before manmade climate change became what to blame for every weather event even those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Its all part of the weaponization of weather , brought on not because an atmospheric apocalypse is raging , but because of a political agenda that tries to make this some kind of war where people fighting it are looked at as heroes that save the planet and change the foundational values that made this nation what it is .
How else can you say such things in the face of weather history .
Why the damage ?
We outlined this over 5 days in advance on our site and if you follow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about it 1 ) A configuration of the upper level jet , similar to Gerda in 1969 , that resulted in that storm going from a cat 1 to a cat 3 as it accelerated northeast .
Usually storms weaken on that path , Isaias was in a similar situation so we said from late last week it would not weaken very fast if at all relative to its landfall intensity .
Its track was similar to Hanna in 2008 which was like a strong sea breeze by the time it got up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and where strongest wind gusts came from .
Most storms pass to the east of the east coast and the same strong wind from the north and northwest does not produce the amount of damage an east , southeast or south gust does .
The trees lean toward the south or southeast because of the prevailing wind and where the sun is in the sky during the day .
So they are built to take the northwest wind .
But the same wind from the southeast , with trees fully loaded with leaves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it heavier , meaning the tree has to take the gusts in a situation it is not accustomed too .
In the winter many trees have no leaves on them ( evergreens of course do ) so unless loaded down with snow and ice , they can take the gusts .
And those gusts would not be coming from the southeast cause if they were it would be raining .
We were warning all our clients about the amount of damage and power outages that would happen .
Supposedly there was more tree @ @ @ @ @ @ @ David in 1979 with winds well under what the stronger Gloria in 1985 had .
But David went up to the west and so what gusts there were came from the southeast , not the north or northwest .
The 1821 hurricane reportedly blew down all the trees east of what is now the Garden State parkway as it came straight north over coastal NJ .
Can you imagine the set up for that , to sustain that storm ?
That storm today would do more damage than Sandy Irene and Isaias combined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rehearsals for something bigger , which is a big concern I have .
So what about the rest of the season ?
.
Well there is a long discussion on our site , but the map we issued in April for where these were going remains unchanged as does the amount of hurricanes , major hurricanes and ace index .
The total number which include tropical storms is up a bit .
The map shows where tropical cyclones have hit relative to where we thought many would go ( again this was issued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is after the breather the 2cnd half of the season looks like a nasty period well into September .
The only positive I see is the last month , October may not be as bad relative to averages .
But if the mayor had this map back in April , then what has happened so far and what may happen again would be no surprise .
Weatherbell.com is more interested in where they are going rather than total number ( though because everyone is doing that , we do also , Those numbers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So that is the big problem is stronger storms doing much the same thing can really cause problems .
And unfortunately if I am right this will be a political issue , And the irony of it all is that the forecast was made based on looking at natural , not man made factors .
But remember the western Pacific is liable to have one of their lowest total years on record .
A Question of Balance , which if you look nature is always trying to answer .

Likely more predictable than the weather, which btw we warned our clients on the East Coast about what happened from over a week away with this storm, we see one of the usual suspects blaming climate change for Isaias.
https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2020/08/04/de-blasio-what-were-seeing-here-with-isaias-is-the-result-of-global-warming/
Suppose I say, ok, you are right. (he is not, but suppose I do) then is the record low amount of activity in the western Pacific also a sign of climate change? And given the advocacy of a global community, since the number one producing area of tropical cyclones is shut down, is that not a positive?
I doubt any of the people pushing this are aware.
Now before any of my detractors say I am insincere, remember I took on President Trump on his Dorian situation. It was here on CFACT. Hopefully we don’t hear this more than once as the president kept doubling down of what many of us, 7 days out, look at and smirk.
Now here is another question. Why was this not worse? After all the water is warmer than average off the east coast? Why did it weaken off the Fla coast? I know the answer as we covered it, but the fact is he does not know and does not care. And how did we have the 1821 hurricane which was a Cat 3 when it hit around NYC, or the 1938 hurricane? Or 1933 which had wind gusts higher than this across Long Island and was hitting VA Beach! Or Hurricane Hazel in 1954 with a gust of 113 mph at the Battery, dwarfing Sandy, Isaias, and Irene.
All of these were before manmade climate change became what is to blame for every weather event, even those that are dwarfed by previous events. Its all part of the weaponization of weather, brought on not because an atmospheric apocalypse is raging, but because of a political agenda that tries to make this some kind of war where people fighting it are looked at as heroes that save the planet and change the foundational values that made this nation what it is. How else can you say such things in the face of weather history.
Why the damage? We outlined this over 5 days in advance on our site and if you follow me on twitter you saw me talking about it.
1. A configuration of the upper level jet, similar to Gerda in 1969, that resulted in that storm going from a Cat 1 to a Cat 3 as it accelerated northeast. Usually storms weaken on that path. Isaias was in a similar situation so we said from late last week it would not weaken very fast if at all relative to its landfall intensity. Its track was similar to Hanna in 2008 which was like a strong sea breeze by the time it got up into the northeast. The track and where strongest wind gusts came from.
2.Most storms pass to the east of the east coast and the same strong wind from the north and northwest does not produce the amount of damage an east, southeast or south gust does. The trees lean toward the south or southeast because of the prevailing wind and where the sun is in the sky during the day. So they are built to take the northwest wind. But the same wind from the southeast, with trees fully loaded with leaves and water on the leaves to make it heavier, meaning the tree has to take the gusts in a situation it is not accustomed too. In the winter many trees have no leaves on them (evergreens of course do) so unless loaded down with snow and ice, they can take the gusts. And those gusts would not be coming from the southeast because if they were, it would be raining.
We were warning all our clients about the amount of damage and power outages that would happen. Supposedly there was more tree damage in New Jersey from tropical storm David in 1979 with winds well under what the stronger Gloria in 1985 had. But David went up to the west and so the gusts came from the southeast, not the north or northwest. The 1821 hurricane reportedly blew down all the trees east of what is now the Garden State parkway as it came straight north over coastal NJ. Can you imagine the set up for that, to sustain that storm?
That storm today would do more damage than Sandy Irene and Isaias combined.
Hopefully Fay and Isaias are not dress rehearsals for something bigger, which is a big concern I have.
So what about the rest of the season?. Well there is a long discussion on our site, but the map we issued in April for where these were going remains unchanged. As does the amount of hurricanes, major hurricanes and ace index to which the total number including tropical storms, is up a bit.
The map shows where tropical cyclones have hit relative to where we thought many would go (again this was issued in April). But the bottom line is after the breather the 2nd half of the season looks like a nasty period well into September. The only positive I see is the last month, October, may not be as bad relative to averages. But if Mayor Cuomo had this map back in April, then what has happened so far and what may happen again would be no surprise.
Weatherbell.com is more interested in where they are going rather than total number. (Though because everyone is doing that, we do also. You can look to numbers that came out in early March!). So the big issue is stronger storms doing much the same thing can really cause problems. And unfortunately if I am right, this will be political. The irony of it all is that the forecast was made based on looking at natural, not man made factors.
But remember the western Pacific is liable to have one of their lowest total years on record. A question of balance, which if you look, nature is always trying to answer.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-08-08--Are you OK with Washington rezoning your neighborhood?

On July 23 the Trump administration officially rolled back illegal Obama-Biden administration-era regulations that attempted to federalize nationwide control over zoning and land-use policies through greatly expanded interpretations of four obscure words in the original 1968 Fair Housing Act ( FHA ) , namely calling for “ affirmatively furthering fair housing.
” Those four words became the basis for inventively expanding upon a 170-page 1996 Clinton administration Housing and Urban Development ( HUD ) guidance policy that established a premise for the Obama-Biden administration ’ s 2015 “ Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing ” ( AFFH ) rule , one that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
To be clear , none of these lawsuits , nor the parties filing them , disputed legitimate merits of the original FHA intent or Clinton amendments to prohibit discrimination concerning the sale , rental and financing of housing based on race , religion , national origin , sex , ( and as amended ) handicap and family status .
FHA appropriately authorizes HUD to require state and local governments to certify compliance with fairness standards as an eligibility requirement to receive federal block grants used to support various broad-purpose programs , such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public health and community development .
Specific annual grant amounts are awarded according to a formula based on a community ’ s needs , including its extent of poverty , overcrowding and population growth .
The new little-publicized AFFH ruling extended overreach of federal government control of independent local governance on a truly draconian scale .
It required that suburbs , townships and small cities that accept HUD block grants could be forced to change their zoning codes and build high-density low-income housing for “ underrepresented ” groups , or even to relocate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ districts to answer the federal bureaucracy ’ s ideas of the correct ethnic , racial and economic “ balance.
” As explicitly stated , “ This final rule , and Assessment Tools and guidance to be issued , will assist recipients of Federal funding to use that funding and , if necessary , to adjust their land use and zoning laws in accordance with their existing legal obligation to affirmatively further fair housing.
” AFFH gave HUD a weapon of power to force any community that received federal funds to meet racial distribution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ applied the notion of “ disparate impact , ” which unilaterally deemed housing patterns to be discriminatory if minority representation was not evenly spread across the jurisdiction .
Communities with high concentrations of minorities were automatically labeled “ segregated ” according to paint-by-number land use assessments .
Yet federal law prohibits HUD from conditioning funds on “ the adoption , continuation , or discontinuation by a jurisdiction of any public policy , regulation , or law.
” AFFH also contravened a Supreme Court ruling earlier that year that affirmed the Fair Housing Act @ @ @ @ @ @ @ housing authorities to reorder priorities ” or to “ decree a particular vision of urban development.
” Nevertheless , prohibited or not , New York State ’ s Westchester County experienced a costly illustrative saga following a lawsuit alleging that its suburban village of Tuckahoe was out of compliance with HUD ’ s social engineering “ vision.
” Faced with crippling economic penalties , Westchester agreed in a 2009 consent decree with the Obama administration to spend $ 56 million on 750 subsidized housing units over the next seven years in 31 mostly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by 40 units .
HUD then moved the goal post to require Westchester County to build 10,000 more subsidized low-income taxpayer-funded units .
But that wasn ’ t enough .
Under the new AFFH rules , any jurisdiction receiving HUD money was required to analyze and report its overall housing occupancy by race , disability , familial status , economic status , English proficiency and other categories .
Westchester ’ s basic zoning policies were determined to be racially “ exclusionary ” based upon development restrictions such as building height and area density @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deemed potentially “ discriminatory ” – supposedly because minority members might not be able to afford them .
HUD may have been referring here to exclusionary Westchester County homes like the $ 1.7 million 11-room colonial in Chappaqua purchased in 1999 by Bill and Hillary Clinton .
In any case , the Clintons ’ single-family residence should be considered only modestly exclusionary compared with the $ 12 million 7,000-square-foot 29-acre estate since purchased by Barack and Michelle Obama .
But then , who can really blame them … or Joe Biden , Bernie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ AFFH supporters who own multiple large , expensively exclusionary single-family properties ?
At least that ’ s what the new HUD Secretary , Ben Carson , determined in January 2017 when he suspended action on AFFH indefinitely soon after President Trump assumed office .
Dr. Carson then stating that the action focused on the idea of preserving housing choice .
Following Trump ’ s permanent dismantling of AFFH last month , Carson tweeted , “ The AFFH rule was a ruse for social engineering under the ruse of desegregation , essentially turning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ironically — if not surprisingly — House Speaker and multi-house upper-crust owner Pelosi wasted no time decrying the reversal of Obama ’ s lawless rule as “ a betrayal of our nation ’ s founding values of equality and opportunity for all ” and “ shameful abdication of our government ’ s responsibility to end discriminatory housing practices.
” As The Wall Street Journal editorial board urges , a better way to increase income mobility for minorities is to expand school choice so that a child ’ s success in life isn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he/she grows up .
Doing so , they argue , would also reduce the substantial housing price premium in better school districts .
But “ Alas , ” they write , “ Democrats would rather reorganize neighborhoods than reform schools.
” President Trump ’ s push for Congress to pass a nondiscriminatory “ Educations Freedom Scholarships and Opportunity Act ” school choice voucher program reforms would do exactly that .

On July 23 the Trump administration officially rolled back illegal Obama-Biden administration-era regulations that attempted to federalize nationwide control over zoning and land-use policies through greatly expanded interpretations of four obscure words in the original 1968 Fair Housing Act (FHA), namely calling for “affirmatively furthering fair housing.”
Those four words became the basis for inventively expanding upon a 170-page 1996 Clinton administration Housing and Urban Development (HUD) guidance policy that established a premise for the Obama-Biden administration’s 2015 “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing” (AFFH) rule, one that has given rise to numerous legal challenges.
To be clear, none of these lawsuits, nor the parties filing them, disputed legitimate merits of the original FHA intent or Clinton amendments to prohibit discrimination concerning the sale, rental and financing of housing based on race, religion, national origin, sex, (and as amended) handicap and family status.
FHA appropriately authorizes HUD to require state and local governments to certify compliance with fairness standards as an eligibility requirement to receive federal block grants used to support various broad-purpose programs, such as law enforcement, social services, public health and community development. Specific annual grant amounts are awarded according to a formula based on a community’s needs, including its extent of poverty, overcrowding and population growth.
The new little-publicized AFFH ruling extended overreach of federal government control of independent local governance on a truly draconian scale. It required that suburbs, townships and small cities that accept HUD block grants could be forced to change their zoning codes and build high-density low-income housing for “underrepresented” groups, or even to relocate planned schools, transportation hubs and business districts to answer the federal bureaucracy’s ideas of the correct ethnic, racial and economic “balance.”
As explicitly stated, “This final rule, and Assessment Tools and guidance to be issued, will assist recipients of Federal funding to use that funding and, if necessary, to adjust their land use and zoning laws in accordance with their existing legal obligation to affirmatively further fair housing.”
AFFH gave HUD a weapon of power to force any community that received federal funds to meet racial distribution quotas. To accomplish this, HUD applied the notion of “disparate impact,” which unilaterally deemed housing patterns to be discriminatory if minority representation was not evenly spread across the jurisdiction. Communities with high concentrations of minorities were automatically labeled “segregated” according to paint-by-number land use assessments.
Yet federal law prohibits HUD from conditioning funds on “the adoption, continuation, or discontinuation by a jurisdiction of any public policy, regulation, or law.”
AFFH also contravened a Supreme Court ruling earlier that year that affirmed the Fair Housing Act “is not an instrument to force housing authorities to reorder priorities” or to “decree a particular vision of urban development.”
Nevertheless, prohibited or not, New York State’s Westchester County experienced a costly illustrative saga following a lawsuit alleging that its suburban village of Tuckahoe was out of compliance with HUD’s social engineering “vision.”
Faced with crippling economic penalties, Westchester agreed in a 2009 consent decree with the Obama administration to spend $56 million on 750 subsidized housing units over the next seven years in 31 mostly white enclaves. Westchester exceeded that goal by 40 units.
HUD then moved the goal post to require Westchester County to build 10,000 more subsidized low-income taxpayer-funded units.
But that wasn’t enough. Under the new AFFH rules, any jurisdiction receiving HUD money was required to analyze and report its overall housing occupancy by race, disability, familial status, economic status, English proficiency and other categories.
Westchester’s basic zoning policies were determined to be racially “exclusionary” based upon development restrictions such as building height and area density. Single-family homes on quarter-acre lots were deemed potentially “discriminatory” – supposedly because minority members might not be able to afford them.
HUD may have been referring here to exclusionary Westchester County homes like the $1.7 million 11-room colonial in Chappaqua purchased in 1999 by Bill and Hillary Clinton.
In any case, the Clintons’ single-family residence should be considered only modestly exclusionary compared with the $12 million 7,000-square-foot 29-acre estate since purchased by Barack and Michelle Obama.
But then, who can really blame them … or Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Nancy Pelosi and other strong AFFH supporters who own multiple large, expensively exclusionary single-family properties?
At least that’s what the new HUD Secretary, Ben Carson, determined in January 2017 when he suspended action on AFFH indefinitely soon after President Trump assumed office. Dr. Carson then stating that the action focused on the idea of preserving housing choice.
Following Trump’s permanent dismantling of AFFH last month, Carson tweeted, “The AFFH rule was a ruse for social engineering under the ruse of desegregation, essentially turning @HUDgov into a national zoning board.”
Ironically — if not surprisingly — House Speaker and multi-house upper-crust owner Pelosi wasted no time decrying the reversal of Obama’s lawless rule as “a betrayal of our nation’s founding values of equality and opportunity for all” and “shameful abdication of our government’s responsibility to end discriminatory housing practices.”
As The Wall Street Journal editorial board urges, a better way to increase income mobility for minorities is to expand school choice so that a child’s success in life isn’t determined by the ZIP code where he/she grows up. Doing so, they argue, would also reduce the substantial housing price premium in better school districts.
But “Alas,” they write, “Democrats would rather reorganize neighborhoods than reform schools.”
President Trump’s push for Congress to pass a nondiscriminatory “Educations Freedom Scholarships and Opportunity Act” school choice voucher program reforms would do exactly that.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-08-08--Bill Gates warns of “climate disaster”

Bill Gates warns of “climate disaster”

What if the United States and the rest of the world eliminated carbon emissions – would the planet ’ s climate “ change ” ?
The climate will certainly change – regardless whether carbon emissions from man-made sources are eliminated .
William H. Gates , III , co-founder and long time chief of the Microsoft Corporation ( now retired ) , earlier this week warned on his “ GatesNotes ” blog that we must “ eliminate the world ’ s carbon emissions.
” If not , “ the loss of life and economic misery caused by this pandemic are on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mr. Gates predicts the “ death toll from climate change ” will equal the pandemic by 2060 , and exceed it five-fold by 2100 .
He further asserted that economic conditions in the next two decades could be “ as bad as having a Covid-sized pandemic every ten years.
” In other words , warmer temperature equals more death .
Mankind ’ s contribution of carbon dioxide from tailpipes , exhaling , power plants and everything else comprises 0.12 percent of all greenhouse gas .
Total CO2 , in turn , comprises four @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all atmospheric gases .
How would “ eliminating ” this infinitesimal man-made amount , assuming it were feasible , alter the planet ’ s average global temperature ?
Theoretically , if eliminating man-made carbon emissions cooled the planet by a degree or two in temperature , ceteris paribus—as in , other things equal—do we live happily ever after ?
The planet is way more complex .
If man-made carbon emissions were “ eliminated , ” as in , China , India and the developing world went along with this economic fools ’ errand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) , there are many the other influences on the planet ’ s climate .
We can not stop El Nino and the ocean currents , which have a say in this ; we can not alter the Earth ’ s tilt on its axis ; and we surely can not stop the rate of sunspot activity .
In other words , “ other things ” do not stand still to comport with climate computer models assembled by scientists funded by Mr. Gates or from grants awarded by federal climate bureaucracies .
These @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the planet ’ s climate , and impact its “ change ” one way or the other .
They all are beyond the reach of the aging baby boom generation—including its billionaire class—and successor generations X , Y and Z , no matter how many protest marches , emails to Congress , meatless Mondays , UN conferences , or corporate virtue signals they generate .
I mention these other wrinkles in the climate discussion , and quote Sgt .
Hulka , as no disrespect to Bill Gates .
He is a larger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and successful businessman and job creator .
Not for nothing was he the wealthiest man on the planet for many years running , until being eclipsed recently by Amazon head , Jeff Bezos .
Mr. Gates ’ business acumen made personal computers ubiquitous , revolutionized the workplace and , more broadly , contributed to our increased standard of living .
Gates also is a generous philanthropist as his and his wife Melina ’ s foundation has spent billions of dollars worldwide to combat disease and improve education , among other good works .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , make him a sage on predicting Earth ’ s climate and resulting deaths by 2060 or 2100 .
Centuries ago , the world was warmer than today , and humans survived without air conditioning .
Then the planet got cooler not because we replaced incandescent light bulbs , stopped driving SUVs and banned air travel and plastic straws .
The Medieval warm period and subsequent Little Ice Age occurred all by themselves , naturally .
Credit Mr. Gates on this : he rejects the idea that less driving or air travel will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attempt to shame us into curtailing our economic lives , as others do .
Instead , he correctly points to innovation and technological solutions to adapt to climate conditions and “ fight ” global warming .
Some of his visionary ideas can be useful on their own , even if they end up fruitless in changing the weather four or eight decades from now .
Bill Gates is free to invest his remaining tens of billions to help find ways to live better and cleaner , and even carbon-free .
But we all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sober about the efficacy and necessity of policies to alter the climate in a different direction from its natural course .

What if the United States and the rest of the world eliminated carbon emissions – would the planet’s climate “change”?
The climate will certainly change – regardless whether carbon emissions from man-made sources are eliminated.
William H. Gates, III, co-founder and long time chief of the Microsoft Corporation (now retired), earlier this week warned on his “GatesNotes” blog that we must “eliminate the world’s carbon emissions.” If not, “the loss of life and economic misery caused by this pandemic are on par with what will happen regularly.”
Mr. Gates predicts the “death toll from climate change” will equal the pandemic by 2060, and exceed it five-fold by 2100. He further asserted that economic conditions in the next two decades could be “as bad as having a Covid-sized pandemic every ten years.” In other words, warmer temperature equals more death.
To paraphrase platoon Sergeant Hulka, lighten up, Bill.
Mankind’s contribution of carbon dioxide from tailpipes, exhaling, power plants and everything else comprises 0.12 percent of all greenhouse gas. Total CO2, in turn, comprises four ten thousandths (0.04%) of all atmospheric gases. How would “eliminating” this infinitesimal man-made amount, assuming it were feasible, alter the planet’s average global temperature? Theoretically, if eliminating man-made carbon emissions cooled the planet by a degree or two in temperature, ceteris paribus—as in, other things equal—do we live happily ever after?
The planet is way more complex.
If man-made carbon emissions were “eliminated,” as in, China, India and the developing world went along with this economic fools’ errand (hint: they won’t), there are many the other influences on the planet’s climate. We cannot stop El Nino and the ocean currents, which have a say in this; we cannot alter the Earth’s tilt on its axis; and we surely cannot stop the rate of sunspot activity. In other words, “other things” do not stand still to comport with climate computer models assembled by scientists funded by Mr. Gates or from grants awarded by federal climate bureaucracies.
These and other natural phenomena get a vote on the planet’s climate, and impact its “change” one way or the other. They all are beyond the reach of the aging baby boom generation—including its billionaire class—and successor generations X, Y and Z, no matter how many protest marches, emails to Congress, meatless Mondays, UN conferences, or corporate virtue signals they generate.
I mention these other wrinkles in the climate discussion, and quote Sgt. Hulka, as no disrespect to Bill Gates. He is a larger than life figure and a historically talented and successful businessman and job creator. Not for nothing was he the wealthiest man on the planet for many years running, until being eclipsed recently by Amazon head, Jeff Bezos.
Mr. Gates’ business acumen made personal computers ubiquitous, revolutionized the workplace and, more broadly, contributed to our increased standard of living. Gates also is a generous philanthropist as his and his wife Melina’s foundation has spent billions of dollars worldwide to combat disease and improve education, among other good works.
None of these exceptional accomplishments, however, make him a sage on predicting Earth’s climate and resulting deaths by 2060 or 2100.
Centuries ago, the world was warmer than today, and humans survived without air conditioning. Then the planet got cooler not because we replaced incandescent light bulbs, stopped driving SUVs and banned air travel and plastic straws. The Medieval warm period and subsequent Little Ice Age occurred all by themselves, naturally.
Credit Mr. Gates on this: he rejects the idea that less driving or air travel will have much impact, and does not attempt to shame us into curtailing our economic lives, as others do. Instead, he correctly points to innovation and technological solutions to adapt to climate conditions and “fight” global warming. Some of his visionary ideas can be useful on their own, even if they end up fruitless in changing the weather four or eight decades from now.
Bill Gates is free to invest his remaining tens of billions to help find ways to live better and cleaner, and even carbon-free. But we all should be a bit more humble and sober about the efficacy and necessity of policies to alter the climate in a different direction from its natural course.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-08-09--Coronavirus accelerates decline in U.S. transit ridership

Public transit systems play an important role in transporting people within our major cities .
Buses , trains , streetcars , and ferry boats transport more than 27 million people each day in the United States .
Yet U.S. public transit ridership has been declining for the last five years and the coronavirus pandemic is accelerating the decline .
Public transit ridership is measured by “ unlinked passenger trips , ” with a trip defined as whenever a person boards a transit vehicle , including transfers .
Since 1970 , the number of unlinked passenger trips grew about 37 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Transit miles grew more than 15 percent from 2000 to 2018 , keeping pace with total U.S. vehicle miles traveled .
Public transit ridership consists of primarily bus ( 48 percent ) and train ( 47 percent ) transportation .
The New York Metropolitan Area served 40 percent of U.S. public transit riders , with Chicago and Los Angeles distant second and third locations with just under 6 percent of U.S. ridership each .
Progressive leaders have long proposed the use of public transportation instead of private vehicles to save the environment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For every $ 1 billion we invest in public transportation , we create 30,000 jobs , save thousands of dollars a year for each commuter , and dramatically cut greenhouse gas emissions.
” But U.S. residents don ’ t appear to agree .
Since 2014 , U.S. public transit ridership has been declining .
From 2014 to 2019 , unlinked passenger trips fell about 7.5 percent with transit mileage falling more than 9 percent .
Public transit mileage dropped from about 2 percent to 1.7 percent of total vehicle miles traveled .
Falling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , lower gasoline prices , and flexible teleworking schedules .
This year , the corona virus pandemic plunged public transit ridership to its lowest level in more than a century .
From January to April , unlinked passenger trips dropped 85 percent .
Total vehicle miles also dropped , but by only about 42 percent .
The Centers for Disease Control issued guidelines calling for employers to support employee efforts to use “ forms of transportation that minimize close contact with others , ” including “ driving or riding by car either alone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have a choice , many appear to be avoiding public transportation .
Even before the pandemic , transit ridership was falling in key markets .
Public ridership dropped 17 percent in the Los Angeles area from 2013 to 2018 , despite billions spent to expand the L.A. public transit system .
This year , because of the virus , California ridership declined an additional 65 to 90 percent , depending upon metropolitan area .
On June 29 , the California Transit Association requested that governor Gavin Newsome provide $ 3.1 billion in funding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We ’ re now in the middle of a public transit crisis .
Ridership in the New York Metropolitan Area , the nation ’ s largest public transit market , recovered from April lows , but by July still remained down more than 50 percent from 2019 .
The New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority projects losses from the pandemic of up to $ 8.5 billion .
New York City may be looking at elimination of a large portion of subway lines without billions in Federal aid .
The jury is still out on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ damage to U.S. public transit systems .
But for now , it ’ s clear that many Americans value personal health and their love of cars more than the supposed environmental benefits of public transportation .

Public transit systems play an important role in transporting people within our major cities. Buses, trains, streetcars, and ferry boats transport more than 27 million people each day in the United States. Yet U.S. public transit ridership has been declining for the last five years and the coronavirus pandemic is accelerating the decline.
Public transit ridership is measured by “unlinked passenger trips,” with a trip defined as whenever a person boards a transit vehicle, including transfers. Since 1970, the number of unlinked passenger trips grew about 37 percent to almost 10 billion trips in 2019. Transit miles grew more than 15 percent from 2000 to 2018, keeping pace with total U.S. vehicle miles traveled.
Public transit ridership consists of primarily bus (48 percent) and train (47 percent) transportation. The New York Metropolitan Area served 40 percent of U.S. public transit riders, with Chicago and Los Angeles distant second and third locations with just under 6 percent of U.S. ridership each.
Progressive leaders have long proposed the use of public transportation instead of private vehicles to save the environment. Senator Bernie Sanders stated, “For every $1 billion we invest in public transportation, we create 30,000 jobs, save thousands of dollars a year for each commuter, and dramatically cut greenhouse gas emissions.”
But U.S. residents don’t appear to agree. Since 2014, U.S. public transit ridership has been declining. From 2014 to 2019, unlinked passenger trips fell about 7.5 percent with transit mileage falling more than 9 percent. Public transit mileage dropped from about 2 percent to 1.7 percent of total vehicle miles traveled. Falling ridership is attributed to increased automobile ownership, lower gasoline prices, and flexible teleworking schedules.
This year, the corona virus pandemic plunged public transit ridership to its lowest level in more than a century. From January to April, unlinked passenger trips dropped 85 percent. Total vehicle miles also dropped, but by only about 42 percent.
The Centers for Disease Control issued guidelines calling for employers to support employee efforts to use “forms of transportation that minimize close contact with others,” including “driving or riding by car either alone or with household members.” If commuters have a choice, many appear to be avoiding public transportation.
Even before the pandemic, transit ridership was falling in key markets. Public ridership dropped 17 percent in the Los Angeles area from 2013 to 2018, despite billions spent to expand the L.A. public transit system.
This year, because of the virus, California ridership declined an additional 65 to 90 percent, depending upon metropolitan area. On June 29, the California Transit Association requested that governor Gavin Newsome provide $3.1 billion in funding relief to avoid permanent service reductions.
We’re now in the middle of a public transit crisis. Ridership in the New York Metropolitan Area, the nation’s largest public transit market, recovered from April lows, but by July still remained down more than 50 percent from 2019. The New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority projects losses from the pandemic of up to $8.5 billion. New York City may be looking at elimination of a large portion of subway lines without billions in Federal aid.
The jury is still out on whether the corona virus will cause permanent damage to U.S. public transit systems. But for now, it’s clear that many Americans value personal health and their love of cars more than the supposed environmental benefits of public transportation.
Originally published in Washington Examiner.