committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-07-05--Nearly everything you have read or heard about koalas is wrong

The calls were out this week saying that koalas will be extinct in New South Wales in 30 years .
But they didn ’ t mention that Koalas thrive and multiply so fast that in the right conditions scientists talk of ‘ plagues ’ .
On Kangaroo Island last year , there were so many koalas , the South Australian government has been trying to sterilize or relocate thousands of them over the last twenty years .
Periodically scientists even discuss whether we have to cull them ( the horror ! )
.
They ’ ve survived twenty megafires in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ponder that Koalas were only introduced to Kangaroo Island in the 1930′s but by the 1990′s there were 14,000 of them and even though they are considered a tourism asset they are also considered a problem and pest too .
“ Nearly everything you have read or heard about koalas , is wrong ” — Vic Jurskis Vic Jurskis is a veteran forester and fire expert who studied them for years .
He ’ s written The Great Koala Scam , Green propaganda , junk science government waste and cruelty .
Jurskis estimates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more koalas now than there were 250 years ago .
He describes how koalas have been booming and busting for two centuries .
Before the first fleet arrived , koalas were so rare that the new settlers didn ’ t even see one for fifteen years !
But after the indigenous cool burns programs stopped , dense forests grew which were choc-full of tender new shoots that koalas love to eat .
So koala populations would flourish and boom right up until a fire wiped them out .
In other areas farmers cleared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trees would get sick and resprout continuously , which also worked out pretty well for koalas .
So koalas boomed in the valleys too .
Sooner or later a drought would come and the valley koalas would starve and get sick themselves .
Jurskis recommends we use koala rescue funds to start doing better forest management with cool burns so the megafires don ’ t incinerate the next oversupply of koalas .
It ’ s a man-made cycle of pain and suffering .
You ’ d think The Guardian and The ABC would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rounded view , especially since they covered the boom stories and the Koala Wars .
Here ’ s the ABC in 2002 : Scientists say the only solution to this crisis is to begin culling Koalas .
Against the scientists are people who believe we need to be creating more habitats or the koalas .
The Australian Koala Foundation are planting wildlife corridors to link koala habitats .
But the scientists say this is just going to feed the problem – wherever the koalas have been introduced they thrive and eventually destroy their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them to stop the plague on Kangaroo Island : Koala and kangaroo culling considered as numbers become ‘ overabundant ’ A report from a parliamentary inquiry has recommended the state ’ s environment minister make an immediate decision to declare koalas , western grey kangaroos , long-nosed fur seals and little corellas overabundant in some areas .
The committee heard that sterilisation of the Kangaroo Island koala population had had little success.
“ Population numbers on the Island continue to rise and their impacts are threatening its biodiversity , ” the report says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2019 This year , plagues in Victoria too : Eucalyptus trees provide the main food source for koalas , so it ’ s no surprise huge numbers of them are gravitating to the vast blue gum plantations in south west Victoria .
So much so that landowners nearby are reporting koala populations are growing to “ plague proportions ” .
New research shows the skyrocketing koala populations are becoming unsustainable and damaging vegetation .
— ABC February 2020 Koalas on Kangaroo Island went from zero to plague proportions in just 60 years From @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a colorful history of how South Australia dealt with the dilemma of culling cute koalas : Koalas were introduced to Kangaroo Island in the 1930s .
By the 1990s , their populations had reached almost 14,000 .
Although they were the jewel in the Kangaroo Island ’ s ecotourism crown , some scientists believed they had no right to be on the island .
According to David Paton , an environmental scientist from the University of Adelaide , there was a hierarchy of animals rights on Kangaroo Island , and the koalas ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In his own words : As a compromise between the environmental scientists that wanted to kill them and the tourism operators that wanted to conserve them , between 1997 and 2005 , the South Australian government paid for the sterilisation of 3,400 adult koalas and relocated a further 1,000 to the mainland .
Each sterilisation cost around $ 140 .
Needless to say , the remaining koalas kept breeding and environmental scientists kept asking for more money to manage the koala problem and run public “ education campaigns ” about the problem .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ decided there wasn ’ t a problem and ceased funding .
Mysteriously , the koalas then developed a disease which dropped their populations by half .
They ’ ve survived megafires , drought and disease .
Jurskis uses the term “ irrupting ” which means a sudden increase in an animal population .
Bushfires and Koalas : It ’ s Not That Simple Before Australia ’ s fire regime changed , koalas were naturally rare because they eat tender , juicy and nutritious new leaves which are a rare commodity in healthy , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t see a live koala until 15 years after they arrived in Australia .
The Sydney Gazette of August 21 , 1803 , reported that “ its food consists solely of gum leaves , in the choice of which it is excessively nice ” .
This was common knowledge for more than a century .
In total , there were 20 megafires in 200 years .
Koalas are still there in unnaturally high densities .
There is an average of one koala per three hectares anywhere that monkey gums , blue gums or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the dense young forests that grew up after the demise of the Yowenjerre people .
Koalas have persisted for 150 years despite heavy clearing and repeated megafires .
The experts claim that clearing and hunting caused extreme declines and loss of genetic diversity in Victoria ’ s koalas .
However , the South Gippsland population is supposed to be “ of high conservation significance ” as a population retaining its naturally diverse gene pool .
The $ 3 million being handed out by Minister Ley would better be spent reintroducing mild fire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before the scrub bounces back .
This was the recommendation of traditional burning expert Victor Steffensen at the Koala Inquiry on December 9 ( p. 27 ) .
While-ever our leaders continue to take advice from green academics and bureaucrats , emergency services generalissimos and misguided children , instead of people who know and love the land , our future will get progressively sadder and badder .
Vic Jurskis , a veteran forester and fire expert , is the author of the just-published The Great Koala Scam : green propaganda , junk science @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It can be ordered here Vic Jurskis explained the situation late last year to the NSW Parliament .
From page 7 onwards : I am one of very few who have studied natural koalas .
They live in large home ranges with thousands of trees , so you do not see them .
Healthy old trees mostly have poor , hard , dry leaves that can not sustain koalas .
They move long distances to find fresh browse .
Explorers did not see them in the valleys because they were not there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rarely be detected , even with the help of Aborigines .
After settlers cleared paddocks , sowed pastures and disrupted Aboriginal burning , koalas erupted because dense young forests with millions of new shoots grew up in the foothills .
Paddock trees got sick and started turning over new shoots all the time , so koalas invaded the valleys .
The fur industry was a response .
In the Federation drought , trees were not able to keep reshooting , so koalas suffered starvation and chlamydiosis .
They died out in the valleys @ @ @ @ @ @ @ After World War II , timber cutters got chainsaws and tractors .
Intensive harvesting created dense young forests and koalas bred up again .
Then we stopped burning and grazing and locked up most of the forests .
Trees got sick again ; now koalas and scrub are erupting through declining forests—both regrowth and old growth .
The dense population in the Pilliga crashed again in the millennium drought , whereas low-density populations continued to erupt .
Nearly everything you have read or heard about koalas , including NSW Koala Strategy , is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of history and unwitting studies of unsustainably dense populations .
NGOs and national parks service rely on misinformation to support fundraising , political campaigns and land grabs .
The Senate inquiry swallowed it whole .
When Mr Singh , who is now the member for Coffs Harbour , called it out , AAP FactCheck said his statement was false .
They quoted the ridiculous Senate report and World Wildlife Fund report about millions of koalas in 1788 .
You have got my ecological history .
It was submitted , refereed and accepted as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ koalas that has ever been published .
After they announced its imminent publication , CSIRO rebadged it as an opinion piece , implying a low standard .
When I challenged AAP , they used this to deny the facts .
But I am here today to share the facts with you .
As I wrote in my submission in July , denial of history leads us to set up reserves of dying trees and scrub for unsustainable populations .
Then they face lingering death in droughts or incineration in megafires .
You have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I saw crossing the highway south of Eden Wednesday before last , where Dr Lunney says they are extinct .
I will use them to illustrate the problem with koalas and fires .
Thank you .
Here ’ s the nub of it : The Hon .
PENNY SHARPE : You are very critical of the NSW Koala Strategy .
What is wrong with it , in your view ?
Mr JURSKIS : It aims to stabilise and then increase populations , when there are already too many koalas because of the unhealthy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same reason why we are having uncontrollable wildfires : It is because of the structure of the forest .
As Victor Steffensen says , it is upside-down country : It is thinning on top and thick underneath .
I would like to refer to those photos that you have got .
For example , the first photo—if you have a look at the ground you can see it is all litter and dead wood .
There is no grass or herbs or anything .
That is where all the biodiversity is in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ground layer and the small animals that rely on that layer .
It is not there ; it has been choked out by scrub .
So you have got litter on the ground , and it is continuous with scrub in the middle and it is continuous with the thinning canopy on the top .
You get a fire in that , it is uncontrollable because in severe conditions you get fire storms and ember showers that can be tens of kilometres in front of the fire front .
That is why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that is unprecedented about these fires we are having at the moment is the amount of fuel in the bush .
It is right through Australia ; there is three-dimensionally continuous fuel and declining trees wherever you go because we no longer use mild burning .
In fact , in New South Wales it is illegal to manage the bush properly by burning it frequently and mildly .
It is against the regulations to do it properly .
One MP has trouble grasping how rare koalas were : The Hon .
SHAYNE MALLARD @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I am from the Blue Mountains and there are reports of one or two koala sightings up at Blackheath and Lapstone , but just one or two sightings .
If your hypothesis is right , would we not be seeing a bounce back of significant numbers of koalas in a habitat that did have thousands and thousands of koalas up until the turn of the last century ?
Mr JURSKIS : No , it did not have thousands and thousands of koalas .
That is exactly my point .
Mr JURSKIS : A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about one koala per 100 hectares .
The Hon .
SHAYNE MALLARD : There are a few thousand hectares , though .
Mr JURSKIS : Yes .
The first eruption of koalas was noted by surveyor Govett , who Govetts Leap is named after .
He described them as numerous in the dense stringybark forests on the Hawkesbury and on the Coxs River side of the Blue Mountains .
Those were new forests ; they grew up when we disrupted Aboriginal burning .
The Hon .
SHAYNE MALLARD : But we are not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Blue Mountains .
Mr JURSKIS : We are .
If you can see koalas , it means they are erupting .
Naturally , you do not see them because you have got one koala per tens of thousands of trees .
A natural koala population is invisible .
When you can see them—like , for example , that koala in the photo there ; that is in an area where koalas are supposed to be extinct .
They are actually erupting .
There ’ s a lot more reading at both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the Parliamentary PDF .
Or buy Vic ’ s Book !
The Great Koala Scam , Green propaganda , junk science government waste and cruelty .
Things you need to know about Australian megafires and forest management : • Climate change and bushfires — More rain , the same droughts , no trend , no science • A history of droughts and flooding rains from 1782 – 1865 in Australia • Off the charts : Bushfires may be 20 times more intense than the largest fires humans can control • Aboriginals didn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to save them from Government nurtured firestorms • On average bushfires burn an amazing 50 million ha every year in Australia • Royal Commission on Fires based on Myth of Hotter-Drier Summer h/t to CFACT and Climate Depot .
Thanks to Pat , Beowulf , TedM , PeterW , GeeAye .
( Does anyone know where Pat is ? )

The calls were out this week saying that koalas will be extinct in New South Wales in 30 years. But they didn’t mention that Koalas thrive and multiply so fast that in the right conditions scientists talk of ‘plagues’. On Kangaroo Island last year, there were so many koalas, the South Australian government has been trying to sterilize or relocate thousands of them over the last twenty years. Periodically scientists even discuss whether we have to cull them (the horror!).
They’ve survived twenty megafires in 200 years. They can recover. Ponder that Koalas were only introduced to Kangaroo Island in the 1930′s but by the 1990′s there were 14,000 of them and even though they are considered a tourism asset they are also considered a problem and pest too.
“Nearly everything you have read or heard about koalas, is wrong” — Vic Jurskis
Vic Jurskis is a veteran forester and fire expert who studied them for years. He’s written The Great Koala Scam, Green propaganda, junk science government waste and cruelty.
Jurskis estimates that thanks to European settlers there are more koalas now than there were 250 years ago.
He describes how koalas have been booming and busting for two centuries. Before the first fleet arrived, koalas were so rare that the new settlers didn’t even see one for fifteen years! But after the indigenous cool burns programs stopped, dense forests grew which were choc-full of tender new shoots that koalas love to eat. So koala populations would flourish and boom right up until a fire wiped them out. In other areas farmers cleared land, but the “paddock” trees would get sick and resprout continuously, which also worked out pretty well for koalas. So koalas boomed in the valleys too. Sooner or later a drought would come and the valley koalas would starve and get sick themselves.
Jurskis recommends we use koala rescue funds to start doing better forest management with cool burns so the megafires don’t incinerate the next oversupply of koalas. It’s a man-made cycle of pain and suffering.
You’d think The Guardian and The ABC would be able to give us a more rounded view, especially since they covered the boom stories and the Koala Wars. Here’s the ABC in 2002:
Scientists say the only solution to this crisis is to begin culling Koalas. Against the scientists are people who believe we need to be creating more habitats or the koalas. The Australian Koala Foundation are planting wildlife corridors to link koala habitats. But the scientists say this is just going to feed the problem – wherever the koalas have been introduced they thrive and eventually destroy their habitat.
Last year gave up sterilizing them to stop the plague on Kangaroo Island:
A report from a parliamentary inquiry has recommended the state’s environment minister make an immediate decision to declare koalas, western grey kangaroos, long-nosed fur seals and little corellas overabundant in some areas. The committee heard that sterilisation of the Kangaroo Island koala population had had little success.“Population numbers on the Island continue to rise and their impacts are threatening its biodiversity,” the report says. — The Guardian, 12th July 2019
This year, plagues in Victoria too:
Eucalyptus trees provide the main food source for koalas, so it’s no surprise huge numbers of them are gravitating to the vast blue gum plantations in south west Victoria. So much so that landowners nearby are reporting koala populations are growing to “plague proportions”. New research shows the skyrocketing koala populations are becoming unsustainable and damaging vegetation. — ABC February 2020
Koalas on Kangaroo Island went from zero to plague proportions in just 60 years
From a blog called ConvictCreations, we get a colorful history of how South Australia dealt with the dilemma of culling cute koalas:
Koalas were introduced to Kangaroo Island in the 1930s. By the 1990s, their populations had reached almost 14,000. Although they were the jewel in the Kangaroo Island’s ecotourism crown, some scientists believed they had no right to be on the island. According to David Paton, an environmental scientist from the University of Adelaide, there was a hierarchy of animals rights on Kangaroo Island, and the koalas’ rights were close to the bottom. In his own words:
“You are going to cause major problems for other species — other species that are endemic to the island. Those things have a right, a greater right, to be here than koalas.”
As a compromise between the environmental scientists that wanted to kill them and the tourism operators that wanted to conserve them, between 1997 and 2005, the South Australian government paid for the sterilisation of 3,400 adult koalas and relocated a further 1,000 to the mainland. Each sterilisation cost around $140. Needless to say, the remaining koalas kept breeding and environmental scientists kept asking for more money to manage the koala problem and run public “education campaigns” about the problem. For whatever reason, the government then decided there wasn’t a problem and ceased funding. Mysteriously, the koalas then developed a disease which dropped their populations by half.
They’ve survived megafires, drought and disease. Jurskis uses the term “irrupting” which means a sudden increase in an animal population.
Vic Jurskis, Quadrant, 27th Feb, 2020
Before Australia’s fire regime changed, koalas were naturally rare because they eat tender, juicy and nutritious new leaves which are a rare commodity in healthy, mature eucalypt forests. Europeans didn’t see a live koala until 15 years after they arrived in Australia. The Sydney Gazette of August 21, 1803, reported that “its food consists solely of gum leaves, in the choice of which it is excessively nice”. This was common knowledge for more than a century.
In total, there were 20 megafires in 200 years. Koalas are still there in unnaturally high densities. There is an average of one koala per three hectares anywhere that monkey gums, blue gums or yellow stringybarks grow.
… koalas irrupted in the dense young forests that grew up after the demise of the Yowenjerre people. Koalas have persisted for 150 years despite heavy clearing and repeated megafires. The experts claim that clearing and hunting caused extreme declines and loss of genetic diversity in Victoria’s koalas. However, the South Gippsland population is supposed to be “of high conservation significance” as a population retaining its naturally diverse gene pool.
The $3 million being handed out by Minister Ley would better be spent reintroducing mild fire to areas burnt at high intensities, before the scrub bounces back. This was the recommendation of traditional burning expert Victor Steffensen at the Koala Inquiry on December 9 (p. 27).
While-ever our leaders continue to take advice from green academics and bureaucrats, emergency services generalissimos and misguided children, instead of people who know and love the land, our future will get progressively sadder and badder.
Vic Jurskis, a veteran forester and fire expert, is the author of the just-published The Great Koala Scam: green propaganda, junk science, government waste & cruelty to animals. It can be ordered here
Vic Jurskis explained the situation late last year to the NSW Parliament. From page 7 onwards:
I am one of very few who have studied natural koalas. They live in large home ranges with thousands of trees, so you do not see them. Healthy old trees mostly have poor, hard, dry leaves that cannot sustain koalas. They move long distances to find fresh browse. Explorers did not see them in the valleys because they were not there. John Gould wrote that they could rarely be detected, even with the help of Aborigines. After settlers cleared paddocks, sowed pastures and disrupted Aboriginal burning, koalas erupted because dense young forests with millions of new shoots grew up in the foothills. Paddock trees got sick and started turning over new shoots all the time, so koalas invaded the valleys. The fur industry was a response.
In the Federation drought, trees were not able to keep reshooting, so koalas suffered starvation and chlamydiosis. They died out in the valleys but they survived in the forests. After World War II, timber cutters got chainsaws and tractors. Intensive harvesting created dense young forests and koalas bred up again. Then we stopped burning and grazing and locked up most of the forests. Trees got sick again; now koalas and scrub are erupting through declining forests—both regrowth and old growth. The dense population in the Pilliga crashed again in the millennium drought, whereas low-density populations continued to erupt.
Nearly everything you have read or heard about koalas, including NSW Koala Strategy, is wrong because it is based on denial of history and unwitting studies of unsustainably dense populations. NGOs and national parks service rely on misinformation to support fundraising, political campaigns and land grabs. The Senate inquiry swallowed it whole. When Mr Singh, who is now the member for Coffs Harbour, called it out, AAP FactCheck said his statement was false. They quoted the ridiculous Senate report and World Wildlife Fund report about millions of koalas in 1788.
You have got my ecological history. It was submitted, refereed and accepted as a review—the only reasonably comprehensive review of koalas that has ever been published. After they announced its imminent publication, CSIRO rebadged it as an opinion piece, implying a low standard. When I challenged AAP, they used this to deny the facts. But I am here today to share the facts with you. As I wrote in my submission in July, denial of history leads us to set up reserves of dying trees and scrub for unsustainable populations. Then they face lingering death in droughts or incineration in megafires. You have got five photos of a koala that I saw crossing the highway south of Eden Wednesday before last, where Dr Lunney says they are extinct. I will use them to illustrate the problem with koalas and fires. Thank you.
Here’s the nub of it:
The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: You are very critical of the NSW Koala Strategy. What is wrong with it, in your view?
Mr JURSKIS: It aims to stabilise and then increase populations, when there are already too many koalas because of the unhealthy, chronically declining forest. That is the same reason why we are having uncontrollable wildfires: It is because of the structure of the forest. As Victor Steffensen says, it is upside-down country: It is thinning on top and thick underneath. I would like to refer to those photos that you have got. For example, the first photo—if you have a look at the ground you can see it is all litter and dead wood. There is no grass or herbs or anything. That is where all the biodiversity is in a healthy forest: It is in the ground layer and the small animals that rely on that layer. It is not there; it has been choked out by scrub.
So you have got litter on the ground, and it is continuous with scrub in the middle and it is continuous with the thinning canopy on the top. You get a fire in that, it is uncontrollable because in severe conditions you get fire storms and ember showers that can be tens of kilometres in front of the fire front. That is why fires are uncontrollable. The only thing that is unprecedented about these fires we are having at the moment is the amount of fuel in the bush. It is right through Australia; there is three-dimensionally continuous fuel and declining trees wherever you go because we no longer use mild burning. In fact, in New South Wales it is illegal to manage the bush properly by burning it frequently and mildly. It is against the regulations to do it properly.
One MP has trouble grasping how rare koalas were:
The Hon. SHAYNE MALLARD: Thank you for your submission. I am from the Blue Mountains and there are reports of one or two koala sightings up at Blackheath and Lapstone, but just one or two sightings. If your hypothesis is right, would we not be seeing a bounce back of significant numbers of koalas in a habitat that did have thousands and thousands of koalas up until the turn of the last century?
Mr JURSKIS: No, it did not have thousands and thousands of koalas. That is exactly my point.
Mr JURSKIS: A natural koala population has a density of about one koala per 100 hectares.
The Hon. SHAYNE MALLARD: There are a few thousand hectares, though.
Mr JURSKIS: Yes. The first eruption of koalas was noted by surveyor Govett, who Govetts Leap is named after. He described them as numerous in the dense stringybark forests on the Hawkesbury and on the Coxs River side of the Blue Mountains. Those were new forests; they grew up when we disrupted Aboriginal burning.
The Hon. SHAYNE MALLARD: But we are not seeing evidence of an erupting koala population in the Blue Mountains.
Mr JURSKIS: We are. If you can see koalas, it means they are erupting. Naturally, you do not see them because you have got one koala per tens of thousands of trees. A natural koala population is invisible. When you can see them—like, for example, that koala in the photo there; that is in an area where koalas are supposed to be extinct. They are actually erupting.
There’s a lot more reading at both the last two articles — on Quadrant and the Parliamentary PDF.
Things you need to know about Australian megafires and forest management:
h/t to CFACT and Climate Depot. Thanks to Pat, Beowulf, TedM, PeterW, GeeAye. (Does anyone know where Pat is?)
This article originally appeared at JoNova


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-07-06--FDA: Deregulating during the pandemic, and beyond

The press has obsessively focused on supposed government shortfalls regarding COVID-19 testing .
However , virtually no attention has been given to the Food and Drug Administration ’ s ( FDA ’ s ) vigorous and unprecedented efforts to ease regulatory requirements during the pandemic .
One such effort involves “ immediately in effect ” enforcement policies for medical devices that are particularly needed during this health crisis .
These detailed policies were issued , beginning in March , pursuant to emergency authority under FDA law .
At the heart of each policy is the statement that FDA “ does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ devices are marketed in ways that previously were not allowed , assuming the relevant policy is followed .
These policies apply to ventilators , clinical electronic thermometers , medical-use face masks , respirators , gowns , gloves and other medical devices .
There are also policies for medical devices used for fetal and maternal monitoring , imaging , cardiopulmonary bypass and sterilization .
Other policies apply to infusion pumps , air purifiers and digital health devices for treating psychiatric disorders .
The policies are intended to remain in effect only for the duration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some deregulatory aspects should be considered for the future and made permanent .
The goals of each medical device enforcement policy differ .
But they often include helping to ensure availability of needed devices and components , increasing remote patient monitoring to reduce exposure to COVID-19 , and expanding ways that devices can be marketed for patient care .
Each policy balances risk versus benefit .
Specific regulatory requirements are waived where their absence would not pose “ undue risk ” in light of the public health emergency .
The policies provide numerous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pose “ undue risk ” versus those that do .
They also detail critical , ongoing regulatory requirements ( such as product testing ) and include exhaustive recommendations for product labeling ( including instructions for using the product ) , conformance to consensus standards and application of existing FDA guidance .
While each policy is different , many allow manufacturers to make certain software and hardware modifications to currently marketed devices without prior FDA authorization .
Others allow expanded product indications and functionality without prior FDA authorization ( so-called “ off label promotion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ requirements are also often waived .
Discrete examples from a few policies are illustrative .
MRIs , x-ray systems , ultrasound and image analysis software are used in diagnosing and monitoring COVID-19 patients .
FDA ’ s current enforcement policy allows manufacturers to make “ limited ” modifications to the technical specifications , hardware , software , materials , functionality and indications of FDA-cleared or approved imaging devices without prior FDA authorization .
One given example is that design modifications can be made to improve the ability to clean , disinfect and/or sterilize @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continuous infusion of medicines , nutrition and other fluids .
The current infusion pump enforcement policy is intended to facilitate device availability , foster technologies that maintain safer physical distance , and address manufacturing limitations and supply shortages .
Among many other things , the enforcement policy allows companies to market FDA-cleared infusion pumps for new or different patient populations , such as pediatric patients , that had not been explicitly referenced in the cleared labeling without prior FDA authorization .
Similarly , FDA ’ s enforcement policy for non-invasive fetal and maternal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to FDA-cleared devices without submitting an FDA marketing application .
Such modifications can increase access to prenatal data and facilitate patient management without in-clinic or in-hospital visits .
Modifications include changes to a device ’ s instructions for use , so that a device can be used in a home setting and device modifications can make a device more mobile for home use or to increase remote monitoring capability .
The oft-repeated phrase “ don ’ t waste a good crisis ” could certainly apply here .
The crisis-inspired device enforcement policies are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these policies , particularly those relating to “ off label promotion ” and certain device modifications , have been topics of FDA-industry discussions for years .
They merit serious consideration for the long term , not just for the duration of this COVID crisis .
This would be consistent with President Trump ’ s May 19 Executive Order , “ Regulatory Relief to Support Economic Recovery.
” Aimed at combating COVID-19 ’ s economic consequences , the Executive Order instructs federal agencies to rescind , modify or waive regulations or provide regulatory exemptions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inhibit economic recovery , while ensuring that the actions are consistent with applicable laws and protect public health and safety .
Ongoing regulatory flexibility beyond this crisis will benefit the economy , free FDA to focus its limited resources on clearing and approving innovative and essential medical devices needed in the future , and allow the agency to continue protecting the public health during more ordinary times , as well as during crises that will almost certainly arise in the future .
Our best interests are not well served if the FDA ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expire when this crisis ebbs – and then must be resurrected during a future health emergency , when the Executive Branch may not be as amenable to regulatory flexibility .

The press has obsessively focused on supposed government shortfalls regarding COVID-19 testing. However, virtually no attention has been given to the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) vigorous and unprecedented efforts to ease regulatory requirements during the pandemic.
One such effort involves “immediately in effect” enforcement policies for medical devices that are particularly needed during this health crisis. These detailed policies were issued, beginning in March, pursuant to emergency authority under FDA law.
At the heart of each policy is the statement that FDA “does not intend to object” where specified devices are marketed in ways that previously were not allowed, assuming the relevant policy is followed.
These policies apply to ventilators, clinical electronic thermometers, medical-use face masks, respirators, gowns, gloves and other medical devices. There are also policies for medical devices used for fetal and maternal monitoring, imaging, cardiopulmonary bypass and sterilization. Other policies apply to infusion pumps, air purifiers and digital health devices for treating psychiatric disorders.
The policies are intended to remain in effect only for the duration of the COVID-19 crisis. However, some deregulatory aspects should be considered for the future and made permanent.
The goals of each medical device enforcement policy differ. Yet they often include helping to ensure availability of needed devices and components, increasing remote patient monitoring to reduce exposure to COVID-19, and expanding ways that devices can be marketed for patient care.
Each policy balances risk versus benefit. Specific regulatory requirements are waived where their absence would not pose “undue risk” in light of the public health emergency. The policies provide numerous examples of circumstances that don’t pose “undue risk” versus those that do.
They also detail critical, ongoing regulatory requirements (such as product testing) and include exhaustive recommendations for product labeling (including instructions for using the product), conformance to consensus standards and application of existing FDA guidance.
While each policy is different, many allow manufacturers to make certain software and hardware modifications to currently marketed devices without prior FDA authorization. Others allow expanded product indications and functionality without prior FDA authorization (so-called “off label promotion”). Other types of regulatory requirements are also often waived.
Discrete examples from a few policies are illustrative.
MRIs, x-ray systems, ultrasound and image analysis software are used in diagnosing and monitoring COVID-19 patients. FDA’s current enforcement policy allows manufacturers to make “limited” modifications to the technical specifications, hardware, software, materials, functionality and indications of FDA-cleared or approved imaging devices without prior FDA authorization. One given example is that design modifications can be made to improve the ability to clean, disinfect and/or sterilize these devices.
COVID-19 patients often need continuous infusion of medicines, nutrition and other fluids. The current infusion pump enforcement policy is intended to facilitate device availability, foster technologies that maintain safer physical distance, and address manufacturing limitations and supply shortages. Among many other things, the enforcement policy allows companies to market FDA-cleared infusion pumps for new or different patient populations, such as pediatric patients, that had not been explicitly referenced in the cleared labeling without prior FDA authorization.
Similarly, FDA’s enforcement policy for non-invasive fetal and maternal monitoring devices allows “limited” modifications to FDA-cleared devices without submitting an FDA marketing application. Such modifications can increase access to prenatal data and facilitate patient management without in-clinic or in-hospital visits. Modifications include changes to a device’s instructions for use, so that a device can be used in a home setting and device modifications can make a device more mobile for home use or to increase remote monitoring capability.
The oft-repeated phrase “don’t waste a good crisis” could certainly apply here. The crisis-inspired device enforcement policies are thoughtful and measured. Some aspects of these policies, particularly those relating to “off label promotion” and certain device modifications, have been topics of FDA-industry discussions for years.
They merit serious consideration for the long term, not just for the duration of this COVID crisis. This would be consistent with President Trump’s May 19 Executive Order, “Regulatory Relief to Support Economic Recovery.”
Aimed at combating COVID-19’s economic consequences, the Executive Order instructs federal agencies to rescind, modify or waive regulations or provide regulatory exemptions from regulations and other requirements that may inhibit economic recovery, while ensuring that the actions are consistent with applicable laws and protect public health and safety.
Ongoing regulatory flexibility beyond this crisis will benefit the economy, free FDA to focus its limited resources on clearing and approving innovative and essential medical devices needed in the future, and allow the agency to continue protecting the public health during more ordinary times, as well as during crises that will almost certainly arise in the future.
Our best interests are not well served if the FDA’s new policies are allowed to simply expire when this crisis ebbs – and then must be resurrected during a future health emergency, when the Executive Branch may not be as amenable to regulatory flexibility.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-07-06--Time to end subsidies for “renewable” energy

In order to promote the growth of renewable electricity sources , such as wind and solar , the federal government has given them special tax incentives .
Chief among these are the production tax credit ( PTC ) , which has been used primarily by wind generation and awards a substantial tax credit for every megawatt-hour ( MWh ) produced ; and the investment tax credit ( ITC ) , which is primarily used by solar electricity generators as a credit against construction costs .
PTCs and ITCs can amount to more than one-third of the cost of building and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ i ] These tax incentives were intended by Congress to support technology that was too expensive in its early development .
Over time , these tax credits accomplished their goals , as wind and solar power have increased from just over 4 % of the nation ’ s electric generating capacity in 2010 to nearly 13 % today ( 9.5 % for wind and 3.5 % for solar ) .
Although initially a temporary program , Congress has extended these subsidies several times in recent years as they were about to expire .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to expire at the end of 2020 , but renewable energy advocates are pushing to extend them again .
The following are reasons renewable subsidies should not be extended .
Over $ 100 billion has already been spent on renewables subsidies .
Renewable energy resources—primarily wind and solar—have received subsidies through the tax code since 1979 , most of which have occurred in the last decade .
Through 2018 , these subsidies amounted to more than $ 100 billion .
This amount is far in excess of federal assistance received by other electricity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exceeds the combined 2020 budgets for the Department of Homeland Security , the Department of Energy , the Department of the Interior , and the Environmental Protection Agency .
[ ii ] Wind and solar are no longer at a cost disadvantage .
One of the stated goals of renewable energy subsidies and mandates has been to stimulate demand for wind and solar technology in the hope that their high costs would decline .
[ iv ] This goal has been achieved .
In 2020 , the U.S. Energy Information Administration ( EIA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new on-shore wind capacity to be $ 1,319 per kilowatt ( kW ) , a 43 % drop from its estimate in 2010 of $ 2,325 per kW .
For solar photovoltaic capacity , EIA ’ s 2020 estimate is 82 % lower than it was ten years earlier ( $ 1,331 vs. $ 7,297 per kW ) .
For new sources of electricity , it now costs less to build and generate electricity from new wind and solar facilities than from a new natural gas facility , its chief competition in providing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( However , it can be less expensive to continue operating existing power plants , rather than replace them with new electricity sources like wind and solar .
[ vi ] ) Even the renewables industry says subsidies are no longer needed .
Numerous widely-reported studies by advocates of renewable power have documented the declining cost of wind and solar generation and concluded that these resources are now cost-competitive with conventional electricity sources .
One example comes from the International Renewable Energy Agency ( IRENA ) , an intergovernmental organization that performs research @ @ @ @ @ @ @ renewable power : “ In most parts of the world today , renewables are the lowest-cost source of new power generation .
As costs for solar and wind technologies continue falling , this will become the case in even more countries … ” [ viii ] The American Wind Energy Association ( AWEA ) also believes wind is now competitive without federal subsidies : “ Growth in the wind industry is expected to remain strong when the PTC is fully phased-out .
Because the PTC has been successful in helping establish a reliable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will continue to expand capacity … ” [ ix ] Wind and solar power do not provide the same value to the grid as conventional electricity sources .
In addition to not operating on-demand , they provide little of the capacity value that is needed to maintain long-term reliability and can not be relied on to provide the essential reliability services the grid needs to maintain reliability .
Instead , they rely on other electricity generators to provide the services they can not , thus “ imposing ” those costs on other generators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and solar facilities do not pay these costs , ratepayers do .
A Texas heat wave in August 2019 provides a good example of how renewables can distort electricity grid operations .
In the prior ten years , wind capacity had grown from 10 % to 26 % of capacity in the Texas power market ( ERCOT ) .
[ x ] The low marginal cost of subsidized wind power depressed market prices for electricity to the point where over 5,000 MW of conventional generation chose to retire in 2018 rather than continue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ record levels , these retirements combined with an unpredicted drop in wind generation to force ERCOT to enact emergency procedures to avoid blackouts .
Although blackouts were avoided , electricity prices that were under $ 20 per MWh in the morning of August 13 , 2019 rose to $ 9,000 per MWh in the afternoon .
[ xi ] Federal subsidies for renewables have not lowered consumer electricity costs .
The ITC and PTC subsidies have lowered out-of-pocket costs for renewable project developers but have not led to similar savings for electricity ratepayers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that have enacted renewable portfolio standards ( RPS ) that require utilities to procure renewable power .
A study from the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago examined the impact RPS programs had on electricity rates across the country and concluded they led to higher electricity rates .
Rates increased by 11 % when the share of renewable generation increased by 1.8 % , and by 17 % when the renewable share increased by 4.2 % .
[ xii ] According to the study , “ These cost estimates … likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ generation system , including those associated with their intermittency , higher transmission costs , and any stranded asset costs assigned to ratepayers.
” A large portion of subsidies are sent overseas .
Much of the wind and solar power deployed in the United States is owned by foreign firms , and the tax credits that these power projects generate are collected by international corporations .
One study found that of the $ 24.5 billion in PTC credits awarded between 2007 and 2016 , just 15 companies received three quarters of those credits , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 8.2 billion ) went to seven overseas firms .
[ xiii ] There is no longer a compelling reason to extend federal subsidies for renewables .
Continued subsidies are no longer needed to support a fully developed renewables industry .
After four decades of federal subsidies and state mandates , the wind and solar industries are mature and able to compete on equal footing with conventional sources of electricity .
As AWEA said , “ the PTC has been successful … ” Or as we put it , enough is enough .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ farms that begin construction in 2020 is $ 15 per MWh , which is 44 % of the $ 34.10 per MWh levelized cost of building and operating a new on-shore wind facility in 2020 ( EIA , Levelized Cost and Levelized Avoided Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2020 , February 2020 ) .
In 2016 , new wind was eligible for a $ 23 per MWh PTC , 39 % of that year ’ s EIA levelized cost estimate of $ 58.5 per MWh ( EIA , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2016 , August 2016 ) .
[ ii ] The 2020 budgets for the four agencies are as follows : DHS – $ 51.7 billion , DOE – $ 31.7 billion , DOI – $ 12.6 billion and EPA – $ 6.07 billion .
[ iii ] Congressional Research Service , Energy Tax Policy : Historical Perspectives on and Current Status of Energy Tax Expenditures , Report for Congress R41227 , May 2 , 2011 .
Congressional Research Service , Energy Tax Incentives : Measuring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Report for Congress R41953 , March 19 , 2015 .
Congressional Research Service , Energy Tax Policy : Issues in the 114th Congress , Report for Congress R43206 , June 15 , 2016 .
Congressional Research Service , The Value of Energy Tax Incentives for Different Types of Energy Resources : In Brief , Report for Congress R44852 , May 18 , 2017 .
Congressional Research Service , The Value of Energy Tax Incentives for Different Types of Energy Resources , Report for Congress R44852 , Updated March 19 , 2019 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Renewable Electricity Production Tax Credit : In Brief , CRS Report R43453 , November 27 , 2018 .
[ v ] U.S. Energy Information Administration , Levelized Cost and Levelized Avoided Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2020 , February 2020 .
[ vi ] “ The Levelized Cost of Electricity from Existing Generation Resources , ” Tom Stacy and George Taylor , June 2019. www.americaspower.org [ vii ] Total overnight capital costs , converted to real 2019 dollars , from U.S. Energy Information Agency ’ s Annual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : //www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/ .
[ viii ] IRENA , Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2018 , International Renewable Energy Agency , 2019 .
Quotations are from “ Key Findings ” on p.9 .
[ xii ] Greenstone , M. , and I. Nath .
“ Do Renewable Portfolio Standards Deliver ?
” Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago Working Paper 2019-62 , April 2019 .
[ xiii ] Erickson , Angela C. , The Production Tax Credit : Corporate Subsidies and Renewable Energy , Texas Public Policy Foundation , October 2018 .

In order to promote the growth of renewable electricity sources, such as wind and solar, the federal government has given them special tax incentives. Chief among these are the production tax credit (PTC), which has been used primarily by wind generation and awards a substantial tax credit for every megawatt-hour (MWh) produced; and the investment tax credit (ITC), which is primarily used by solar electricity generators as a credit against construction costs. PTCs and ITCs can amount to more than one-third of the cost of building and operating wind and solar facilities.[i]
These tax incentives were intended by Congress to support technology that was too expensive in its early development. Over time, these tax credits accomplished their goals, as wind and solar power have increased from just over 4% of the nation’s electric generating capacity in 2010 to nearly 13% today (9.5% for wind and 3.5% for solar). Although initially a temporary program, Congress has extended these subsidies several times in recent years as they were about to expire. The PTC for wind is now set to expire at the end of 2020, but renewable energy advocates are pushing to extend them again. The following are reasons renewable subsidies should not be extended.
Over $100 billion has already been spent on renewables subsidies.
Renewable energy resources—primarily wind and solar—have received subsidies through the tax code since 1979, most of which have occurred in the last decade. Through 2018, these subsidies amounted to more than $100 billion. This amount is far in excess of federal assistance received by other electricity sources. And for perspective, this exceeds the combined 2020 budgets for the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Energy, the Department of the Interior, and the Environmental Protection Agency.[ii]
Tax Subsidies for Renewable Energy (2019 $Billion)[iii]
Wind and solar are no longer at a cost disadvantage.
One of the stated goals of renewable energy subsidies and mandates has been to stimulate demand for wind and solar technology in the hope that their high costs would decline.[iv] This goal has been achieved. In 2020, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimated the total overnight cost of new on-shore wind capacity to be $1,319 per kilowatt (kW), a 43% drop from its estimate in 2010 of $2,325 per kW. For solar photovoltaic capacity, EIA’s 2020 estimate is 82% lower than it was ten years earlier ($1,331 vs. $7,297 per kW). For new sources of electricity, it now costs less to build and generate electricity from new wind and solar facilities than from a new natural gas facility, its chief competition in providing new power supplies.[v] (However, it can be less expensive to continue operating existing power plants, rather than replace them with new electricity sources like wind and solar.[vi])
EIA Cost of New Renewables (2010 = 100%)[vii]
Even the renewables industry says subsidies are no longer needed.
Numerous widely-reported studies by advocates of renewable power have documented the declining cost of wind and solar generation and concluded that these resources are now cost-competitive with conventional electricity sources. One example comes from the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), an intergovernmental organization that performs research and analysis to promote the growth of renewable power: “In most parts of the world today, renewables are the lowest-cost source of new power generation. As costs for solar and wind technologies continue falling, this will become the case in even more countries …”[viii] The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) also believes wind is now competitive without federal subsidies: “Growth in the wind industry is expected to remain strong when the PTC is fully phased-out. Because the PTC has been successful in helping establish a reliable, competitive domestic wind industry, wind will continue to expand capacity …”[ix]
Subsidized renewables have distorted the electricity grid.
Wind and solar power do not provide the same value to the grid as conventional electricity sources. In addition to not operating on-demand, they provide little of the capacity value that is needed to maintain long-term reliability and cannot be relied on to provide the essential reliability services the grid needs to maintain reliability. Instead, they rely on other electricity generators to provide the services they cannot, thus “imposing” those costs on other generators and the grid. Though the wind and solar facilities do not pay these costs, ratepayers do.
A Texas heat wave in August 2019 provides a good example of how renewables can distort electricity grid operations. In the prior ten years, wind capacity had grown from 10% to 26% of capacity in the Texas power market (ERCOT).[x] The low marginal cost of subsidized wind power depressed market prices for electricity to the point where over 5,000 MW of conventional generation chose to retire in 2018 rather than continue losing money. With electricity demand reaching record levels, these retirements combined with an unpredicted drop in wind generation to force ERCOT to enact emergency procedures to avoid blackouts. Although blackouts were avoided, electricity prices that were under $20 per MWh in the morning of August 13, 2019 rose to $9,000 per MWh in the afternoon.[xi]
Federal subsidies for renewables have not lowered consumer electricity costs.
The ITC and PTC subsidies have lowered out-of-pocket costs for renewable project developers but have not led to similar savings for electricity ratepayers. This is evident when examining states that have enacted renewable portfolio standards (RPS) that require utilities to procure renewable power. A study from the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago examined the impact RPS programs had on electricity rates across the country and concluded they led to higher electricity rates. Rates increased by 11% when the share of renewable generation increased by 1.8%, and by 17% when the renewable share increased by 4.2%.[xii] According to the study, “These cost estimates … likely reﬂect costs that renewables impose on the generation system, including those associated with their intermittency, higher transmission costs, and any stranded asset costs assigned to ratepayers.”
A large portion of subsidies are sent overseas.
Much of the wind and solar power deployed in the United States is owned by foreign firms, and the tax credits that these power projects generate are collected by international corporations. One study found that of the $24.5 billion in PTC credits awarded between 2007 and 2016, just 15 companies received three quarters of those credits, and 42% of that total ($8.2 billion) went to seven overseas firms.[xiii]
There is no longer a compelling reason to extend federal subsidies for renewables.
Continued subsidies are no longer needed to support a fully developed renewables industry. After four decades of federal subsidies and state mandates, the wind and solar industries are mature and able to compete on equal footing with conventional sources of electricity. As AWEA said, “the PTC has been successful …” Or as we put it, enough is enough.
[i] The PTC for wind farms that begin construction in 2020 is $15 per MWh, which is 44% of the $34.10 per MWh levelized cost of building and operating a new on-shore wind facility in 2020 (EIA, Levelized Cost and Levelized Avoided Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2020, February 2020). In 2016, new wind was eligible for a $23 per MWh PTC, 39% of that year’s EIA levelized cost estimate of $58.5 per MWh (EIA, Levelized Cost and Levelized Avoided Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2016, August 2016).
[ii] The 2020 budgets for the four agencies are as follows: DHS – $51.7 billion, DOE – $31.7 billion, DOI – $12.6 billion and EPA – $6.07 billion.
[iii] Congressional Research Service, Energy Tax Policy: Historical Perspectives on and Current Status of Energy Tax Expenditures, Report for Congress R41227, May 2, 2011. Congressional Research Service, Energy Tax Incentives: Measuring Value Across Different Types of Energy Resources, Report for Congress R41953, March 19, 2015. Congressional Research Service, Energy Tax Policy: Issues in the 114th Congress, Report for Congress R43206, June 15, 2016. Congressional Research Service, The Value of Energy Tax Incentives for Different Types of Energy Resources: In Brief, Report for Congress R44852, May 18, 2017. Congressional Research Service, The Value of Energy Tax Incentives for Different Types of Energy Resources, Report for Congress R44852, Updated March 19, 2019.
[iv] Congressional Research Service, The Renewable Electricity Production Tax Credit: In Brief, CRS Report R43453, November 27, 2018.
[v] U.S. Energy Information Administration, Levelized Cost and Levelized Avoided Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2020, February 2020.
[vi] “The Levelized Cost of Electricity from Existing Generation Resources,” Tom Stacy and George Taylor, June 2019. www.americaspower.org
[vii] Total overnight capital costs, converted to real 2019 dollars, from U.S. Energy Information Agency’s Annual Energy Outlook 2010 through 2020, https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/.
[viii] IRENA, Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2018, International Renewable Energy Agency, 2019. Quotations are from “Key Findings” on p.9.
[ix] https://www.awea.org/policy-and-issues/tax-policy, queried April 15, 2020.
[x] S&P Global Market Intelligence data.
[xi] http://www.ercot.com/mktinfo/prices/
[xii] Greenstone, M., and I. Nath. “Do Renewable Portfolio Standards Deliver?” Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago Working Paper 2019-62, April 2019.
[xiii] Erickson, Angela C., The Production Tax Credit: Corporate Subsidies and Renewable Energy, Texas Public Policy Foundation, October 2018.
This article originally appeared at America’s Power


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-07-07--Governor Newsom’s energy dysfunctional California

California professes to be the leader of everything and spouts voracious pride of being the State that imports more electricity than any other state .
Their dysfunctional energy policies have forced California to be the only state in contiguous America that imports most of its crude oil energy from foreign country suppliers to meet the energy demands of the state .
That 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being paid to oil-rich foreign countries , depriving Californians of jobs , careers , and business opportunities .
We ’ ve yet to receive any thank you cards from foreign suppliers for the states ’ policies that are making wealthy foreign countries , wealthier !
To the detriment of Californians , the costs of expensive imported electricity is being borne by residents and businesses alike , and precisely hard hitting to our disadvantaged residents , particularly Latinos and African Americans .
California households are already paying 50 % more , and industrial users @ @ @ @ @ @ @ electricity .
As California plans to shutter three natural gas power plants and its last nuclear power plant , the impact of power plant closures in California are assured to further increase the cost of power to Californians .
Those four power plants have been providing continuous uninterruptible electricity to Californians .
With the state having no plans to replace the capacity of those closures with in-state intermittent electricity from wind and solar , the state will need to import more high-priced electricity to fill the void , if other states even have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and businesses pay the premium .
The states ’ climate policies have driven up the cost of electricity and fuels to be are among the highest in the country , which have driven up the prices of virtually everything used in our daily lives .
California ’ s climate policies disproportionately harm its poorest and disadvantaged residents .
Energy is at the forefront of everything that touches our lives and California Governor Newsom is doing everything possible to continually INCREASE the cost of electricity and fuels to its residents .
Moving to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eliminating fossil fuels would mean we have to replace all gasoline-powered vehicles and machinery , and all oil and natural gas feed stocks for pharmaceuticals , cosmetics , paints , synthetic fibers , fertilizers , and plastics for cell phones , computers , car bodies , packaging , wind turbine blades , solar panel films and the thousands of other products manufactured from the petroleum derivatives that wind and soalr are incapable of manufacturing .
A major focus of the states ’ climate policies has been targeted toward the oil and natural gas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Today , California has less than 0.5 % of the world ’ s population ( 40 million vs. 8 billion ) .
However , oil and gas is not just a state business with a few refineries in California , but an international industry with more than 700 refineries worldwide of the suppliers that meet global 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demanding more than sixty million gallons of various transportation fuels on a daily basis from suppliers to drive ( no pun intended ) the 5th largest economy in the world .
Daily energy use for California ’ s 145 airports ( inclusive of 33 military , 10 majors , and more than 100 general aviation ) is 13 million gallons of aviation fuels , or one-fifth of the nation ’ s jet fuel consumption .
California ’ s 31 million registered vehicles are consuming 10 million gallons a day of diesel and 42 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Governor perpetuates continuous cost increases with his mission to markedly reduce in-state oil production .
He is seeking to permanently ban oil-shale fracking technology ’ s use which would escalate costs and emissions from foreign crude oil imports to California .
This to fill the gap of ever-declining California and Alaska production , further crippling the State , forcing the continuation of California as a remarkable national security risk for the USA .
The state is already spending $ 60 million dollars every day to import 58 % of the states ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the Governor wants to increase that expense for the state , again with the costs being borne by those that can least afford it .
The state already has about half of all the EV ’ s in the country .
The 650,000 EV ’ s represent a dismal 2 percent of the 31 million registered vehicles in the state .
They want more EV cars and trucks which will not be paying any fuel taxes to support the funds needed for transportation infrastructure which will lead to more road taxes on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for those cars and truck are definitely not clean and not green .
The climate cult is fearful of sharing that all the mineral products and metals needed to make wind turbines , solar panels , and EV batteries are mined and processed in places like Baotou , Inner Mongolia , Bolivia , and the Democratic Republic of Congo , mostly under Chinese control , under minimal to nonexistent labor , wage , environmental , reclamation , and worker health and safety regulations .
Amnesty International has documented children and adults mining cobalt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exposure to the dangerous gases emitted during the procurement of these rare minerals .
Access to safe , reliable , and affordable energy is key to helping safeguard the ability for California working families to afford basic necessities such as food , education , electronics , medical care , and housing .
The state needs an All-of-the-Above energy approach – a diverse mix of in-state energy sources including intermittent electricity from wind and solar , and traditional sources such as oil and natural gas – to meet our energy needs in the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Governor and lawmakers will consider the impact of the state ’ s dysfunctional and expensive energy policies on the 40 million residents of the 5th largest economy in the world , and not have California escalate its dependency on foreign countries for our existence .

California professes to be the leader of everything and spouts voracious pride of being the State that imports more electricity than any other state. Their dysfunctional energy policies have forced California to be the only state in contiguous America that imports most of its crude oil energy from foreign country suppliers to meet the energy demands of the state.
That 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. We’ve yet to receive any thank you cards from foreign suppliers for the states’ policies that are making wealthy foreign countries, wealthier!
To the detriment of Californians, the costs of expensive imported electricity is being borne by residents and businesses alike, and precisely hard hitting to our disadvantaged residents, particularly Latinos and African Americans. California households are already paying 50% more, and industrial users are paying double the national average for electricity.
As California plans to shutter three natural gas power plants and its last nuclear power plant, the impact of power plant closures in California are assured to further increase the cost of power to Californians. Those four power plants have been providing continuous uninterruptible electricity to Californians. With the state having no plans to replace the capacity of those closures with in-state intermittent electricity from wind and solar, the state will need to import more high-priced electricity to fill the void, if other states even have that extra capacity, and let residents and businesses pay the premium.
The states’ climate policies have driven up the cost of electricity and fuels to be are among the highest in the country, which have driven up the prices of virtually everything used in our daily lives. California’s climate policies disproportionately harm its poorest and disadvantaged residents.
Energy is at the forefront of everything that touches our lives and California Governor Newsom is doing everything possible to continually INCREASE the cost of electricity and fuels to its residents.
Moving to a “100% electric” society and eliminating fossil fuels would mean we have to replace all gasoline-powered vehicles and machinery, and all oil and natural gas feed stocks for pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, paints, synthetic fibers, fertilizers, and plastics for cell phones, computers, car bodies, packaging, wind turbine blades, solar panel films and the thousands of other products manufactured from the petroleum derivatives that wind and soalr are incapable of manufacturing.
A major focus of the states’ climate policies has been targeted toward the oil and natural gas industry that was virtually non-existent before 1900. Today, California has less than 0.5% of the world’s population (40 million vs. 8 billion). However, oil and gas is not just a state business with a few refineries in California, but an international industry with more than 700 refineries worldwide of the suppliers that meet global 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 sixty million gallons of various transportation fuels on a daily basis from suppliers to drive (no pun intended) the 5th largest economy in the world.
Daily energy use for California’s 145 airports (inclusive of 33 military, 10 majors, and more than 100 general aviation) is 13 million gallons of aviation fuels, or one-fifth of the nation’s jet fuel consumption. California’s 31 million registered vehicles are consuming 10 million gallons a day of diesel and 42 million gallons a day of gasoline.
The Governor perpetuates continuous cost increases with his mission to markedly reduce in-state oil production. He is seeking to permanently ban oil-shale fracking technology’s use which would escalate costs and emissions from foreign crude oil imports to California. This to fill the gap of ever-declining California and Alaska production, further crippling the State, forcing the continuation of California as a remarkable national security risk for the USA.
The state is already spending $60 million dollars every day to import 58% of the states’ crude oil needs from foreign countries, and the Governor wants to increase that expense for the state, again with the costs being borne by those that can least afford it.
The state already has about half of all the EV’s in the country. The 650,000 EV’s represent a dismal 2 percent of the 31 million registered vehicles in the state. They want more EV cars and trucks which will not be paying any fuel taxes to support the funds needed for transportation infrastructure which will lead to more road taxes on the other 98 percent.
EV batteries for those cars and truck are definitely not clean and not green. The climate cult is fearful of sharing that all the mineral products and metals needed to make wind turbines, solar panels, and EV batteries are mined and processed in places like Baotou, Inner Mongolia, Bolivia, and the Democratic Republic of Congo, mostly under Chinese control, under minimal to nonexistent labor, wage, environmental, reclamation, and worker health and safety regulations. Amnesty International has documented children and adults mining cobalt in narrow man-made tunnels along with the exposure to the dangerous gases emitted during the procurement of these rare minerals.
Access to safe, reliable, and affordable energy is key to helping safeguard the ability for California working families to afford basic necessities such as food, education, electronics, medical care, and housing. The state needs an All-of-the-Above energy approach – a diverse mix of in-state energy sources including intermittent electricity from wind and solar, and traditional sources such as oil and natural gas – to meet our energy needs in the most sustainable way possible.
Hopefully, California’s Governor and lawmakers will consider the impact of the state’s dysfunctional and expensive energy policies on the 40 million residents of the 5th largest economy in the world, and not have California escalate its dependency on foreign countries for our existence.
This article originally appeared at California Political Review


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-07-07--House “Climate Crisis Committee” issues massive meaningless wish list

The U.S. House “ Selects Committee on the Climate Crisis ” is a symbolic committee , not a real one .
It can not draft and introduce legislation , which is what House Committees do .
It is more of a study group and as such it has produced a study .
Well sort of .
The document in question is not a Committee report .
It is not even a Committee staff report .
It is just a report by the Democrat half of the staff .
In fact technically it is just a report to the nine Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nothing little report it is very big , detailed and wildly ambitious .
In fact it dwarfs all previous nut bar climate action proposals I have ever seen .
In a way the title shouts it all — “ SOLVING THE CLIMATE CRISIS “ .
The subtitle is truly grand — “ The Congressional Action Plan for a Clean Energy Economy and a Healthy , Resilient , and Just America “ .
Not just a plan , it is “ the ” plan .
The Plan itself is a whopping 547 pages long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 100 entries , poking into many different parts of our economy and society .
The detail , while foolish , is impressive .
There is not a lot of fluff here .
To begin with , much of it is about just two things .
First , making electric power net zero carbon emissions by 2040 , which can not possibly be done .
Second , converting most other forms of combustion usage and power , especially transportation and industry , to being heated and powered with electricity .
This means that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wind and sun , will have to provide something like twice as much reliable juice as today ’ s fossil fuelled system .
It can not be done .
The impossible goal is for the entire American economy to be net zero emissions by 2050 .
But that is all just on the side of stopping climate change .
There is also a whole bunch of things about dealing with it , because the hot models say that no matter how much we restrict or impoverish ourselves , we got it coming .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ money , but hey that means jobs , right ?
Democrats think costs are benefits because somebody gets the money .
Where all this money comes from is not a consideration .
For example , flood insurance should be based on computer projected floods , not history .
Coverage and premiums will definitely soar then .
We will insure against floods that have never happened , and never will .
There is even stuff about paying people who want to move out of the way of climate change .
I am not making @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much more , roughly one page for every word in this article .
Multi-billion dollar sentences are everywhere you look .
If you want a quick summary that covers all the big ticket items , it can not be done .
Fortunately this monster comes in PDF so you can at least search for specific items , if you know the language .
Speaking of language , there is even a “ Definitions ” section , because they want words to mean just what they want .
There are some real mouthfuls ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Here is an example : “ Environmental justice ( EJ ) The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race , color , culture , national origin , or income , with respect to the development , implementation , and enforcement of environmental laws , regulations , and policies to ensure that each person enjoys ( 1 ) the same degree of protection from environmental and health hazards ; and ( 2 ) equal access to any federal agency action on environmental justice issues in order to have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ learn , work , and recreate.
” Given that some jobs , places , and recreations , are more dangerous than others , I can not see how everyone can have the same degree of protection from all environmental and health hazards .
But it sure sounds good .
In summary , this tome is meaningless as it lays there .
But it reveals a great many wacky ideas that might show up in future proposed legislation .

The U.S. House “Selects Committee on the Climate Crisis” is a symbolic committee, not a real one. It cannot draft and introduce legislation, which is what House Committees do. It is more of a study group and as such it has produced a study.
Well sort of. The document in question is not a Committee report. It is not even a Committee staff report. It is just a report by the Democrat half of the staff. In fact technically it is just a report to the nine Democrats on the Committee.
But for a nothing little report it is very big, detailed and wildly ambitious. In fact it dwarfs all previous nut bar climate action proposals I have ever seen.
In a way the title shouts it all — “SOLVING THE CLIMATE CRISIS“.
The subtitle is truly grand — “The Congressional Action Plan for a Clean Energy Economy and a Healthy, Resilient, and Just America“. Not just a plan, it is “the” plan.
The Plan itself is a whopping 547 pages long. The table of contents has over 100 entries, poking into many different parts of our economy and society. The detail, while foolish, is impressive. There is not a lot of fluff here.
To begin with, much of it is about just two things. First, making electric power net zero carbon emissions by 2040, which cannot possibly be done. Second, converting most other forms of combustion usage and power, especially transportation and industry, to being heated and powered with electricity. This means that the new electrical grid, intermittently powered by wind and sun, will have to provide something like twice as much reliable juice as today’s fossil fuelled system. It cannot be done.
The impossible goal is for the entire American economy to be net zero emissions by 2050.
But that is all just on the side of stopping climate change. There is also a whole bunch of things about dealing with it, because the hot models say that no matter how much we restrict or impoverish ourselves, we got it coming.
Of course all these things cost big money, but hey that means jobs, right? Democrats think costs are benefits because somebody gets the money. Where all this money comes from is not a consideration.
For example, flood insurance should be based on computer projected floods, not history. Coverage and premiums will definitely soar then. We will insure against floods that have never happened, and never will.
There is even stuff about paying people who want to move out of the way of climate change. I am not making this up.
There is much, much more, roughly one page for every word in this article. Multi-billion dollar sentences are everywhere you look. If you want a quick summary that covers all the big ticket items, it cannot be done. Fortunately this monster comes in PDF so you can at least search for specific items, if you know the language.
Speaking of language, there is even a “Definitions” section, because they want words to mean just what they want. There are some real mouthfuls (because lawyers have big mouths?). Here is an example:
“Environmental justice (EJ)
The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, culture, national origin, or income, with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies to ensure that each person enjoys (1) the same degree of protection from environmental and health hazards; and (2) equal access to any federal agency action on environmental justice issues in order to have a healthy environment in which to live, learn, work, and recreate.”
Given that some jobs, places, and recreations, are more dangerous than others, I cannot see how everyone can have the same degree of protection from all environmental and health hazards. But it sure sounds good.
In summary, this tome is meaningless as it lays there. But it reveals a great many wacky ideas that might show up in future proposed legislation.
Be ever vigilant.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-07-07--Tragic energy triple whammy

Tragic energy triple whammy

A federal district court shut down the Dakota Access Pipeline and ordered it drained of oil .
The Supreme Court excluded the Keystone XL Pipeline from an otherwise positive decision that a number of pipeline projects be “ fast tracked.
” Dominion Energy won a major court victory for its Atlantic Pipeline , then decided to scrap it anyway , deciding the delays and costs imposed by left-wing obstruction were just too much .
Dominion ’ s stock promptly plunged 11.3 % .
In recent years we have been favored by a long-awaited energy renaissance , with American energy independence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a tragedy of astounding proportions that tremendously well-financed efforts are continually underway nationwide to obstruct , delay , and in effect ruin America ’ s energy infrastructure .
Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette issued a hard-hitting a statement about the Dakota Access decision that could apply to all three : “ It is disappointing that , once again , an energy infrastructure project that provides thousands of jobs and millions of dollars in economic revenue has been shut down by the well-funded environmental lobby , using our Nation ’ s court system to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pipeline safely provides affordable and reliable American-produced crude oil across the Midwest , and has created approximately 10,000 jobs .
In addition , the shutdown will eliminate millions of tax dollars paid by the pipeline each year that go towards schools , hospitals , and other community services in North Dakota , South Dakota , Iowa , and Illinois.
” The far Left , of course , is jubilant .
Greenpeace climate director Janet Redmans said , “ Three dangerous pipelines delayed within 24 hours should serve as a clear warning to any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fossil fuel projects .
For more than a decade now , a powerful movement has been taking on reckless oil and gas pipelines and fighting to put Indigenous rights , a just economy , and our environment before oil company profits… It is past time to leave fossil fuels in the ground and begin a just transition to a Green New Deal and 100 percent renewable energy.
” There is a new nihilism that stalks our land .
Statues of civil rights leaders are being torn down , supposedly in the name of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defund the police in communities most desperate for law and order .
Clean , safe , efficient energy is blocked without regard to the hard fact that there is nothing available to replace it .
Activists trumpet inefficient , intermittent wind and solar , ignorant to the fact that they are unable to meet our energy needs .
Wind and solar don ’ t replace pipelines .
Trucks , trains and tankers do — albeit poorly .
Americans need to dig deep , fight back and defeat the Greens — before they leave @ @ @ @ @ @ @

America’s energy supply just received three devastating blows.
A federal district court shut down the Dakota Access Pipeline and ordered it drained of oil.
The Supreme Court excluded the Keystone XL Pipeline from an otherwise positive decision that a number of pipeline projects be “fast tracked.”
Dominion Energy won a major court victory for its Atlantic Pipeline, then decided to scrap it anyway, deciding the delays and costs imposed by left-wing obstruction were just too much. Dominion’s stock promptly plunged 11.3%.
In recent years we have been favored by a long-awaited energy renaissance, with American energy independence and security achieved at last. It is a tragedy of astounding proportions that tremendously well-financed efforts are continually underway nationwide to obstruct, delay, and in effect ruin America’s energy infrastructure.
Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette issued a hard-hitting a statement about the Dakota Access decision that could apply to all three: “It is disappointing that, once again, an energy infrastructure project that provides thousands of jobs and millions of dollars in economic revenue has been shut down by the well-funded environmental lobby, using our Nation’s court system to further their agenda. The Dakota Access Pipeline safely provides affordable and reliable American-produced crude oil across the Midwest, and has created approximately 10,000 jobs. In addition, the shutdown will eliminate millions of tax dollars paid by the pipeline each year that go towards schools, hospitals, and other community services in North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, and Illinois.”
The far Left, of course, is jubilant. Greenpeace climate director Janet Redmans said, “Three dangerous pipelines delayed within 24 hours should serve as a clear warning to any companies hoping to double down on dirty fossil fuel projects. For more than a decade now, a powerful movement has been taking on reckless oil and gas pipelines and fighting to put Indigenous rights, a just economy, and our environment before oil company profits… It is past time to leave fossil fuels in the ground and begin a just transition to a Green New Deal and 100 percent renewable energy.”
Charming.
There is a new nihilism that stalks our land. Statues of civil rights leaders are being torn down, supposedly in the name of civil rights. Cries ring out to defund the police in communities most desperate for law and order. Clean, safe, efficient energy is blocked without regard to the hard fact that there is nothing available to replace it. Activists trumpet inefficient, intermittent wind and solar, ignorant to the fact that they are unable to meet our energy needs.
Wind and solar don’t replace pipelines. Trucks, trains and tankers do — albeit poorly.
Americans need to dig deep, fight back and defeat the Greens — before they leave us all freezing in the dark.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-07-08--Exploiting calamities and climate to push Socialism

It should be no surprise to our readers that climate change was never a scientific issue , though politicians and well—financed scientists promoted it as such .
It has always been a political movement aimed at increasing the size of government and installing a Socialist system .
Such a system would eliminate individual freedom while enhancing the control of the elites to achieve their ultimate goal : power over the people .
It was a very transparent plan : convince the public that life—giving carbon dioxide is a danger to humanity and that , were the Earth to be a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ follow .
You buy this dystopian fantasy and you give your government control of the very breathe you exhale , the number of children you are allowed and every kilowatt of energy your life may consume .
As fantastically absurd as this fiction is , those who wish to control your life have successfully sold it to every government in the world .
You know this to be true .
Now these very same supposedly liberal , progressive forces are hoping to take advances in our standard of living , our life expectancy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back at least a century and a half with the aid of well planned current events .
If perhaps their plans were faltering , they now have significant assistance from the twin tragedies that have befallen America in recent months .
First the Chinese coronavirus allowed the government to temporarily take control of every citizen ’ s life , creating an revealing test of socialism and government control .
Second , the effort to rewrite the past by allowing violent mobs to tear down the very statues that symbolize our history .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be cast aside just as George Orwell forecast in his brilliant , now prescient novel , Nineteen Eighty-Four , way back in 1949 .
Orwell said : whoever controls the image and information of the past determines what and how future generations will think ; whoever controls the information and images of the present determines how these same people will view the past…..the most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of history .
That is why they are destroying statues , no longer just those of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but the good guys as well .
None better than that of Teddy Roosevelt , the most popular president in US history .
They have been after Lincoln too .
If they can tear down your heroes with impunity and force you to watch it all with the aid of a permissive press , they have humiliated you and ultimately gain control over you .
While much of the Democratic Congress supported this tragedy , the Republicans sit idly by thinking it will pass as the Rodney King riots did years ago .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a momentary civil disturbance ; it is a serious and highly—organized political movement .
It has vast ambitions .
Its goal is to end liberal democracy and western civilization as we know it .
This is an ideological movement that has been incubated for decades on our college campuses .
It is not really about the awful murder of a single man or the retraining of police .
History tells us that all rulers try to impose a false view of the world upon their followers .
Sadly , main stream media today @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquish it .
Orwell apparently believed that the party in power seeks power entirely for its own sake .
They are not interested in the good of others , but are interested solely in pure power .
A review of the one—sided government actions in recent years certainly supports this belief , as bi-partisan action has virtually disappeared in Congress .
Ben Franklin , the great builder of compromises between opposing factions , would be aghast .
In public , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political correctness losing their jobs , and worse .
Orwell said : threats to freedom of speech , writing and action though often trivial in isolation , are cumulative in their effect and , unless checked , lead to a general disrespect for the rights of the citizen……….In time of universal deceit , telling the truth is a revolutionary act .
If we focus on the lawlessness we are now seeing daily , we should worry about another important observation Orwell made : all tyrannies rule through fraud and force , but once @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rely exclusively on force .
On Thursday , world powers are seizing the initiative at the most significant climate and energy event of the year .
Led by the International Energy Agency , the leaders of countries representing 80 % of humanity ’ s greenhouse gas emissions are meeting collectively via the internet to explain that now is the perfect time to regrow the world ’ s economy by doubling down on the elimination of fossil fuels and increased support for the transition of wind and solar power .
Not only will enabling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exactly when we need power the most , but it will bankrupt our society by making virtually everything we do cost far more .
All the while , Big Brother governments will thereby give themselves even more power over our lives .
We must oppose them at every turn .

It should be no surprise to our readers that climate change was never a scientific issue, though politicians and well—financed scientists promoted it as such. It has always been a political movement aimed at increasing the size of government and installing a Socialist system. Such a system would eliminate individual freedom while enhancing the control of the elites to achieve their ultimate goal: power over the people.
It was a very transparent plan: convince the public that life—giving carbon dioxide is a danger to humanity and that, were the Earth to be a few degrees warmer, disaster would necessarily follow. You buy this dystopian fantasy and you give your government control of the very breathe you exhale, the number of children you are allowed and every kilowatt of energy your life may consume. As fantastically absurd as this fiction is, those who wish to control your life have successfully sold it to every government in the world. You know this to be true.
Now these very same supposedly liberal, progressive forces are hoping to take advances in our standard of living, our life expectancy, our paths out of poverty, back at least a century and a half with the aid of well planned current events.
If perhaps their plans were faltering, they now have significant assistance from the twin tragedies that have befallen America in recent months. First the Chinese coronavirus allowed the government to temporarily take control of every citizen’s life, creating an revealing test of socialism and government control. Second, the effort to rewrite the past by allowing violent mobs to tear down the very statues that symbolize our history. They have shown that law and order can be cast aside just as George Orwell forecast in his brilliant, now prescient novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four, way back in 1949.
Orwell said: whoever controls the image and information of the past determines what and how future generations will think; whoever controls the information and images of the present determines how these same people will view the past…..the most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of history.
That is why they are destroying statues, no longer just those of people thought to have been racist, but the good guys as well. None better than that of Teddy Roosevelt, the most popular president in US history. They have been after Lincoln too. If they can tear down your heroes with impunity and force you to watch it all with the aid of a permissive press, they have humiliated you and ultimately gain control over you.
While much of the Democratic Congress supported this tragedy, the Republicans sit idly by thinking it will pass as the Rodney King riots did years ago.
They are wrong. This is not a momentary civil disturbance; it is a serious and highly—organized political movement. It has vast ambitions. Its goal is to end liberal democracy and western civilization as we know it. This is an ideological movement that has been incubated for decades on our college campuses. It is not really about the awful murder of a single man or the retraining of police.
History tells us that all rulers try to impose a false view of the world upon their followers. Sadly, main stream media today cooperates to the nth degree. We also know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquish it.
Orwell apparently believed that the party in power seeks power entirely for its own sake. They are not interested in the good of others, but are interested solely in pure power. A review of the one—sided government actions in recent years certainly supports this belief, as bi-partisan action has virtually disappeared in Congress. Ben Franklin, the great builder of compromises between opposing factions, would be aghast.
In public, we are seeing those with views contrary to political correctness losing their jobs, and worse.
Orwell said: threats to freedom of speech, writing and action though often trivial in isolation, are cumulative in their effect and, unless checked, lead to a general disrespect for the rights of the citizen……….In time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
If we focus on the lawlessness we are now seeing daily, we should worry about another important observation Orwell made: all tyrannies rule through fraud and force, but once the fraud is exposed, they must rely exclusively on force.
On Thursday, world powers are seizing the initiative at the most significant climate and energy event of the year. Led by the International Energy Agency, the leaders of countries representing 80% of humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions are meeting collectively via the internet to explain that now is the perfect time to regrow the world’s economy by doubling down on the elimination of fossil fuels and increased support for the transition of wind and solar power. Not only will enabling such a plan create deadly energy shortages exactly when we need power the most, but it will bankrupt our society by making virtually everything we do cost far more. All the while, Big Brother governments will thereby give themselves even more power over our lives. We must oppose them at every turn.