committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-08-10--The staggering human costs of “renewable” energy

Marathon Petroleum recently announced it will “ indefinitely idle ” its Martinez Refinery .
The decision will remove hundreds of jobs , billions of dollars , and nearly 7 million gallons of gasoline , diesel and other petroleum liquids per day from the energy-hungry California economy .
It will also send fuel prices even higher for minority and other poor families that already pay by far the highest gasoline prices in the continental United States : $ 1.32 more per gallon of regular than in Louisiana and Texas .
California ’ s green and political interests don ’ t want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nuclear , coal or hydroelectric power plants – or mining for the materials needed to manufacture electric cars .
They prefer to have that work done somewhere else , and just import the energy , cars and consumer goods .
They ’ ve long wanted a totally electric vehicle ( EV ) fleet , which they claim would be clean , ethical , climate-friendly and sustainable .
Of course , those labels hold up only so long as they look solely at activities and emissions within California state boundaries – and not where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take place .
That kind of “ life cycle ” analysis would totally disrupt their claims .
Consider copper .
A typical internal combustion engine uses about 50 pounds ( 23 kilograms ) of this vital everyday metal , the International Copper Association says .
A hybrid car requires almost 90 lb ( 40 kg ) ; a plug-in EV needs 132 lb ( 60 kg ) ; and a big electric bus can use up to 812 lb ( 369 kg ) of copper .
If all 15,000,000 California cars were EVs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of copper .
But copper ores average just 0.5 % metal by weight , notes energy analyst Mark Mills .
That means 200,000,000 tons of ore would have to be dug up , crushed , processed and refined to get that much copper .
Almost every step in that process would require fossil fuels – and emit carbon dioxide and pollutants .
That ’ s just California .
According to Cambridge University Emeritus Professor of Technology Michael Kelly , replacing all the United Kingdom ’ s vehicles with next-generation EVs would require more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ production of copper ; twice its annual cobalt ; three quarters of its yearly lithium carbonate output ; and nearly its entire annual production of neodymium .
Just one electric car or backup-power battery weighs 1,000 pounds and requires extracting and processing some 500,000 pounds of various ores , Mills says .
The true costs of “ green ” energy are staggering .
Imagine replacing all of the USA ’ s nearly 300,000,000 cars , SUVs , pickup trucks , buses , trucks and other vehicles with electric versions under the Green New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The millions of wind turbines , billions of solar panels , billions of backup-power batteries , thousands of miles of new transmission lines , grid upgrades and million or so fast charging stations all across America would also require copper , concrete , all these other metals and many more materials , in incomprehensible quantities .
Alaska ’ s Pebble Mine deposit has an estimated 35 million tons of high-grade copper ore and 3 million tons of molybdenum and other critical GND ores .
The copper alone is nearly two times the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ essential element .
Permits were blocked for years for questionable reasons .
But the US Army Corps of Engineers recently found that mining would not have a “ measurable effect ” on sockeye salmon numbers in the Bristol Bay watershed and should be allowed to proceed , under tough US pollution control , reclamation , wildlife protection , workplace safety , fair wage and child labor laws .
Environmentalists intend to delay the Pebble Mine as long as possible – and block other US exploration and mining projects .
That ’ s why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , much of it in China and Mongolia or by Chinese companies in Africa , Asia and Latin America , where none of these laws apply .
Most of the world ’ s rare earth ores are extracted near Baotou , Inner Mongolia by pumping acid into the ground , then processed using more acids and chemicals .
Producing one ton of rare earth metals releases up to 420,000 cubic feet of toxic gases , 2,600 cubic feet of acidic wastewater , and a ton of radioactive waste .
The resulting black sludge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lake .
Numerous local people suffer from severe skin and respiratory diseases , children are born with soft bones , and cancer rates have soared .
Lithium comes largely from Tibet and arid highlands of the Argentina-Bolivia-Chile “ lithium triangle.
” Dead , toxic fish join carcasses of cows and yaks floating down Tibet ’ s Liqi River , which has been poisoned by the Ganzizhou Rongda mine .
Native people in the ABC triangle say lithium operations contaminate streams needed for humans , livestock and irrigation , and leave mountains of discarded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ producer of cobalt is the Democratic Republic of Congo , where some 40,000 children as young as four toil with their parents for less than $ 2 a day up to 12 hours a day .
Many die in cave-ins , or more slowly from constant exposure to toxic , radioactive mud , dust , water and air that puts dangerous levels of cobalt , lead , uranium and other heavy metals into their bodies .
The cobalt ore is sent to China for processing by the Chinese-owned Congo Dongfang International Mining Company @ @ @ @ @ @ @ current raw material requirements .
Try to picture the raw material demands , Third World mining and child labor conditions , and ecological destruction , under the Green New Deal .
Liberals often say they support sustainable , ethical coffee , sneakers , handbags and diamonds .
No child labor , sweat shops or unsafe conditions tolerated .
But it ’ s a different story with green energy and EVs .
In 2019 , California Assembly Bill 735 proposed that the state certify that “ zero emission ” electric vehicles sold there are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ involve child labor .
Democrats voted it down .
The matter is complicated , they “ explained.
” It would be too hard to enforce , cost too much and imperil state climate goals .
And besides , lots of other industries also use child labor .
( So shut up about it . )
Last month , the US House of Representatives had an opportunity to legislate a national certification that federally funded electric buses and charging stations would not include minerals mined with child labor .
The Transportation Committee approved the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were Democrats ) .
But Pete DeFazio ( D-OR ) quietly replaced the enforceable certification language with a meaningless statement that “ it is the policy of the United States ” that funds “ should not be used ” for items involving child labor .
DeFazio claimed certification is unnecessary because US trade agreements prohibit child labor .
But there is no agreement with Congo , and China has shown no interest in ending child labor in its supply chains .
( Plus , the matter is complicated , hard to enforce and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ goals . )
It ’ s easy for Nancy Pelosi and her colleagues to wear Kente cloth stoles in solidarity with Black Lives Matter .
And for Sierra Club staff to criticize the organization ’ s “ history and culture of white supremacy ” – what I call callous , deadly and arguably racist eco-imperialism and carbon colonialism .
We need real reform , and an end to the cancel culture that silences discussion about the horrors of what ’ s going on in too many non-white areas of the United States and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of GND policies cry out for debate .
So do the violence and death that preceded and followed George Floyd ’ s inexcusable death .
Not just the 25 police killings of unarmed blacks all across America in 2019 that have become the narrow focus of Black Lives Matter , politicians and rioters .
But also the murders of David Dorn , Patrick Underwood and other police officers ; Mekhi James , LeGend Taliferro , Secoriea Turner and other black children gunned down by their fellow blacks ; and as many as 7,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ murdered by blacks every year .
In Chicago , over the July 4 weekend , police reported 87 shootings and 17 deaths , and nearly a dozen of those shot were children caught in the crossfire , the New York Post despaired .
In fact , the black-on-black Windy City murder toll over almost any two recent successive weekends exceeds those 25 police killings .
“ Every single person who has been shot in New York City [ so far ] this July , nearly 100 in total , has been a member @ @ @ @ @ @ @ News reporter Tom Winter tweeted , “ and 97 % of shooting victims in June were members of the city ’ s minority community.
” The solution is defunding the police ?
ALL these African , Asian , Latin American and minority American lives matter .
It ’ s time to talk about it honestly , figure out what ’ s really driving the inhumanity , and create a world we can be proud to live in .

Marathon Petroleum recently announced it will “indefinitely idle” its Martinez Refinery. The decision will remove hundreds of jobs, billions of dollars, and nearly 7 million gallons of gasoline, diesel and other petroleum liquids per day from the energy-hungry California economy. It will also send fuel prices even higher for minority and other poor families that already pay by far the highest gasoline prices in the continental United States: $1.32 more per gallon of regular than in Louisiana and Texas.
California’s green and political interests don’t want drilling or fracking, pipelines, or nuclear, coal or hydroelectric power plants – or mining for the materials needed to manufacture electric cars. They prefer to have that work done somewhere else, and just import the energy, cars and consumer goods.
They’ve long wanted a totally electric vehicle (EV) fleet, which they claim would be clean, ethical, climate-friendly and sustainable. Of course, those labels hold up only so long as they look solely at activities and emissions within California state boundaries – and not where the mining, manufacturing and electricity generation take place. That kind of “life cycle” analysis would totally disrupt their claims.
Consider copper. A typical internal combustion engine uses about 50 pounds (23 kilograms) of this vital everyday metal, the International Copper Association says. A hybrid car requires almost 90 lb (40 kg); a plug-in EV needs 132 lb (60 kg); and a big electric bus can use up to 812 lb (369 kg) of copper. If all 15,000,000 California cars were EVs, they would need almost 1,000,000 tons of copper.
But copper ores average just 0.5% metal by weight, notes energy analyst Mark Mills. That means 200,000,000 tons of ore would have to be dug up, crushed, processed and refined to get that much copper. Almost every step in that process would require fossil fuels – and emit carbon dioxide and pollutants.
That’s just California. According to Cambridge University Emeritus Professor of Technology Michael Kelly, replacing all the United Kingdom’s vehicles with next-generation EVs would require more than half the world’s annual production of copper; twice its annual cobalt; three quarters of its yearly lithium carbonate output; and nearly its entire annual production of neodymium.
Just one electric car or backup-power battery weighs 1,000 pounds and requires extracting and processing some 500,000 pounds of various ores, Mills says. The true costs of “green” energy are staggering.
Imagine replacing all of the USA’s nearly 300,000,000 cars, SUVs, pickup trucks, buses, trucks and other vehicles with electric versions under the Green New Deal – and then charging them daily. The millions of wind turbines, billions of solar panels, billions of backup-power batteries, thousands of miles of new transmission lines, grid upgrades and million or so fast charging stations all across America would also require copper, concrete, all these other metals and many more materials, in incomprehensible quantities.
Alaska’s Pebble Mine deposit has an estimated 35 million tons of high-grade copper ore and 3 million tons of molybdenum and other critical GND ores. The copper alone is nearly two times the world’s 2019 output of that essential element. Permits were blocked for years for questionable reasons. But the US Army Corps of Engineers recently found that mining would not have a “measurable effect” on sockeye salmon numbers in the Bristol Bay watershed and should be allowed to proceed, under tough US pollution control, reclamation, wildlife protection, workplace safety, fair wage and child labor laws.
Environmentalists intend to delay the Pebble Mine as long as possible – and block other US exploration and mining projects. That’s why most mining and processing is done overseas, much of it in China and Mongolia or by Chinese companies in Africa, Asia and Latin America, where none of these laws apply.
Most of the world’s rare earth ores are extracted near Baotou, Inner Mongolia by pumping acid into the ground, then processed using more acids and chemicals. Producing one ton of rare earth metals releases up to 420,000 cubic feet of toxic gases, 2,600 cubic feet of acidic wastewater, and a ton of radioactive waste. The resulting black sludge is piped into a foul, lifeless lake. Numerous local people suffer from severe skin and respiratory diseases, children are born with soft bones, and cancer rates have soared.
Lithium comes largely from Tibet and arid highlands of the Argentina-Bolivia-Chile “lithium triangle.” Dead, toxic fish join carcasses of cows and yaks floating down Tibet’s Liqi River, which has been poisoned by the Ganzizhou Rongda mine. Native people in the ABC triangle say lithium operations contaminate streams needed for humans, livestock and irrigation, and leave mountains of discarded salt.
The world’s top producer of cobalt is the Democratic Republic of Congo, where some 40,000 children as young as four toil with their parents for less than $2 a day up to 12 hours a day. Many die in cave-ins, or more slowly from constant exposure to toxic, radioactive mud, dust, water and air that puts dangerous levels of cobalt, lead, uranium and other heavy metals into their bodies. The cobalt ore is sent to China for processing by the Chinese-owned Congo Dongfang International Mining Company.
That’s just to meet current raw material requirements. Try to picture the raw material demands, Third World mining and child labor conditions, and ecological destruction, under the Green New Deal.
Liberals often say they support sustainable, ethical coffee, sneakers, handbags and diamonds. No child labor, sweat shops or unsafe conditions tolerated. But it’s a different story with green energy and EVs. In 2019, California Assembly Bill 735 proposed that the state certify that “zero emission” electric vehicles sold there are free of any materials or components that involve child labor. Democrats voted it down. The matter is complicated, they “explained.” It would be too hard to enforce, cost too much and imperil state climate goals. And besides, lots of other industries also use child labor. (So shut up about it.)
Last month, the US House of Representatives had an opportunity to legislate a national certification that federally funded electric buses and charging stations would not include minerals mined with child labor. The Transportation Committee approved the amendment 43-19 (all 19 nay votes were Democrats). But Pete DeFazio(D-OR) quietly replaced the enforceable certification language with a meaningless statement that “it is the policy of the United States” that funds “should not be used” for items involving child labor.
DeFazio claimed certification is unnecessary because US trade agreements prohibit child labor. But there is no agreement with Congo, and China has shown no interest in ending child labor in its supply chains. (Plus, the matter is complicated, hard to enforce and perilous for climate and Green New Deal goals.)
It’s easy for Nancy Pelosi and her colleagues to wear Kente cloth stoles in solidarity with Black Lives Matter. And for Sierra Club staff to criticize the organization’s “history and culture of white supremacy” – what I call callous, deadly and arguably racist eco-imperialism and carbon colonialism. We need real reform, and an end to the cancel culture that silences discussion about the horrors of what’s going on in too many non-white areas of the United States and world.
The human and ecological realities of GND policies cry out for debate. So do the violence and death that preceded and followed George Floyd’s inexcusable death. Not just the 25 police killings of unarmed blacks all across America in 2019 that have become the narrow focus of Black Lives Matter, politicians and rioters. But also the murders of David Dorn, Patrick Underwood and other police officers; Mekhi James, LeGend Taliferro, Secoriea Turner and other black children gunned down by their fellow blacks; and as many as 7,000 American black men, women and children murdered by blacks every year.
In Chicago, over the July 4 weekend, police reported 87 shootings and 17 deaths, and nearly a dozen of those shot were children caught in the crossfire, the New York Post despaired. In fact, the black-on-black Windy City murder toll over almost any two recent successive weekends exceeds those 25 police killings.
“Every single person who has been shot in New York City [so far] this July, nearly 100 in total, has been a member of the minority community,” NBC News reporter Tom Winter tweeted, “and 97% of shooting victims in June were members of the city’s minority community.” The solution is defunding the police?
ALL these African, Asian, Latin American and minority American lives matter. It’s time to talk about it honestly, figure out what’s really driving the inhumanity, and create a world we can be proud to live in.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-08-10--Cascading fallacies in climate risk assessment

As a logician , I am always on the lookout for fallacies and there is no lack of them in climate change alarmist policies .
New Zealand ’ s newly released climate risk assessment not only has multiple fallacies , they build on one another in a cascade .
This is not about New Zealand .
The authors of the assessment make clear that theirs is a new approach which they hope will be used globally .
So this is about the world , including America .
The massive is titled “ First national climate change risk assessment for New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate law , these assessments are supposed to be done every five years and this is the first .
The scope is breathtaking .
The idea is to identify all of the significant risks due to human caused climate change that will be present in 2050 and 2100 .
Moreover , these supposed risks are prioritized .
Unfortunately this elaborate procedure is just a cascade of fallacies .
Some of the major ones are listed below .
First , they use computer models to say precisely what the average weather will be in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and long term temperatures , precipitation patterns , and other climate features .
The fallacy is that there is no computer model today that can accurately make such forecasts .
Different major models disagree strongly in predicting all of these features .
For example the model sensitivity to doubling CO2 ranges from 1 to 6 degrees C , which is a huge range .
Second , they use the average of what is called the CMIP5 climate model runs .
These are runs on a large number of climate models that are made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( Here there are several problems .
In particular the models are all constrained so that all the significant forces are human , but that is a different issue . )
The fallacy is that there is no reason to believe that the average of a bunch of bad models is good .
In fact the CMIP5 average has been shown to run very hot compared to observed warming .
( CMIP6 is even worse . )
Third , they then choose to use the modeling of a wildly worst case emissions scenario @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scenario for future emissions is so high that it has been criticized as impossible .
Using RCP 8.5 is certainly a fallacy .
Fourth , they do what is called “ down scaling ” of these questionable modeling results .
Down scaling means taking the crude modeling results for a large area and somehow generating results for specific places .
There is no scientific way to derive fine scale forecasts from the model ’ s large scale ones .
The data simply is not there .
However it is done is arbitrary .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a land area of just over 100,000 square miles , roughly the size of Colorado .
The risk assessment divides New Zealand into 8 tiny zones , with a unique climate forecast for each .
This is a glaring fallacy .
Fifth , these impossible fine scale forecasts were then discussed by a large number of people , in a variety of ways , to define all the significant risks .
This is an exercise in imagination , not science .
It is well known in decision theory that the results of group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is there , what they are given and how they are guided .
The fallacy here is to pretend that this is a systematic inventory of risks , suitable for policy making .
Sixth , the supposed risks were ranked based on polling the participants .
In addition to the group grope problem there is the pesky fact that risk is a two dimensional concept so risks can not simply be ranked in one dimension .
Each risk has both a severity and a probability .
Generally speaking , high severity but low @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Meteor strikes are a standard example ( the impact really is an impact ) .
The same is true for high probability but low severity risks .
What one looks for are risks that combine relatively high severity and probability .
This 2-value ranking was not done , giving the fallacy of the single ranking of risks .
The seventh fallacy is yet to come .
This wrongly ranked list of imagined risks based on arbitrary down scaling of an average of questionable computer model results running an impossible scenario is supposed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two years .
That would be a mega-fallacy .
On the amusing side , I think they got the highest ranked risk right .
This is the risk that the government will do the wrong thing .
I agree completely , especially if they use this risk assessment .
Also very funny is the “ Give us a lot more money ” risk .
It goes like this : “ Risk of delayed adaptation and maladaptation due to knowledge gaps resulting from under-investment in climate change adaptation research and capacity building .
Risk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ building to inform understanding of climate change risks and impacts is undermining New Zealand ’ s ability to develop evidence-based adaptation policy .
Critical research gaps relate to : –atmospheric processes –hydrological cycle impacts –ecosystem responses –biodiversity and biosecurity –New Zealand ’ s rural and urban communities –the economic costs of climate change –impacts on the primary sector –impacts on heritage –effects on health and health services –use of mātauranga Māori to inform adaptation –cascading impacts –how to govern climate change adaptation at a number of scales .
These research gaps are a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these gaps remain , maladaptive actions are a key risk.
” ( Page 188 ) Given all these significant gaps one would think that an accurate assessment would conclude that no risk assessment is possible at this time .
That is my assessment .
The New Zealand climate risk assessment is a cascade of fallacies , unfit for policy making .

As a logician, I am always on the lookout for fallacies and there is no lack of them in climate change alarmist policies. New Zealand’s newly released climate risk assessment not only has multiple fallacies, they build on one another in a cascade.
This is not about New Zealand. The authors of the assessment make clear that theirs is a new approach which they hope will be used globally. So this is about the world, including America.
The massive report is titled “First national climate change risk assessment for New Zealand.” Under New Zealand’s climate law, these assessments are supposed to be done every five years and this is the first.
The scope is breathtaking. The idea is to identify all of the significant risks due to human caused climate change that will be present in 2050 and 2100. Moreover, these supposed risks are prioritized.
Unfortunately this elaborate procedure is just a cascade of fallacies. Some of the major ones are listed below.
First, they use computer models to say precisely what the average weather will be in 2050 and 2100. This includes short and long term temperatures, precipitation patterns, and other climate features.
The fallacy is that there is no computer model today that can accurately make such forecasts. Different major models disagree strongly in predicting all of these features. For example the model sensitivity to doubling CO2 ranges from 1 to 6 degrees C, which is a huge range.
Second, they use the average of what is called the CMIP5 climate model runs. These are runs on a large number of climate models that are made to feed into the IPCC process. (Here there are several problems. In particular the models are all constrained so that all the significant forces are human, but that is a different issue.)
The fallacy is that there is no reason to believe that the average of a bunch of bad models is good. In fact the CMIP5 average has been shown to run very hot compared to observed warming. (CMIP6 is even worse.)
Third, they then choose to use the modeling of a wildly worst case emissions scenario called “RCP 8.5”. This scenario for future emissions is so high that it has been criticized as impossible. Using RCP 8.5 is certainly a fallacy.
Fourth, they do what is called “down scaling” of these questionable modeling results. Down scaling means taking the crude modeling results for a large area and somehow generating results for specific places. There is no scientific way to derive fine scale forecasts from the model’s large scale ones. The data simply is not there. However it is done is arbitrary.
New Zealand is geographically pretty small with a land area of just over 100,000 square miles, roughly the size of Colorado. The risk assessment divides New Zealand into 8 tiny zones, with a unique climate forecast for each. This is a glaring fallacy.
Fifth, these impossible fine scale forecasts were then discussed by a large number of people, in a variety of ways, to define all the significant risks. This is an exercise in imagination, not science. It is well known in decision theory that the results of group gropes like this depend heavily on who is there, what they are given and how they are guided.
The fallacy here is to pretend that this is a systematic inventory of risks, suitable for policy making.
Sixth, the supposed risks were ranked based on polling the participants. In addition to the group grope problem there is the pesky fact that risk is a two dimensional concept so risks cannot simply be ranked in one dimension. Each risk has both a severity and a probability.
Generally speaking, high severity but low probability risks are not worth addressing. Meteor strikes are a standard example (the impact really is an impact). The same is true for high probability but low severity risks. What one looks for are risks that combine relatively high severity and probability.
This 2-value ranking was not done, giving the fallacy of the single ranking of risks.
The seventh fallacy is yet to come. This wrongly ranked list of imagined risks based on arbitrary down scaling of an average of questionable computer model results running an impossible scenario is supposed to lead to a National Adaptation Plan in two years. That would be a mega-fallacy.
On the amusing side, I think they got the highest ranked risk right. This is the risk that the government will do the wrong thing. I agree completely, especially if they use this risk assessment.
Also very funny is the “Give us a lot more money” risk. It goes like this:
“Risk of delayed adaptation and maladaptation due to knowledge gaps resulting from under-investment in climate change adaptation research and capacity building.
Risk summary:
Under-investment in research and capacity building to inform understanding of climate change risks and impacts is undermining New Zealand’s ability to develop evidence-based adaptation policy. Critical research gaps relate to:
–atmospheric processes
–hydrological cycle impacts
–ecosystem responses
–biodiversity and biosecurity
–New Zealand’s rural and urban communities
–the economic costs of climate change
–impacts on the primary sector
–impacts on heritage
–effects on health and health services
–use of mātauranga Māori to inform adaptation
–cascading impacts
–how to govern climate change adaptation at a number of scales.
These research gaps are a critical barrier to informed decision-making. While these gaps remain, maladaptive actions are a key risk.” (Page 188)
Given all these significant gaps one would think that an accurate assessment would conclude that no risk assessment is possible at this time. That is my assessment.
Conclusion:
The New Zealand climate risk assessment is a cascade of fallacies, unfit for policy making.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-08-11--The Democrats’ enviro-platform will drag you back to the 19th century

“ Combating The Climate Crisis and Pursuing Environmental Justice ” is the title of the segment of the 2020 democratic platform that if ever implemented could send America back to the days before the industrial revolution .
It ’ s nearly 3000 words opens with the following paragraph .
“ Climate change is a global emergency .
We have no time to waste in taking action to protect Americans ’ lives and futures .
The last four years have seen record-breaking storms , devastating wildfires , and historic floods .
Urban and rural communities alike have suffered tens of billions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ failed catastrophically in Michigan .
Farmers ’ crops have been drowned in their fields across the Midwest .
Coastal communities from Florida to New Jersey are facing an existential crisis as a result of sea level rise and stronger storms .
Thousands of Americans have died .
And President Trump still callously and willfully denies the science that explains why so many are suffering.
” It goes on to describe how they will decarbonize the nation and bring all activities to zero emissions with power plants leading the way by 2035 .
Within @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million solar panels , 8 million solar roofs along with community solar grids , 60,000 wind turbines , and turn American ingenuity into jobs manufacturing renewable energy solutions .
This plan ignores what is one of the greatest scams in modern government .
The billions of dollars Silicon Valley businesses and investors have been making off green energy subsidies for decades .
Bad bets on renewable energy since the 1970s include direct subsidies , government loans , loan guarantees , tax preferences , lavish grants and regulatory mandates biased in favor of wind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ green energy , ( it really isn ’ t ) remains an inconsequential source of American energy despite more than $ 100 billion invested in it through the Bush and Obama administrations alone .
There are niche markets for wind and solar power , but the assumption that current renewable technologies can provide the same energy services that oil , coal and natural gas now provide defies reality .
Without lavish subsidies renewable energy might actually find its niche markets .
America ’ s $ 18 trillion industrial economy , pre-virus , can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paneling unless we can transcend the four laws of thermodynamics which put men on the moon , led to micro-processors , semiconductors , innumerable technological breakthroughs and an extension of our own lives .
The future of renewable energy is not much brighter than its dismal past .
Even our Department of Energy forecasts its role being no more than ten percent in another decade .
Even this small increase would depend on the multi-billion dollar federal subsidy described in the Democratic platform which will not occur if the current administration gets an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ renewable energy began a decade earlier than ours and proved the need to increase subsidies and raise electric rates .
This has been totally ignored in the Democratic platform referred to above .
Germany and England have learned that the more renewable energy they attach to their grids , the more coal they must burn to back up its intermittent generation .
It is quite amazing that this fact is not recognized universally .
If a country or company wants to depend on some amount of wind or solar capacity on their grids @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amount of fossil fuel operating on standby at all times ready to take over during the periods of no sun or wind .
In the new book A Hitchhikers Journey Through Climate Change , the authors recognize this as the Chiccone/Lehr rule of thumb .
A few years ago Google announced it would soon be powered solely renewable energy .
Not long after they admitted it was a major miscalculation .
They learned that transitioning to green power systems would take two to three times more generating capacity to provide the same amount @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gas plant .
In spite of this Amazon is claiming each day in TV ads that they will be all renewable within 5 years .
The screen shows dozens of whirling wind turbines as the narrator tells this fib .
It can ’ t be done .
Google also recognized that these structures require huge amounts of steel , concrete , copper , glass , carbon fiber , many rare earths and large amounts of energy to develop them .
The practice of fleecing American taxpayers to fund pipe dreams of alternate energy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Carter administration spent billions of dollars on the Synthetic Fuels Corporation , one the biggest corporate welfare boondoggles in American history .
The late F.A .
Hayek called this the “ fatal conceit ” , thinking politicians know where the future is headed .
Perhaps the biggest delusion of all are the hundreds of thousands of jobs promised amidst the conversion to renewable energy .
Despite President Obama ’ s promise of five million green jobs over a ten year period if he was elected , only a very small fraction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Institute for Energy Research found that for the $ 26 billion committed to Department of Energy loan guarantee projects between 2009 and 2016 , only 2298 permanent jobs were created .
That comes to $ 11.45 million taxpayer dollars spent for each job .
The Department of Labors Office of Inspector General examined a $ 500 million grant to the Employment and Training Administration to prepare individuals for careers in “ green jobs ” .
The report found that out of 80,000 participants , only 8,035 of those trained , found jobs and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than six months .
Mr. Biden ’ s record , were he to win , will not likely be much better .
There is even more chicanery in the green job delusion which becomes evident when one sees the many jobs counted as green , which will make you laugh .
They include EPA regulators , university ecology professors , , school bus drivers , bike repair shop clerks and even Washington DC lobbyists working on green funding .
It is fortunate for us that the democratic platform is completely transparent .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will not have been fooled if they choose to support it .
Portions of this article were excerpted directly from the book “ Fueling Freedom ” with permission of the authors Steve Moore and Kathleen White .
The book is recommended as the very best treatise on American energy yet to be written .

“Combating The Climate Crisis and Pursuing Environmental Justice” is the title of the segment of the 2020 democratic platform that if ever implemented could send America back to the days before the industrial revolution. It’s nearly 3000 words opens with the following paragraph.
“Climate change is a global emergency. We have no time to waste in taking action to protect Americans’ lives and futures. The last four years have seen record-breaking storms, devastating wildfires, and historic floods. Urban and rural communities alike have suffered tens of billions dollars in economic losses. Dams have failed catastrophically in Michigan. Farmers’ crops have been drowned in their fields across the Midwest. Coastal communities from Florida to New Jersey are facing an existential crisis as a result of sea level rise and stronger storms. Thousands of Americans have died. And President Trump still callously and willfully denies the science that explains why so many are suffering.”
It goes on to describe how they will decarbonize the nation and bring all activities to zero emissions with power plants leading the way by 2035. Within five years they plan to install 500 million solar panels, 8 million solar roofs along with community solar grids, 60,000 wind turbines, and turn American ingenuity into jobs manufacturing renewable energy solutions.
This plan ignores what is one of the greatest scams in modern government. The billions of dollars Silicon Valley businesses and investors have been making off green energy subsidies for decades. Bad bets on renewable energy since the 1970s include direct subsidies, government loans, loan guarantees, tax preferences, lavish grants and regulatory mandates biased in favor of wind and solar power. Yet so called green energy, (it really isn’t) remains an inconsequential source of American energy despite more than $100 billion invested in it through the Bush and Obama administrations alone.
There are niche markets for wind and solar power, but the assumption that current renewable technologies can provide the same energy services that oil, coal and natural gas now provide defies reality. Without lavish subsidies renewable energy might actually find its niche markets.
America’s $18 trillion industrial economy, pre-virus, cannot be powered with windmills and solar paneling unless we can transcend the four laws of thermodynamics which put men on the moon, led to micro-processors, semiconductors, innumerable technological breakthroughs and an extension of our own lives.
The future of renewable energy is not much brighter than its dismal past. Even our Department of Energy forecasts its role being no more than ten percent in another decade. Even this small increase would depend on the multi-billion dollar federal subsidy described in the
Democratic platform which will not occur if the current administration gets an extension.
Europe’s pursuit of renewable energy began a decade earlier than ours and proved the need to increase subsidies and raise electric rates. This has been totally ignored in the Democratic platform referred to above.
Germany and England have learned that the more renewable energy they attach to their grids, the more coal they must burn to back up its intermittent generation. It is quite amazing that this fact is not recognized universally. If a country or company wants to depend on some amount of wind or solar capacity on their grids they must have an equal or greater amount of fossil fuel operating on standby at all times ready to take over during the periods of no sun or wind. In the new book A Hitchhikers Journey Through Climate Change, the authors recognize this as the Chiccone/Lehr rule of thumb.
A few years ago Google announced it would soon be powered solely renewable energy. Not long after they admitted it was a major miscalculation. They learned that transitioning to green power systems would take two to three times more generating capacity to provide the same amount of electricity as a coal or natural gas plant. In spite of this Amazon is claiming each day in TV ads that they will be all renewable within 5 years. The screen shows dozens of whirling wind turbines as the narrator tells this fib. It can’t be done.
Google also recognized that these structures require huge amounts of steel, concrete, copper, glass, carbon fiber, many rare earths and large amounts of energy to develop them.
The practice of fleecing American taxpayers to fund pipe dreams of alternate energy sources goes back to the late 1970s. The Carter administration spent billions of dollars on the Synthetic Fuels Corporation, one the biggest corporate welfare boondoggles in American history. The late F.A. Hayek called this the “fatal conceit”, thinking politicians know where the future is headed.
Perhaps the biggest delusion of all are the hundreds of thousands of jobs promised amidst the conversion to renewable energy. Despite President Obama’s promise of five million green jobs over a ten year period if he was elected, only a very small fraction materialized. A 2013 study by the Institute for Energy Research found that for the $26 billion committed to Department of Energy loan guarantee projects between 2009 and 2016, only 2298 permanent jobs were created. That comes to $11.45 million taxpayer dollars spent for each job.
The Department of Labors Office of Inspector General examined a $500 million grant to the Employment and Training Administration to prepare individuals for careers in “green jobs”. The report found that out of 80,000 participants, only 8,035 of those trained, found jobs and only 1,033 had retained employment for more than six months. Mr. Biden’s record, were he to win, will not likely be much better.
There is even more chicanery in the green job delusion which becomes evident when one sees the many jobs counted as green, which will make you laugh. They include EPA regulators, university ecology professors,, school bus drivers, bike repair shop clerks and even Washington DC lobbyists working on green funding.
It is fortunate for us that the democratic platform is completely transparent. If the public chooses to read it they will not have been fooled if they choose to support it.
Portions of this article were excerpted directly from the book “Fueling Freedom” with permission of the authors Steve Moore and Kathleen White. The book is recommended as the very best treatise on American energy yet to be written.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-08-11--Deadly “Green” energy hypocrites

Deadly “Green” energy hypocrites

So-called “ Green ” energy is nothing like clean .
Huge amounts of CO2 are emitted ( if that ’ s your thing ) at every stage of the Green energy manufacturing process .
Even crazier , at the same time the Greens want government to force us to use inefficient , intermittent wind and solar , and short-range electric vehicles , Green gadflies insist that we source none of the materials here .
They block every mine and well , forcing producers to comply with Green mandates by sourcing the materials and products they demand overseas .
Not only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shift extraction and production from places with the cleanest and most humane practices , to places with the dirtiest methods , where life is cheap .
Green and political interests don ’ t want drilling or fracking , pipelines , or nuclear , coal or hydroelectric power plants – or mining for the materials needed to manufacture electric cars .
They prefer to have that work done somewhere else , and just import the energy , cars and consumer goods .
Out of the Left ’ s sight , out of the media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world ’ s rare earth ores are extracted near Baotou , Inner Mongolia by pumping acid into the ground , then processed using more acids and chemicals .
Producing one ton of rare earth metals releases up to 420,000 cubic feet of toxic gases , 2,600 cubic feet of acidic wastewater , and a ton of radioactive waste .
The resulting black sludge is piped into a foul , lifeless lake .
Numerous local people suffer from severe skin and respiratory diseases , children are born with soft bones , and cancer rates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tibet and arid highlands of the Argentina-Bolivia-Chile “ lithium triangle.
” Dead , toxic fish join carcasses of cows and yaks floating down Tibet ’ s Liqi River , which has been poisoned by the Ganzizhou Rongda mine .
Native people in the ABC triangle say lithium operations contaminate streams needed for humans , livestock and irrigation , and leave mountains of discarded salt .
The world ’ s top producer of cobalt is the Democratic Republic of Congo , where some 40,000 children as young as four toil with their parents for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to 12 hours a day .
Many die in cave-ins , or more slowly from constant exposure to toxic , radioactive mud , dust , water and air that puts dangerous levels of cobalt , lead , uranium and other heavy metals into their bodies .
The cobalt ore is sent to China for processing by the Chinese-owned Congo Dongfang International Mining Company .
Whether it ’ s copper from Alaska ’ s Pebble Mine or rare earth ’ s from Texas , essential products and materials are produced cleaner and greener in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rest .
Let the free market function and force dirty suppliers to compete with clean ones .
If the price of a cleaner , greener world is American jobs and industry advancing , that ’ s a price we ’ re prepared to pay .

So-called “Green” energy is nothing like clean.
Huge amounts of CO2 are emitted (if that’s your thing) at every stage of the Green energy manufacturing process.
Even crazier, at the same time the Greens want government to force us to use inefficient, intermittent wind and solar, and short-range electric vehicles, Green gadflies insist that we source none of the materials here. They block every mine and well, forcing producers to comply with Green mandates by sourcing the materials and products they demand overseas.
Not only do we lose jobs, but we shift extraction and production from places with the cleanest and most humane practices, to places with the dirtiest methods, where life is cheap.
CFACT senior policy advisor Paul Driessen explains in detail at CFACT.org:
Green and political interests don’t want drilling or fracking, pipelines, or nuclear, coal or hydroelectric power plants – or mining for the materials
needed to manufacture electric cars. They prefer to have that work done somewhere else, and just import the energy, cars and consumer goods.
Out of the Left’s sight, out of the media’s mind.
Driessen provides powerful examples:
Most of the world’s rare earth ores are extracted near Baotou, Inner Mongolia by pumping acid into the ground, then processed using more acids and chemicals. Producing one ton of rare earth metals releases up to 420,000 cubic feet of toxic gases, 2,600 cubic feet of acidic wastewater, and a ton of radioactive waste. The resulting black sludge is piped into a foul, lifeless lake. Numerous local people suffer from severe skin and respiratory diseases, children are born with soft bones, and cancer rates have soared.
Lithium comes largely from Tibet and arid highlands of the Argentina-Bolivia-Chile “lithium triangle.” Dead, toxic fish join carcasses of cows and yaks floating down Tibet’s Liqi River, which has been poisoned by the Ganzizhou Rongda mine. Native people in the ABC triangle say lithium operations contaminate streams needed for humans, livestock and irrigation, and leave mountains of discarded salt.
The world’s top producer of cobalt is the Democratic Republic of Congo, where some 40,000 children as young as four toil with their parents for less than $2 a day up to 12 hours a day. Many die in cave-ins, or more slowly from constant exposure to toxic, radioactive mud, dust, water and air that puts dangerous levels of cobalt, lead, uranium and other heavy metals into their bodies. The cobalt ore is sent to China for processing by the Chinese-owned Congo Dongfang International Mining Company.
Whether it’s copper from Alaska’s Pebble Mine or rare earth’s from Texas, essential products and materials are produced cleaner and greener in America, than China, Congo and the rest.
Let the free market function and force dirty suppliers to compete with clean ones.
If the price of a cleaner, greener world is American jobs and industry advancing, that’s a price we’re prepared to pay.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-08-12--Bjorn Lōmborg’s new book says climate panic is a “False Alarm”

“ Skeptical environmentalist ” and creator of the Copenhagen Consensus Bjorn Lōmborg has a new book , False Alarm : How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions , Hurts the Poor , and Fails to Fix the Planet .
Lōmborg contends that there are far better ways to build a healthy , prosperous future than the panicked efforts led by the United Nations , many state and local governments , and environmental activists to zero out carbon dioxide emissions in what promises to be a futile effort to reverse the upward climb of CO in the atmosphere .
Lōmborg claims @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or not we attack climate change , though the climate cost will be higher if we fail to enact universal carbon taxes .
As evidence , he cites a 2017 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ) study that examined five different plausible scenarios for the future .
The authors found that all five pathways lead to increased prosperity , from a 170 % increase in GDP by 2100 ( regional rivalry fueled by nationalism ) to a 1,040 % increase from fossil-fueled development that , yes , does allow for increasing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 600 % increase , is from the sustainable development ( green road ) pathway ; this , Lōmborg says , yields the lowest temperature rise .
Five centuries down the road , the total world GDP should be $ 4,629 trillion a year .
Using a “ dynamic climate-economy model ” created by Nobel laureate William Nordhaus , Lōmborg concludes that a carbon tax designed to limit global temperature increases to 6.3o F will result in the lowest combined cost of climate damage and climate policy expenditures .
While all of these ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are impressive , climate realists should be very skeptical over their real-world importance .
Global temperatures have been flat for the first two decades of the 21st Century .
Moreover , as climate scientist Roy Spencer reports , just for the American Midwest , the doomsayer climate models are overestimating warming by 600 % .
German scientist Fritz Vahrenholt points out that the mean temperature rise since 1981 has remained unchanged at 0.14o C per decade — or a projected 1.4o C ( 2.52o F ) over the 21st Century .
This is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ projected by Lōmborg and the UN , indicating there is no need for a carbon tax that negatively impacts the poor and middle class .
And a carbon tax would seriously impact the poorest among us .
Lōmborg predicts that while climate change may cost developed countries a few dollars , the hit on African nations could be as much as 10 % of their GDP .
Poor communities in the U.S. and the United Kingdom will also be worse off if carbon taxes are implemented .
In fact , while advocating for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cutting CO emissions is an “ incredibly ineffective ” way to improve the lives of the world ’ s poor .
To wit , he cites a 2018 Nature Climate Change article that shows strong global climate action would cause far more hunger and food insecurity than climate change itself .
The impact on energy prices , together with impacts on agricultural producers , food manufacturers , and the transport sector will raise the cost of food by a projected 110 % by 2050 and force 78 million people into starvation .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lose much less prosperity to climate change if nations follow the IPCC ’ s “ sustainability ” ( green ) pathway , but they will be far better off overall from adhering to the fossil fuel pathway – more than 30 times more prosperous by 2100 ( compared to just 19 times better off following the greener path .
Lōmborg goes on to discuss the urgent need for African prosperity as a higher priority than African green energy .
He even says that lifting societies out of poverty is a much more important @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , because as people get more prosperous , they can afford medicine that will help end malaria ’ s reign of terror .
While Lōmborg favors a carbon tax , he still admits that high energy prices kill people , mainly the poor and elderly .
And yet , he notes , the World Bank and other lenders have directed more and more aid to “ climate-related development finance , ” which means no fossil-fuel power plants – and more deaths .
Indeed , Lōmborg laments that many of our political leaders have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In addition to the unnecessary carbon tax ( given the overestimates of temperature rise in the models ) , Lōmborg urges governments to invest much more heavily in research and development and seek innovative ways to improve the climate and bring prosperity especially to the poorest .
One such innovation , he recounts , was the work of the late Nobel laureate Norman Borlaug , who helped innovate new , better varieties of wheat , rice , and maize .
Fracking , too , was an innovation that has lowered energy costs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Lōmborg also encourages R & D for energy storage and nuclear energy .
Adaptation is also a valuable strategy for combating climate change , says Lōmborg .
This includes everything from building dikes and overflow reservoirs to floodplain management and increased air conditioning .
Once again , the poor have fewer resources to spend on adaptation , so raising their standard of living remains the best “ climate ” strategy for them .
He also mentions geoengineering , an option that is fraught with great uncertainty .
To illustrate the benefits of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bangladesh .
Both countries have low-lying areas subject to flooding , but the Dutch have spent billions on flood prevention , building and improving dikes and drainage canals .
Bangladeshis , by contrast , are seeing even higher human and property costs from flooding than when it had far fewer people .
Yet their potential for increased prosperity would also soar .
Ending poverty is , by far , the world ’ s best weapon against climate change .
Lōmborg alleges that the goal of climate policy “ is ” to make the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should be the goal of all governmental policies , the evidence does not support that statement .
Indeed , UN leaders like Christiana Figueres have informed us that the goal of THEIR climate policy is “ to intentionally transform the economic development model , for the first time in human history , ” that is , to abolish capitalism in favor of a centralized ( UN led ) world government .
But back to Lōmborg , whose entire zeitgeist has been to look at the bigger picture .
He asserts that the quality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for quite some time and that climate change is a moderate problem in a sea of problems .
He is weary of the blatant lies and apocalyptic misstatements that have not been debunked thoroughly and have in many cases led us to focus on the wrong problems .
Lōmborg advocates for freer trade , along with investments in health care , education , and technology .
He says that freer trade could unleash “ an amazing $ 2,000 of social benefits for every dollar spent , ” with many of the benefits going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And that is the most valuable information in this book – that the solution to poverty , slavery , and other miseries is policies and actions that elevate the standard of living for the poorest among us .

“Skeptical environmentalist” and creator of the Copenhagen Consensus Bjorn Lomborg has a new book, False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet.
Lomborg contends that there are far better ways to build a healthy, prosperous future than the panicked efforts led by the United Nations, many state and local governments, and environmental activists to zero out carbon dioxide emissions in what promises to be a futile effort to reverse the upward climb of CO 2 in the atmosphere.
Lomborg claims that prodigious economic growth is inevitable whether or not we attack climate change, though the climate cost will be higher if we fail to enact universal carbon taxes. As evidence, he cites a 2017 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) study that examined five different plausible scenarios for the future.
The authors found that all five pathways lead to increased prosperity, from a 170% increase in GDP by 2100 (regional rivalry fueled by nationalism) to a 1,040% increase from fossil-fueled development that, yes, does allow for increasing CO 2 . The next-best result, a 600% increase, is from the sustainable development (green road) pathway; this, Lōmborg says, yields the lowest temperature rise.
Five centuries down the road, the total world GDP should be $4,629 trillion a year. Using a “dynamic climate-economy model” created by Nobel laureate William Nordhaus, Lōmborg concludes that a carbon tax designed to limit global temperature increases to 6.3o F will result in the lowest combined cost of climate damage and climate policy expenditures.
While all of these (and other) calculations in this book are impressive, climate realists should be very skeptical over their real-world importance. Global temperatures have been flat for the first two decades of the 21st Century. Moreover, as climate scientist Roy Spencer reports, just for the American Midwest, the doomsayer climate models are overestimating warming by 600%.
German scientist Fritz Vahrenholt points out that the mean temperature rise since 1981 has remained unchanged at 0.14o C per decade — or a projected 1.4o C (2.52o F) over the 21st Century. This is far less than the lowest temperature rise projected by Lōmborg and the UN, indicating there is no need for a carbon tax that negatively impacts the poor and middle class.
And a carbon tax would seriously impact the poorest among us. Lōmborg predicts that while climate change may cost developed countries a few dollars, the hit on African nations could be as much as 10% of their GDP. Poor communities in the U.S. and the United Kingdom will also be worse off if carbon taxes are implemented. In fact, while advocating for a carbon tax, Lomborg argues that cutting CO 2 emissions is an “incredibly ineffective” way to improve the lives of the world’s poor.
To wit, he cites a 2018 Nature Climate Change article that shows strong global climate action would cause far more hunger and food insecurity than climate change itself. The impact on energy prices, together with impacts on agricultural producers, food manufacturers, and the transport sector will raise the cost of food by a projected 110% by 2050 and force 78 million people into starvation.
In sum, Lomborg concludes, Africans may lose much less prosperity to climate change if nations follow the IPCC’s “sustainability” (green) pathway, but they will be far better off overall from adhering to the fossil fuel pathway – more than 30 times more prosperous by 2100 (compared to just 19 times better off following the greener path.
Lomborg goes on to discuss the urgent need for African prosperity as a higher priority than African green energy. He even says that lifting societies out of poverty is a much more important pathway to eradicating malaria than climate action, because as people get more prosperous, they can afford medicine that will help end malaria’s reign of terror.
While Lomborg favors a carbon tax, he still admits that high energy prices kill people, mainly the poor and elderly. And yet, he notes, the World Bank and other lenders have directed more and more aid to “climate-related development finance,” which means no fossil-fuel power plants – and more deaths. Indeed, Lomborg laments that many of our political leaders have decided that climate spending trumps ending poverty.
In addition to the unnecessary carbon tax (given the overestimates of temperature rise in the models), Lomborg urges governments to invest much more heavily in research and development and seek innovative ways to improve the climate and bring prosperity especially to the poorest.
One such innovation, he recounts, was the work of the late Nobel laureate Norman Borlaug, who helped innovate new, better varieties of wheat, rice, and maize. Fracking, too, was an innovation that has lowered energy costs and thus brought new prosperity to millions. Lōmborg also encourages R&D for energy storage and nuclear energy.
Adaptation is also a valuable strategy for combating climate change, says Lōmborg. This includes everything from building dikes and overflow reservoirs to floodplain management and increased air conditioning. Once again, the poor have fewer resources to spend on adaptation, so raising their standard of living remains the best “climate” strategy for them. He also mentions geoengineering, an option that is fraught with great uncertainty.
To illustrate the benefits of prosperity, Lōmborg compares the Netherlands to Bangladesh. Both countries have low-lying areas subject to flooding, but the Dutch have spent billions on flood prevention, building and improving dikes and drainage canals. Bangladeshis, by contrast, are seeing even higher human and property costs from flooding than when it had far fewer people. Yet their potential for increased prosperity would also soar. Ending poverty is, by far, the world’s best weapon against climate change.
Lomborg alleges that the goal of climate policy “is” to make the world a better place. While that should be the goal of all governmental policies, the evidence does not support that statement. Indeed, UN leaders like Christiana Figueres have informed us that the goal of THEIR climate policy is “to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history,” that is, to abolish capitalism in favor of a centralized (UN led) world government.
But back to Lomborg, whose entire zeitgeist has been to look at the bigger picture. He asserts that the quality of life has been on an upswing for quite some time and that climate change is a moderate problem in a sea of problems. He is weary of the blatant lies and apocalyptic misstatements that have not been debunked thoroughly and have in many cases led us to focus on the wrong problems.
Lomborg advocates for freer trade, along with investments in health care, education, and technology. He says that freer trade could unleash “an amazing $2,000 of social benefits for every dollar spent,” with many of the benefits going to the world’s poorest. And that is the most valuable information in this book – that the solution to poverty, slavery, and other miseries is policies and actions that elevate the standard of living for the poorest among us.


Kamala’s moment arrives

Democratic presidential nominee , Joe Biden , has made his vice presidential choice , and he chose wisely among a half dozen considerations who are women of color : U.S .
Senator Kamala Harris of California .
Congratulations to her .
Sen. Harris is a “ wise ” choice from a Democratic political standpoint – she is presentable on the national stage and malleable on policy issues .
She also fully embraces man-made global warming to the extent America and the world should rapidly transition to “ renewable ” energy from carbon-emitting fossil fuels .
Hence , Sen. Harris readily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Green New Deal early in 2019 .
Ms. Harris ’ own presidential campaign crashed and burned last year for reasons that do not reflect well on her , as reported in the New York Times at the time .
Nonetheless , the experience prepares her for this new , high profile role .
I met Sen. Harris at an event in New York in early 2017 shortly after she became Senator .
Her presence left me no doubt she was running for president , as had another first-term senator named Barack Obama .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ fruit .
As I have written , the Democratic Party is all in on an extreme climate agenda .
Nearly every candidate who ran for the Party ’ s presidential nomination proposed some version of the Green New Deal , which only differed on how many trillions of dollars it would cost .
Neither Biden nor Harris is a political “ moderate ” or issue “ pragmatist , ” despite the coordinated , dishonest attempts by mainstream media organs to label them such .
Rather , they are liberal politicians who reflect the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic Party ; Harris even more so , according to her most leftward Senate voting record .
They are who they are – why pretend otherwise ?
This is not the Democratic Party of Bill Clinton in the 1990 ’ s , much less the economic Party of JFK in the early 1960 ’ s .
In 36 years as a U.S. senator from Delaware , Joe Biden was not among the Senate ’ s extreme environmentalists .
None of that matters today , as he has dutifully evolved .
His climate agenda @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez .
Kamala Harris made her bones ( figuratively speaking ) in San Francisco politics , is now thrice elected statewide , and a leader of California ’ s political class .
The state ’ s energy and environmental policies are her policies for the nation .
Sen. Harris ’ home state leads the way in environmental extremism .
CFACT has well documented the costly and destructive climate policies of the Golden state , which has the nation ’ s highest energy costs and is driving away the middle class @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is steadily becoming an unlivable place unless you are super-wealthy ( e.g.
, Hollywood actors and Silicon Valley techies ) on the public payroll , or dependent on the state ’ s vast welfare system .
On the issue of hydro-fracturing of natural gas , Sen. Harris supports a nationwide ban , which goes further to the extreme than her own state that allows it on a limited basis .
Her stance also contrasts with the Obama administration , which understood its economic and political importance , and Biden , who has more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the Global Energy Institute , a nationwide fracking ban would eliminate more than 19 million jobs by 2025 and reduce America ’ s economy by $ 7 trillion .
Energy prices would sharply increase , not just for natural gas , and would add nearly $ 5,700 to the cost of living for the average American .
Plus , carbon emissions , the bane of all things global warming , would increase since the global production and consumption of oil and coal would expand .
[ Addendum : Vlad Putin ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be delighted , along with Middle Eastern dictatorships like Iran . ]
Joe Biden and Kamala Harris embrace the climate issues because they are Democratic Party dogma and a priority of its billionaire donor class .
Accordingly , they are no less committed to “ fighting climate change ” by reordering the nation ’ s economy , with the job losses , higher cost of living , and curtailment of freedom that would result .
Not since 1944 has a vice-presidential nominee loomed so large .
That year , President Franklin Roosevelt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , replaced incumbent V.P .
Henry Wallace , a socialist , with Sen. Harry Truman .
Eleven weeks into the new term , FDR died and Truman became president .
If elected president , Joe Biden will turn 78 and be older than was Ronald Reagan at the end of his eight-year presidency .
His cognitive decline is increasingly obvious .
A President Harris could come soon , without Biden ’ s physical death .
Such would make history , and have transforming , deleterious consequences if she or Biden beforehand impose their @ @ @ @ @

Democratic presidential nominee, Joe Biden, has made his vice presidential choice, and he chose wisely among a half dozen considerations who are women of color: U.S. Senator Kamala Harris of California. Congratulations to her.
Sen. Harris is a “wise” choice from a Democratic political standpoint – she is presentable on the national stage and malleable on policy issues. She also fully embraces man-made global warming to the extent America and the world should rapidly transition to “renewable” energy from carbon-emitting fossil fuels. Hence, Sen. Harris readily signed on as a co-sponsor of the Green New Deal early in 2019.
Ms. Harris’ own presidential campaign crashed and burned last year for reasons that do not reflect well on her, as reported in the New York Times at the time. Nonetheless, the experience prepares her for this new, high profile role.
I met Sen. Harris at an event in New York in early 2017 shortly after she became Senator. Her presence left me no doubt she was running for president, as had another first-term senator named Barack Obama. Her similar ambition has thus far borne fruit.
As I have written, the Democratic Party is all in on an extreme climate agenda. Nearly every candidate who ran for the Party’s presidential nomination proposed some version of the Green New Deal, which only differed on how many trillions of dollars it would cost.
Neither Biden nor Harris is a political “moderate” or “pragmatic” despite the coordinated, dishonest attempts by mainstream media organs to label them such. Rather, they are liberal politicians who reflect the prevailing positions and progressive direction of their Democratic Party; Harris even more so, according to her most leftward Senate voting record. They are who they are – why pretend otherwise? This is not the Democratic Party of Bill Clinton in the 1990’s, much less the economic Party of JFK in the early 1960’s.
In 36 years as a U.S. senator from Delaware, Joe Biden was not among the Senate’s extreme environmentalists. None of that matters today, as he has dutifully evolved. His climate agenda reflects the extremist vision of Sen. Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Kamala Harris made her bones (figuratively speaking) in San Francisco politics, is now thrice elected statewide, and a leader of California’s political class. The state’s energy and environmental policies are her policies for the nation.
Sen. Harris’ home state leads the way in environmental extremism. CFACT has well documented the costly and destructive climate policies of the Golden state, which has the nation’s highest energy costs and is driving away the middle class and businesses to other states. California is steadily becoming an unlivable place unless you are super-wealthy (e.g., Hollywood actors and Silicon Valley techies) on the public payroll, or dependent on the state’s vast welfare system.
On the issue of hydro-fracturing of natural gas, Sen. Harris supports a nationwide ban, which goes further to the extreme than her own state that allows it on a limited basis. Her stance also contrasts with the Obama administration, which understood its economic and political importance, and Biden, who has more recently equivocated on the issue.
According to the Global Energy Institute, a nationwide fracking ban would eliminate more than 19 million jobs by 2025 and reduce America’s economy by $7 trillion. Energy prices would sharply increase, not just for natural gas, and would add nearly $5,700 to the cost of living for the average American. Plus, carbon emissions, the bane of all things global warming, would increase since the global production and consumption of oil and coal would expand. [Addendum: Vlad Putin’s Russia, a major oil producer, would be delighted, along with Middle Eastern dictatorships like Iran.]
Joe Biden and Kamala Harris embrace climate extremism because it is Democratic Party dogma and a priority of its billionaire donor class. Accordingly, they are no less committed to “fighting climate change” by reordering the nation’s economy, with the job losses, higher cost of living, and curtailment of freedom that would result.
Not since 1944 has a vice-presidential nominee loomed so large. That year, President Franklin Roosevelt, whose physical health was rapidly declining, replaced incumbent V.P. Henry Wallace, a socialist, with Sen. Harry Truman. Eleven weeks into the new term, FDR died and Truman became president.
If elected president, Joe Biden will turn 78 and be older than was Ronald Reagan at the end of his eight-year presidency. His cognitive decline is increasingly obvious. A President Harris could come soon, without Biden physically dying. Such would make history, and have transformative, deleterious consequences if she or Biden beforehand impose their climate policies on America.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-08-13--Endangered macaws saved by…plastic?

Endangered macaws saved by…plastic?

Plastic is demonized in today ’ s world for supposedly destroying the planet .
Dig a little deeper , however , and it will be easy to see how plastic is still vital to not just humans , but animals as well .
Take , for example , the case of the Scarlet Macaw in Mexico .
With its populations and habitat decimated due to poaching and deforestation , the Scarlet Macaw is now in danger of going extinct .
Only a few hundred are estimated to be alive in the wild today .
Conservationists in the Los Tuxtlas Biosphere @ @ @ @ @ @ @ found a unique way to encourage macaws to begin safely mating once more .
According to a story featured by Defenders of Wildlife , scientists and activists have put their heads together to create habitats out of plastic barrels .
These barrels , with holes cut into them and placed high in the treetops , are proving to be a fantastic home for macaws looking for some safe privacy to raise their young .
While at first more so-called “ environmentally friendly ” attempts were made by using large wooden boxes , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the article on Defenders.org : “ The decision was made to switch to plastic after bee swarms moved in , predators such as ring-tail cats and iguanas raided the nests , and they were flooded by rainwater .
The barrels have a hole cut into the side for nesting parents to enter .
To deter tree-climbing predators , tree trunks were lined with sheets of metal .
The result is a cozy space with relative privacy for the macaws.
” Not only was plastic needed to help provide a safe home for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ order to prevent predators from climbing the trees to get to the nests .
After reviewing footage from cameras placed in the trees , it has been determined that six nests are located in the plastic barrels , and one nest has appeared naturally in the reserve .
You can read the full story by Defenders of Wildlife here .

Plastic is demonized in today’s world for supposedly destroying the planet.
Dig a little deeper, however, and it will be easy to see how plastic is still vital to not just humans, but animals as well.
Take, for example, the case of the Scarlet Macaw in Mexico. With its populations and habitat decimated due to poaching and deforestation, the Scarlet Macaw is now in danger of going extinct. Only a few hundred are estimated to be alive in the wild today.
Conservationists in the Los Tuxtlas Biosphere Reserve in Veracruz, Mexico, have found a unique way to encourage macaws to begin safely mating once more.
According to a story featured by Defenders of Wildlife, scientists and activists have put their heads together to create habitats out of plastic barrels. These barrels, with holes cut into them and placed high in the treetops, are proving to be a fantastic home for macaws looking for some safe privacy to raise their young.
While at first more so-called “environmentally friendly” attempts were made by using large wooden boxes, they didn’t work.
According to the article on Defenders.org:
“The decision was made to switch to plastic after bee swarms moved in, predators such as ring-tail cats and iguanas raided the nests, and they were flooded by rainwater. The barrels have a hole cut into the side for nesting parents to enter. To deter tree-climbing predators, tree trunks were lined with sheets of metal. The result is a cozy space with relative privacy for the macaws.”
Not only was plastic needed to help provide a safe home for the macaws, but even metal, in order to prevent predators from climbing the trees to get to the nests.
After reviewing footage from cameras placed in the trees, it has been determined that six nests are located in the plastic barrels, and one nest has appeared naturally in the reserve.
You can read the full story by Defenders of Wildlife here.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-08-12--Bjorn Lomborg’s new book says climate panic is a “False Alarm”

“ Skeptical environmentalist ” and creator of the Copenhagen Consensus Bjorn Lomborg has a new book , False Alarm : How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions , Hurts the Poor , and Fails to Fix the Planet .
Lomborg contends that there are far better ways to build a healthy , prosperous future than the panicked efforts led by the United Nations , many state and local governments , and environmental activists to zero out carbon dioxide emissions in what promises to be a futile effort to reverse the upward climb of CO in the atmosphere .
Lomborg claims @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or not we attack climate change , though the climate cost will be higher if we fail to enact universal carbon taxes .
As evidence , he cites a 2017 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ) study that examined five different plausible scenarios for the future .
The authors found that all five pathways lead to increased prosperity , from a 170 % increase in GDP by 2100 ( regional rivalry fueled by nationalism ) to a 1,040 % increase from fossil-fueled development that , yes , does allow for increasing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 600 % increase , is from the sustainable development ( green road ) pathway ; this , Lōmborg says , yields the lowest temperature rise .
Five centuries down the road , the total world GDP should be $ 4,629 trillion a year .
Using a “ dynamic climate-economy model ” created by Nobel laureate William Nordhaus , Lōmborg concludes that a carbon tax designed to limit global temperature increases to 6.3o F will result in the lowest combined cost of climate damage and climate policy expenditures .
While all of these ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are impressive , climate realists should be very skeptical over their real-world importance .
Global temperatures have been flat for the first two decades of the 21st Century .
Moreover , as climate scientist Roy Spencer reports , just for the American Midwest , the doomsayer climate models are overestimating warming by 600 % .
German scientist Fritz Vahrenholt points out that the mean temperature rise since 1981 has remained unchanged at 0.14o C per decade — or a projected 1.4o C ( 2.52o F ) over the 21st Century .
This is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ projected by Lōmborg and the UN , indicating there is no need for a carbon tax that negatively impacts the poor and middle class .
And a carbon tax would seriously impact the poorest among us .
Lōmborg predicts that while climate change may cost developed countries a few dollars , the hit on African nations could be as much as 10 % of their GDP .
Poor communities in the U.S. and the United Kingdom will also be worse off if carbon taxes are implemented .
In fact , while advocating for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cutting CO emissions is an “ incredibly ineffective ” way to improve the lives of the world ’ s poor .
To wit , he cites a 2018 Nature Climate Change article that shows strong global climate action would cause far more hunger and food insecurity than climate change itself .
The impact on energy prices , together with impacts on agricultural producers , food manufacturers , and the transport sector will raise the cost of food by a projected 110 % by 2050 and force 78 million people into starvation .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lose much less prosperity to climate change if nations follow the IPCC ’ s “ sustainability ” ( green ) pathway , but they will be far better off overall from adhering to the fossil fuel pathway – more than 30 times more prosperous by 2100 ( compared to just 19 times better off following the greener path .
Lomborg goes on to discuss the urgent need for African prosperity as a higher priority than African green energy .
He even says that lifting societies out of poverty is a much more important @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , because as people get more prosperous , they can afford medicine that will help end malaria ’ s reign of terror .
While Lomborg favors a carbon tax , he still admits that high energy prices kill people , mainly the poor and elderly .
And yet , he notes , the World Bank and other lenders have directed more and more aid to “ climate-related development finance , ” which means no fossil-fuel power plants – and more deaths .
Indeed , Lomborg laments that many of our political leaders have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In addition to the unnecessary carbon tax ( given the overestimates of temperature rise in the models ) , Lomborg urges governments to invest much more heavily in research and development and seek innovative ways to improve the climate and bring prosperity especially to the poorest .
One such innovation , he recounts , was the work of the late Nobel laureate Norman Borlaug , who helped innovate new , better varieties of wheat , rice , and maize .
Fracking , too , was an innovation that has lowered energy costs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Lōmborg also encourages R & D for energy storage and nuclear energy .
Adaptation is also a valuable strategy for combating climate change , says Lōmborg .
This includes everything from building dikes and overflow reservoirs to floodplain management and increased air conditioning .
Once again , the poor have fewer resources to spend on adaptation , so raising their standard of living remains the best “ climate ” strategy for them .
He also mentions geoengineering , an option that is fraught with great uncertainty .
To illustrate the benefits of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bangladesh .
Both countries have low-lying areas subject to flooding , but the Dutch have spent billions on flood prevention , building and improving dikes and drainage canals .
Bangladeshis , by contrast , are seeing even higher human and property costs from flooding than when it had far fewer people .
Yet their potential for increased prosperity would also soar .
Ending poverty is , by far , the world ’ s best weapon against climate change .
Lomborg alleges that the goal of climate policy “ is ” to make the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should be the goal of all governmental policies , the evidence does not support that statement .
Indeed , UN leaders like Christiana Figueres have informed us that the goal of THEIR climate policy is “ to intentionally transform the economic development model , for the first time in human history , ” that is , to abolish capitalism in favor of a centralized ( UN led ) world government .
But back to Lomborg , whose entire zeitgeist has been to look at the bigger picture .
He asserts that the quality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for quite some time and that climate change is a moderate problem in a sea of problems .
He is weary of the blatant lies and apocalyptic misstatements that have not been debunked thoroughly and have in many cases led us to focus on the wrong problems .
Lomborg advocates for freer trade , along with investments in health care , education , and technology .
He says that freer trade could unleash “ an amazing $ 2,000 of social benefits for every dollar spent , ” with many of the benefits going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And that is the most valuable information in this book – that the solution to poverty , slavery , and other miseries is policies and actions that elevate the standard of living for the poorest among us .


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-08-14--Kamala Harris bad climate cop

Kamala Harris bad climate cop

As Attorney General of California , Kamala Harris misused her authority to attack the First Amendment rights of climate skeptics and other “ deplorables.
” In the waning days of the Obama Administration , radicals devised plans to launch a climate inquisition against nonprofit organizations , such as CFACT , that use facts to correct the the exaggerations and distortions routinely employed by the global warming campaign .
They planned to use the investigative and prosecutorial powers of attorneys general and district attorneys to make it clear that reporting facts inconvenient to the climate narrative , or funding those with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ result in legal jeopardy and terrible publicity .
In other words , when it comes to climate policy and science , one must BE COMPLIANT , BE SILENT or BE PUNISHED .
Kamala Harris enthusiastically climbed aboard and pledged to throw the awesome power of the Golden State state behind the inquisition .
In September , 2015 , Jagadish Shukla and Edward Maibach , both climate radical professors at George Mason University , spearheaded a letter to U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch and President Obama asking them to explore RICO charges against climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they proposed a terrible misuse of a statute created to take down the mafia to suppress speech about the climate .
It morphed into the “ # ExxonKnew ” campaign .
Al Gore brought his “ Climate Reality Project ” into the mix .
This led to an infamous press conference on March 29 , 2016 in which NY AG Eric Schneiderman hosted Gore and a large posse of public officials to launch “ AGs United for Clean Power ” of which California AG Kamala Harris was a charter member .
CFACT ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Institute used FOIA to uncover emails which showed rampant collusion between paid climate radicals and state attorneys general to work together to suppress free speech by climate skeptics .
New York ’ s AG filed a lawsuit against Exxon , as did Massachusetts AG Maura Healey .
Both attempted to use tortured interpretations of securities or consumer protection law to argue that America ’ s largest oil company committed fraud by being skeptical of radical climate pronouncements .
Worse yet it consorted with climate skeptical scholars and policy experts .
These lawsuits have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t helped when New York AG Schneiderman was forced to resign .
He had embraced the “ # MeToo ” movement , but then faced serious allegations of physical abuse brought by four women .
A group of attorneys general opposed to what AGs United was up to responded writing , “ using law enforcement authority to resolve a public policy debate undermines the trust invested in our offices and threatens free speech.
” “ I ’ m suing them , ” Harris told an activist .
“ Investigating first , then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an investigation reached conclusion raised a serious issue of legal ethics .
Harris , however , never filed her lawsuit , but did lie and say she did at a CNN climate town hall .
Moderator Erin Burnett asked , “ so , Senator Harris , what would you do ?
Would you sue them ?
Sue Exxon Mobil ?
” “ I have sued Exxon Mobil , ” Harris replied .
Politifact reported that Harris “ opened an investigation into the oil giant over allegations it was lying to the public and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there ’ s no public evidence , or any from her campaign , that she ever filed a lawsuit against the company .
We rate her claim False.
” As a candidate for president , Kamala Harris was not embarrassed about having used her powers as California AG to chill free speech .
On the contrary .
Her pursuit of her party ’ s climate radical base was so ardent , that she lied to create the appearance that she had moved beyond investigation and filed suit .
Which is more frightening , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Kamala Harris , or that she lied to keep her membership in good standing with the anti-free speech mob ?
As Attorney General Kamala Harris used similar strong-arm tactics against nonprofits such as The Center for Competitive Politics and Americans for Prosperity .
She attempted to force both organizations to disclose the names of their donors so the Left could harass them .
In both cases she was blocked by the federal courts .
Kamala Harris ’ conduct as California Attorney General revealed a stunning lack of concern for our First Amendment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make heavy-handed use her power to advance partisan ends .
As a Senator and presidential candidate she later went all-in on eco-radicalism .
Harris signed on as an enthusiastic supporter of the “ Green New Deal ” and said during her campaign , “ as president of the United States , I am prepared to get rid of the filibuster to pass a Green New Deal.
” Apparently rounding up the votes of 60 senators to advance legislation is only an essential protection when it is Republican legislation being stalled .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nuclear option is ready to launch .
Senator Harris recently partnered with Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to introduce “ The Climate Equity Act ” which would require energy and environment policy makers to utilize an “ equity score ” that would weight the legislation based on factors of race , gender , and socio-economic background .
Their goal is “ environmental justice.
” “ Major environmental policies must be written by the black , brown , and low-income people who have been and will be disproportionately impacted by it , just like the Green @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a press statement .
Always remember that when eco-radicals use the word “ justice ” that is code for redistribution and control .
Actual justice doesn ’ t enter into it .
Kamala Harris has also made clear that she would end the shale energy revolution that finally achieved the long-sought goal of American energy independence .
“ There is no question I am in favor of banning fracking , ” Harris told that CNN climate town hall .
If elected , 78-year-old Joe Biden would be the oldest person to assume @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would also be among the most frail .
It is cliché to observe that any vice president lives just a heartbeat away from the presidency .
Yet , no major party has nominated a vice president with greater chance of assuming the top job since Roosevelt ’ s fourth term .
The tried-and-true presidential strategy is to run extreme in the primary , grab hold of the base , then pivot to the center for the general .
Joe Biden is doing just the opposite .
His advisors radicalized his climate and energy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They then brought Kamala Harris ’ eco-agenda on board .
Both spell devastation for America ’ s energy economy .
Harris ’ presidential campaign put a price tag of $ 10 trillion on her climate plans , and pledged to force Americans into carbon neutrality by 2030 .
Are you prepared to give up your car , energy , and for many your job in just ten years ?
America can not afford to be force marched into an inefficient Green energy economy in ten years , nor can we afford any further @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speech .
In the future , when Robert Kennedy , Jr. and Bill Nye stand before a group of climate activists and Hollywood celebrities and call for climate skeptics to be jailed , what would Kamala Harris do ?

As Attorney General of California, Kamala Harris misused her authority to attack the First Amendment rights of climate skeptics and other “deplorables.”
In the waning days of the Obama Administration, radicals devised plans to launch a climate inquisition against nonprofit organizations, such as CFACT, that use facts to correct the the exaggerations and distortions routinely employed by the global warming campaign.
They planned to use the investigative and prosecutorial powers of attorneys general and district attorneys to make it clear that reporting facts inconvenient to the climate narrative, or funding those with the temerity to do so, would result in legal jeopardy and terrible publicity. In other words, when it comes to climate policy and science, one must BE COMPLIANT, BE SILENT or BE PUNISHED.
Free speech be damned.
Kamala Harris enthusiastically climbed aboard and pledged to throw the awesome power of the Golden State state behind the inquisition.
In September, 2015, Jagadish Shukla and Edward Maibach, both climate radical professors at George Mason University, spearheaded a letter to U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch and President Obama asking them to explore RICO charges against climate “deniers” and their funders. they proposed a terrible misuse of a statute created to take down the mafia to suppress speech about the climate. It morphed into the “#ExxonKnew” campaign.
Al Gore brought his “Climate Reality Project” into the mix. This led to an infamous press conference on March 29, 2016 in which NY AG Eric Schneiderman hosted Gore and a large posse of public officials to launch “AGs United for Clean Power” of which California AG Kamala Harris was a charter member.
CFACT’s close friends at the Competitive Enterprise Institute used FOIA to uncover emails which showed rampant collusion between paid climate radicals and state attorneys general to work together to suppress free speech by climate skeptics.
New York’s AG filed a lawsuit against Exxon, as did Massachusetts AG Maura Healey. Both attempted to use tortured interpretations of securities or consumer protection law to argue that America’s largest oil company committed fraud by being skeptical of radical climate pronouncements. Worse yet it consorted with climate skeptical scholars and policy experts. These lawsuits have so far fared terribly. They weren’t helped when New York AG Schneiderman was forced to resign. He had embraced the “#MeToo” movement, but then faced serious allegations of physical abuse brought by four women.
A group of attorneys general opposed to what AGs United was up to responded writing, “using law enforcement authority to resolve a public policy debate undermines the trust invested in our offices and threatens free speech.”
“I’m suing them,” Harris told an activist. “Investigating first, then suing.” Vowing to file suit before an investigation reached conclusion raised a serious issue of legal ethics. Harris, however, never filed her lawsuit, but did lie and say she did at a CNN climate town hall.
Moderator Erin Burnett asked, “so, Senator Harris, what would you do? Would you sue them? Sue Exxon Mobil?” “I have sued Exxon Mobil,” Harris replied.
Politifact reported that Harris “opened an investigation into the oil giant over allegations it was lying to the public and its shareholders about climate change. But there’s no public evidence, or any from her campaign, that she ever filed a lawsuit against the company. We rate her claim False.”
As a candidate for president, Kamala Harris was not embarrassed about having used her powers as California AG to chill free speech. On the contrary. Her pursuit of her party’s climate radical base was so ardent, that she lied to create the appearance that she had moved beyond investigation and filed suit.
Which is more frightening, that our First Amendment found no protector in Kamala Harris, or that she lied to keep her membership in good standing with the anti-free speech mob?
As Attorney General Kamala Harris used similar strong-arm tactics against nonprofits such as The Center for Competitive Politics and Americans for Prosperity. She attempted to force both organizations to disclose the names of their donors so the Left could harass them. In both cases she was blocked by the federal courts.
Kamala Harris’ conduct as California Attorney General revealed a stunning lack of concern for our First Amendment rights as well as a troubling willingness to make heavy-handed use her power to advance partisan ends.
As a Senator and presidential candidate she later went all-in on eco-radicalism.
Harris signed on as an enthusiastic supporter of the “Green New Deal” and said during her campaign, “as president of the United States, I am prepared to get rid of the filibuster to pass a Green New Deal.”
Apparently rounding up the votes of 60 senators to advance legislation is only an essential protection when it is Republican legislation being stalled. If the legislation would take us Left the nuclear option is ready to launch.
Senator Harris recently partnered with Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to introduce “The Climate Equity Act” which would require energy and environment policy makers to utilize an “equity score” that would weight the legislation based on factors of race, gender, and socio-economic background. Their goal is “environmental justice.” “Major environmental policies must be written by the black, brown, and low-income people who have been and will be disproportionately impacted by it, just like the Green New Deal envisioned,” AOC said in a press statement.
Always remember that when eco-radicals use the word “justice” that is code for redistribution and control. Actual justice doesn’t enter into it.
Kamala Harris has also made clear that she would end the shale energy revolution that finally achieved the long-sought goal of American energy independence. “There is no question I am in favor of banning fracking,” Harris told that CNN climate town hall.
If elected, 78-year-old Joe Biden would be the oldest person to assume the presidency in American history. He would also be among the most frail. It is cliché to observe that any vice president lives just a heartbeat away from the presidency. Yet, no major party has nominated a vice president with greater chance of assuming the top job since Roosevelt’s fourth term.
The tried-and-true presidential strategy is to run extreme in the primary, grab hold of the base, then pivot to the center for the general. Joe Biden is doing just the opposite. His advisors radicalized his climate and energy agenda after Biden secured the nomination. They then brought Kamala Harris’ eco-agenda on board. Both spell devastation for America’s energy economy.
Harris’ presidential campaign put a price tag of $10 trillion on her climate plans, and pledged to force Americans into carbon neutrality by 2030. Are you prepared to give up your car, energy, and for many your job in just ten years?
America cannot afford to be force marched into an inefficient Green energy economy in ten years, nor can we afford any further erosion of our constitutional right to free speech.
In the future, when Robert Kennedy, Jr. and Bill Nye stand before a group of climate activists and Hollywood celebrities and call for climate skeptics to be jailed, what would Kamala Harris do?