committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-03-09--Howls erupt over proposed removal of gray wolves from endangered species list

The proposal by the U.S .
Fish & Wildlife Service ( FWS ) last year to remove the grey wolf , or simply wolf ( Canis lupus ) , from the Endangered Species List has encountered fierce resistance from environmental groups who insist that the apex predator still warrants protection under the federal Endangered Species Act ( ESA ) .
FWS , a division of the Interior Department , is expected to issue a final rule in the coming months declaring the wolf recovered in the Lower 48 , a step that would remove its protections under the ESA .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Montana , and Wyoming in 1995 , its numbers there and elsewhere in the U.S. have soared .
According to FWS estimates , there are currently 6,000 wolves in the Lower 48 .
( There are another 8,000 – 11,000 in Alaska , but Alaskan wolves were never placed on the Endangered Species List . )
In addition to the three states where wolves were reintroduced , wolf packs have also been identified in recent years in parts of California , Washington , Oregon , Nevada , Utah , North Dakota , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wisconsin , Illinois , Kansas , Nebraska , Missouri , and Indiana .
The largest concentration of wolves can be found in the Great Lakes states of Minnesota , Michigan , and Wisconsin , where their number are put at 4,400 .
Despite the wolf ’ s rebound , environmental groups are threatening to take FWS to court over the delisting .
When the delisting was first proposed last year , Collette Adkins , the Center for Biological Diversity ’ s ( CBD ) carnivore conservation director , said the move would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ across the country.
” With lawsuits looming , the Washington Times ( March 3 ) reports that some lawmakers want to avoid a protracted court fight by passing a bill delisting the wolf .
The Times notes that the grey wolf was delisted in the Northern Rockies in 2011 , but that was accomplished through a rider added to a must-pass budget bill in the Senate .
The rider contained language saying the delisting “ shall not be subject to judicial review.
” Identical language , barring court challenges , can be found @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Peterson ( D-Minn. ) and Rob Bishop ( R-Utah ) that would extend the delisting nationwide .
“ Grey wolf populations have reached sustainable levels , and it is well past time to return authority over their management to the states , ” Peterson said in a statement .
“ This bipartisan legislation will allow states to protect the livelihood of their livestock owners and preserve a health balance of wild animal populations.
” Peterson ’ s predominantly rural northwestern Minnesota district has experienced a surge in grey wolf populations , accompanied with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The problem is widespread , but there is little farmers and ranchers can do to protect their livestock as long as the wolf enjoys the protection of the ESA .
“ It ’ s time to allow farmers and ranchers to lawfully defend their livestock against predatory animals , ” Roger Johnson , president of the National Farmers Union , said in a statement .
In the United States , wolves typically dine on moose , deer , elk , beaver , bighorn sheep , and mountain goats , though not all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cattle , sheep , pigs , and other livestock can easily find themselves on the menu of a nearby wolfpack .
CBD and other environmental groups oppose steps that would return management of wolves to the states , arguing the predators could be subjected to hunting to cull their populations .
Yet , as the Trump FWS points out , that under the ESA , the agency ’ s task is recovery , and no more .
“ The ESA is not designed to permanently protect individual animals from hunting or other active @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its proposed delisting Q & A .
“ The purpose of the ESA is to prevent extinction of Imperiled species and to recover them .
Once the threshold of recovery has been met , we can – and must – return the management to state and tribal wildlife agencies .
”

The proposal by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) last year to remove the grey wolf, or simply wolf (Canis lupus), from the Endangered Species List has encountered fierce resistance from environmental groups who insist that the apex predator still warrants protection under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA).
FWS, a division of the Interior Department, is expected to issue a final rule in the coming months declaring the wolf recovered in the Lower 48, a step that would remove its protections under the ESA. Since the wolf was reintroduced in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming in 1995, its numbers there and elsewhere in the U.S. have soared. According to FWS estimates, there are currently 6,000 wolves in the Lower 48. (There are another 8,000 – 11,000 in Alaska, but Alaskan wolves were never placed on the Endangered Species List.)
Widespread Recovery
In addition to the three states where wolves were reintroduced, wolf packs have also been identified in recent years in parts of California, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Utah, North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, Kansas, Nebraska, Missouri, and Indiana. The largest concentration of wolves can be found in the Great Lakes states of Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin, where their number are put at 4,400.
Despite the wolf’s rebound, environmental groups are threatening to take FWS to court over the delisting. When the delisting was first proposed last year, Collette Adkins, the Center for Biological Diversity’s (CBD) carnivore conservation director, said the move would be “a death sentence for grey wolves across the country.”
With lawsuits looming, the Washington Times (March 3) reports that some lawmakers want to avoid a protracted court fight by passing a bill delisting the wolf. The Times notes that the grey wolf was delisted in the Northern Rockies in 2011, but that was accomplished through a rider added to a must-pass budget bill in the Senate. The rider contained language saying the delisting “shall not be subject to judicial review.”
Identical language, barring court challenges, can be found is a bill co-sponsored by Rep. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) and Rob Bishop (R-Utah) that would extend the delisting nationwide.
“Grey wolf populations have reached sustainable levels, and it is well past time to return authority over their management to the states,” Peterson said in a statement. “This bipartisan legislation will allow states to protect the livelihood of their livestock owners and preserve a health balance of wild animal populations.”
Peterson’s predominantly rural northwestern Minnesota district has experienced a surge in grey wolf populations, accompanied with growing attacks by the predators on livestock. The problem is widespread, but there is little farmers and ranchers can do to protect their livestock as long as the wolf enjoys the protection of the ESA.
“It’s time to allow farmers and ranchers to lawfully defend their livestock against predatory animals,” Roger Johnson, president of the National Farmers Union, said in a statement.
In the United States, wolves typically dine on moose, deer, elk, beaver, bighorn sheep, and mountain goats, though not all these preys are available everywhere. But cattle, sheep, pigs, and other livestock can easily find themselves on the menu of a nearby wolfpack.
CBD and other environmental groups oppose steps that would return management of wolves to the states, arguing the predators could be subjected to hunting to cull their populations. Yet, as the Trump FWS points out, that under the ESA, the agency’s task is recovery, and no more.
Prevent Extinction and Recover
“The ESA is not designed to permanently protect individual animals from hunting or other active management,” the agency said in its proposed delisting Q&A. “The purpose of the ESA is to prevent extinction of Imperiled species and to recover them. Once the threshold of recovery has been met, we can – and must – return the management to state and tribal wildlife agencies.”


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-03-16--Will global warming erode our beaches away?

Life is a beach – until half of them disappear by the turn of the century in 2100 , we ’ ve just been told , thanks to global warming .
According to research by “ climate experts ” published earlier this month by the journal Nature Climate Change , global warming-caused sea level rise “ could result in the near extinction of almost half of the world ’ s sandy beaches by the end of the century.
” Then again , maybe not .
Notice the sensational claims mixed with weasel words by these researchers .
Beaches “ could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years from now when everyone older than a newborn will be an octogenarian or dead .
The study ’ s lead author Michalis Vousdoukas claimed that half the world ’ s beaches will erode “ more than 100 meters ” and that it is “ likely that they will be lost.
” More weasel words , as in “ likely.
” The study outlined different temperature warming scenarios , including an increase of 2.4 degrees Celsius and higher that would contribute to wiping out half the beaches .
Mr. Vousdoukas further claimed that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could prevent 40 percent of the projected diminution of shoreline .
There you have it .
Cut carbon emissions presumably by killing fossil fuels , and our future lineage can still enjoy the sand and surf !
Count this as one more study in the spirit of Paul Erlich ’ s 1968 book The Population Bomb , which predicted mass global starvation within a decade .
The difference in this case is the prediction for losing half the world ’ s beaches is made to occur eight decades from now when the authors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the embarrassment when it doesn ’ t come to fruition .
The truth is , the authors of this study and so many others with sensationalist , un-provable claims for the next century are merely throwing spaghetti against the wall to see what sticks , if anything .
Perhaps beach erosion may be 50 meters by 2100 .
Does Mr. Vousdoukas and his co-authors really know ?
They don ’ t .
What if the world climate instead cools by 2100 ?
Can we still go to the beach ?
It is astounding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up this study and parroted its findings , uncritically .
As CFACT has reported , changes to the world climate are ongoing and influenced by multiple factors far beyond carbon emissions from fossil fuel use .
Sunspot activity–which indicates global cooling may be in the near future–along with water vapor , ocean currents and so much else , affect the climate – today .
Eighty years from now , these multiple factors also will affect the climate , with no way to pin down future temperatures .
Since the end of the Little @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s , the planet has been warming moderately , and we still have lots of beaches , including on all those vacation islands with ads on television that show gorgeous humanoids in paradise .
Yet , we are suppose to believe that in less time in the future , half the beaches will be gone ?
Global warming or not , beaches do not remain stagnant , as coastal erosion and replenishment is a natural process .
Coastal development such as building houses and roads too close to the water has more to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Restricting future development further from the shoreline will do more to allow beaches to naturally maintain themselves , along with backfilling lost sand , than reducing carbon emissions .
These and other approaches over time are far better and cheaper solutions than destroying the fossil fuel industry on the theory that the climate will stop changing .
According to a study last year by the University of Delaware , federal homeowner buy-out efforts have resulted in more than 40,000 homes purchased to allow flood plain restoration and open space in more than 1,100 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Studies of this kind about “ extinction ” of beaches I suspect are designed to affect people emotionally to fulfill a political agenda .
After all , who doesn ’ t enjoy the beach ?
No one wants to them to disappear .
The message is : get onboard the global warming train and demand the ( unrealistic ) replacement of fossil fuels from our lives and economy so we can enjoy the beach !
Beware of alarmism .
If we are good stewards of the Earth , we need not wreck @ @ @ @ @ @ @ descendants to enjoy the beaches , even as the temperature changes naturally .

Life is a beach – until half of them disappear by the turn of the century in 2100, we’ve just been told, thanks to global warming.
According to research by “climate experts” published earlier this month by the journal Nature Climate Change, global warming-caused sea level rise “could result in the near extinction of almost half of the world’s sandy beaches by the end of the century.”
Then again, maybe not.
Notice the sensational claims mixed with weasel words by these researchers. Beaches “could” be “near extinction” eighty years from now when everyone older than a newborn will be an octogenarian or dead. The study’s lead author Michalis Vousdoukas claimed that half the world’s beaches will erode “more than 100 meters” and that it is “likely that they will be lost.” More weasel words, as in “likely.”
The study outlined different temperature warming scenarios, including an increase of 2.4 degrees Celsius and higher that would contribute to wiping out half the beaches. Mr. Vousdoukas further claimed that a moderate reduction in greenhouse gas emissions could prevent 40 percent of the projected diminution of shoreline.
There you have it. Cut carbon emissions presumably by killing fossil fuels, and our future lineage can still enjoy the sand and surf!
Count this as one more study in the spirit of Paul Erlich’s 1968 book The Population Bomb, which predicted mass global starvation within a decade. The difference in this case is the prediction for losing half the world’s beaches is made to occur eight decades from now when the authors will be dead, and thus spared the embarrassment when it doesn’t come to fruition.
The truth is, the authors of this study and so many others with sensationalist, un-provable claims for the next century are merely throwing spaghetti against the wall to see what sticks, if anything. Perhaps beach erosion may be 50 meters by 2100. Does Mr. Vousdoukas and his co-authors really know? They don’t.
What if the world climate instead cools by 2100? Can we still go to the beach?
It is astounding to me how many media outlets picked up this study and parroted its findings, uncritically.
As CFACT has reported, changes to the world climate are ongoing and influenced by multiple factors far beyond carbon emissions from fossil fuel use. Sunspot activity–which indicates global cooling may be in the near future–along with water vapor, ocean currents and so much else, affect the climate – today. Eighty years from now, these multiple factors also will affect the climate, with no way to pin down future temperatures.
Since the end of the Little Ice Age in the late 1800’s, the planet has been warming moderately, and we still have lots of beaches, including on all those vacation islands with ads on television that show gorgeous humanoids in paradise. Yet, we are suppose to believe that in less time in the future, half the beaches will be gone?
Global warming or not, beaches do not remain stagnant, as coastal erosion and replenishment is a natural process. Coastal development such as building houses and roads too close to the water has more to do with erosion than climate change.
Restricting future development further from the shoreline will do more to allow beaches to naturally maintain themselves, along with backfilling lost sand, than reducing carbon emissions. These and other approaches over time are far better and cheaper solutions than destroying the fossil fuel industry on the theory that the climate will stop changing.
According to a study last year by the University of Delaware, federal homeowner buy-out efforts have resulted in more than 40,000 homes purchased to allow flood plain restoration and open space in more than 1,100 counties spread across every state except Hawaii.
Studies of this kind about “extinction” of beaches I suspect are designed to affect people emotionally to fulfill a political agenda. After all, who doesn’t enjoy the beach? No one wants to them to disappear. The message is: get on board the global warming train and demand the (unrealistic) replacement of fossil fuels from our lives and economy so we can enjoy the beach!
Beware of alarmism. If we are good stewards of the Earth, we need not wreck our standard of living to enable our descendants to enjoy the beaches, even as the temperature changes naturally.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-03-16--Will humanity survive self-hatred?

Will humanity survive self-hatred?

Most Americans today are focused on how to survive the CoVid 19 coronavirus – the latest in a long line of promised plagues that when the dust had settled took far fewer lives than the panics that accompanied them .
Politicians as prominent as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tell us that the future of civilization is at stake from this latest virus , whose kill rate to date is maybe 2 percent of those infected – except for the very elderly and infirm , with many also hit by other influenza and pneumonia viruses .
It is highly unlikely that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 300 million and killing half a million Europeans , Americans , or even Chinese – as malaria does every year in sub-Saharan Africa .
CoVid 19 is not likely to be as deadly as its sister viruses , SARS and MERS , which took 10 and 35 percent , respectively of those infected .
Yet , to those with pure green hearts , these viruses are pikers .
As noted by Matt Cardin , novelist William Burroughs , in his 1981 novel Cities of the Red Night proclaimed that , “ Self-identity is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of alien DNA unfurl themselves in our brains , just as tapeworms unfurl themselves in our guts .
Not just language , but the whole quality of human consciousness … is basically a virus mechanism.
” Fast forward to 1999 , and the world premiere of The Matrix .
As Cardin reminds us , the Wachowskis “ presented a dazzling vision of a dystopian future in which intelligent machines have enslaved the human race to use them as an energy source.
” In the movie , the sentient computer program known as Agent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with its surrounding environment , but you humans do not .
You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed , and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area .
There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern .
Do you know what it is ?
A virus .
Human beings are a disease , a cancer of this planet .
You are a plague .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Far Left is heavily influenced by Deep Green ecology – the foundation of the fear of climate change .
In 2007 , Paul Watson , founder of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society , claimed that , “ Humans are presently acting upon [ the earth ’ s ecosystem ] in the same manner as an invasive virus with the result that we are eroding the ecological immune system .
A virus kills its host and that is exactly what we are doing with our planet ’ s life support system.
” BUT @ @ @ @ @ @ @ solution .
A risky one , but with great promise !
!
We are , it is said , on the very cusp of a self-learning artificial intelligence – like Piper ( and others ) in the recent ABC TV series Emergence .
And many in our society literally worship technology .
As billionaire Michael Bloomberg said in 2016 , “ The information economy is built around replacing people with technology.
” [ Maybe the decarbonization movement really IS about preparing our AI creations for the day when all carbon-based life forms will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would they call it a “ carbon ” tax , rather than a carbon dioxide tax ? ]
On the other hand , humans have long shown a propensity for self-improvement by artificial means , whether it be plastic surgery or even transgenderism .
And the quest for immortality is as old as civilization .
But now Russian billionaire Dmitry Itskov has created an organization – the 2045 Initiative – in hopes of making immortality a reality .
Itskov recruited several top Russian scientists in the fields of robotics , artificial intelligence , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ organ engineering to join his project .
The idea is that by 2035 , it should be possible to control a robot with an artificial brain modeled after the human brain .
This brain will be imprinted with an existing human personality to create perfectly cloned intelligences – a human brain with a body that can be updated infinitely .
Meanwhile , back in the USA , transhumanist proselytizer Zoltan Istvan [ Gyurko ] ran for President in 2016 on the Transhumanist Party ticket .
Istvan promised to end death as he drove @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bus ” designed to look like a coffin .
Transhumanism holds to the faith that technology is a means of achieving “ the long-held human dream of immortality and the more modern yearning for radical individual bodily self-transformation.
” As Wesley Smith tells us , “ Transhumanism predicts that these dreams will come true when a crescendo of unstoppable technological advances — known as ‘ the Singularity ’ — unleashes the power to transform humanity into a “ post-human species.
” But what if the artificial intelligence gets smart enough to determine that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a flawed human ?
In Mark de Castrique ’ s 2016 thriller novel The Singularity Race , billionaire Robert Brentwood builds an artificial intelligence laboratory in North Carolina .
Brentwood predicts a potential bad outcome for humans should AI become effectively a new , silicon-based species ( replacing carbon-based humans ) without a human-shaped moral code .
[ Remember HAL from 2001 : A Space Odyssey ? ]
Brentwood posits , “ If Apollo ( the AI ) determines on his own that the greatest threat to the Earth is climate change brought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ozone layer , and the unbiased conclusion is that the greatest accelerant of these phenomena is humankind , what ’ s to stop this super intelligent computer from wiping our species off the face of the Earth ?
” To which scientist Lisa Li responds – I believe if we create an artificial intelligence with imagination and wisdom , we can ’ t avoid the development that logically follows – artificial consciousness .
And like any conscious entity , he ’ ll have a desire for self-preservation.
” So there you have it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Deep Ecology movement – who still want to ban natural gas , nuclear energy , internal combustion engines , air travel , high-rise buildings , eating meat , plastics , and a much longer laundry list of “ evils ” created by that human-shaped virus known as ingenuity — may indeed one day “ save ” the Earth from humanity , if only by making the planet so unlivable ( for creative humans , at least ) that we just give up .
But never fear – we may be creating an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – that will find ways to survive and even thrive in a carbon-free world .
On the other hand , while these new sentient beings will be safe from biological viruses , their less developed forebears are already quite susceptible to OTHER viruses .

Most Americans today are focused on how to survive the CoVid 19 coronavirus – the latest in a long line of promised plagues that when the dust had settled took far fewer lives than the panics that accompanied them.
Politicians as prominent as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tell us that the future of civilization is at stake from this latest virus, whose kill rate to date is maybe 2 percent of those infected – except for the very elderly and infirm, with many also hit by other influenza and pneumonia viruses.
It is highly unlikely that CoVid 19 will come anywhere near infecting 300 million and killing half a million Europeans, Americans, or even Chinese – as malaria does every year in sub-Saharan Africa. CoVid 19 is not likely to be as deadly as its sister viruses, SARS and MERS, which took 10 and 35 percent, respectively of those infected.
Yet, to those with pure green hearts, these viruses are pikers. As noted by Matt Cardin, novelist William Burroughs, in his 1981 novel Cities of the Red Night proclaimed that, “Self-identity is ultimately a symptom of parasitic invasion.… Strands of alien DNA unfurl themselves in our brains, just as tapeworms unfurl themselves in our guts. Not just language, but the whole quality of human consciousness … is basically a virus mechanism.”
Fast forward to 1999, and the world premiere of The Matrix. As Cardin reminds us, the Wachowskis “presented a dazzling vision of a dystopian future in which intelligent machines have enslaved the human race to use them as an energy source.”
In the movie, the sentient computer program known as Agent Smith makes the bold statement: “Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with its surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed, and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You are a plague. And we are the cure.”
Today’s Far Left is heavily influenced by Deep Green ecology – the foundation of the fear of climate change. In 2007, Paul Watson, founder of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, claimed that, “Humans are presently acting upon [the earth’s ecosystem] in the same manner as an invasive virus with the result that we are eroding the ecological immune system. A virus kills its host and that is exactly what we are doing with our planet’s life support system.”
BUT NOT TO WORRY! There is a solution. A risky one, but with great promise!!
We are, it is said, on the very cusp of a self-learning artificial intelligence – like Piper (and others) in the recent ABC TV series Emergence. And many in our society literally worship technology. As billionaire Michael Bloomberg said in 2016, “The information economy is built around replacing people with technology.”
[Maybe the decarbonization movement really IS about preparing our AI creations for the day when all carbon-based life forms will be designated for extinction? Why else would they call it a “carbon” tax, rather than a carbon dioxide tax?]
On the other hand, humans have long shown a propensity for self-improvement by artificial means, whether it be plastic surgery or even transgenderism. And the quest for immortality is as old as civilization. But now Russian billionaire Dmitry Itskov has created an organization – the 2045 Initiative – in hopes of making immortality a reality.
Itskov recruited several top Russian scientists in the fields of robotics, artificial intelligence, nanotechnology, neural-computer interface, and artificial organ engineering to join his project. The idea is that by 2035, it should be possible to control a robot with an artificial brain modeled after the human brain. This brain will be imprinted with an existing human personality to create perfectly cloned intelligences – a human brain with a body that can be updated infinitely.
Meanwhile, back in the USA, transhumanist proselytizer Zoltan Istvan [Gyurko] ran for President in 2016 on the Transhumanist Party ticket. Istvan promised to end death as he drove across the country in the “immortality bus” designed to look like a coffin. Transhumanism holds to the faith that technology is a means of achieving “the long-held human dream of immortality and the more modern yearning for radical individual bodily self-transformation.”
As Wesley Smith tells us, “Transhumanism predicts that these dreams will come true when a crescendo of unstoppable technological advances — known as ‘the Singularity’ — unleashes the power to transform humanity into a “post-human species.” But what if the artificial intelligence gets smart enough to determine that it does not need the brain of a flawed human?
In Mark de Castrique’s 2016 thriller novel The Singularity Race, billionaire Robert Brentwood builds an artificial intelligence laboratory in North Carolina. Brentwood predicts a potential bad outcome for humans should AI become effectively a new, silicon-based species (replacing carbon-based humans) without a human-shaped moral code. [Remember HAL from 2001: A Space Odyssey?]
Brentwood posits, “If Apollo (the AI) determines on his own that the greatest threat to the Earth is climate change brought about by greenhouse gases and a destroyed ozone layer, and the unbiased conclusion is that the greatest accelerant of these phenomena is humankind, what’s to stop this super intelligent computer from wiping our species off the face of the Earth?”
To which scientist Lisa Li responds – I believe if we create an artificial intelligence with imagination and wisdom, we can’t avoid the development that logically follows – artificial consciousness. And like any conscious entity, he’ll have a desire for self-preservation.”
So there you have it. Our doom and gloom friends from the Deep Ecology movement – who still want to ban natural gas, nuclear energy, internal combustion engines, air travel, high-rise buildings, eating meat, plastics, and a much longer laundry list of “evils” created by that human-shaped virus known as ingenuity — may indeed one day “save” the Earth from humanity, if only by making the planet so unlivable (for creative humans, at least) that we just give up.
But never fear – we may be creating an entirely new species – silicon-based life forms – that will find ways to survive and even thrive in a carbon-free world. On the other hand, while these new sentient beings will be safe from biological viruses, their less developed forebears are already quite susceptible to OTHER viruses.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-03-16--New initiatives help jaguars paw their way back

Growing to a length of 7 feet long and weighing up to 211 pounds , the jaguar is the largest cat in South America and third largest in the world .
It ranges all the way from Texas to Argentina , and with fur featuring black and orange “ rosettes ” it is considered one of the most beautiful animals in the world .
Sadly , jaguars have been declining in numbers in recent decades .
While much of this decline can be pinned to rapid urbanization and illegal poaching , some regions are now taking to action to stem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Iguazú Falls region between Brazil and Argentina .
There , wildlife officials are cracking down on illegal poaching and a number of residents are voluntarily turning from ranching to farming in order to help the cat paw its way back to healthy numbers .
Their efforts appear to be working .
“ After almost losing its jaguar population in the early 2000s , the Atlantic Forest area between Brazil and Argentina has seen the number of the big cats more than double to 105 .
It ’ s the only place @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increase in the jaguar population , thanks to joint law enforcement by Brazil and Argentina to tackle poaching , and planting of camera traps by researchers , which deter would-be poachers .
Changing agricultural trends have also helped : livestock ranching used to be the predominant farming activity in the area , but the jaguars would prey on the cattle and sheep , prompting ranchers to kill them in retaliation .
In the past decade , soybean and corn crops have taken the place of ranching , reducing conflicts between jaguars and farmers.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ obstacles to overcome in order to save the jaguar , some of which have to do with the traditions of locals who simply kill the animals for sport .
Farmers in Southern Brazil , for example , like to go out and hunt pigs .
If they happen to see a jaguar while they are out scouring for swine , they ’ ll shoot that too just for the heck of it .
To offset this , Brazil ’ s public education system is starting to tout a renewed respect for the animals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the next generation .
One initiative is called “ Jaguar in school ” which consists of lessons and theatrical plays for children that put a positive spin on the animal .
Twenty events were held last year , reaching 1,500 children in 12 municipalities .
For more information , the full article can be found at the Mongabay website .

Growing to a length of 7 feet long and weighing up to 211 pounds, the jaguar is the largest cat in South America and third largest in the world. It ranges all the way from Texas to Argentina, and with fur featuring black and orange “rosettes” it is considered one of the most beautiful animals in the world.
Sadly, jaguars have been declining in numbers in recent decades. While much of this decline can be pinned to rapid urbanization and illegal poaching, some regions are now taking to action to stem that trend.
One of these is in the Iguazú Falls region between Brazil and Argentina. There, wildlife officials are cracking down on illegal poaching and a number of residents are voluntarily turning from ranching to farming in order to help the cat paw its way back to healthy numbers. Their efforts appear to be working.
As reported in Mongabay:
“After almost losing its jaguar population in the early 2000s, the Atlantic Forest area between Brazil and Argentina has seen the number of the big cats more than double to 105. It’s the only place in South America that has registered an increase in the jaguar population, thanks to joint law enforcement by Brazil and Argentina to tackle poaching, and planting of camera traps by researchers, which deter would-be poachers. Changing agricultural trends have also helped: livestock ranching used to be the predominant farming activity in the area, but the jaguars would prey on the cattle and sheep, prompting ranchers to kill them in retaliation. In the past decade, soybean and corn crops have taken the place of ranching, reducing conflicts between jaguars and farmers.”
Of course, there are other obstacles to overcome in order to save the jaguar, some of which have to do with the traditions of locals who simply kill the animals for sport. Farmers in Southern Brazil, for example, like to go out and hunt pigs. If they happen to see a jaguar while they are out scouring for swine, they’ll shoot that too just for the heck of it.
To offset this, Brazil’s public education system is starting to tout a renewed respect for the animals that they hope will make an impression on the next generation. One initiative is called “Jaguar in school” which consists of lessons and theatrical plays for children that put a positive spin on the animal. Twenty events were held last year, reaching 1,500 children in 12 municipalities.
For more information, the full article can be found at the Mongabay website.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-03-17--Bernie’s Soviet honeymoon missed Marxist miseries

Bernie and Jane Sanders ’ enthusiastic 10-day 1988 Russian honeymoon obviously missed views of deplorably depressing economic and social conditions I witnessed during and following that same time .
As noted in last week ’ s column , that was the year I became one of the first Americans invited to visit Russia on numerous occasions and to meet with top-tier academicians , engineers and cosmonauts of their marvelously successful space program .
The prestigious Soviet Academy of Aeronautics and Cosmonautics also charitably awarded me with two of its highest honors , the Yuri Gagarin Diploma , and the Konstantin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Russian father of space rocketry.
” ) In addition , my own name was placed in large letters , along with those of four others , on the Soviet rocket that launched the first International Space Station crew .
Few with opportunities — as I have — to know the warm and generous nature of such people , to witness their deservedly proud history of accomplishments , and to experience their rich culture , can help but come away unmoved by the qualities of the Russian soul .
These are communities whose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incredibly short seven years ; who dammed the mighty Danube , the fourth-largest river in Europe ; who engineered the channel between the Moscow and Volga rivers ; and who valiantly halted the German army 18 miles from Moscow .
These are populations , after all , who brought the world such great classical composers as Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky , Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov , Sergi Rachmaninoff , Sergi Prokofiev , Alexander Borodin , Dmitri Shostakovich , Igor Stravinsky , and Alexander Scriabin .
Theirs is a literary and artistic culture that introduced great writers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Feodor Dostoevsky ; created the Hermitage , Russian Museum and Mariinsky Theater in St. Petersburgh , and the Bolshoi Theater and Tretyakov Gallery in Moscow ; and inspired the architectures of churches , cathedrals and monasteries constructed over centuries that reflect Russia ’ s spirituality .
And tragically , Russia is also a land of people who have borne unrelenting burdens : civil wars , sacrificial labor , and Cold War economic and social stresses .
Throughout this troubled history , Marxists have implemented dismally failed attempts to make a command economy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ affairs , to impose austere , sometimes brutal , adherence to the doctrines of Marx , Engels and Lenin .
Socialist repression reached draconian levels under Joseph Stalin who succeeded Vladimir Lenin from the mid-1920s until 1953 .
Few families during that period avoided murderous losses of loved ones .
Stalin ’ s reign of terror established an enormous bureaucracy of loyal apparatchiks , enterprise managers and civil personnel to run the economy , terrorize people , censor artists , and gag intellectuals .
And although overt oppression ceased for a decade under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of control such as the secret police and forced-labor camps continued to operate .
Beginning in 1964 , Leonid Brezhnev ’ s 18-year-long neo-Stalinist reign introduced disastrously disruptive central government-directed Gosplan industrial policies .
Widespread joblessness increased , most particularly , due to an oversupply of well-educated professionals and highly-skilled technicians .
And where full employment occurred , it was typically achieved through overemployment and inefficient production .
Brezhnev ’ s Marxist command economy operated on the principle of a “ limited fund of wages ” that allocated each enterprise a definite sum @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a given total output .
Employees quickly learned to limit their own work because if they exceeded the output quota , the administration would cheapen the value ( wages ) of their work .
Hence , a then-frequent rejoinder : “ They ( the management ) pretend to pay us , and we pretend to work.
” Many of those more fortunate workers who found employment resented their roles in producing useless , poor-quality products nobody wanted , including antiquated appliances and clothing styles such as overcoats that even the makers wouldn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ commercial economic imbalances created by Gosplan inevitably fueled corruption .
Factory managers , in collusion with workers , enlarged their incomes by producing or trading on black markets .
In 1987 , Mikhail Gorbachev initiated a “ New Economic Policy Plan ” ( NEP ) aimed at addressing the stagnant economic Brezhnev era legacy .
The intent was to develop and open a relatively untapped Soviet market utilizing Western know-how and management skills , and most important , to attract foreign capital in Western currency , U.S. dollars in particular .
NEP — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a fatal Bolshevik-era system of “ nomenklatura capitalism , ” a power structure formed from elements of the old party elite-turned businessmen in collusion with mafia enterprises .
Business investors typically found it necessary to buy costly “ protection ” for their physical equipment and personnel safety .
Many were also forced to obtain goods and services needed to conduct their operations from cartels who bled off profits .
Meanwhile , the general populace experienced worsening economic decline , inflation , scarcities of foodstuffs and other consumer goods , and deteriorating public services @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arrived no one could possibly avoid seeing countless impoverished souls selling their humble remaining possessions on street corners .
On the other hand , perhaps we should cut Bernie some slack if he missed all that .
After all , being then on his honeymoon , maybe he didn ’ t get outside all that much .

Bernie and Jane Sanders’ enthusiastic 10-day 1988 Russian honeymoon obviously missed views of deplorably depressing economic and social conditions I witnessed during and following that same time.
As noted in last week’s column, that was the year I became one of the first Americans invited to visit Russia on numerous occasions and to meet with top-tier academicians, engineers and cosmonauts of their marvelously successful space program.
The prestigious Soviet Academy of Aeronautics and Cosmonautics also charitably awarded me with two of its highest honors, the Yuri Gagarin Diploma, and the Konstantin Tsiolkovsky Gold Medal (named after the “Russian father of space rocketry.”) In addition, my own name was placed in large letters, along with those of four others, on the Soviet rocket that launched the first International Space Station crew.
Few with opportunities — as I have — to know the warm and generous nature of such people, to witness their deservedly proud history of accomplishments, and to experience their rich culture, can help but come away unmoved by the qualities of the Russian soul.
These are communities whose ancestors built the trans-Siberian railroad in an incredibly short seven years; who dammed the mighty Danube, the fourth-largest river in Europe; who engineered the channel between the Moscow and Volga rivers; and who valiantly halted the German army 18 miles from Moscow.
These are populations, after all, who brought the world such great classical composers as Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov, Sergi Rachmaninoff, Sergi Prokofiev, Alexander Borodin, Dmitri Shostakovich, Igor Stravinsky, and Alexander Scriabin.
Theirs is a literary and artistic culture that introduced great writers such as Alexander Pushkin, Leo Tolstoy and Feodor Dostoevsky; created the Hermitage, Russian Museum and Mariinsky Theater in St. Petersburgh, and the Bolshoi Theater and Tretyakov Gallery in Moscow; and inspired the architectures of churches, cathedrals and monasteries constructed over centuries that reflect Russia’s spirituality.
Yet tragically, Russia is also a land of people who have borne unrelenting burdens: civil wars, sacrificial labor, and Cold War economic and social stresses. Throughout this troubled history, Marxists have implemented dismally failed attempts to make a command economy work, and in social and political affairs, to impose austere, sometimes brutal, adherence to the doctrines of Marx, Engels and Lenin.
Socialist repression reached draconian levels under Joseph Stalin who succeeded Vladimir Lenin from the mid-1920s until 1953. Few families during that period avoided murderous losses of loved ones.
Stalin’s reign of terror established an enormous bureaucracy of loyal apparatchiks, enterprise managers and civil personnel to run the economy, terrorize people, censor artists, and gag intellectuals. Although overt oppression ceased for a decade under his successor Nikita Khrushchev, state organs of control such as the secret police and forced-labor camps continued to operate.
Beginning in 1964, Leonid Brezhnev’s 18-year-long neo-Stalinist reign introduced disastrously disruptive central government-directed Gosplan industrial policies. Widespread joblessness increased, most particularly, due to an oversupply of well-educated professionals and highly-skilled technicians. Where full employment occurred, it was typically achieved through over employment and inefficient production.
Brezhnev’s Marxist command economy operated on the principle of a “limited fund of wages” that allocated each enterprise a definite sum of money to pay its workers for a given total output. Employees quickly learned to limit their own work because if they exceeded the output quota, the administration would cheapen the value (wages) of their work.
Hence, a then-frequent rejoinder: “They (the management) pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work.”
Many of those more fortunate workers who found employment resented their roles in producing useless, poor-quality products nobody wanted, including antiquated appliances and clothing styles such as overcoats that even the makers wouldn’t wear.
Consumer product shortages and commercial economic imbalances created by Gosplan inevitably fueled corruption. Factory managers, in collusion with workers, enlarged their incomes by producing or trading on black markets.
In 1987, Mikhail Gorbachev initiated a “New Economic Policy Plan” (NEP) aimed at addressing the stagnant economic Brezhnev era legacy. The intent was to develop and open a relatively untapped Soviet market utilizing Western know-how and management skills, and most important, to attract foreign capital in Western currency, U.S. dollars in particular.
NEP — or “market socialism” — inherited a fatal Bolshevik-era system of “nomenklatura capitalism,” a power structure formed from elements of the old party elite-turned businessmen in collusion with mafia enterprises.
Business investors typically found it necessary to buy costly “protection” for their physical equipment and personnel safety. Many were also forced to obtain goods and services needed to conduct their operations from cartels who bled off profits.
Meanwhile, the general populace experienced worsening economic decline, inflation, scarcities of foodstuffs and other consumer goods, and deteriorating public services such as medical care.
When I arrived no one could possibly avoid seeing countless impoverished souls selling their humble remaining possessions on street corners.
On the other hand, perhaps we should cut Bernie some slack if he missed all that. After all, being then on his honeymoon, maybe he didn’t get outside all that much.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-03-17--The climate divestiture blues

The climate divestiture blues

Last November we laughed when hundreds of students and alumni stormed onto the field during halftime at the annual Harvard-Yale football game , demanding that Harvard divest from fossil fuels .
Few may know this bit of theater was part of a well-coordinated , 10-year-old campaign to “ purify ” universities from any association with fossil fuels , whose use is “ incompatible ” with the goals of the Paris climate agreement .
The divestment movement began as a project of 350.org , a coalition led by Bill McKibben , author of The End of Nature .
In early 2010 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a fossil fuels divestment campaign , modeled on successful efforts at Swarthmore decades earlier to divest from South Africa ’ s apartheid regime .
With support from 350.org , the divestment movement expanded , first to other campuses , then also to liberal churches , local governments , and philanthropic institutions .
But as the protests grew , so did official resistance .
Major universities ( including Harvard ) used to surrender investment portfolios , and activism moved in other directions .
After the election of Donald Trump , grizzled activists decided divestment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Future Project , which seeks “ to build powerful coalitions of climate groups and other progressive organizations that collectively work toward common goals related to climate , jobs , and justice , ” created Divest Ed , which calls itself “ the national training and strategy hub for student fossil fuel divestment campaigns.
” Meanwhile , Zero Hour , a new youth-led climate group , debuted with its own national day of marches , then joined with the international climate strike movement to recruit hundreds of teenaged climate activists .
Zero Hour quickly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ organizations , thrilled that teens said they “ can not afford to wait any longer for adults to protect our right to the clean and safe environment.
” Enter Extinction Rebellion University , an offshoot of the British-based group known for disruptive actions .
Their webpage states : “ Conventional approaches of voting , lobbying , petitions , and protest have failed because powerful political and economic interests prevent change .
Our strategy is therefore one of nonviolent , disruptive civil disobedience –a rebellion.
” No more “ Kumbaya.
” The Harvard-Yale game @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for reviving the divestiture movement .
Deeming February 13 as “ Divestment Day , ” Extinction Rebellion and Divest Ed organized activists at over 60 campuses in the U.S. and Canada to stage sit-ins , walkouts , and banner drops to pressure institutions to end all investments in fossil fuels .
Divestiture advocates began with the presumed moral high ground , then expanded their arguments to damn fossil fuels as major money LOSERS .
The bottom line : “ Fossil fuel companies , whose share prices are partly based on proven reserves , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continued use of fossil fuels would violate targets set in the Paris climate accords .
Another study predicted a near total shutdown of fossil fuel industries in Russia , Canada , and the U.S. , “ causing serious losses for investors and the global economy.
” But the Energy Information Administration agrees that fossil fuels will account for over 75 percent of world energy consumption through 2040 .
Divestment activists have also gained concessions from a growing number of businesses , but bigger fish like pension plans , including the California Public Employees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ budge .
CalPERS chief investment officer Ben Meng rebuked divestment advocates , stating that the $ 380 billion pension fund can not “ constrain itself to a limited set of investment opportunities .
He added , “ For non-stakeholders , such as outside parties , who do not bear the financial risk of our fund , but advocate using our fund to take actions beyond the scope of our fiduciary duty , and advocate using our fund to advance their agenda , we ask that they respect our fiduciary duty.
” A new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Research Institute suggested divestment is an insufficient strategy .
Lead author Robert Pollin said there is “ no evidence that any divestment actions have had any significant negative effect on the stock prices of fossil fuel companies.
” The reason ?
“ Divestment per se does not affect either how much it costs to produce fossil fuel energy or how much consumers are willing to buy.
” Others argue that divestment does not drive share prices down and instead may leave less eco-concerned investors positioned to buy additional shares and steel their resolve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nor does divestment impact privately held companies that do not offer stock .
Timothy Devinney adds , “ Divestment does not destroy value – it simply transfers it to another set of owners who are not so morally outraged and are willing to pick up the shares set aside , at a slight bargain .
If the point of the divestment campaigners is to publicly shame the fossil fuel companies and put pressure on them , the campaign is doomed to fail.
” Institute for Economic Research founder Robert Bradley , Jr. , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from anti to neutral fossil-fuel investors .
Pro-carbon-based energy advocates , moreover , smile all the way to the bank.
” Bradley chides the activists for short-sightedness , suggesting that , “ Rather than continue this ill-thought practice , the resources and passion against carbon-based energy should be redirected to helping others — beginning with the 1.2 billion people who lack access to electricity and have to burn wood and dung for energy.
” Worse , says Bradley , research shows that “ colleges that divest from fossil fuels would lose up to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a loss that could total billions of dollars for many schools.
” In sum , divestment is at best political theater .
Karthik Ganapathy , a spokesman for 350.org , admits that the goal of getting universities to divest isn ’ t to financially burden fossil fuel companies ; it ’ s to tarnish their image and lay a foundation for even bolder actions .
Yet radicalized youth embolden progressive lawmakers and judges to issue outright bans on the sale and use of fossil fueled appliances .
This is already occurring in places @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , California , and Connecticut ( among others ) .
We can only hope that , as these children mature , they begin to realize that for the most part they have just been rearranging deck chairs as part of a titanic scam .
The all-electric society they envision , built solely on wind and solar energy , will remain a pipe dream for the foreseeable future – or at best , a bridge to a newer , better source of energy for the long-term future .

Last November we laughed when hundreds of students and alumni stormed onto the field during halftime at the annual Harvard-Yale football game, demanding that Harvard divest from fossil fuels. Few may know this bit of theater was part of a well-coordinated, 10-year-old campaign to “purify” universities from any association with fossil fuels, whose use is “incompatible” with the goals of the Paris climate agreement.
The divestment movement began as a project of 350.org, a coalition led by Bill McKibben, author of The End of Nature. In early 2010, student activists at Swarthmore College launched a fossil fuels divestment campaign, modeled on successful efforts at Swarthmore decades earlier to divest from South Africa’s apartheid regime.
With support from 350.org, the divestment movement expanded, first to other campuses, then also to liberal churches, local governments, and philanthropic institutions. But as the protests grew, so did official resistance. Major universities (including Harvard) used to surrender investment portfolios, and activism moved in other directions.
After the election of Donald Trump, grizzled activists decided divestment could be revived. So the Better Future Project, which seeks “to build powerful coalitions of climate groups and other progressive organizations that collectively work toward common goals related to climate, jobs, and justice,” created Divest Ed, which calls itself “the national training and strategy hub for student fossil fuel divestment campaigns.”
Meanwhile, Zero Hour, a new youth-led climate group, debuted with its own national day of marches, then joined with the international climate strike movement to recruit hundreds of teenaged climate activists. Zero Hour quickly gained endorsements from scores of climate activist organizations, thrilled that teens said they “cannot afford to wait any longer for adults to protect our right to the clean and safe environment.”
Enter Extinction Rebellion University, an offshoot of the British-based group known for disruptive actions. Their webpage states: “Conventional approaches of voting, lobbying, petitions, and protest have failed because powerful political and economic interests prevent change. Our strategy is therefore one of nonviolent, disruptive civil disobedience –a rebellion.”
No more “Kumbaya.” The Harvard-Yale game was a Paul Revere’s ride for reviving the divestiture movement. Deeming February 13 as “Divestment Day,” Extinction Rebellion and Divest Ed organized activists at over 60 campuses in the U.S. and Canada to stage sit-ins, walkouts, and banner drops to pressure institutions to end all investments in fossil fuels.
Divestiture advocates began with the presumed moral high ground, then expanded their arguments to damn fossil fuels as major money LOSERS. The bottom line: “Fossil fuel companies, whose share prices are partly based on proven reserves, are grossly overvalued.”
Others claimed that continued use of fossil fuels would violate targets set in the Paris climate accords. Another study predicted a near total shutdown of fossil fuel industries in Russia, Canada, and the U.S., “causing serious losses for investors and the global economy.” But the Energy Information Administration agrees that fossil fuels will account for over 75 percent of world energy consumption through 2040.
Divestment activists have also gained concessions from a growing number of businesses, but bigger fish like pension plans, including the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, have yet to budge.
CalPERS chief investment officer Ben Meng rebuked divestment advocates, stating that the $380 billion pension fund cannot “constrain itself to a limited set of investment opportunities. He added, “For non-stakeholders, such as outside parties, who do not bear the financial risk of our fund, but advocate using our fund to take actions beyond the scope of our fiduciary duty, and advocate using our fund to advance their agenda, we ask that they respect our fiduciary duty.”
A new study by UMASS-Amherst’s Political Economy Research Institute suggested divestment is an insufficient strategy. Lead author Robert Pollin said there is “no evidence that any divestment actions have had any significant negative effect on the stock prices of fossil fuel companies.” The reason? “Divestment per se does not affect either how much it costs to produce fossil fuel energy or how much consumers are willing to buy.”
Others argue that divestment does not drive share prices down and instead may leave less eco-concerned investors positioned to buy additional shares and steel their resolve not to succumb to green demands. Nor does divestment impact privately held companies that do not offer stock.
Timothy Devinney adds, “Divestment does not destroy value – it simply transfers it to another set of owners who are not so morally outraged and are willing to pick up the shares set aside, at a slight bargain. If the point of the divestment campaigners is to publicly shame the fossil fuel companies and put pressure on them, the campaign is doomed to fail.”
Institute for Economic Research founder Robert Bradley, Jr., argues that “Divestment simply transfers wealth from anti to neutral fossil-fuel investors. Pro-carbon-based energy advocates, moreover, smile all the way to the bank.” Bradley chides the activists for short-sightedness, suggesting that, “Rather than continue this ill-thought practice, the resources and passion against carbon-based energy should be redirected to helping others — beginning with the 1.2 billion people who lack access to electricity and have to burn wood and dung for energy.”
Worse, says Bradley, research shows that “colleges that divest from fossil fuels would lose up to 12 percent of their endowment value – a loss that could total billions of dollars for many schools.”
In sum, divestment is at best political theater. Karthik Ganapathy, a spokesman for 350.org, admits that the goal of getting universities to divest isn’t to financially burden fossil fuel companies; it’s to tarnish their image and lay a foundation for even bolder actions.
Yet radicalized youth embolden progressive lawmakers and judges to issue outright bans on the sale and use of fossil fueled appliances. This is already occurring in places like Takoma Park, Maryland, Berkeley, California, and Connecticut (among others).
We can only hope that, as these children mature, they begin to realize that for the most part they have just been rearranging deck chairs as part of a titanic scam. The all-electric society they envision, built solely on wind and solar energy, will remain a pipe dream for the foreseeable future – or at best, a bridge to a newer, better source of energy for the long-term future.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-03-17--Coronavirus: What’s the endgame?

Coronavirus: What’s the endgame?

Call it panic , or prudent caution ; to combat the coronavirus we ’ ve distanced ourselves and succeeded in shutting much of the world down .
Precautions such as travel bans , personal hygiene , closures and social distancing are designed to “ flatten ” the virus growth curve and allow the healthcare system to cope .
What is the plan to return to normal ?
What does success look like ?
Every dollar you spend , no matter how trivial , has an economic multiplier effect .
In a free market economy that power is tremendous .
When @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reverse multiplier takes hold with a strangling grip .
Our economy can ’ t survive on minimal activity forever .
Entire industries will buckle .
There will be bankruptcies and job loss .
As it has in other countries , no doubt the virus news will get worse before it gets better .
Could be much worse .
We don ’ t have to guess , we ’ ll follow the precautions and watch the numbers .
Whatever the course of the virus , the experts who told us to close human gathering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plans to open them back up .
• What milestones in the virus data will tell us to alter our stance ?
• When does social distancing become ineffective ?
• What precautions can be taken to safely resume some activities before the overall threat has abated ?
• Which activities can resume first ?
• Can we be more precise than one-size-fits-all closures ?
• Is there a hierarchy of activities based on their risk and necessity ?
• Which human gatherings are more essential than others ?
• Which human gatherings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than others ?
• If the virus numbers go down over the summer , what will be the risk when the weather turns cold again ?
• Can we return to normal in stages ?
• When can children return to school ?
• When can stadiums and theme parks reopen ?
• When does the economic harm exceed the harm from the virus ?
• How do we know we ’ ve won ?
It will likely be a long time until the risk from the coronavirus approaches zero .
The Center @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in between 9 million to 45 million illnesses , between 140,000 to 810,000 hospitalizations and between 12,000 to 61,000 deaths annually since 2010 .
During that entire time we enjoyed an economic expansion .
Life went on .
In short , our leaders need to plan not just how they will conduct the war against this virus , but an “ exit strategy ” on how to pull out when the mission has been achieved .

Call it panic, or prudent caution; to combat the coronavirus we’ve distanced ourselves and succeeded in shutting much of the world down.
Precautions such as travel bans, personal hygiene, closures and social distancing are designed to “flatten” the virus growth curve and allow the healthcare system to cope.
Now what?
What is the plan to return to normal? What does success look like?
Every dollar you spend, no matter how trivial, has an economic multiplier effect. In a free market economy that power is tremendous. When we withdraw from the marketplace, a reverse multiplier takes hold with a strangling grip.
Our economy can’t survive on minimal activity forever. Entire industries will buckle. There will be bankruptcies and job loss.
As it has in other countries, no doubt the virus news will get worse before it gets better. Could be much worse. We don’t have to guess, we’ll follow the precautions and watch the numbers.
Whatever the course of the virus, the experts who told us to close human gathering places, have said nothing about plans to open them back up.
Questions for policymakers:
What milestones in the virus data will tell us to alter our stance?
When does social distancing become ineffective?
What precautions can be taken to safely resume some activities before the overall threat has abated?
Which activities can resume first?
Can we be more precise than one-size-fits-all closures?
Is there a hierarchy of activities based on their risk and necessity?
Which human gatherings are more essential than others?
Which human gatherings entail lower risk of transmitting the virus than others?
If the virus numbers go down over the summer, what will be the risk when the weather turns cold again?
Can we return to normal in stages?
When can children return to school?
When can restaurants reopen?
When can stadiums and theme parks reopen?
When does the economic harm exceed the harm from the virus?
How do we know we’ve won?
It will likely be a long time until the risk from the coronavirus approaches zero.
The Center for Disease Control estimates that influenza resulted in between 9 million to 45 million illnesses, between 140,000 to 810,000 hospitalizations and between 12,000 to 61,000 deaths annually since 2010. During that entire time we enjoyed an economic expansion. Life went on.
In short, our leaders need to plan not just how they will conduct the war against this virus, but an “exit strategy” on how to pull out when the mission has been achieved.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-03-17--Climate change accused of being deadlier than Covid 19 — Fact check

This is a classic example of what I am trying to show , that this “ climate change ” issue is more than meets the eye , It is about using any tactic possible to push an agenda that is regressive and seeks to LIMIT what man can do , rather than expand .
This article : https : //www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sarah-mcinerney-climate-change-will-be-deadlier-than-covid-19-lstrdl6t7 tries to scare the daylights out of people who are already scared , with an implication not supported by any facts today , We are all anxious about the unknown with this virus , so here we go , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even more .
But the facts are clear on climate over the last 100 years , the results on mankind are EXACTLY OPPOSITE .
Which is even more remarkable given the growth of human life I guess if the Covid-19 completely fizzles out , which is also a possibility , then anything that happens in the weather globally over the next 20 years that is blamed for deaths , means perhaps it would outstrip it , But the facts reveal that man ’ s adaptation via freedom , competition , and capitalism , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saying the EXACT OPPOSITE is happening !
And that journalist that are writing things like this choose to ignore the facts , or have not researched it enough to see another side , speaks volumes as to the amount of trust one should put into any agenda that involves narrow-minded one-sidedness Instead of writing thousands of words I will use a few choice charts , What I want to know , is why the people that write this stuff do not have the intellectual curiosity or the journalistic integrity to do what journalists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ show both sides of the issue .
It is because of the lack of those qualities , we are reading what we are reading So here we go , In direct defiance of what is implied in the above article , Climate deaths are plummetting Now why , if you knew this , would you write what you did ?
Why did you not look at least for the countering argument ?
Now watch this .
Personal GDP globally and Life expectancy globally : This means MORE PEOPLE ARE LIVING LONGER AND PROSEPERING @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like skyrocket start ?
At the start of the fossil fuel era .
Now consider this , and do not think this is minimizing the COVID 19 threat , The median age of deaths is in the low 80s .
But if this virus appeared in the pre fossil fuel era , it may have gone virtually unnoticed BECAUSE of LIFE EXPECTANCY IN PRE FOSSIL FUEL ERA was between 30 and 40 .
From this article , the chart below : The ramping up to the current levels can be linked if not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of mankind in the fossil fuel era .
When one reads anything , including what I write , one needs to look at both sides , The fact is that the vast majority of articles written on this matter do not bring up countering points , and use the assumption that there is no counter , or someone is a science denier .
Yet charts like this show that people saying that are denying facts that any 5th grader ( I use 5th grade since that population age group and around is getting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate change ) can see .
What is being done today though in articles like the one that spawned this counter , is to make statements that run contrary to what has been going on , with no thinking beyond a set agenda ?
When you are narrow-minded , your field of vision is extremely limited and what is being revealed in a lot of things has to do with this subject is the narrow mindedness and intolerant views of people who should be doing the opposite , if they are indeed journalists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do the facts about climate deaths and the advancement of mankind run contrary to what is being implied but the fact that IF NOT FOR THE INCREASE IN LIFE EXPECTANCY brought about with the help of the fossil fuel era , then this viruses impact , if the median age of death is in the low 80s , may not have even been noticed in the late 19th century since life expectancy was about half of what it is today .
As always , I ask the rational reader to consider the other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people , as per the previous piece I wrote , to be on guard against any event being blamed on “ climate change ” for “ climate change ” is actually a vehicle for another result .
At the very least , consider the actual data presented here .
And all you journalists that are using all the great tools we have today try to look at both sides of the issue , You might come to realize that where you stand today was built yesterday and the fossil fuel era and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ large part responsible for the foundation we have built to give you the chance .
Don ’ t take that for granted , Question in all you do .
Facts like what I have shown above , indicate that there is a reason to look at both sides of an issue .
Be open-minded and tolerant , and don ’ t accuse those that bring up ideas you may not have seen , of being someone they are not ( example Climate Denier ) .
But writing scare articles using what is admittedly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ climate change ” is something worse , without even showing people where we are today on the matter and the actual data , is not being open-minded nor tolerant of contrary ideas .

This is a classic example of what I am trying to show, that this “climate change” issue is more than meets the eye. It is about using any tactic possible to push an agenda that is regressive and seeks to LIMIT what man can do, rather than expand. This article: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sarah-mcinerney-climate-change-will-be-deadlier-than-covid-19-lstrdl6t7 tries to scare the daylights out of people who are already scared with an implication not supported by any facts today. We are all anxious about the unknown with this virus, so here we go, the predictable use of climate to scare people even more. But the facts are clear on climate over the last 100 years, the results on mankind are EXACTLY OPPOSITE. Which is even more remarkable given the growth of human life.
I guess if the Covid-19 completely fizzles out, which is also a possibility, then anything that happens in the weather globally over the next 20 years that is blamed for deaths, means perhaps it would be eclipsed. But the facts reveal that man’s adaptation via freedom, competition and capitalism, which is leading the way, is saying the EXACT OPPOSITE is happening!
And that journalist whom are writing things like this choose to ignore the facts, or have not researched it enough to see another side. Which speaks volumes as to the amount of trust one should put into any agenda that involves narrow-minded one-sidedness.
Instead of writing thousands of words I will use a few choice charts. What I want to know, is why people that write this stuff do not have the intellectual curiosity or the journalistic integrity to do what journalists are supposed to do: Question and show both sides of the issue. It is because the lack of those qualities, we are reading what we are reading.
So here we go, in direct defiance of what is implied in the above article, Climate deaths are plummetting
Now why, if you knew this, would you write what you did? Why did you not look at least for the countering argument?
Now watch this. Personal GDP globally and Life Expectancy globally:
This means MORE PEOPLE ARE LIVING LONGER AND PROSPERING MORE! When did this hockey stick like skyrocket start? At the start of the fossil fuel era.
Now consider this, and do not think this is minimizing the COVID 19 threat, the median age of deaths is in the low 80s. But if this virus appeared in the pre-fossil fuel era, it may have gone virtually unnoticed BECAUSE of LIFE EXPECTANCY IN PRE -FOSSIL FUEL ERA was between 30 and 40.
From this article, the chart below:
https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy#life-expectancy-has-improved-globally
The ramping up to the current levels can be linked, if not directly then indirectly, to the advancement of mankind in the fossil fuel era. The ramping up to the current levels can be linked, if not directly then indirectly, to the advancement of mankind in the fossil fuel era.
When one reads anything, including what I write, one needs to look at both sides. The fact is that the vast majority of articles written on this matter do not bring up countering points and use the assumption that there is no counter, or someone is a science denier. Yet charts like this show that people are saying they deny the facts any 5th grader can see. (I use 5th grade since that population age group and around is getting the wits scared out of them with climate change.)
What is being done today, though in articles like the one that spawned this counter, is to make statements that run contrary to what has been going on. With no thinking beyond a set agenda? When you are narrow-minded, your field of vision is extremely limited and what is being revealed in a lot of things has to do with this subject. Which is the narrow mindedness and intolerant views of people who should be doing the opposite, if they are indeed journalists.
In this case, the facts about climate deaths and the advancement of mankind run contrary to what is being implied. The fact that IF NOT FOR THE INCREASE IN LIFE EXPECTANCY brought about with the help of the fossil fuel era may not have even been noticed in the late 19th century. Since life expectancy was about half of what it is today.
As always, I ask the rational reader to consider the other side of the issue. To remind people, as per the previous piece I wrote, to be on guard against any event being blamed on “climate change”. For “climate change” is actually a vehicle for another result. At the very least, consider the actual data presented here.
Furthermore, all you journalists that are using the entirety of great tools we have today, try to look at both sides of the issue. You might come to realize that where you stand today was built yesterday and the fossil fuel era, the freedoms we enjoy, is in a large part responsible for the foundation we have built to give you the chance. Don’t take that for granted! Question in all you do. Facts like what I have shown above, indicate that there is a reason to look at both sides of an issue. Be open-minded, tolerant and don’t accuse those, that bring up ideas you may not have seen, of being someone they are not (example Climate Denier). But writing scare articles using what is admittedly a scary virus, and then saying, “climate change” is something worse, without showing people where we are today on the matter and the actual data, is not being open-minded nor tolerant of contrary ideas.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-03-18--How exactly do they plan to replace fossil fuels?

Berkeley , CA , Takoma Park , MD and other cities ; California , Connecticut , New York , Virginia and other states ; Germany , England and other countries ; the European Union – all plan to banish oil , natural gas and coal within 10 , 20 or 30 years .
A number of US states have joined Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiatives and proudly say We Are Still In … the Paris climate treaty , no matter what President Trump says or does .
Forget the headlines and models , and look at hurricane , tornado , sea @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is no crisis , no unprecedented warming or weather events , certainly nothing that proves humans have replaced the powerful natural forces that have always driven climate changes and weather events .
But for now , let ’ s just examine their zero-carbon plans .
How exactly will they make this happen ?
Where do they plan to get the turbines , panels and batteries ?
the raw materials to manufacture them ?
How do they plan to function as modern societies with pricey , erratic energy and frequent power disruptions ?
How @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the entire USA goes Green New Deal – handle a COVID-27 outbreak ?
How would they manufacture cars , airplanes , wind turbines , toilet paper , pharmaceuticals or much of anything else with intermittent energy ?
It hasn ’ t worked in Europe ( see below ) , and it won ’ t work here .
Moreover , it ’ s not just replacing today ’ s coal and gas power plant megawatts .
It ’ s doubling today ’ s electricity generation , because Green New Dealers want to replace all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cars , trucks and buses , home and water heating , factory power , hospital emergency power , and more .
It ’ s tripling current megawatt generation , because they don ’ t like nuclear or hydroelectric power either , and they ’ ll need far more electricity to charge enough batteries to ensure backup power for all the fossil and other power they want to eliminate .
That will require a lot of wind turbines , solar panels and batteries .
Where do they plan to put all of them ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ lots of rural land , wildlife habitats and shallow waters off their coasts that they can turn into huge industrial energy zones .
But what are those self-righteous cities going to do ?
Where within their city limits do they plan to put dozens of 650-foot tall turbines and tens of thousands of panels ?
Or do they plan to just impose those facilities on their rural neighbors ?
Or tap into regional power grids and use electricity that someone else is generating – with coal , gas , nuclear , hydro , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will they separate “ good ” and “ bad ” electrons ?
All of these GND cities and states will have to deal with frustrated rural families who don ’ t want the ruined scenery , desecrated ridge lines , dead birds and bats , maddening light flicker and excruciating infrasound that towering turbines would bring .
Don ’ t want millions of rural acres blanketed with solar panels .
Don ’ t want hundreds of miles of new high voltage transmission lines crossing their backyards .
Don ’ t want their lands @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the point of a gun if they still resist .
They don ’ t want the 25-50-100 % higher household electricity bills , the soaring price tags for products and services that go with soaring electricity costs for every business , farm , factory and hospital .
They don ’ t want more good manufacturing jobs destroyed by skyrocketing energy prices – and sent overseas .
Do Green New Deal politicians have the foggiest idea how many turbines , panels , batteries and miles of transmission lines they will need to replace all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ energy systems last before they have to be replaced ?
Do they have any idea what they ’ re going to do with the defunct turbine blades and solar panels that can ’ t be recycled or burned ?
How many cubic miles of landfills they will need ?
Will communities want those landfills ?
Will urban pols just employ more eminent domain ?
It would take hundreds of 850-foot-tall 12-MW offshore turbines to supply the green new world electricity demands of a major city – or thousands of 2- or 3-MW onshore @ @ @ @ @ @ @ panels .
Millions of acres of former crop , scenic and wildlife habitat land would be impacted .
They ’ d need millions of half-ton 85-kWh Tesla battery packs as backup for a week of windless or sunless days .
Where do they intend to get the millions of tons of steel , copper , cobalt , lithium , aluminum , rare earths , carbon-fiberglass-plastic composites , limestone and other raw materials to build all those electricity generation and storage systems , and all the new transmission lines ?
Will they now support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ How do they plan to owHo mine and process the materials without fossil fuels ?
If the mining is not to take place here in United States , under our tough laws and regulations – then where exactly will it be done ?
In China and Russia ?
or maybe in Africa and South America , where many mines are operated by Chinese and Russian companies that don ’ t give a tinker ’ s damn about child labor , slave labor , workplace safety , air and water pollution , toxic and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or the soaring rates of lung , heart , skin and intestinal diseases , osteoporosis , cancers and other maladies .
All these squalid places and horrific stories are far away – out of sight , out of mind .
Environmentalists love to say : Think globally ; act locally .
This would be a good time to start practicing that ethical code .
The more honest politicians promoting a GND future admit it would eliminate a lot of oil , gas , coal , petrochemical , manufacturing and other high-paying jobs .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ pseudo- ) renewable energy world would create millions of new jobs .
A look behind The Great Oz ’ s curtain is very revealing .
Coal-fired power plants generate 7,745 megawatt-hours of electricity per mine and power plant worker ; natural gas generates 3,812 MWh per oil and gas field and utility worker .
That super high efficiency and resultant low-cost electricity sustain millions of jobs in manufacturing and countless other industries .
In stark contrast , wind turbines produce a measly 836 MWh for every employee , while solar panels generated an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another way , it takes 79 solar workers to produce the same amount of electricity as one coal worker or two natural gas workers .
Not only will this expensive , intermittent , weather-dependent electricity kill millions of good American jobs ; the GND wind and solar jobs will mostly be lower-wage positions installing , maintaining , repairing and replacing turbines and panels , and hauling huge dilapidated blades , panels , hulks and concrete foundations to monster landfills .
Residential electricity prices are already outrageous in New York ( 17¢ a kilowatt-hour @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) , Connecticut ( 20¢ ) and Hawaii ( 31¢ ) – versus 9¢ a kWh in Arkansas , Georgia and Oklahoma .
Going 50-100 % wind and solar would send family rates skyrocketing to German levels : 37¢ per kWh .
At the 8¢ per kWh in 2019 , Virginia ’ s Inova Fairfax Women ’ s and Children ’ s Hospital pays about $ 1.6 million annually for electricity ( based on typical hospital costs per square foot ) .
At California ’ s ( 15¢ per kWh ) , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) , Inova would have to shell out an extra $ 1.4-2.8 million a year for electricity .
That would mean employee layoffs , higher medical bills , reduced patient care , more deaths .
How is the vaunted transition to wind and solar actually working in Europe and Britain ?
In 2017 , German families and businesses were pummeled by 172,000 localized blackouts .
Last year , some 350,000 German families had their electricity cut off because they couldn ’ t pay their power bills .
In Britain , millions of elderly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eating decent food ; many spend their days in libraries to keep warm ; and more than 3,000 every year because they can not heat their homes properly , making them more likely to succumb to respiratory , heart , flu or other diseases .
Across Europe , 11 million jobs are “ at risk ” because of an EU “ green deal ” that many say is suicidal .
Meanwhile , China and India are still building coal and gas power plants , making products for the USA and Europe , creating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere .
GND politicians have dodged these issues for years – while steering billions of taxpayer dollars to the green activist groups , crony capitalists and industrialist rent seekers that help keep them in office .
Even worse , they and their media allies neatly dodge the most glaring reality .
The only way this energy and economic transformation will happen is through totalitarian government at the local , state and federal level : liberal urban voters and politicians against the rest of America .
Those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , societal division , endless litigation , and violence .
We need to head that grim future off at the pass .

Berkeley, CA, Takoma Park, MD and other cities; California, Connecticut, New York, Virginia and other states; Germany, England and other countries; the European Union – all plan to banish oil, natural gas and coal within 10, 20 or 30 years. A number of US states have joined Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiatives and proudly say We Are Still In … the Paris climate treaty, no matter what President Trump says or does.
Forget the headlines and models, and look at hurricane, tornado, sea level and other historic records. There is no crisis, no unprecedented warming or weather events, certainly nothing that proves humans have replaced the powerful natural forces that have always driven climate changes and weather events.
But for now, let’s just examine their zero-carbon plans. How exactly will they make this happen? Where do they plan to get the turbines, panels and batteries? The raw materials to manufacture them? How do they plan to function as modern societies with pricey, erratic energy and frequent power disruptions?
How would they – or America, if the entire USA goes Green New Deal – handle a COVID-27 outbreak? How would they manufacture cars, airplanes, wind turbines, toilet paper, pharmaceuticals or much of anything else with intermittent energy? It hasn’t worked in Europe (see below), and it won’t work here.
Moreover, it’s not just replacing today’s coal and gas power plant megawatts. It’s doubling today’s electricity generation, because Green New Dealers want to replace all fossil fuel use: gasoline and diesel cars, trucks and buses, home and water heating, factory power, hospital emergency power, and more.
It’s tripling current megawatt generation, because they don’t like nuclear or hydroelectric power either, and they’ll need far more electricity to charge enough batteries to ensure backup power for all the fossil and other power they want to eliminate. That will require a lot of wind turbines, solar panels and batteries.
Where do they plan to put all of them? Some of those states and countries have lots of rural land, wildlife habitats and shallow waters off their coasts that they can turn into huge industrial energy zones. But what are those self-righteous cities going to do? Where within their city limits do they plan to put dozens of 650-foot tall turbines and tens of thousands of panels? Or do they plan to just impose those facilities on their rural neighbors? Or tap into regional power grids and use electricity that someone else is generating – with coal, gas, nuclear, hydro, and maybe wind or solar? How will they separate “good” and “bad” electrons?
All of these GND cities and states will have to deal with frustrated rural families who don’t want the ruined scenery, desecrated ridge lines, dead birds and bats, maddening light flicker and excruciating infrasound that towering turbines would bring. Don’t want millions of rural acres blanketed with solar panels. Don’t want hundreds of miles of new high voltage transmission lines crossing their backyards. Don’t want their lands seized via eminent domain, virtually at the point of a gun if they still resist.
They don’t want the 25-50-100% higher household electricity bills, the soaring price tags for products and services that go with soaring electricity costs for every business, farm, factory and hospital. They don’t want more good manufacturing jobs destroyed by skyrocketing energy prices – and sent overseas.
Do Green New Deal politicians have the foggiest idea how many turbines, panels, batteries and miles of transmission lines they will need to replace all fossil fuels? How few years those energy systems last before they have to be replaced? Do they have any idea what they’re going to do with the defunct turbine blades and solar panels that can’t be recycled or burned? How many cubic miles of landfills they will need? Will communities want those landfills? Will urban pols just employ more eminent domain?
It would take hundreds of 850-foot-tall 12-MW offshore turbines to supply the green new world electricity demands of a major city – or thousands of 2- or 3-MW onshore turbines. Tens of millions of solar panels. Millions of acres of former crop, scenic and wildlife habitat land would be impacted. They’d need millions of half-ton 85-kWh Tesla battery packs as backup for a week of windless or sunless days.
Where do they intend to get the millions of tons of steel, copper, cobalt, lithium, aluminum, rare earths, carbon-fiberglass-plastic composites, limestone and other raw materials to build all those electricity generation and storage systems, and all the new transmission lines? Will they now support opening more US lands to mining? How do they plan to mine and process the materials without fossil fuels?
If the mining is not to take place here in United States, under our tough laws and regulations – then where exactly will it be done? In China and Russia? or maybe in Africa and South America, where many mines are operated by Chinese and Russian companies that don’t give a tinker’s damn about child labor, slave labor, workplace safety, air and water pollution, toxic and radioactive wastes, mined land reclamation – or the soaring rates of lung, heart, skin and intestinal diseases, osteoporosis, cancers and other maladies.
All these squalid places and horrific stories are far away – out of sight, out of mind. Environmentalists love to say: Think globally; act locally. This would be a good time to start practicing that ethical code.
The more honest politicians promoting a GND future admit it would eliminate a lot of oil, gas, coal, petrochemical, manufacturing and other high-paying jobs. But, they claim, their (pseudo-)renewable energy world would create millions of new jobs. A look behind The Great Oz’s curtain is very revealing.
Coal-fired power plants generate 7,745 megawatt-hours of electricity per mine and power plant worker; natural gas generates 3,812 MWh per oil and gas field and utility worker. That super high efficiency and resultant low-cost electricity sustain millions of jobs in manufacturing and countless other industries.
In stark contrast, wind turbines produce a measly 836 MWh for every employee, while solar panels generated an abysmal 98 MWh per worker. Put another way, it takes 79 solar workers to produce the same amount of electricity as one coal worker or two natural gas workers. Not only will this expensive, intermittent, weather-dependent electricity kill millions of good American jobs; the GND wind and solar jobs will mostly be lower-wage positions installing, maintaining, repairing and replacing turbines and panels, and hauling huge dilapidated blades, panels, hulks and concrete foundations to monster landfills.
Residential electricity prices are already outrageous in New York (17¢ a kilowatt-hour), California (19¢ per kWh), Connecticut (20¢) and Hawaii (31¢) – versus 9¢ a kWh in Arkansas, Georgia and Oklahoma. Going 50-100% wind and solar would send family rates skyrocketing to German levels: 37¢ per kWh.
At the 8¢ per kWh in 2019, Virginia’s Inova Fairfax Women’s and Children’s Hospital pays about $1.6 million annually for electricity (based on typical hospital costs per square foot). At California’s (15¢ per kWh), or Germany’s business rate (22¢), Inova would have to shell out an extra $1.4-2.8 million a year for electricity. That would mean employee layoffs, higher medical bills, reduced patient care, more deaths.
How is the vaunted transition to wind and solar actually working in Europe and Britain? In 2017, German families and businesses were pummeled by 172,000 localized blackouts. Last year, some 350,000 German families had their electricity cut off because they couldn’t pay their power bills. In Britain, millions of elderly people have to choose between heating and eating decent food; many spend their days in libraries to keep warm; and more than 3,000 die every year because they cannot heat their homes properly, making them more likely to succumb to respiratory, heart, flu or other diseases.
Across Europe, 11 million jobs are “at risk” because of an EU “green deal” that many say is suicidal. Meanwhile, China and India are still building coal and gas power plants, making products for the USA and Europe, creating jobs, building airports, and sending billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.
GND politicians have dodged these issues for years – while steering billions of taxpayer dollars to the green activist groups, crony capitalists and industrialist rent seekers that help keep them in office.
Even worse, they and their media allies neatly dodge the most glaring reality. The only way this energy and economic transformation will happen is through totalitarian government at the local, state and federal level: liberal urban voters and politicians against the rest of America. Those are the seeds of resentment, anger, societal division, endless litigation, and violence. We need to head that grim future off at the pass.