committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-06-13--The “Great American Outdoors Act” is a federal land grab slush fund

In a display of bipartisanship that is as rare as it is frightening , Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill are joining forces to impose their own brand of socialism on rural America .
The scheme being cooked up by lawmakers of both parties is something called the Great American Outdoors Act .
Backed by 44 Democrats and 15 Republicans in the Senate , and eagerly supported by Speaker Nancy Pelosi ’ s Democratic majority in the House of Representatives , the bill , among other things , requires the federal government to spend at least $ 900 million each @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acres the feds already own , and largely mismanage , throughout the country .
While America has for the most part avoided the disastrous socialist schemes that have put whole industries into the hands of bureaucrats elsewhere in the world , land is another matter altogether .
The federal government already owns about 30 % of the land in the U.S .
In the 11 western states and Alaska , the feds , through four agencies , control over 50 % of the land , with many counties having 90 % federal ownership @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the sensible thing to do would be to sell off as much of the Bureau of Land Management ’ s millions of acres as buyers are willing to purchase .
That would encourage private ownership of property , with all the responsibilities and liberties that come with it .
It would also be a source of much-needed revenue at the federal , state , and local level .
Instead , embracing the environmentalists ’ vision of as much government ownership of resources as taxpayer money will buy , Congress is intent on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This nationalization of private property would be financed through the Land and Water Conservation Fund , which is supported by revenue the federal government obtains by selling the rights to explore for and produce oil and natural gas in the coastal waters of the United States .
As noted by Myron Ebell , Director of Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute , socialism as traditionally practiced and American-style land socialism differ in one key respect .
“ [ W ] hen Britain nationalized steel mills and coal mines in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coal ( although in practice , production tended to go down and then down some more ) , ” he wrote in the Washington Examiner ( June 8 ) .
“ But when the four federal land agencies – the Forest Service , Fish and Wildlife Service , National Park Service , and Bureau of Land Management – buy private land , the purpose is to take it out of production and ‘ preserve ’ it.
” Consequences of Government Ownership of Land and Resources What will actually be preserved is the poverty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ widespread government ownership of land and resources .
The more land the government owns in a given area , the lower the tax revenues to maintain roads , bridges , drinking water systems , schools , and other community services .
It is all part of the longstanding , if rarely acknowledged , environmentalists ’ goal of what writer Ron Arnold has called “ rural cleansing.
” Make it increasingly difficult for people to make a living in a rural area , and they will be forced to migrate to the cities , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ greens want more government ownership of land ?
So badly that they are willing to turn a blind eye to the finance mechanism that under the Great American Outdoors Act will make the acquisition of private land possible : revenues from oil and gas exploration and development in coastal waters .
That ’ s right .
The very fossil fuels said to be responsible ( along with coal ) for causing a “ climate crisis ” are lovingly embraced because they make possible more government ownership of land .
Yes , this is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no less glaring than that of Republican senators who , a short time ago , beat their chests in their opposition to the Green New Deal .
Now , many of them , such as Colorado ’ s Cory Gardner , Tennessee ’ s Lamar Alexander , North Carolina ’ s Richard Burr , and Ohio ’ s Rob Portman , are eager to foist their own Green New Deal on the rest of the country by backing the land-grabbing Great American Outdoors Act .

In a display of bipartisanship that is as rare as it is frightening, Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill are joining forces to impose their own brand of socialism on rural America.
The scheme being cooked up by lawmakers of both parties is something called the Great American Outdoors Act. Backed by 44 Democrats and 15 Republicans in the Senate, and eagerly supported by Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s Democratic majority in the House of Representatives, the bill, among other things, requires the federal government to spend at least $900 million each year to add to the 640 million acres the feds already own, and largely mismanage, throughout the country.
Funding Mechanism for Land Socialism
While America has for the most part avoided the disastrous socialist schemes that have put whole industries into the hands of bureaucrats elsewhere in the world, land is another matter altogether. The federal government already owns about 30% of the land in the U.S. In the 11 western states and Alaska, the feds, through four agencies, control over 50% of the land, with many counties having 90% federal ownership.
For a government drowning in deficits, the sensible thing to do would be to sell off as much of the Bureau of Land Management’s millions of acres as buyers are willing to purchase. That would encourage private ownership of property, with all the responsibilities and liberties that come with it. It would also be a source of much-needed revenue at the federal, state, and local level.
Instead, embracing the environmentalists’ vision of as much government ownership of resources as taxpayer money will buy, Congress is intent on federal agencies gobbling up even more land. This nationalization of private property would be financed through the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which is supported by revenue the federal government obtains by selling the rights to explore for and produce oil and natural gas in the coastal waters of the United States.
As noted by Myron Ebell, Director of Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, socialism as traditionally practiced and American-style land socialism differ in one key respect.
“[W]hen Britain nationalized steel mills and coal mines in the 1950s, they continued producing steel and coal (although in practice, production tended to go down and then down some more),” he wrote in the Washington Examiner (June 8). “But when the four federal land agencies – the Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, and Bureau of Land Management – buy private land, the purpose is to take it out of production and ‘preserve’ it.”
Consequences of Government Ownership of Land and Resources
What will actually be preserved is the poverty that is endemic in areas characterized by widespread government ownership of land and resources. The more land the government owns in a given area, the lower the tax revenues to maintain roads, bridges, drinking water systems, schools, and other community services. It is all part of the longstanding, if rarely acknowledged, environmentalists’ goal of what writer Ron Arnold has called “rural cleansing.” Make it increasingly difficult for people to make a living in a rural area, and they will be forced to migrate to the cities, however reluctantly.
How badly do the greens want more government ownership of land? So badly that they are willing to turn a blind eye to the finance mechanism that under the Great American Outdoors Act will make the acquisition of private land possible: revenues from oil and gas exploration and development in coastal waters. That’s right. The very fossil fuels said to be responsible (along with coal) for causing a “climate crisis” are lovingly embraced because they make possible more government ownership of land.
Yes, this is hypocrisy. Yet this green hypocrisy is no less glaring than that of Republican senators who, a short time ago, beat their chests in their opposition to the Green New Deal. Now, many of them, such as Colorado’s Cory Gardner, Tennessee’s Lamar Alexander, North Carolina’s Richard Burr, and Ohio’s Rob Portman, are eager to foist their own Green New Deal on the rest of the country by backing the land-grabbing Great American Outdoors Act.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-06-14--California keeps raising energy costs

California keeps raising energy costs

What San Francisco , Oakland , and Governor Newsom fail to understand is that the oil and gas industry is not just a California business with its few refineries , but an international industry with more than 700 refineries worldwide .
They manufacture the derivatives from oil that are needed to make more than 6,000 products , as well as the various fuels to the world to operate planes , trucks , construction equipment , merchant ships , cruise ships , and automobiles .
Without the California energy suppliers operating in the 5th largest economy in the world , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the entire country being dependent on foreign countries for our existence .
If the GND ever gets fully implemented in California , we ’ ll have no refineries manufacturing in -state .
We would be getting all those thousands of products from the derivatives from oil , and our fuels from foreign refineries via ships to our ports .
Newsom may have difficulty suing offshore refineries for their nuisance to society !
When placed in the context of more onerous regulations during a global pandemic ravaging the American and California economy , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Despite this fact , certain voices in the environmental movement have continued to leverage the pandemic to attack the suppliers that only exist to meet the demands of society .
California has methodically driven most manufacturing out of the state , as it ’ s been more cost effective to import much of the demands of our society from locations outside the state that can manufacture our needs and transport them to the state .
This “ outsourcing ” concept has yet to be realistic for the daily demands of jet fuel , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all those derivatives from crude oil that are needed by thousands of products in our daily lives .
If it were more cost effective to import those energy needs from foreign locations , it would already be in place .
The COVID-19 induced impacts on our social lifestyles , was a virtual shutdown of airports , cruise ships , most forms of transportation , restaurants , and the leisure and entertainment industry .
The resultant reduction in demand dramatically impacted the supply chain for all the energy needed to meet the social needs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it was almost like living in the 1800 ’ s with virtually no transportation systems , but and that ’ s a BIG BUT , we were able to survive the quarantine as we benefited from all those products derived from the derivatives from oil that produced all the critical medical equipment like ultrasound systems , ventilators , CT systems , and X-ray , medicines , masks , gloves , soap and hand sanitizers for hospitals , and protective gear for doctors and nurses , and all the electronics and communications equipment that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we may be using fossil fuels too extensively for leisure , entertainment , and travel but the developed world is where it is today , healthier , and wealthier , because of all those products we get from those oil derivatives .
As we weed ourselves from oil , we will need to lower our demands for leisure , entertainment , and transportation infrastructures that COVID-19 has shown us the way .
The same politicians that are thrashing on in-state energy suppliers , and seeking their demise , are the same ones @ @ @ @ @ @ @ medical equipment , communication networks , and the thousands of other products from that industry that have contributed to their lifestyles , and their ability to live beyond 80 years of age .
All the lawsuits and bizarre laws and regulations against the local energy suppliers will most likely result in a hodgepodge of lawsuits across the nation that burden our court system , create uncertainty and fail to create any real solutions .
They will continue to invoke more self-inflicted costs on the suppliers to be paid by the users .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remain ready to meet the demands of society .
The costs to import the energy into California from those foreign suppliers to meet local demands are currently more expensive than we are now paying , which is already the most expensive in the country .
The emissions from those foreign refineries will be greater than those in California as foreign environmental regulations are significantly less stringent than those locally .
Until the voters say enough-is-enough , the infliction of more costs by our elected official and environmentalists onto the suppliers , that are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into perpetuity .

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decided on May 28th that climate lawsuits filed by San Mateo County and the cities of San Francisco and Oakland can proceed in state court. This after asserting a California public nuisance claim against five energy companies arising from the role of fossil fuel products in global warming. The lawsuits utilize an obscure area of the law called “public nuisance” to place the blame for global climate change on a few energy companies that develop and sell the energy used by consumers and businesses.
What San Francisco, Oakland, and Governor Newsom fail to understand is that the oil and gas industry is not just a California business with its few refineries, but an international industry with more than 700 refineries worldwide. They manufacture the derivatives from oil that are needed to make more than 6,000 products, as well as the various fuels to the world to operate planes, trucks, construction equipment, merchant ships, cruise ships, and automobiles.
Without the California energy suppliers operating in the 5th largest economy in the world, the state would become a national security risk for the entire country being dependent on foreign countries for our existence.
If the GND ever gets fully implemented in California, we’ll have no refineries manufacturing in -state. We would be getting all those thousands of products from the derivatives from oil, and our fuels from foreign refineries via ships to our ports. Newsom may have difficulty suing offshore refineries for their nuisance to society!
When placed in the context of more onerous regulations during a global pandemic ravaging the American and California economy, this environmental crusading is particularly concerning. Despite this fact, certain voices in the environmental movement have continued to leverage the pandemic to attack the suppliers that only exist to meet the demands of society.
California has methodically driven most manufacturing out of the state, as it’s been more cost effective to import much of the demands of our society from locations outside the state that can manufacture our needs and transport them to the state.
This “outsourcing” concept has yet to be realistic for the daily demands of jet fuel, diesel fuel, gasoline, and for all those derivatives from crude oil that are needed by thousands of products in our daily lives. If it were more cost effective to import those energy needs from foreign locations, it would already be in place.
The COVID-19 induced impacts on our social lifestyles, was a virtual shutdown of airports, cruise ships, most forms of transportation, restaurants, and the leisure and entertainment industry. The resultant reduction in demand dramatically impacted the supply chain for all the energy needed to meet the social needs of society.
The pandemic gave us a preview of what weaning our economies off fossil fuel-addiction that our social lifestyles have become, as we try to accelerate the transition to greener alternatives of intermittent electricity from wind and solar.
During the quarantine, it was almost like living in the 1800’s with virtually no transportation systems, but and that’s a BIG BUT, we were able to survive the quarantine as we benefited from all those products derived from the derivatives from oil that produced all the critical medical equipment like ultrasound systems, ventilators, CT systems, and X-ray, medicines, masks, gloves, soap and hand sanitizers for hospitals, and protective gear for doctors and nurses, and all the electronics and communications equipment that allowed us to work virtually.
Yes, we may be using fossil fuels too extensively for leisure, entertainment, and travel but the developed world is where it is today, healthier, and wealthier, because of all those products we get from those oil derivatives. As we weed ourselves from oil, we will need to lower our demands for leisure, entertainment, and transportation infrastructures that COVID-19 has shown us the way.
The same politicians that are thrashing on in-state energy suppliers, and seeking their demise, are the same ones reaping the benefits of the medications, medical equipment, communication networks, and the thousands of other products from that industry that have contributed to their lifestyles, and their ability to live beyond 80 years of age.
All the lawsuits and bizarre laws and regulations against the local energy suppliers will most likely result in a hodgepodge of lawsuits across the nation that burden our court system, create uncertainty and fail to create any real solutions. They will continue to invoke more self-inflicted costs on the suppliers to be paid by the users. In the meantime, those 700 foreign suppliers remain ready to meet the demands of society.
The costs to import the energy into California from those foreign suppliers to meet local demands are currently more expensive than we are now paying, which is already the most expensive in the country. The emissions from those foreign refineries will be greater than those in California as foreign environmental regulations are significantly less stringent than those locally.
Until the voters say enough-is-enough, the infliction of more costs by our elected official and environmentalists onto the suppliers, that are paid by the users, will continue into perpetuity.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-06-15--Climate groupthink at Yale

Climate groupthink at Yale

An article recently published in Scientific American , entitled “ How to Set a Price on Carbon Pollution ” , discussed and praised the economic work and theories of distinguished Yale Professor William Nordhaus regarding the “ social cost of carbon ” .
I was initially hopeful when I read the reference by Professor Nordhaus to the social cost of carbon .
I thought it might be referring to actual “ carbon ” – that is , soot or ash – particulate matter – which is clearly an air pollutant , and harmful to human beings .
I was disappointed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not to ” carbon ” , but to carbon dioxide – an odorless , colorless , tasteless gas found in tiny , trace amounts in the atmosphere .
The amounts are so small they only constitute about four molecules out of every ten thousand found in the air .
( Nitrogen and oxygen comprise the remaining 99 % ) .
And of those four molecules , only one – one – can be attributed to the human combustion of fossil fuels .
The article then goes on to discuss the theory of man-made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s work in measuring the social cost of its supposed causative culprit , man-made carbon dioxide .
The problem with any argument based on an assumption a priori is that the relevance and veracity of everything that comes after it depends on the truth of the initial assumption , which , in this case is that carbon dioxide – not carbon – is a pollutant .
It is very clear that from logic , reason , science and common sense , that carbon is an air pollutant and potentially harmful to human health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ carbon dioxide definitely is not .
Oh , I know .
Many famous , important , and learned people and institutions have opined that if this one CO2 molecule in ten thousand should be increased through human activity by even one more molecule by the year 2200 , the temperature of the Earth ’ s atmosphere will spiral out of control , and humans will be cooked into oblivion .
As noted in the Scientific American article , these luminaries include the EPA , the United Nations , the US Council of Economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , former chairs of the Federal Reserve , 27 Nobel Laureates , and many esteemed academics – including Professor Nordhaus .
It also includes virtually every Yale institution , department , administration , and affiliated organization , as well as the faculty lounge .
The theory of man-made global warming , however , ignores a number of troublesome and indisputable facts established by many years of scientific research .
First , in the Earth ’ s geologic past , the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has been over ten times what it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in spite , of these CO2 levels , plant and animal life thrived and prospered .
Second , hundreds of studies of geologic history – the Vostok ice cores , ocean sediment samples , thousands of Earth cores – all demonstrate that increases in atmospheric CO2 follow , do not precede , increases in temperature of the atmosphere .
The effect can not precede the cause .
Third , the temperature of the Earth ’ s climate – and the content of CO2 in the atmosphere – changes naturally .
Yalies – me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact , because as little as 14,000 years ago , New Haven and the entire Eastern seaboard down to New York City lay under a thick sheet of ice .
Then for some reason – but having nothing to do with human activity – the Earth warmed very rapidly .
The ice sheet retreated , leaving New Haven high and dry , and Long Island in its wake as a glacial moraine .
Most importantly , the theory of man-made global warming does not pass the sniff test – the test of common @ @ @ @ @ @ @ common sense to believe that an increase of one human-caused atmospheric CO2 molecule out of ten thousand over eighty years should result in the ruination of the planet .
Once again – I know .
By questioning this climate orthodoxy , by committing heresy against the church of man-made global warming , people like me are called “ deniers ” – as in “ Holocaust deniers ” .
Let ’ s be clear .
We are not denying anything .
We are affirming what we believe to be the denial of the truth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these views , we are shunned and ex-communicated .
The political , academic , and global bureaucratic elites have spoken .
Man-made CO2 is evil .
Drastic measures must be taken to banish this malevolent CO2 from reaching the atmosphere .
Most notably , this means eliminating the human combustion of fossil fuels .
Electricity produced by the consumption of oil , coal , and , natural gas is an anathema .
This electricity – which more than anything else is responsible and essential for our modern way of life and for modern @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is all verboten .
I feel that my generation – the Baby Boomers – is uniquely qualified to observe and opine on this phenomena of conventional wisdom , of establishment authority , of supreme omniscience which requires adherence to an approved way of thinking .
We are qualified to criticize a manner of thought which the political , academic , and globalist elites , in their supreme conviction , financial and reputational self-interest , and noble self-righteousness , believe to be the unquestionably appropriate point of view .
My generation knows , all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thinking produced the war in Viet Nam .
And it was wrong .
Only when the abundant costs in lives , and freedom , and national honor became apparent .
Only when prior unchallengeable assumptions became challenged .
Only when the costs so clearly outweighed the benefits .
Only when it started to feel wrong to many Americans – morally , intellectually , and spiritually .
Only when it just didn ’ t seem to make common sense anymore .
Only then did the tide of public opinion turn , and what was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the national interest , turned out to be the product of faulty – even disingenuous – assumptions .
The tide of public opinion on CO2 is now at its height .
It will take some time for reason to return .
It will take some time , perhaps even decades , before this conventional wisdom – championed by the best and the brightest , by the Ivy League-educated ruling class – is appreciated as being wrong and , more importantly , the cause of calamitous consequences .
Yes , as far as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a glacier of climate groupthink has descended on New Haven .
It will take some time before “ Lux et Veritas ” – Yale ’ s motto for over three centuries – prevails .
Who knows how many of the Baby Boomer generation will still be around to see it ?

An article recently published in Scientific American, entitled “How to Set a Price on Carbon Pollution”, discussed and praised the economic work and theories of distinguished Yale Professor William Nordhaus regarding the “social cost of carbon”.
I was initially hopeful when I read the reference by Professor Nordhaus to the social cost of carbon. I thought it might be referring to actual “carbon” – that is, soot or ash – particulate matter – which is clearly an air pollutant, and harmful to human beings.
I was disappointed. The Professor’s reference was not to ”carbon”, but to carbon dioxide – an odorless, colorless, tasteless gas found in tiny, trace amounts in the atmosphere. The amounts are so small they only constitute about four molecules out of every ten thousand found in the air. (Nitrogen and oxygen comprise the remaining 99%). And of those four molecules, only one – one – can be attributed to the human combustion of fossil fuels.
The article then goes on to discuss the theory of man-made climate change and praises the Professor’s work in measuring the social cost of its supposed causative culprit, man-made carbon dioxide.
The problem with any argument based on an assumption a priori is that the relevance and veracity of everything that comes after it depends on the truth of the initial assumption, which, in this case is that carbon dioxide – not carbon – is a pollutant.
It is very clear that from logic, reason, science and common sense, that carbon is an air pollutant and potentially harmful to human health.
For all those same reasons, carbon dioxide definitely is not.
Oh, I know. Many famous, important, and learned people and institutions have opined that if this one CO2 molecule in ten thousand should be increased through human activity by even one more molecule by the year 2200, the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere will spiral out of control, and humans will be cooked into oblivion. As noted in the Scientific American article, these luminaries include the EPA, the United Nations, the US Council of Economic Advisors, 3,589 economists, 3 living, former chairs of the Federal Reserve, 27 Nobel Laureates, and many esteemed academics – including Professor Nordhaus. It also includes virtually every Yale institution, department, administration, and affiliated organization, as well as the faculty lounge.
The theory of man-made global warming, however, ignores a number of troublesome and indisputable facts established by many years of scientific research.
First, in the Earth’s geologic past, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has been over ten times what it is now, and because, not in spite, of these CO2 levels, plant and animal life thrived and prospered. Second, hundreds of studies of geologic history – the Vostok ice cores, ocean sediment samples, thousands of Earth cores – all demonstrate that increases in atmospheric CO2 follow, do not precede, increases in temperature of the atmosphere. The effect cannot precede the cause.
Third, the temperature of the Earth’s climate – and the content of CO2 in the atmosphere – changes naturally. Yalies – me included – should be grateful for this fact, because as little as 14,000 years ago, New Haven and the entire Eastern seaboard down to New York City lay under a thick sheet of ice. Then for some reason – but having nothing to do with human activity – the Earth warmed very rapidly. The ice sheet retreated, leaving New Haven high and dry, and Long Island in its wake as a glacial moraine.
Most importantly, the theory of man-made global warming does not pass the sniff test – the test of common sense. It simply does not follow common sense to believe that an increase of one human-caused atmospheric CO2 molecule out of ten thousand over eighty years should result in the ruination of the planet.
Once again – I know. By questioning this climate orthodoxy, by committing heresy against the church of man-made global warming, people like me are called “deniers” – as in “Holocaust deniers”.
Let’s be clear. We are not denying anything. We are affirming what we believe to be the denial of the truth by others.
Nevertheless, for expressing these views, we are shunned and ex-communicated. The political, academic, and global bureaucratic elites have spoken. Man-made CO2 is evil. Drastic measures must be taken to banish this malevolent CO2 from reaching the atmosphere. Most notably, this means eliminating the human combustion of fossil fuels. Electricity produced by the consumption of oil, coal, and, natural gas is an anathema. This electricity – which more than anything else is responsible and essential for our modern way of life and for modern communication, transportation, and medicine – is all verboten.
I feel that my generation – the Baby Boomers – is uniquely qualified to observe and opine on this phenomena of conventional wisdom, of establishment authority, of supreme omniscience which requires adherence to an approved way of thinking. We are qualified to criticize a manner of thought which the political, academic, and globalist elites, in their supreme conviction, financial and reputational self-interest, and noble self-righteousness, believe to be the unquestionably appropriate point of view.
My generation knows, all too well, that this way of thinking produced the war in Viet Nam. And it was wrong.
Only when the abundant costs in lives, and freedom, and national honor became apparent. Only when prior unchallengeable assumptions became challenged. Only when the costs so clearly outweighed the benefits. Only when it started to feel wrong to many Americans – morally, intellectually, and spiritually. Only when it just didn’t seem to make common sense anymore. Only then did the tide of public opinion turn, and what was once seen as an endeavor unquestionably in the national interest, turned out to be the product of faulty – even disingenuous – assumptions.
The tide of public opinion on CO2 is now at its height. It will take some time for reason to return. It will take some time, perhaps even decades, before this conventional wisdom – championed by the best and the brightest, by the Ivy League-educated ruling class – is appreciated as being wrong and, more importantly, the cause of calamitous consequences.
Yes, as far as the man-made global warming debate is concerned, a glacier of climate groupthink has descended on New Haven. It will take some time before “Lux et Veritas” – Yale’s motto for over three centuries – prevails.
Who knows how many of the Baby Boomer generation will still be around to see it?


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-06-15--Green policies compound racial injustice

The horrific murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis policeman while his three cowardly colleagues looked on has now sparked many Green groups to rightly condemn racial injustice .
The irony is that the policies these Green groups have long advocated harm the most vulnerable in society , including but not exclusively , blacks and other people of color , in both America and worldwide .
Sierra Club , “ 350 , ” the Environmental Defense Fund and others issued statements condemning racial injustice .
The League of Conservation Voters and EDF , for example , were and appropriate as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Club ’ s president , Michael Brune , by contrast , included a rant against certain corporations : “ [ t ] he companies that have profited from fossil fuels and accelerated the climate crisis are the same ones who have benefited from environmental injustice , colonialism , and racism.
” Mr. Brune mentioned no companies by name , nor did he elaborate on their historical sins .
Could it be that some of those same companies are donors to the Sierra Club and pay his healthy salary ?
If so , namelessness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suspect Mr. Brune ’ s abasement may be an attempt to live down his unflattering exposure in the latest Michael Moore film , Planet of the Humans .
This film accuses Brune and the Sierra Club of selling out to profiteering corporations and perpetuating falsehoods that energy from wind , solar and biomass replaces fossil fuels .
Rather , the film affirmed that “ renewable ” energy sources are heavily reliant on them .
Green policies such as the promotion of population control have been harmful to non-white people in less developed nations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advocated sterilization of third world populations , while Garret Hardin , professor of “ Human Ecology ” at UC Santa Barbara , supported starvation on those populations in need .
Population control remains part of the modern Green agenda , but with a good deal more subtlety .
Among prominent proponents is British hybrid Prince Harry , who supports limiting his family size to a maximum of two children , and signals everyone else should do the same .
( An aside : is he still a Prince ? )
Other Green climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ low-income households , which are disproportionately minority , according to the U.S. Census Bureau , and to people in developing countries .
This starts with the Green New Deal and its planned destruction of plentiful and cheaper fossil fuels .
Government-imposed renewable energy mandates that will squeeze out fossil fuels like natural gas and that disallow nuclear energy only serve to increase energy costs .
People with less money mathematically pay much higher percentages of their income on essentials like food , energy and transportation – all of which increase in price as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not theoretical ; it is economics 101 , which has played out in America and globally , as CFACT has reported .
Riots in Chile , France and other nations over higher energy and transportation costs are the tip of the Green iceberg .
Black Americans and other minority populations benefit in greater proportion from a thriving fossil fuel industry both as consumers and workers .
According to U.S. Labor Department data , larger percentages of black and Hispanic Americans work in industries such as mining , extraction , construction and transportation , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – the very sectors vulnerable to job losses from Green policies to “ fight climate change.
” Many urban high-needs communities that suffer from homelessness , litter , drug addition and other crises have been neglected by many of the same elected officials who demand vacuous climate change policies that will do nothing to fix these immediate , tangible problems .
The victims of this political neglect commonly are black , Hispanic and immigrant families .
More also should be done to empower young people with a quality K-12 education that is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ upward mobility and the middle class .
Just as police unions are rightly facing scrutiny for some of their members ’ mistreatment of blacks , so should teacher unions and others be under a microscope for chronic academic under-performance in so many public schools in high-needs communities .
Educational choice policies , for example , are rabidly and selfishly opposed by teacher unions , yet provide a more equal chance for minority children to obtain K-12 opportunities that benefit children from higher-income households .
It is good to see some Green organizations , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up and be counted against racial injustice toward black Americans .
All Americans should be unified in that cause .
But preventing further injustice should include a wholesale reordering of destructive climate policies that do harm , particularly to low-income , black and minority populations .

The horrific murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis policeman while his three cowardly colleagues looked on has now sparked many Green groups to rightly condemn racial injustice.
The irony is that the policies these Green groups have long advocated harm the most vulnerable in society, including but not exclusively, blacks and other people of color, in both America and worldwide.
Sierra Club, “350,” the Environmental Defense Fund and others issued statements condemning racial injustice. The League of Conservation Voters and EDF, for example, were measured and appropriate as far as they went. The Sierra Club’s president, Michael Brune, by contrast, included a rant against certain corporations: “[t]he companies that have profited from fossil fuels and accelerated the climate crisis are the same ones who have benefited from environmental injustice, colonialism, and racism.”
Mr. Brune mentioned no companies by name, nor did he elaborate on their historical sins. Could it be that some of those same companies are donors to the Sierra Club and pay his healthy salary? If so, namelessness would make sense from him. I suspect Mr. Brune’s abasement may be an attempt to live down his unflattering exposure in the latest Michael Moore film, Planet of the Humans. This film accuses Brune and the Sierra Club of selling out to profiteering corporations and perpetuating falsehoods that energy from wind, solar and biomass replaces fossil fuels. Rather, the film affirmed that “renewable” energy sources are heavily reliant on them.
Green policies such as the promotion of population control have been harmful to non-white people in less developed nations. “Environmentalists” like Paul Ehrlich advocated sterilization of third world populations, while the late Garret Hardin, professor of “Human Ecology” at UC Santa Barbara, supported starvation on those populations in need.
Population control remains part of the modern Green agenda, but with a good deal more subtlety. Among prominent proponents is British hybrid Prince Harry, who supports limiting his family size to a maximum of two children, and signals everyone else should do the same. (An aside: is he still a Prince?)
Other Green climate policies are most harmful to Americans from low-income households, which are disproportionately minority, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, and to people in developing countries. This starts with the Green New Deal and its planned destruction of plentiful and cheaper fossil fuels. Government-imposed renewable energy mandates that will squeeze out fossil fuels like natural gas and that disallow nuclear energy only serve to increase energy costs.
People with less money mathematically pay much higher percentages of their income on essentials like food, energy and transportation – all of which increase in price as Green policies are implemented. This is not theoretical; it is economics 101, which has played out in America and globally, as CFACT has reported. Riots in Chile, France and other nations over higher energy and transportation costs are the tip of the Green iceberg.
Black Americans and other minority populations benefit in greater proportion from a thriving fossil fuel industry both as consumers and workers. According to U.S. Labor Department data, larger percentages of black and Hispanic Americans work in industries such as mining, extraction, construction and transportation, which are heavily dependent on fossil fuels – the very sectors vulnerable to job losses from Green policies to “fight climate change.”
Many urban high-needs communities that suffer from homelessness, litter, drug addition and other crises have been neglected by many of the same elected officials who demand vacuous climate change policies that will do nothing to fix these immediate, tangible problems. The victims of this political neglect commonly are black, Hispanic and immigrant families.
More also should be done to empower young people with a quality K-12 education that is the gateway out of such vulnerable neighborhoods to upward mobility and the middle class. Just as police unions are rightly facing scrutiny for some of their members’ mistreatment of blacks, so should teacher unions and others be under a microscope for chronic academic under-performance in so many public schools in high-needs communities.
Educational choice policies, for example, are rabidly and selfishly opposed by teacher unions, yet provide a more equal chance for minority children to obtain K-12 opportunities that benefit children from higher-income households.
It is good to see some Green organizations, at least on the surface, step up and be counted against racial injustice toward black Americans. All Americans should be unified in that cause. But preventing further injustice should include a wholesale reordering of destructive climate policies that do harm, particularly to low-income, black and minority populations.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-06-16--Supreme Court deals blow to opponents of Atlantic Coast Pipeline

In a closely watched decision that will move one of the nation ’ s largest energy infrastructure projects a few steps nearer to realization , the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the U.S. Forest Service ( USFS ) acted lawfully when it granted a permit for the proposed $ 8 billion Atlantic Coast Pipeline ( ACP ) to cross under the Appalachian Trail .
The 7-2 ruling , handed down June 15 , removes the biggest legal obstacle to the 600-mile pipeline , which would carry up to 1.5 billion cubic feet of natural gas from the Marcellus Shale @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Virginia and North Carolina .
Questions over which federal agency has the authority to issue a permit , known as a right-of-way , in the Appalachian Trail sector of the pipeline have kept the project tied up in courts .
In issuing its decision , the Supreme Court overturned a 2018 ruling by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals , which said the Forest Service lacked the authority to approve the right-of-way , because the Appalachian Trail is under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Park Service ( NPS ) .
The pipeline wouldn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Appalachian Trail ; it would be constructed and installed hundreds of feet beneath it .
Speaking for the majority , Justice Clarence Thomas addressed the vexing question of whether the Interior Department ’ s decision to make the NPS responsible for the Appalachian Trail also meant the NPS has authority over land underneath the trail .
Thomas determined that the administrative arrangement did not remove the USFS ’ s power to approve construction under the trail .
“ Accordingly , the Forest Service had the authority to issue the permit here , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Center ( SELC ) , one of the green groups suing to stop the pipeline , remained defiant after the ruling was handed down .
“ While today ’ s decision was not what we hoped for , it addresses only one of the many problems faced by the Atlantic Coast Pipeline .
This is not a viable project .
It is still missing many required authorizations , including the Forest Service permit at issue in today ’ s case , and the D.C .
Circuit Court of Appeals will soon consider the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pipeline to supply power , ” SELC ’ s DJ Gerken said in a statement .
As expected , the court ’ s ruling was welcomed by the project ’ s two leading developers , Dominion Resources and Duke Energy .
Dominion expects to begin construction later this year and is looking at having the pipeline in operation by early 2022 .
“ Today ’ s decision is an affirmation of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and communities across our region that are depending on it for jobs , economic growth , and clean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a statement .
“ We look forward to resolving the remaining project permits.
” The project ’ s developers should be able to obtain the missing USFS permit later this summer .
Other permits shouldn ’ t pose a problem unless there is a change of administrations in January .
Then , all bets are off .

In a closely watched decision that will move one of the nation’s largest energy infrastructure projects a few steps nearer to realization, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) acted lawfully when it granted a permit for the proposed $8 billion Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP) to cross under the Appalachian Trail.
The 7-2 ruling, handed down June 15, removes the biggest legal obstacle to the 600-mile pipeline, which would carry up to 1.5 billion cubic feet of natural gas from the Marcellus Shale basin in West Virginia to customers in Virginia and North Carolina.
Questions over which federal agency has the authority to issue a permit, known as a right-of-way, in the Appalachian Trail sector of the pipeline have kept the project tied up in courts. In issuing its decision, the Supreme Court overturned a 2018 ruling by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, which said the Forest Service lacked the authority to approve the right-of-way, because the Appalachian Trail is under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Park Service (NPS). The pipeline wouldn’t actually “cross” the Appalachian Trail; it would be constructed and installed hundreds of feet beneath it.
Untangling Jurisdictional Questions
Speaking for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas addressed the vexing question of whether the Interior Department’s decision to make the NPS responsible for the Appalachian Trail also meant the NPS has authority over land underneath the trail. Thomas determined that the administrative arrangement did not remove the USFS’s power to approve construction under the trail.
“Accordingly, the Forest Service had the authority to issue the permit here,” he wrote.
The Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC), one of the green groups suing to stop the pipeline, remained defiant after the ruling was handed down.
“While today’s decision was not what we hoped for, it addresses only one of the many problems faced by the Atlantic Coast Pipeline. This is not a viable project. It is still missing many required authorizations, including the Forest Service permit at issue in today’s case, and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals will soon consider the mounting evidence that we never need this pipeline to supply power,” SELC’s DJ Gerken said in a statement.
In Operation by 2022?
As expected, the court’s ruling was welcomed by the project’s two leading developers, Dominion Resources and Duke Energy. Dominion expects to begin construction later this year and is looking at having the pipeline in operation by early 2022.
“Today’s decision is an affirmation of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and communities across our region that are depending on it for jobs, economic growth, and clean energy,” Duke Energy said in a statement. “We look forward to resolving the remaining project permits.”
The project’s developers should be able to obtain the missing USFS permit later this summer. Other permits shouldn’t pose a problem unless there is a change of administrations in January. Then, all bets are off.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-06-16--The disparate impact of California climate policies

To the detriment of those that can least afford expensive energy , California climate policies have driven up the cost of electricity and fuels to be among the highest in the country .
The cost burdens of those policies may be fueling ( no pun intended ) the basis of a rebellion as the state ’ s climate policies discriminate against minority and low-income consumers .
Franklin Roosevelt brought affordable electricity to rural America and oversaw construction of massive dams that provided cheap electricity to every corner of America .
It was FDR , who in 1932 proclaimed that “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is a definite necessity.
” In California , stringent and deceptive climate policies , and intermittent electricity from low power density renewables , are expensive to consumers .
The report from the Energy Information Agency ( EIA ) shows that both have contributed to household users paying 50 % more , and industrial users paying more than 100 % more than the national average for electricity .
It gets bleaker in the coming years for the minority and low-income consumers , as the state will be phasing out its last nuclear reactor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Los Angeles will shut down three gas powered electricity generating power plants .
The Mayor , Governor , and every other elected and appointed official are deliberately ignoring the fact that Natural Gas generating plants currently provide about 47 percent of the state ’ s electricity .
Those four power plants that have been generating zero or low emission electricity for decades .
Shockingly , the state has NO plans to replace the upcoming closure of four power plants with intermittent renewables !
Last year alone the Energy Information Agency ( EIA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ generate enough electricity in-state and imported up to 29 percent of its electricity to meet its demands .
The good news is that we have had no brown outs .
The bad news is that imported electricity comes at higher costs and are being borne by residents and businesses alike .
Without the huge land requirements for industrial wind and industrial solar renewable electricity , the need to import more will escalate every year , as well as the cost for that electricity .
California ’ s climate policies guarantee that housing , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to rise , while ‘ gateway ’ jobs to the middle class for those without college degrees , such as manufacturing and logistics , will continue to locate in other states .
It is unconscionable that time after time , California continually imposes new costs and restrictions on home-building which make housing even more expensive .
This , which harms working families and minority communities the most .
Following the “ live lynching ” of George Floyd , one would think the same folks that are demonstrating their rebellion about racial injustices within @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and worldwide ) would be the same folks being racially biased with more costs for energy they can not afford .
By culminating that pain into protests of “ enough is enough ” and seek changes to lower the costs of energy for the poor .
Automobiles are the survival mechanism for low-income people .
If you try to increase the cost of automobiles and the costs of fuel , you hurt low-income people .
Of whom are already forced to pay almost $ 1.00 more per gallon of fuel than the rest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taxes and climate policy costs hidden in the all-in posted price of fuel at the pump are : federal tax , excise tax , state tax , local sales tax , cap and trade program compliance costs , low-carbon fuel standard program compliance costs , renewable fuels standard program compliance costs , and the refinery winter and summer reformatting costs .
Many of the state ’ s poor and people of color tend to live in the state ’ s inland areas that needs more heating and cooling than the temperate coast and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acute housing crisis .
Misguided Sacramento policies have forced California to be the only state in contiguous America that imports most of its crude oil energy from foreign countries .
That dependence has increased imported crude oil from foreign countries from 5 percent in 1992 to 58 percent today of total consumption .
The imported crude oil costs California more than $ 60 million dollars a day , yes , every day , being paid to oil-rich foreign countries , depriving Californians of jobs , careers , and business opportunities .
We ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cards from foreign suppliers for the states ’ policies that are making wealthy countries , wealthier !
The Governor perpetuates the continuous cost increases with his mission to markedly reduce in-state oil production even more .
He is seeking to permanently ban oil-shale fracking technology ’ s use which would INCREASE costly foreign crude oil imports to California .
All to fill the gap of ever-declining California and Alaska production , further crippling the State , forcing the continuation of California as a remarkable national security risk for the USA .
The recent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reflects how little the urban renaissance has done for its poorer citizens .
In fact , the number of high-poverty urban areas has grown steadily over the past few decades and doubled in population between 1980 and 2018 .
The biggest drops in hiring have been concentrated in recreation and travel , largely “ personal contact ” jobs that employ many low-wage workers .
To be sure , COVID-19 , like earlier pandemics throughout history , further devastated these poorer communities .
People who live in crowded housing , are forced to ride @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exposed “ essential ” jobs ( most of them low-paying ) are bound to be disproportionately affected by a public health crisis .
These inner-city residents deserve something more than cheap expressions of sympathy and solidarity from the affluent while they impose unbearable costs for the energy to survive .
Only by reducing rather than increasing the cost of energy , can we restore broad upward mobility potential for the underclass and hope to maintain a healthy democratic society .
Racial biasing from police may be seeing major reforms in the future .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ on city streets about the deep tradition of racial prejudice and violence against African Americans by law enforcement .
Yet the financial racial biasing of climate policies against the poorest residents , particularly Latinos and African Americans will continue into perpetuity under current leadership .

To the detriment of those that can least afford expensive energy, California climate policies have driven up the cost of electricity and fuels to be among the highest in the country. The cost burdens of those policies may be fueling (no pun intended) the basis of a rebellion as the state’s climate policies discriminate against minority and low-income consumers.
Franklin Roosevelt brought affordable electricity to rural America and oversaw construction of massive dams that provided cheap electricity to every corner of America. It was FDR, who in 1932 proclaimed that “electricity is no longer a luxury; it is a definite necessity.”
In California, stringent and deceptive climate policies, and intermittent electricity from low power density renewables, are expensive to consumers. The report from the Energy Information Agency (EIA) shows that both have contributed to household users paying 50% more, and industrial users paying more than 100% more than the national average for electricity.
It gets bleaker in the coming years for the minority and low-income consumers, as the state will be phasing out its last nuclear reactor and Los Angeles Mayor Garcetti recently announced that Los Angeles will shut down three gas powered electricity generating power plants. The Mayor, Governor, and every other elected and appointed official are deliberately ignoring the fact that Natural Gas generating plants currently provide about 47 percent of the state’s electricity. Those four power plants that have been generating zero or low emission electricity for decades.
Shockingly, the state has NO plans to replace the upcoming closure of four power plants with intermittent renewables!
Last year alone the Energy Information Agency (EIA) reported that California was unable to generate enough electricity in-state and imported up to 29 percent of its electricity to meet its demands. The good news is that we have had no brown outs. The bad news is that imported electricity comes at higher costs and are being borne by residents and businesses alike. Without the huge land requirements for industrial wind and industrial solar renewable electricity, the need to import more will escalate every year, as well as the cost for that electricity.
California’s climate policies guarantee that housing, electricity prices, and transportation will continue to rise, while ‘gateway’ jobs to the middle class for those without college degrees, such as manufacturing and logistics, will continue to locate in other states.
It is unconscionable that time after time, California continually imposes new costs and restrictions on home-building which make housing even more expensive. This, which harms working families and minority communities the most.
Following the “live lynching” of George Floyd, one would think the same folks that are demonstrating their rebellion about racial injustices within the police department (protesting both nationally and worldwide) would be the same folks being racially biased with more costs for energy they cannot afford. By culminating that pain into protests of “enough is enough” and seek changes to lower the costs of energy for the poor.
Automobiles are the survival mechanism for low-income people. If you try to increase the cost of automobiles and the costs of fuel, you hurt low-income people. Of whom are already forced to pay almost $1.00 more per gallon of fuel than the rest of the country. Some of the taxes and climate policy costs hidden in the all-in posted price of fuel at the pump are: federal tax, excise tax, state tax, local sales tax, cap and trade program compliance costs, low-carbon fuel standard program compliance costs, renewable fuels standard program compliance costs, and the refinery winter and summer reformatting costs.
Many of the state’s poor and people of color tend to live in the state’s inland areas that needs more heating and cooling than the temperate coast and drive farthest to jobs due to the acute housing crisis.
Misguided Sacramento policies have forced California to be the only state in contiguous America that imports most of its crude oil energy from foreign countries. That dependence has increased imported crude oil from foreign countries from 5 percent in 1992 to 58 percent today of total consumption. The imported crude oil costs California more than $60 million dollars a day, yes, every day, being paid to oil-rich foreign countries, depriving Californians of jobs, careers, and business opportunities. We’ve yet to receive any thank you cards from foreign suppliers for the states’ policies that are making wealthy countries, wealthier!
The Governor perpetuates the continuous cost increases with his mission to markedly reduce in-state oil production even more. He is seeking to permanently ban oil-shale fracking technology’s use which would INCREASE costly foreign crude oil imports to California. All to fill the gap of ever-declining California and Alaska production, further crippling the State, forcing the continuation of California as a remarkable national security risk for the USA.
The recent spate of rioting to improve racial biasing reflects how little the urban renaissance has done for its poorer citizens. In fact, the number of high-poverty urban areas has grown steadily over the past few decades and doubled in population between 1980 and 2018. The biggest drops in hiring have been concentrated in recreation and travel, largely “personal contact” jobs that employ many low-wage workers.
To be sure, COVID-19, like earlier pandemics throughout history, further devastated these poorer communities. People who live in crowded housing, are forced to ride transit, and work in the most exposed “essential” jobs (most of them low-paying) are bound to be disproportionately affected by a public health crisis.
These inner-city residents deserve something more than cheap expressions of sympathy and solidarity from the affluent while they impose unbearable costs for the energy to survive. Only by reducing rather than increasing the cost of energy, can we restore broad upward mobility potential for the underclass and hope to maintain a healthy democratic society.
Racial biasing from police may be seeing major reforms in the future. This resulting from the public protests occurring on city streets about the deep tradition of racial prejudice and violence against African Americans by law enforcement. Yet the financial racial biasing of climate policies against the poorest residents, particularly Latinos and African Americans will continue into perpetuity under current leadership.


The fusion race

The worldwide race to achieve affordable , functional nuclear fusion is rolling along , with new players popping up all over the map seeking a slice of what promises to be an unlimited energy pie that could pave the way to interplanetary travel ( among many other things ) .
As human engineering , aided by artificial intelligence ( smart machines ) , continues to unmask secrets hidden from humanity for all the ages , the only question that seems apropos is not whether humanity can harness fusion energy but whether human society will collapse first .
Are we headed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor ( ITER ) facility in France the prototype for humanity ’ s triumph over the elements or a 21st Century Tower of Babel ?
The ITER is the 35-year-old dream concocted in 1985 by Presidents Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev and others who sensed that no country at the time had the will or the resources to solve the world ’ s most complicated puzzle alone .
For half a century prior , following the revelation of British astrophysicist Arthur Eddington that the energy of the stars might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good of humankind , scientists had searched in vain for the keys to unlocking this inexhaustible resource .
The ITER project thus began in 1988 , and since that time 35 nations have spent a collective $ 24 billion to construct its 10 million parts .
With final construction now under way , the hope is that the 25,000-ton reactor will be functional by 2025 .
The U.S. contribution to the effort includes 12 essential hardware systems supplied by UT ITER , which is managed by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory .
These @ @ @ @ @ @ @ magnet system and ORNL-developed pellet injection technology for plasma fueling and performance .
US ITER project director Kathy McCarthy is ebullient about the project , noting “ The start of OTER tokamak assembly is a momentous milestone for the project and makes the fusion community … excited for the future.
” Yet many remember the story of the superconducting supercollider , the massive project centered around Waxahachie , Texas , which Congress initiated in 1988 and terminated five years later after spending $ 2 billion on the project .
Michael Riordan , writing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political decision to cancel the project ended four decades plus of American leadership in high-energy physics and put Europe in the driver ’ s seat ( a major reason perhaps why the ITER is housed in France ) .
After a lot of soul searching , Riordan concluded that the cancellation was merely an admission by Congress that ( like the ITER ) the SSC was too large and too expensive a project to have been pursued by a single nation .
His view was backed by Wolfgang Panofsky , founding director of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being “ a bridge too far ” for U.S. high-energy physics .
[ Remember , this was back when a billion dollars was deemed a lot of money . ]
Unlike those salad days , the rush to functional fusion is now being joined by an increasing chorus of private and single-nation adventurers – including the Chinese government .
Many already see the ITER is a bureaucracy-bloated disaster whose budget has ballooned from a promised $ 5 billion pricetag toward the $ 40 billion mark by its completion .
Maddie Stone , writing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ITER “ seems destined to swell like a tumor until it runs out of resources and kills the host , ” while a stripped-down , partially defunded effort at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology ( MIT ) “ is showing what can be done on a budget.
” Commonwealth Fuel Systems , building on a joint project with the MIT team , has built a system powered by high-temperature superconducting ( HTS ) magnets that are key to a push to get a commercial fusion energy system operating by the early 2030s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to achieve .
The CFS reactor intends to become the first fusion reactor to show “ net energy gain ” by producing more energy than it consumes as early as 2025 – adding 50 to 100 megawatts thermal to produce power in a conventional steam cycle .
Thomas Overton , writing in Powermag , reports that most of the physics questions surrounding fusion have already been answered and that at least a dozen private startup companies have begun investigating alternative approaches to fusion energy that will be simpler and less expensive than the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case the technology from the ITER project itself should enable electricity generation from fusion and other companies ( the DEMO phase , according to the ITER coalition ) are seeking to capitalize on these advances .
The launch in May of the SpaceX shuttle to the International Space Station has been called “ a historic milestone … [ that ] marks a major , long-anticipated advancement in the government-commercial sector partnership to increase access to space and bring costs down.
” The historic collaboration between Elon Musk ’ s company and the National @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has at least potentially rekindled America ’ s commitment to “ the final frontier.
” While ITER may or may not deliver the goods itself , it could have already become the catalyst to affordable fusion energy to power the world in the future just by keeping hope ( and scientific and engineering experimentation and trial-and-error ) alive despite the societal collapses hounding the U.S. and world economies on top of the COVID pandemic .
Of course , if the Luddites win , we may all soon be wearing loincloths and foraging for @ @

The worldwide race to achieve affordable, functional nuclear fusion is rolling along, with new players popping up all over the map seeking a slice of what promises to be an unlimited energy pie that could pave the way to interplanetary travel (among many other things).
As human engineering, aided by artificial intelligence (smart machines), continues to unmask secrets hidden from humanity for all the ages, the only question that seems apropos is not whether humanity can harness fusion energy but whether human society will collapse first. Are we headed toward virtual immortality or Armageddon? Is the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) facility in France the prototype for humanity’s triumph over the elements or a 21st Century Tower of Babel?
The ITER is the 35-year-old dream concocted in 1985 by Presidents Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev and others who sensed that no country at the time had the will or the resources to solve the world’s most complicated puzzle alone. For half a century prior, following the revelation of British astrophysicist Arthur Eddington that the energy of the stars might be able to be harnessed for the good of humankind, scientists had searched in vain for the keys to unlocking this inexhaustible resource.
The ITER project thus began in 1988, and since that time 35 nations have spent a collective $24 billion to construct its 10 million parts. With final construction now under way, the hope is that the 25,000-ton reactor will be functional by 2025.
The U.S. contribution to the effort includes 12 essential hardware systems supplied by UT ITER, which is managed by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. These systems include superconductors for the toroidal field magnet system and ORNL-developed pellet injection technology for plasma fueling and performance. US ITER project director Kathy McCarthy is ebullient about the project, noting “The start of OTER tokamak assembly is a momentous milestone for the project and makes the fusion community … excited for the future.”
Yet many remember the story of the superconducting supercollider, the massive project centered around Waxahachie, Texas, which Congress initiated in 1988 and terminated five years later after spending $2 billion on the project. Michael Riordan, writing in Physics Today, lamented that the political decision to cancel the project ended four decades plus of American leadership in high-energy physics and put Europe in the driver’s seat (a major reason perhaps why the ITER is housed in France).
After a lot of soul searching, Riordan concluded that the cancellation was merely an admission by Congress that (like the ITER) the SSC was too large and too expensive a project to have been pursued by a single nation. His view was backed by Wolfgang Panofsky, founding director of the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, as being “a bridge too far” for U.S. high-energy physics. [Remember, this was back when a billion dollars was deemed a lot of money.]
Unlike those salad days, the rush to functional fusion is now being joined by an increasing chorus of private and single-nation adventurers – including the Chinese government. Many already see the ITER is a bureaucracy-bloated disaster whose budget has ballooned from a promised $5 billion pricetag toward the $40 billion mark by its completion.
Maddie Stone, writing in Gizmodo back in 2016, argued that ITER “seems destined to swell like a tumor until it runs out of resources and kills the host,” while a stripped-down, partially defunded effort at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) “is showing what can be done on a budget.”
Commonwealth Fuel Systems, building on a joint project with the MIT team, has built a system powered by high-temperature superconducting (HTS) magnets that are key to a push to get a commercial fusion energy system operating by the early 2030s – years sooner than what ITER hopes to achieve. The CFS reactor intends to become the first fusion reactor to show “net energy gain” by producing more energy than it consumes as early as 2025 – adding 50 to 100 megawatts thermal to produce power in a conventional steam cycle.
Thomas Overton, writing in Powermag, reports that most of the physics questions surrounding fusion have already been answered and that at least a dozen private startup companies have begun investigating alternative approaches to fusion energy that will be simpler and less expensive than the path taken by ITER. In any case the technology from the ITER project itself should enable electricity generation from fusion and other companies (the DEMO phase, according to the ITER coalition) are seeking to capitalize on these advances.
The launch in May of the SpaceX shuttle to the International Space Station has been called “a historic milestone … [that] marks a major, long-anticipated advancement in the government-commercial sector partnership to increase access to space and bring costs down.” The historic collaboration between Elon Musk’s company and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has at least potentially rekindled America’s commitment to “the final frontier.”
While ITER may or may not deliver the goods itself, it could have already become the catalyst to affordable fusion energy to power the world in the future just by keeping hope (and scientific and engineering experimentation and trial-and-error) alive despite the societal collapses hounding the U.S. and world economies on top of the COVID pandemic.
Of course, if the Luddites win, we may all soon be wearing loincloths and foraging for berries.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-06-17--Conservationists scurry to find why Muskrat numbers are dropping

Found throughout most of Canada and the United States , the muskrat is an animal , often resembling but not related to the beaver , that can be found swimming or scurrying along many marshes , lakes , rivers , ponds and streams .
To the native Americans , it was a venerated creature .
Several versions of indigenous creation tales , in fact , tell of how a muskrat dove to the bottom of the primordial sea to bring up the mud from which the earth was created , after other animals had failed in the task .
For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ principally just looked at as sources of food and clothing .
Today the animals are falling in numbers , and this has conservationists alarmed .
Trappers most notably have witnessed steep declines in their muskrat harvests , often exceeding 50 % in some states throughout the animal ’ s native range .
In Pennsylvania , for example , according to the state Game Commission , the muskrat harvest declined from 720,000 in 1983 to 58,295 in 2010 .
So why the drop off ?
To find out the answer , an investigation headed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Agricultural Science was assembled with funding from the Pennsylvania Game Commission and US Geological Survey .
Their findings , as reported in Penn State News , were inconclusive , but they did uncover some likely suspects for future consideration : “ To analyze trends in muskrat mortality , researchers pored over 131 articles , published from 1915 to 2019 , from 27 U.S. states and nine Canadian provinces that contained information about muskrat exposure to diseases and contaminants and mortality events .
Information collected from articles included ; year of survey ; location @ @ @ @ @ @ @ animals surveyed ; pathogen or contaminant identities ; and the presence or absence of associated disease , as evidenced by reported clinical signs or lesions .
Among the common factors reported associated with muskrat infections or mortality in some cases were : viruses including canine distemper virus , rabies and Aleutian mink disease virus ; a variety of fungal infections ; ailments such as tularemia and Tyzzer ’ s disease ; cyanobacteria , possibly indicating the presence of toxic algae ; parasites including protozoans , trematodes , cestodes , nematodes and ectoparasites such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ metals from industrial discharges and lead from ammunition deposits….
” To read the full article in Penn State News , click here .

Found throughout most of Canada and the United States, the muskrat is an animal, often resembling but not related to the beaver, that can be found swimming or scurrying along many marshes, lakes, rivers, ponds and streams.
To the native Americans, it was a venerated creature. Several versions of indigenous creation tales, in fact, tell of how a muskrat dove to the bottom of the primordial sea to bring up the mud from which the earth was created, after other animals had failed in the task. For European settlers, naturally, muskrats were principally just looked at as sources of food and clothing.
Today the animals are falling in numbers, and this has conservationists alarmed.
Trappers most notably have witnessed steep declines in their muskrat harvests, often exceeding 50% in some states throughout the animal’s native range. In Pennsylvania, for example, according to the state Game Commission, the muskrat harvest declined from 720,000 in 1983 to 58,295 in 2010.
So why the drop off?
To find out the answer, an investigation headed by the Penn State University College of Agricultural Science was assembled with funding from the Pennsylvania Game Commission and US Geological Survey. Their findings, as reported in Penn State News, were inconclusive, but they did uncover some likely suspects for future consideration:
“To analyze trends in muskrat mortality, researchers pored over 131 articles, published from 1915 to 2019, from 27 U.S. states and nine Canadian provinces that contained information about muskrat exposure to diseases and contaminants and mortality events. Information collected from articles included; year of survey; location of survey; methodology; number of animals surveyed; pathogen or contaminant identities; and the presence or absence of associated disease, as evidenced by reported clinical signs or lesions.
Among the common factors reported associated with muskrat infections or mortality in some cases were: viruses including canine distemper virus, rabies and Aleutian mink disease virus; a variety of fungal infections; ailments such as tularemia and Tyzzer’s disease; cyanobacteria, possibly indicating the presence of toxic algae; parasites including protozoans, trematodes, cestodes, nematodes and ectoparasites such as ticks; toxins, including heavy metals from industrial discharges and lead from ammunition deposits….”
To read the full article in Penn State News, click here.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-06-17--Covid and hurricane points to ponder

Covid and hurricane points to ponder

When it comes to COVID without the percent of positive stats to match , you get an incomplete picture .
If no one was tested yesterday then there would be 0 new cases .
If a million were tested at 4 % it would be 40k which would be a huge spike in the absolute number .
But since the overall positive rate is 8 % , it means if we could see that trend in % positive , we would see a decrease .
Some days there are more , some days less ( tests ) and the new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % status .
BTW at the start of this , it was close to 20 % positive .
Deaths are down about 120 a week from the week before .
It is interesting how this ties into the weather , which is why I am obsessed with it .
Let us take hurricanes .
There are more tropical storms classified today than there were 70 years ago .
Yet 70 years ago was the middle of the 3 biggest decades of major hurricane hits on the US coast .
More storms are being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we now see them .
It is as if you see more , you are aware of it .
But are the major hits rising ?
No .
In COVID , IF YOU TEST MORE , THEN MORE SHOW UP IF ITS PRESENT , which it is .
However , looking at landfalling major hurricanes there were close to 30 1931-1960 .
But since 1991 ( same time span we ’ re told- it is getting worse ) it is 16 .
Now assuming 1 or 2 big ones hit this year , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worst 30 year period .
To assert that things are worse today , they deny yesterday .
In the case of COVID , if you do not get the crucial chart of the percent of positives , you are naturally going to think the situation is not improving .
It is improving , but by slower increments , as infections decline , but we are not seeing all the data .
The percentage of positives is crucial .
Back to hurricanes .
In the 1950s , the average ACE/storm was over 10 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the last 30 years could not compete in ACE index/decade with the 1950s .
Why ?
Because so many storms that may not have been seen in the 1930s-1950s are being seen now so with more weaker members out in the middle of nowhere , it adds to the total pool and lowers the ACE/Storm average .
So again using the parallel to COVID , if you test more you have to see more .
If you have satellites trained on every cumulus swirl , you see more .
So if we had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , some of those storms may have been seen stronger out over the water .
What is the rationale behind that ?
Look at the way more storms hit close to peak intensity in 1931-1950 vs storms now , that with the exception of Harvey and Michael this decade , hit OFF THEIR PEAK .
Katrina and Rita were major hits , but not at their peaks .
So in terms of the bottom line , which is impact , we see the hysteria and the doom and gloom with tropical cyclones without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into the idea its worse than ever .
Tornadoes are the same thing , strong to severe ones are decreasing .
High-risk areas of COVID are more prone to the outbreaks just like there are areas where hurricanes and tornadoes are more likely .
But does that mean people who are not in these areas have to take the same precautions as those that are not ?
We must stop these regional COVID outbreaks , but we knew that was a risk we had to deal with .
Yet when a big hurricane @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Des Moines should be preparing to get hit .
Nor does a tornado outbreak in the plains mean that tornadoes will be just as bad in other places .
The common denominator to me is having to dig and look behind the scenes , to counter some missives that are meant to politically weaponize an issue .
As someone who has been involved in the climate debate I could not help but bring up these ideas for your consideration .

When it comes to COVID without the percent of positive stats to match, you get an incomplete picture.
If no one was tested yesterday then there would be 0 new cases. If a million were tested at 4% it would be 40k which would be a huge spike in the absolute number. But since the overall positive rate is 8%, it means if we could see that trend in % positive, we would see a decrease. Some days there are more, some days less ( tests) and the new positives respond accordingly to around that 4% status. BTW at the start of this, it was close to 20% positive. Deaths are down about 120 a week from the week before. It is interesting how this ties into the weather, which is why I am obsessed with it.
Let us take hurricanes. There are more tropical storms classified today than there were 70 years ago. Yet 70 years ago was the middle of the 3 biggest decades of major hurricane hits on the US coast. More storms are being named in the middle of nowhere because we now see them. It is as if you see more, you are aware of it. But are the major hits rising? No. In COVID, IF YOU TEST MORE, THEN MORE SHOW UP IF ITS PRESENT, which it is. However, looking at landfalling major hurricanes there were close to 30 1931-1960. But since 1991 (same time span we’re told- it is getting worse) it is 16. Now assuming 1 or 2 big ones hit this year, it is still way less than the worst 30 year period.
To assert that things are worse today, they deny yesterday.
In the case of COVID, if you do not get the crucial chart of the percent of positives, you are naturally going to think the situation is not improving. It is improving, but by slower increments, as infections decline, but we are not seeing all the data. The percentage of positives is crucial.
Back to hurricanes. In the 1950s, the average ACE/storm was over 10. Despite the Katrinas, Rita ect, the last 30 years could not compete in ACE index/decade with the 1950s. Why? Because so many storms that may not have been seen in the 1930s-1950s are being seen now so with more weaker members out in the middle of nowhere, it adds to the total pool and lowers the ACE/Storm average.
So again using the parallel to COVID, if you test more you have to see more. If you have satellites trained on every cumulus swirl, you see more. So if we had the kind of coverage then as now, some of those storms may have been seen stronger out over the water. What is the rationale behind that? Look at the way more storms hit close to peak intensity in 1931-1950 vs storms now, that with the exception of Harvey and Michael this decade, hit OFF THEIR PEAK. Katrina and Rita were major hits, but not at their peaks. So in terms of the bottom line, which is impact, we see the hysteria and the doom and gloom with tropical cyclones without the entire picture, one can buy into the idea its worse than ever. Tornadoes are the same thing, strong to severe ones are decreasing.
High-risk areas of COVID are more prone to the outbreaks just like there are areas where hurricanes and tornadoes are more likely. But does that mean people who are not in these areas have to take the same precautions as those that are not? We must stop these regional COVID outbreaks, but we knew that was a risk we had to deal with. Yet when a big hurricane hits Miami does not mean people in Des Moines should be preparing to get hit. Nor does a tornado outbreak in the plains mean that tornadoes will be just as bad in other places.
The common denominator to me is having to dig and look behind the scenes, to counter some missives that are meant to politically weaponize an issue. As someone who has been involved in the climate debate I could not help but bring up these ideas for your consideration.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-06-18--Virginia’s latest folly — offshore wind power

As reported in an earlier article , Virginia ’ s green electric power plan calls for 5,000 MW of offshore wind generating capacity to be built in the next decade or so .
This is a huge amount given that the worldwide total is just around 15,000 MW .
We are talking about something like 800 giant windmills , embedded in the ocean floor and sticking hundreds of feet into the air above the water .
They will be on the order of one and a half times taller than the Washington Monument , which is really tall .
Two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ folly — too little wind and too much wind .
Let ’ s look at too little wind first .
The proposed site is around 30 miles offshore of the giant Norfolk naval complex .
Sites are usually much closer in than this , but maybe the Navy told them to keep their distance .
Or perhaps they are out beyond the very busy shipping lanes .
Every ship from Central and South America , or the southeast U.S. , headed for ports from Baltimore north to Canada , passes through this area @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but not one we are looking at now .
The problem is that this area frequently gets periods of a week or more when the wind is too low to generate any power .
These are winds of 10 mph or less .
Normal wind turbines require sustained wind of 33 mph or more to generate full power .
Some new models with giant blades can do full power at just 23 mph .
But neither generates much of anything at 10 mph .
It is not a matter of no wind ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Norfolk show just such an event last year , with the low wind period being August 17-23 .
The wind never measured over 10 mph for the entire 7 days .
To make matters worse , when these low wind periods occur in summer they often include very high temperatures .
In the event cited above the high temperatures were in the upper 80 ’ s and low 90 ’ s .
Away from the ocean , temperatures were even higher .
Both Richmond and Washington DC saw high temperatures in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most of this week long period .
These high temperatures create the greatest need for electricity , called peak demand .
Combining peak demand with no wind power means this huge , expensive wind facility does nothing when electricity is most needed .
Some other form of power generation will have to be standing by to do what the 5,000 MW of useless offshore wind power can not do .
There is no provision for this duplication of generating capacity in the Virginia plan .
If it is not there when needed , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ option .
Week long periods of no generation low wind occur fairly often in the Norfolk area , perhaps once every few years .
In a hot summer they may occur more than once .
But there are also many shorter periods of low wind , with a high need for electricity , that occur more frequently .
Then too there are no doubt longer periods of low wind that occur less frequently .
At the one in fifty year frequency we might get a month or more of low wind .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been addressed in the Virginia plan .
On the high wind side we have hurricanes .
This area could be called hurricane alley because many storms turn north in the Caribbean and run up the American coast .
Southern Virginia and northern North Carolina actually stick out into this flow .
That is where these tall towers will be .
Category five hurricanes have sustained winds over 156 mph with gusts that can exceed 200 mph .
To date no offshore wind towers have been designed to withstand these sorts of winds .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ hurricanes do not occur .
The force of the wind is a function of the square of the wind speed , so a 160 mph wind is four times as destructive as an 80 mph wind .
In fact the US Energy Department recently announced a new research program to look into whether a hurricane proof design is even possible .
Here ’ s how DOE puts it : “ Although hurricanes and the damage they can cause remain difficult to predict , with current R & D , the Energy Department is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ offshore wind systems that will eventually be deployed in the southeastern and mid-Atlantic regions.
“ DOE puts a positive spin on it but it seems clear that we are in no position to build massive hurricane proof offshore wind facilities today .
DOE says “ eventually ” and even that may be wishful thinking .
One thing certain is that if Virginia goes ahead , in effect playing chicken with cat 5 storms , these hundreds of towers will have to be far stronger than standard European designs .
Stronger means more expensive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1.5 million per MW , which would be $ 7.5 billion in Virginia ’ s case .
If hurricane proofing doubles the cost that puts a monstrous $ 15 billion at risk of destruction .
Conclusion : The Virginia plan is calling for a massive and incredibly expensive offshore wind generating facility , at high risk of failure , that will produce no power whatever when it is needed most .

As reported in an earlier article, Virginia’s green electric power plan calls for 5,000 MW of offshore wind generating capacity to be built in the next decade or so. This is a huge amount given that the worldwide total is just around 15,000 MW. We are talking about something like 800 giant windmills, embedded in the ocean floor and sticking hundreds of feet into the air above the water. They will be on the order of one and a half times taller than the Washington Monument, which is really tall.
Two features make this offshore wind plan a folly — too little wind and too much wind. Let’s look at too little wind first.
The proposed site is around 30 miles offshore of the giant Norfolk naval complex. Sites are usually much closer in than this, but maybe the Navy told them to keep their distance. Or perhaps they are out beyond the very busy shipping lanes. Every ship from Central and South America, or the southeast U.S., headed for ports from Baltimore north to Canada, passes through this area. This in itself is a concern but not one we are looking at now.
The problem is that this area frequently gets periods of a week or more when the wind is too low to generate any power. These are winds of 10 mph or less. Normal wind turbines require sustained wind of 33 mph or more to generate full power. Some new models with giant blades can do full power at just 23 mph. But neither generates much of anything at 10 mph. It is not a matter of no wind; low wind is enough.
Weather records for Norfolk show just such an event last year, with the low wind period being August 17-23. The wind never measured over 10 mph for the entire 7 days.
To make matters worse, when these low wind periods occur in summer they often include very high temperatures. In the event cited above the high temperatures were in the upper 80’s and low 90’s. Away from the ocean, temperatures were even higher. Both Richmond and Washington DC saw high temperatures in the mid to upper 90’s for most of this week long period.
These high temperatures create the greatest need for electricity, called peak demand. Combining peak demand with no wind power means this huge, expensive wind facility does nothing when electricity is most needed. Some other form of power generation will have to be standing by to do what the 5,000 MW of useless offshore wind power cannot do.
There is no provision for this duplication of generating capacity in the Virginia plan. If it is not there when needed, then a prolonged blackout is the only option.
Week long periods of no generation low wind occur fairly often in the Norfolk area, perhaps once every few years. In a hot summer they may occur more than once. But there are also many shorter periods of low wind, with a high need for electricity, that occur more frequently. Then too there are no doubt longer periods of low wind that occur less frequently. At the one in fifty year frequency we might get a month or more of low wind. I see no evidence that these possibilities have been addressed in the Virginia plan.
On the high wind side we have hurricanes.
This area could be called hurricane alley because many storms turn north in the Caribbean and run up the American coast. Southern Virginia and northern North Carolina actually stick out into this flow. That is where these tall towers will be.
Category five hurricanes have sustained winds over 156 mph with gusts that can exceed 200 mph. To date no offshore wind towers have been designed to withstand these sorts of winds. Most have been built in Europe where hurricanes do not occur. The force of the wind is a function of the square of the wind speed, so a 160 mph wind is four times as destructive as an 80 mph wind.
In fact the US Energy Department recently announced a new research program to look into whether a hurricane proof design is even possible. Here’s how DOE puts it:
“Although hurricanes and the damage they can cause remain difficult to predict, with current R&D, the Energy Department is taking steps to alleviate potential risks to offshore wind systems that will eventually be deployed in the southeastern and mid-Atlantic regions.“
DOE puts a positive spin on it but it seems clear that we are in no position to build massive hurricane proof offshore wind facilities today. DOE says “eventually” and even that may be wishful thinking.
One thing certain is that if Virginia goes ahead, in effect playing chicken with cat 5 storms, these hundreds of towers will have to be far stronger than standard European designs. Stronger means more expensive. The standard cost is around $1.5 million per MW, which would be $7.5 billion in Virginia’s case. If hurricane proofing doubles the cost that puts a monstrous $15 billion at risk of destruction.
Conclusion: The Virginia plan is calling for a massive and incredibly expensive offshore wind generating facility, at high risk of failure, that will produce no power whatever when it is needed most.
Surely this is folly.