committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-07-08--Pipeline insanity migrates south from Canada

Opposition to oil pipelines has a long history in Canada .
Despite urgently needed capacity ( before the world oil price collapse ) Canada has been unable to build a major oil pipeline for over a decade .
At first , the wrath of the petro-phobes was just over pipelines built to ship heavy oil produced in Western Canada ( pejoratively labelled “ tar sand oil ” ) , because , we were told , that the heavy , sticky oil such pipelines carry is uniquely dangerous to the environment , especially marine or riparian environments .
But over time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heavy oil pipelines , to regular oil pipelines such as Keystone XL , and it has spread to encompass natural gas , the fuel that , until quite recently , the environmental lobby was pushing governments to mandate because it was a “ clean fuel ” that would displace coal .
Of course , that was when natural gas was quite expensive , so environmentalists believed that the switch would force consumers to simply use less energy ( the over-arching goal ) , but now that natural gas is cheap and abundant , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do to let consumers have a convenient , safe , affordable fuel to heat their homes and fry their eggs .
And now , pipeline obstructionism is fully on display in the U.S .
The folks at Uber-environmental Grist are celebrating two new notches on their “ just-killed pipelines ” belts : Just a few weeks ago , the U.S. Supreme Court gave the embattled Atlantic Coast Pipeline the go-ahead to cross under the Appalachian Trail .
Now , that controversial decision is moot : Dominion Energy and Duke Energy , the lead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sunday to cancel the pipeline altogether .
Just this morning , the U.S. District Court for Washington , D.C. , ruled that the Dakota Access Pipeline , which pumps oil from North Dakota to Illinois , must be shut down by August 5 , because a key permit for the project was granted in violation of the National Environmental Protection Act .
It is a sign of the craziness of our times that one has to point out that all credible research suggests that human civilizations will need both oil and gas in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ future , and that oil and gas will have to be transported to markets via some non-unicorn/rainbow means of transportation .
It is also absurd that one still has to point out that transporting hydrocarbons via pipelines is significantly safer than other methods of surface transportation such as rail and trucks .
And there ’ s no question , if oil can ’ t move by pipeline , it will move by rail and truck , which have both more , and more destructive accidents .
In a study at the Fraser Institute @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2017 using governmental data , we demonstrated that for oil and gas : While both pipeline and rail transportation of oil and gas are quite safe , when comparing the two modes of transportation , pipelines continue to result in fewer accidents and fewer releases of product , when taking into consideration the amount of product moved .
Specifically , based on petroleum product transport data from 2004 to 2015 , pipelines were 2.5 times less likely than rail to result in a release of product when transporting a million barrels of oil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ petroleum products is simply irrational .
Unless you live in a magic land where the power-fairy is suddenly going to give us all the benefits derived from petroleum and petrochemical use without consequence , oil and gas will be transported .
And on land , the transportation choices are pipelines , rail cars , and trucks .
Pipelines are overwhelmingly safer than either of the two fallback options both with regard to protecting the environment and protecting human health .
Stymying pipelines virtually guarantees more health and environmental risk .

Opposition to oil pipelines has a long history in Canada. Despite urgently needed capacity (before the world oil price collapse) Canada has been unable to build a major oil pipeline for over a decade. At first, the wrath of the petro-phobes was just over pipelines built to ship heavy oil produced in Western Canada (pejoratively labelled “tar sand oil”), because, we were told, that the heavy, sticky oil such pipelines carry is uniquely dangerous to the environment, especially marine or riparian environments. But over time, the anti-pipeline insanity has spread from heavy oil pipelines, to regular oil pipelines such as Keystone XL, and it has spread to encompass natural gas, the fuel that, until quite recently, the environmental lobby was pushing governments to mandate because it was a “clean fuel” that would displace coal.
Of course, that was when natural gas was quite expensive, so environmentalists believed that the switch would force consumers to simply use less energy (the over-arching goal), but now that natural gas is cheap and abundant, well, it just won’t do to let consumers have a convenient, safe, affordable fuel to heat their homes and fry their eggs.
And now, pipeline obstructionism is fully on display in the U.S. The folks at Uber-environmental Grist are celebrating two new notches on their “just-killed pipelines” belts:
Just a few weeks ago, the U.S. Supreme Court gave the embattled Atlantic Coast Pipeline the go-ahead to cross under the Appalachian Trail. Now, that controversial decision is moot: Dominion Energy and Duke Energy, the lead developers of the project, decided on Sunday to cancel the pipeline altogether.
But Grist tells us (literally!) “But wait, there’s more”:
Just this morning, the U.S. District Court for Washington, D.C., ruled that the Dakota Access Pipeline, which pumps oil from North Dakota to Illinois, must be shut down by August 5, because a key permit for the project was granted in violation of the National Environmental Protection Act.
It is a sign of the craziness of our times that one has to point out that all credible research suggests that human civilizations will need both oil and gas in vast quantities for many decades into the future, and that oil and gas will have to be transported to markets via some non-unicorn/rainbow means of transportation. It is also absurd that one still has to point out that transporting hydrocarbons via pipelines is significantly safer than other methods of surface transportation such as rail and trucks. And there’s no question, if oil can’t move by pipeline, it will move by rail and truck, which have both more, and more destructive accidents.
In a study at the Fraser Institute (a Canadian think tank) in 2017 using governmental data, we demonstrated that for oil and gas:
While both pipeline and rail transportation of oil and gas are quite safe, when comparing the two modes of transportation, pipelines continue to result in fewer accidents and fewer releases of product, when taking into consideration the amount of product moved. Specifically, based on petroleum product transport data from 2004 to 2015, pipelines were 2.5 times less likely than rail to result in a release of product when transporting a million barrels of oil.
Reflexive opposition to pipeline transport of petroleum products is simply irrational. Unless you live in a magic land where the power-fairy is suddenly going to give us all the benefits derived from petroleum and petrochemical use without consequence, oil and gas will be transported. And on land, the transportation choices are pipelines, rail cars, and trucks. Pipelines are overwhelmingly safer than either of the two fallback options both with regard to protecting the environment and protecting human health. Stymying pipelines virtually guarantees more health and environmental risk.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-07-08--Court rejects effort to block ranchers killing grizzly bears

The growing number of grizzly bears in the West has sharpened conflicts between cattle ranchers , intent on protecting their livestock and livelihoods , and environmental organizations , seeking rigorous enforcement of the Endangered Species Act ( ESA ) .
In the latest legal skirmish between ranchers and greens , of which more are certain to follow , the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on June 19 denied a motion by three environmental groups to enjoin the killing of grizzly bears .
Western Watersheds Project , the Alliance for the Wild Rockies , and the Yellowstone to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biological Opinion and Incidental Take Statement by the U.S .
Fish & Wildlife Service ( FWS ) that allowed the killing of up to 72 grizzlies over the next decade in Wyoming ’ s Bridger-Teton National Forest violated the ESA by not using the best available scientific data and failing to set a cap on the killing of females .
The court pointed out that the environmental groups had waited more than three months after the release of the biological opinion to file a notice of intent to file a lawsuit , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a motion for temporary injunction .
These unexplained delays undermined their claims that the bears would be irreparably harmed without an injunction , Judge Amit P. Mehta said in his opinion .
Doubts were also cast by the court over the groups ’ claims that female grizzlies were at particular risk .
Citing data in the biological opinion , the court noted that no female bears were taken in 2019 , only one was taken in 2018 , and none were taken in 2017 .
Judge Mehta chided the groups for failing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without the injunction .
In fact , most deprecating grizzlies are young adult males that develop a taste for livestock and act accordingly .
Though the number of such bears is small , their attacks on livestock can cost ranchers dearly .
The Comeback of the Grizzly According to FWS data , the number of grizzlies in the Greater Yellowstone area rose from 136 in 1975 to more than 700 in 2019 .
Some 1,700 grizzlies roam the Lower 48 , while another 32,000 make their home in Alaska , where they are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Canada .
Grizzly bears are at the center of another legal dispute in western Wyoming pitting ranchers against environmentalists .
The Green River Drift is one of the nation ’ s oldest cattle drives , dating to 1896 .
Covering 58 miles , the annual trek involves cowboys on horseback driving cattle from the high-desert mesas to the Bridger-Teton National Forest .
Grizzlies have become accustomed to the annual trek , and some of them lie in wait hoping to dine on an unsuspecting calf or cow .
The drive passes over federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Last October , the U.S. Forest Service , recognizing the threat rogue bears pose to cattle , issued permits allowing for the removal of up do 72 bears over ten years .
The Forest Service ’ s permits are grounded in the same FWS biological opinion that was center stage in the D.C. District Court ’ s rejection of the environmental groups ’ motion for an injunction .
In a separate suit , Western Watersheds Project is joined by the Center for Biological Diversity and the Sierra Club in challenging the 72-bear killing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ injunction [ request ] is to prevent the killing of grizzly bears on these six general grazing allotments on public lands , ” Erik Molvar , executive director of Western Watersheds Project , told the Washington Times ( June 12 ) .
“ The livestock industry is kicking and screaming and saying that it can ’ t possibly run cattle in this area without reprisal killings of grizzly bears , which frankly doesn ’ t resonate with us.
” Taking the side of the ranchers is the Denver-based Mountain States Legal Foundation ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as an “ attempt to destroy the oldest continually used stock drive in the West – the Upper Green River Drift – and the historic ranches that depend upon it.
” “ Sending their Cattle to Certain Death ” Noting that some Upper Green Valley ranchers have reported losses of up to 14 % in recent years from grizzlies and wolves , MSLF ’ s Brian Gregg told the Times that the preliminary injunction sought by the three environmental groups wouldn ’ t prevent ranchers from grazing their cattle on the drive , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ killing grizzly bears that attack their herds .
They would be knowingly sending their cattle to certain death in some cases.
” With the D.C .
Circuit Court ’ s slap down of the lawsuit against the FWS , the environmentalists ’ case against the Forest Service over the Green River Drift could become moot .
In any event , the cultural/political gap that separates the ranchers and the greens appears unbridgeable .
The Western Watersheds Project ’ s Molvar refers to the ranchers as “ the livestock industry ” rather than what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coping with everything from wildfires , hungry predators , fickle weather , COVID-19 to the constant threat of lawsuits from well-funded environmental groups .

The growing number of grizzly bears in the West has sharpened conflicts between cattle ranchers, intent on protecting their livestock and livelihoods, and environmental organizations, seeking rigorous enforcement of the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
In the latest legal skirmish between ranchers and greens, of which more are certain to follow, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on June 19 denied a motion by three environmental groups to enjoin the killing of grizzly bears. Western Watersheds Project, the Alliance for the Wild Rockies, and the Yellowstone to Unitas Connection had argued that a 2019 Biological Opinion and Incidental Take Statement by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) that allowed the killing of up to 72 grizzlies over the next decade in Wyoming’s Bridger-Teton National Forest violated the ESA by not using the best available scientific data and failing to set a cap on the killing of females.
Unexplained Delays in Filing their Lawsuit
The court pointed out that the environmental groups had waited more than three months after the release of the biological opinion to file a notice of intent to file a lawsuit, and then waited another five months before filing a motion for temporary injunction. These unexplained delays undermined their claims that the bears would be irreparably harmed without an injunction, Judge Amit P. Mehta said in his opinion.
Doubts were also cast by the court over the groups’ claims that female grizzlies were at particular risk. Citing data in the biological opinion, the court noted that no female bears were taken in 2019, only one was taken in 2018, and none were taken in 2017. Judge Mehta chided the groups for failing to demonstrate how female bears would be harmed without the injunction.
In fact, most deprecating grizzlies are young adult males that develop a taste for livestock and act accordingly. Though the number of such bears is small, their attacks on livestock can cost ranchers dearly.
The Comeback of the Grizzly
According to FWS data, the number of grizzlies in the Greater Yellowstone area rose from 136 in 1975 to more than 700 in 2019. Some 1,700 grizzlies roam the Lower 48, while another 32,000 make their home in Alaska, where they are not protected. Another 21,000 reside in Canada.
Grizzly bears are at the center of another legal dispute in western Wyoming pitting ranchers against environmentalists. The Green River Drift is one of the nation’s oldest cattle drives, dating to 1896. Covering 58 miles, the annual trek involves cowboys on horseback driving cattle from the high-desert mesas to the Bridger-Teton National Forest. Grizzlies have become accustomed to the annual trek, and some of them lie in wait hoping to dine on an unsuspecting calf or cow. The drive passes over federal, state, and private land.
Last October, the U.S. Forest Service, recognizing the threat rogue bears pose to cattle, issued permits allowing for the removal of up do 72 bears over ten years. The Forest Service’s permits are grounded in the same FWS biological opinion that was center stage in the D.C. District Court’s rejection of the environmental groups’ motion for an injunction. In a separate suit, Western Watersheds Project is joined by the Center for Biological Diversity and the Sierra Club in challenging the 72-bear killing limit.
“The meat of our injunction [request] is to prevent the killing of grizzly bears on these six general grazing allotments on public lands,” Erik Molvar, executive director of Western Watersheds Project, told the Washington Times (June 12). “The livestock industry is kicking and screaming and saying that it can’t possibly run cattle in this area without reprisal killings of grizzly bears, which frankly doesn’t resonate with us.”
Taking the side of the ranchers is the Denver-based Mountain States Legal Foundation (MSLF), which described the suit as an “attempt to destroy the oldest continually used stock drive in the West – the Upper Green River Drift – and the historic ranches that depend upon it.”
“Sending their Cattle to Certain Death”
Noting that some Upper Green Valley ranchers have reported losses of up to 14% in recent years from grizzlies and wolves, MSLF’s Brian Gregg told the Times that the preliminary injunction sought by the three environmental groups wouldn’t prevent ranchers from grazing their cattle on the drive, “but it would prevent them from killing grizzly bears that attack their herds. They would be knowingly sending their cattle to certain death in some cases.”
With the D.C. Circuit Court’s slap down of the lawsuit against the FWS, the environmentalists’ case against the Forest Service over the Green River Drift could become moot. In any event, the cultural/political gap that separates the ranchers and the greens appears unbridgeable. The Western Watersheds Project’s Molvar refers to the ranchers as “the livestock industry” rather than what they really are: small family-owned businesses coping with everything from wildfires, hungry predators, fickle weather, COVID-19 to the constant threat of lawsuits from well-funded environmental groups.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-07-09--Democrats climate policy follows Germany’s failed plan

The social changes with COVID-19 may have been prelude to life with less fossil fuels .
We have seen extensive self-imposed social adjustments to transportation that are very similar to what will be required to live with less fossil fuels in the future , i.e.
, with virtually no airlines , cruise ships , or automobiles .
The major caveat and benefit to the world ’ s populations is that the pandemic occurred in the present .
This allowed the world to take advantage of petroleum derivatives for thousands of products that were not available before 1900 .
Those “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the medical and the communication sectors that supported a worldwide medical attack against COVID-19 and gave businesses the technology to continue operating virtually .
Electricity alone may support a simplifier lifestyle but can not support the huge energy needs of transportation infrastructures , nor provide the thousands of products that societies demand from those petroleum derivatives that are the foundation of economies around the world .
The focus of America ’ s climate policies has been toward the energy industry that was virtually non-existent before 1900 .
Today , America has less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s population ( 330 million vs. 8 billion ) but targets its energy policies onto an industry that did not exist a century ago .
The oil and gas industry is not just an American business with a few stateside refineries to service the demands of its residents , but an international industry with more than 700 refineries worldwide that service the fuel and product demands of almost 8 billion living on earth .
More important than the various fuels to the world to operate planes , trucks , militaries , construction equipment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and automobiles are the more than 6,000 products that come from the derivatives of crude oil .
This to include every part in solar panels and wind turbines .
Germany tried to step up as a leader on climate change , by phasing out fossil fuels , nuclear , and pioneered a system of subsidies for wind and solar .
This sparked a global boom in manufacturing those technologies .
Today , Germany is failing to meet its climate goals of reducing carbon-dioxide emissions even after spending over $ 580 billion by 2025 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s emissions miss should be a “ wake-up call ” for governments everywhere .
Today , German households pay almost 50 % more for electricity than they did in 2006 as power prices in Germany are now among the highest in Europe .
Much of that increase in electricity cost is the Renewable Surcharge that has increased over the same period by 770 % .
Germany has learned that clean energy is not energy in totality as wind and solar only provide renewable electricity , and more accurately its only intermittent electricity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the primary driver behind the high costs of electricity for residents of Australia and California .
While the shift to reduce America ’ s oil and gas industry , the United Nations warns that the unintended negative consequences of the shift to the exotic minerals and metals used to produce the parts for industrial wind and solar electricity and electric car batteries are highly concentrated in a small number of countries and their extraction and refinement pose a serious threat to worldwide ecological degradation and heinous human rights abuses .
In addition to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ numerous documentaries about the atrocities the workers are put through in the cobalt mines , i.e .
actually digging the mines by hand along with horrendous living conditions .
Amnesty International has documented children and adults mining cobalt in narrow man-made tunnels along with the exposure to the dangerous gases emitted during the procurement of these rare minerals .
The Democratic Climate Policy projects the prevention of 62,000 premature deaths in America every year by 2050 , but the Democrats ’ supporting the demise of America ’ s oil and gas industry should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the elimination of the industry that could reverse the annual fatality atrocities occurring in those poor countries .
Those underdeveloped locations in the world , mostly from oil and gas starved countries , are experiencing 11 million child deaths every year , mainly from preventable causes of diarrhea , malaria , neonatal infection , pneumonia , preterm delivery , or lack of oxygen at birth .
For those Western politicians , entertainers , and other elites who think climate change is the biggest threat facing mankind , they need to take responsibility .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ most of the current world population of 7.7 billion that ’ s projected to reach 9.8 billion in 2050 , and 11.2 billion in 2100 .
Six out of seven humans alive today live in developing nations .
Most of the poor are trying to live in abject poverty but dying by the millions every year .
Those children in poor countries still lack purified drinking water , sewage sanitation , adequate nutrition , reliable electricity ( or any at all ) , adequate health care , i.e.
, the infrastructures and products @ @ @ @ @ @ @ based on deep earth minerals and fuels .
And by the way , adults in those poor countries barely live past 40 years of age .
There are more than two billion people today who are still without reliable electricity and thus forced to burn cow dung and rotted wood for energy .
As an example , 600 million Africans do not have electricity , or reliable sources of electricity , to run their hospitals , turn on the lights , or cook their food .
America is taking giant steps toward following @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should be a wake-up call for governments everywhere , but it appears that America , from California to New York , wants to follow the German failure .
The Democratic Clean Energy Climate policy remains unconcerned with the worldwide ecological degradation and human rights abuses .
These which result from the mining for exotic minerals and metals that are highly concentrated in a small number of foreign countries and are used to produce parts for industrial wind and solar electricity and EV batteries .

The social changes with COVID-19 may have been prelude to life with less fossil fuels. We have seen extensive self-imposed social adjustments to transportation that are very similar to what will be required to live with less fossil fuels in the future, i.e., with virtually no airlines, cruise ships, or automobiles.
The major caveat and benefit to the world’s populations is that the pandemic occurred in the present. This allowed the world to take advantage of petroleum derivatives for thousands of products that were not available before 1900. Those “oil” products were a major benefactor to the medical and the communication sectors that supported a worldwide medical attack against COVID-19 and gave businesses the technology to continue operating virtually.
Electricity alone may support a simplifier lifestyle but cannot support the huge energy needs of transportation infrastructures, nor provide the thousands of products that societies demand from those petroleum derivatives that are the foundation of economies around the world.
The focus of America’s climate policies has been toward the energy industry that was virtually non-existent before 1900. Today, America has less than five percent of the world’s population (330 million vs. 8 billion) but targets its energy policies onto an industry that did not exist a century ago.
The oil and gas industry is not just an American business with a few stateside refineries to service the demands of its residents, but an international industry with more than 700 refineries worldwide that service the fuel and product demands of almost 8 billion living on earth.
More important than the various fuels to the world to operate planes, trucks, militaries, construction equipment, merchant ships, cruise ships, and automobiles are the more than 6,000 products that come from the derivatives of crude oil. This to include every part in solar panels and wind turbines.
Germany tried to step up as a leader on climate change, by phasing out fossil fuels, nuclear, and pioneered a system of subsidies for wind and solar. This sparked a global boom in manufacturing those technologies. Today, Germany is failing to meet its climate goals of reducing carbon-dioxide emissions even after spending over $580 billion by 2025 to overhaul its energy systems. Germany’s emissions miss should be a “wake-up call” for governments everywhere.
Today, German households pay almost 50% more for electricity than they did in 2006 as power prices in Germany are now among the highest in Europe. Much of that increase in electricity cost is the Renewable Surcharge that has increased over the same period by 770%. Germany has learned that clean energy is not energy in totality as wind and solar only provide renewable electricity, and more accurately its only intermittent electricity at best. Renewables have also been the primary driver behind the high costs of electricity for residents of Australia and California.
While the shift to reduce America’s oil and gas industry, the United Nations warns that the unintended negative consequences of the shift to the exotic minerals and metals used to produce the parts for industrial wind and solar electricity and electric car batteries are highly concentrated in a small number of countries and their extraction and refinement pose a serious threat to worldwide ecological degradation and heinous human rights abuses.
In addition to the United Nations warning, there are numerous documentaries about the atrocities the workers are put through in the cobalt mines, i.e. actually digging the mines by hand along with horrendous living conditions. Amnesty International has documented children and adults mining cobalt in narrow man-made tunnels along with the exposure to the dangerous gases emitted during the procurement of these rare minerals.
The Democratic Climate Policy projects the prevention of 62,000 premature deaths in America every year by 2050, but the Democrats’ supporting the demise of America’s oil and gas industry should speak up and take accountability for supporting the elimination of the industry that could reverse the annual fatality atrocities occurring in those poor countries. Those underdeveloped locations in the world, mostly from oil and gas starved countries, are experiencing 11 million child deaths every year, mainly from preventable causes of diarrhea, malaria, neonatal infection, pneumonia, preterm delivery, or lack of oxygen at birth.
For those Western politicians, entertainers, and other elites who think climate change is the biggest threat facing mankind, they need to take responsibility. Beginning with imagining the future atrocities to most of the current world population of 7.7 billion that’s projected to reach 9.8 billion in 2050, and 11.2 billion in 2100. Six out of seven humans alive today live in developing nations. Most of the poor are trying to live in abject poverty but dying by the millions every year.
Those children in poor countries still lack purified drinking water, sewage sanitation, adequate nutrition, reliable electricity (or any at all), adequate health care, i.e., the infrastructures and products we take for granted that are all based on deep earth minerals and fuels. And by the way, adults in those poor countries barely live past 40 years of age.
There are more than two billion people today who are still without reliable electricity and thus forced to burn cow dung and rotted wood for energy. As an example, 600 million Africans do not have electricity, or reliable sources of electricity, to run their hospitals, turn on the lights, or cook their food.
America is taking giant steps toward following Germany’s failed climate goals which should be a wake-up call for governments everywhere, but it appears that America, from California to New York, wants to follow the German failure.
The Democratic Clean Energy Climate policy remains unconcerned with the worldwide ecological degradation and human rights abuses. These which result from the mining for exotic minerals and metals that are highly concentrated in a small number of foreign countries and are used to produce parts for industrial wind and solar electricity and EV batteries.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-07-09--So-called “conservative” climate contract paves way for Green New Deal

There is an age old saying that goes , “ The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
” Unfortunately , the same can be said with regard to recent attempts by conservatives and Republicans to position themselves as climate change warriors “ lite ” .
Several conservative politicians including Rep. Kevin McCarthy ( R-CA ) , the current Minority Leader of the House of Representatives , are regrettably endorsing the “ American Climate Contract ” – a document that calls for the U.S. to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050 .
Members of Congress like McCarthy have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support limited government and free market principles in the past , which makes this move surprising .
Here ’ s what McCarthy said in a statement on the matter : “ Conservative plans for the environment , as this contract does , understand that lasting and effective environmental progress depends on American innovation and exporting that technology around the world — not on enforcing debilitating taxes or punitive mandates.
” Of course , all conservatives want a clean environment .
And not “ enforcing debilitating taxes or punitive mandates ” is a great @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rightward leaning individual .
Yet the most tangible ( and objectionable ) policy outlined in the American Climate Contract is “ global net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 ” .
This , by itself , is an awful thing for conservatives to sign on to .
The United States can , and should , take efforts to continue to improve our environment – but pledging to a global and national net zero of carbon emissions would not just wreak havoc on an already struggling economy , it would have little to no environmental benefit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is happening .
It always has and always will .
And yes , human activity may have an impact on the climate – though the extent of that is subject to much debate .
But signing up for such a sweeping reduction in CO2 emissions is tantamount to falling in line behind Al Gore and Greta Thunberg – going along with the notion that the planet is undergoing a climate “ crisis ” or “ emergency ” that requires expunging ourselves of fossil fuels .
That is not sound science or environmental policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conservative .
To be sure , there are some things in the American Climate Contract that are good ideas .
Continuing research into new energy technologies and seeking to diversify America ’ s energy portfolio are both worthy undertakings to bolster efficiency and improve national security .
The American Climate Contract also points out many faults in the Green New Deal and clearly states it is not advocating for a carbon tax .
That is also very good .
But at the core of the issue with the American Climate Contract is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of demonizing carbon dioxide .
During President Obama ’ s administration , the EPA issued its now infamous “ endangerment finding.
” This scientifically flawed rule determined that CO2 , a trace gas essential to all life on Earth , is dangerous to humans and the planet .
EPA bureaucrats then used it as a green light to impose very regressive and burdensome big government regulations to kill coal energy , mandate more restrictive car emissions , and attempt to put severe emissions restrictions on all power plants .
The Contract , by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back door for the radical Left to exploit – one that conservatives and Republicans should not be opening wide for them .
Even if one believes that CO2 emissions should be reduced , pledging to attain “ net zero by 2050 ” paves the way for aggressive government action , and some version of a Green New Deal in the future .
On a debate stage , once a conservative candidate concedes that we must take drastic action to have net zero emissions , it is not hard for the more left-leaning candidate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ action .
One could see it going like this : “ I ’ m glad my opponent agrees we are in a climate emergency .
But if we are in an emergency , then let ’ s act like it !
We don ’ t have time for businesses to figure out solutions .
We need action now .
We need the government to put a stop to emissions before the world ends !
” Radical environmentalists like Greta Thunberg , Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ( D-NY ) , and groups like the Sunrise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want to work with you .
Their goal is clear , and they have said it many times .
Their goal is to destroy capitalism .
They see capitalism as an absolute evil , and every climate policy they advocate for is designed to hammer free market competition and increase centralized government control over the individual .
As the old adage goes : “ Be careful who you trust – Salt and Sugar look the same.
” By signing onto plans like the American Climate Contract , you may not be directly supporting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but you are most certainly clearing a path for them .
Now , of all times , is not the moment to compromise on American ideals and concede ground to self-avowed socialists who see capitalism and private property as problems .

There is an age old saying that goes, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
Unfortunately, the same can be said with regard to recent attempts by conservatives and Republicans to position themselves as climate change warriors “lite”.
Several conservative politicians including Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), the current Minority Leader of the House of Representatives, are regrettably endorsing the “American Climate Contract” – a document that calls for the U.S. to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050.
Members of Congress like McCarthy have stood up for many good measures that support limited government and free market principles in the past, which makes this move surprising.
Here’s what McCarthy said in a statement on the matter:
“Conservative plans for the environment, as this contract does, understand that lasting and effective environmental progress depends on American innovation and exporting that technology around the world — not on enforcing debilitating taxes or punitive mandates.”
Of course, all conservatives want a clean environment. And not “enforcing debilitating taxes or punitive mandates” is a great selling point to draw in almost any rightward leaning individual.
Yet the most tangible (and objectionable) policy outlined in the American Climate Contract is “global net-zero carbon emissions by 2050”.
This, by itself, is an awful thing for conservatives to sign on to. The United States can, and should, take efforts to continue to improve our environment – but pledging to a global and national net zero of carbon emissions would not just wreak havoc on an already struggling economy, it would have little to no environmental benefit.
Yes, of course climate change is happening. It always has and always will. And yes, human activity may have an impact on the climate – though the extent of that is subject to much debate. But signing up for such a sweeping reduction in CO2 emissions is tantamount to falling in line behind Al Gore and Greta Thunberg – going along with the notion that the planet is undergoing a climate “crisis” or “emergency” that requires expunging ourselves of fossil fuels.
That is not sound science or environmental policy — and it’s certainly not conservative.
To be sure, there are some things in the American Climate Contract that are good ideas. Continuing research into new energy technologies and seeking to diversify America’s energy portfolio are both worthy undertakings to bolster efficiency and improve national security.
The American Climate Contract also points out many faults in the Green New Deal and clearly states it is not advocating for a carbon tax. That is also very good.
But at the core of the issue with the American Climate Contract is that it uses President Obama’s strategy of demonizing carbon dioxide.
During President Obama’s administration, the EPA issued its now infamous “endangerment finding.” This scientifically flawed rule determined that CO2, a trace gas essential to all life on Earth, is dangerous to humans and the planet. EPA bureaucrats then used it as a green light to impose very regressive and burdensome big government regulations to kill coal energy, mandate more restrictive car emissions, and attempt to put severe emissions restrictions on all power plants.
The Contract, by demonizing CO2, opens up a dangerous back door for the radical Left to exploit – one that conservatives and Republicans should not be opening wide for them. Even if one believes that CO2 emissions should be reduced, pledging to attain “net zero by 2050” paves the way for aggressive government action, and some version of a Green New Deal in the future.
On a debate stage, once a conservative candidate concedes that we must take drastic action to have net zero emissions, it is not hard for the more left-leaning candidate to convince the electorate of big government action.
One could see it going like this: “I’m glad my opponent agrees we are in a climate emergency. But if we are in an emergency, then let’s act like it! We don’t have time for businesses to figure out solutions. We need action now. We need the government to put a stop to emissions before the world ends!”
Radical environmentalists like Greta Thunberg, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), and groups like the Sunrise Movement and Fridays for Future do not want to work with you. Their goal is clear, and they have said it many times. Their goal is to destroy capitalism. They see capitalism as an absolute evil, and every climate policy they advocate for is designed to hammer free market competition and increase centralized government control over the individual.
As the old adage goes: “Be careful who you trust – Salt and Sugar look the same.”
By signing onto plans like the American Climate Contract, you may not be directly supporting the Green New Deal and its advocates, but you are most certainly clearing a path for them.
Now, of all times, is not the moment to compromise on American ideals and concede ground to self-avowed socialists who see capitalism and private property as problems.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-07-10--Al Gore’s “carbon free” is about controlling the private sector

Al Gore is the gift that keeps on giving – if you want to reveal the ongoing colossal banality and hypocrisy of the climate crisis movement that he has long championed .
His latest example is trying to dress up like an expert on capitalism while actually pushing command and control policies on businesses to obey his climate agenda .
The former Vice President of the United States and his business partner David Blood co-authored an article last week in the Wall Street Journal purportedly about how the coronavirus opens the opportunity for better decision-making and corporate governance toward a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a while with buzzwords about how business and profitability gel with a climate change agenda , using words like “ fiduciary duty , ” “ sustainable capitalism , ” and “ long-term perspective.
” The punch line of climate control arrives near the end , when the authors give away their power-wielding impulse : “ Finally , we want CEOs to accelerate their efforts on climate action ” ( emphasis mine ) .
They also demand that “ [ a ] ll investments made today must factor in long-term climate and societal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change policies demanded by Al Gore , Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , Nancy Pelosi and many others in and out of government are about imposing climate rule in every corner of America .
This latest article is not subtle .
Gore and Blood want every business , meaning the entirety of the private sector , to obey its climate dogma : “ Business and investors can and must do more ” to get to a “ zero-carbon economy.
” Credit Mr. Gore this much – he has had quite a post-political career profiting in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nearly 20 years since Gore was Vice President and he has cashed in better than most ex-politicians to the point where he is worth approximately $ 330 million .
Other ex-VPs , Walter Mondale , Dan Quayle , Dick Cheney and the rest are comparative paupers .
Gore has never stopped being a politician since leaving the vice presidency .
He has done well influencing government policy and contracts that have enriched him while perpetuating a boy-crying-wolf narrative about climate catastrophe , even as he moves the goal posts for when climate doom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s litany of false claims and shattered climate predictions .
Yet , he deigns to demand the entire private sector follow his junk science .
Gore ’ s all too familiar tactic is evident in this article .
He asserts as fact the bogus connection between climate change and the “ shocking wildfires that have struck Australia , California and the Amazon in recent years.
” CFACT has repeatedly exposed this falsehood , as has Michael Shellenberger , a former climate alarmist , in his new book , Apocalypse Never .
Like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effortless fabrications range between smooth and hysterical .
The non-connection between climate and wildfires doesn ’ t stop him from writing it ( or the editors of the Wall Street Journal from publishing it ) .
Nor does Gore ever substantiate how temperatures are “ rising to truly catastrophic levels.
” He says it , and that ’ s it – all genuine scientific evidence and long-term global temperature history to the contrary .
While Al Gore and David Blood make demands of the private sector , their own corporate citizenship is seriously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their investment firm , Generation Investment Management , which has profited from their global warming claims .
As was pointed out in the Michael Moore film , Planet of the Humans , Gore lobbied for the bio-fuels while he feigned ignorance before a Senate committee about indigenous people in the Amazon River basin being forced from their homes as deforestation made way to produce ethanol from sugar cane .
He also made a fortune selling his ephemeral television station to the Al-Jazeera network , which is financed by the oil kingdom of Qatar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and claims carbon producing fossil fuels are overheating the planet , he profited in the millions by selling out , not to a mere oil company , but to an oil country .
Yet , none of this keeps him and Mr .
Blood from demanding corporations and the private sector to obey their climate edicts to reduce carbon .
The irony and hypocrisy astounds .
Like the tobacco companies in past generations , which profited from the lie that smoking was not a deadly health threat , Al Gore has made his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ embellishments .
With his lavish lifestyle fortune secure , he now demands capitalism recede to an impossible and unnecessary carbon-free existence .
In fact , Gore ’ s vision , like that of AOC and many others , is not to transform capitalism , but to subjugate .

Al Gore is the gift that keeps on giving – if you want to reveal the ongoing colossal banality and hypocrisy of the climate crisis movement that he has long championed. His latest example is trying to dress up like an expert on capitalism while actually pushing command and control policies on businesses to obey his climate agenda.
The former Vice President of the United States and his business partner David Blood co-authored an article last week in the Wall Street Journal purportedly about how the coronavirus opens the opportunity for better decision-making and corporate governance toward a zero carbon economy.
The article meanders for a while with buzzwords about how business and profitability gel with a climate change agenda, using words like “fiduciary duty,” “sustainable capitalism,” and “long-term perspective.”
The punch line of climate control arrives near the end, when the authors give away their power-wielding impulse: “Finally, we want CEOs to accelerate their efforts on climate action” (emphasis mine). They also demand that “[a]ll investments made today must factor in long-term climate and societal implications.”
Make no mistake, climate change policies demanded by Al Gore, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Nancy Pelosi and many others in and out of government are about imposing climate rule in every corner of America, which will harm every non-wealthy American’s standard of living. And, for what? To supposedly reduce average global temperature by one degree three decades from now? Still, Gore and Blood want every business, meaning the entirety of the private sector, to obey its climate dogma: “Business and investors can and must do more” to get to a “zero-carbon economy.”
Credit Mr. Gore this much – he has had quite a post-political career profiting in the global warming industry. It has been nearly 20 years since Gore was Vice President and he has cashed in better than most ex-politicians to the point where he is worth approximately $330 million. Other ex-VPs, Walter Mondale, Dan Quayle, Dick Cheney and the rest are comparative paupers.
Gore has never stopped being a politician since leaving the vice presidency. He has done well influencing government policy and contracts that have enriched him while perpetuating a boy-crying-wolf narrative about climate catastrophe, even as he moves the goal posts for when climate doom hits. CFACT has well documented Gore’s litany of false claims and shattered climate predictions. Yet, he deigns to demand the entire private sector follow his junk science.
Gore’s all too familiar tactic is evident in this article. He asserts as fact the bogus connection between climate change and the “shocking wildfires that have struck Australia, California and the Amazon in recent years.” CFACT has repeatedly exposed this falsehood, as has Michael Shellenberger, a former climate alarmist, in his new book, Apocalypse Never.
Like an expert politician, Gore’s effortless fabrications range between smooth and hysterical. The non-connection between climate and wildfires doesn’t stop him from writing it (or the editors of the Wall Street Journal from publishing it). Nor does Gore ever substantiate how temperatures are “rising to truly catastrophic levels.” He says it, and that’s it – all genuine scientific evidence and long-term global temperature history to the contrary.
While Al Gore and David Blood make demands of the private sector, their own corporate citizenship is seriously in question. In 2004 they founded their investment firm, Generation Investment Management, which has profited from their global warming claims.
As was pointed out in the Michael Moore film, Planet of the Humans, Gore lobbied for the bio-fuels industry while he feigned ignorance before a Senate committee about indigenous people in the Amazon River basin being forced from their homes as deforestation made way to produce ethanol from sugar cane. He also made a fortune selling his ephemeral television station to the Al-Jazeera network, which is financed by the oil kingdom of Qatar.
While Gore preaches “sustainability” and claims carbon producing fossil fuels are overheating the planet, he profited in the millions by selling out, not to a mere oil company, but to an oil country. Yet, none of this keeps him and Mr. Blood from demanding corporations and the private sector obey their climate edicts to reduce carbon. The irony and hypocrisy astounds.
Like the tobacco companies in past generations, which profited from the lie that smoking was not a deadly health threat, Al Gore has made his hundreds of millions perpetuating climate lies and embellishments. With his lavish lifestyle and fortune secure, he now demands capitalism recede to an impossible and unnecessary carbon-free existence. In fact, Gore’s vision, like that of AOC and many others, is not to transform capitalism, but to subjugate.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-07-10--More one-sided climate propaganda

More one-sided climate propaganda

I want you to read this : This is another half-truth deceptive piece .
I can never tell if its on purpose , or whether the writer simply will not look at the other side of the issue .
When we look at Carbon emissions , its not just Carbon Dioxide , its also Carbon soot , which is a pollutant .
But the article does not even make mention of the 2 different forms of Carbon Emissions .
No one believes Carbon soot has any value in the atmosphere except to pollute it .
And China leads the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a different matter and its rise was no different than the year before .
But the person did not even bother to look at the Keeling Curve , which shows the Co2 measurements .
If they did , it was not put in for it would shoot down the article .
For For it clearly shows the peaking we get when the Northern Hemisphere has less vegetation in the winter vs the normal fall that has started as it greens up : Notice the flattening for a time in March , but the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and may be because of the maxing out of arctic sea ice at that time of the year .
That reduces the oceans total input for a time , which may be the reason for the flattening then .
So 2 valuable hints are not mentioned here 1 ) You want a real green deal , develop global tree planting initiatives .
The republicans have a trillion tree initiative and actually 2 democrats support it .
My question is why not more .
We can see what happens when there is increased @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the oceans may be the source of the excess co2 since the oceans outsource co2 .
Since there was no appreciable slow down of the co2 increase , a fact that was not pointed out in the article due to the all encompassing term , Carbon emissions ( the soot did fall ) , then we have another hint as to where the excess co2 is coming from ( oceans ) Even if it is man , planting trees and increasing nuclear power is a much better environmental and economic solution that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Green New Deal is in essence , designed to do .
The thought of AOC as a climate czar should scare the daylights out of anyone .
( they would get rid of another low co2 source , fracking ) But if Joe Biden wants to bring back all these manufacturing jobs with his latest buy USA policy , which is quite ironic given as vice president he was in an administration that said those jobs would not come back , and President Trump has led the way in proving that wrong , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But we are going to find out exactly who is anti-American and who is not , and you cant have it both ways .
But back to the original article .
No mention of any of the things I brought up here .
Just the same old one-sided propaganda with no journalistic curiosity to even look at the actual data during the virus .
This happens all the time when it comes to the environment .
I cant tell if its simply flat out agenda driven , ignorance , purposeful deception , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , this article demonstrates clearly the lack of looking at competing ideas , which has become the normal today .
I will close with the words of Steely Dan , from Reelin ’ in the Years .

I want you to read this:
https://time.com/5864374/coronavirus-carbon-emissions/
This is another half-truth deceptive piece. I can never tell if its on purpose, or whether the writer simply will not look at the other side of the issue. When we look at Carbon emissions, its not just Carbon Dioxide, its also Carbon soot, which is a pollutant. But the article does not even make mention of the 2 different forms of Carbon Emissions. No one believes Carbon soot has any value in the atmosphere except to pollute it. And China leads the world by far in that. Co2 is a different matter and its rise was no different than the year before. But the person did not even bother to look at the Keeling Curve, which shows the Co2 measurements. If they did, it was not put in for it would shoot down the article. For
For it clearly shows the peaking we get when the Northern Hemisphere has less vegetation in the winter vs the normal fall that has started as it greens up:
Site for this:
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/mlo_two_years.png
Notice the flattening for a time in March, but the same thing shows up the year before, and may be because of the maxing out of arctic sea ice at that time of the year. That reduces the oceans total input for a time, which may be the reason for the flattening then. So 2 valuable hints are not mentioned here 1) You want a real green deal, develop global tree planting initiatives. The republicans have a trillion tree initiative and actually 2 democrats support it. My question is why not more. We can see what happens when there is increased vegetation.
2) The cyclical warmth of the oceans may be the source of the excess co2 since the oceans outsource co2. Since there was no appreciable slow down of the co2 increase, a fact that was not pointed out in the article due to the all encompassing term, Carbon emissions ( the soot did fall), then we have another hint as to where the excess co2 is coming from ( oceans) Even if it is man, planting trees and increasing nuclear power is a much better environmental and economic solution that will not destroy the economy as the Green New Deal is in essence, designed to do. The thought of AOC as a climate czar should scare the daylights out of anyone. ( they would get rid of another low co2 source, fracking) But if Joe Biden wants to bring back all these manufacturing jobs with his latest buy USA policy, which is quite ironic given as vice president he was in an administration that said those jobs would not come back, and President Trump has led the way in proving that wrong, then he is going to need energy. But we are going to find out exactly who is anti-American and who is not, and you cant have it both ways.
But back to the original article. No mention of any of the things I brought up here. Just the same old one-sided propaganda with no journalistic curiosity to even look at the actual data during the virus. This happens all the time when it comes to the environment. I cant tell if its simply flat out agenda driven, ignorance, purposeful deception, or what. But whatever it is, this article demonstrates clearly the lack of looking at competing ideas, which has become the normal today.
I will close with the words of Steely Dan, from Reelin’ in the Years.
“The things that pass for knowledge I can’t understand”


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-07-11--“Union of Concerned Scientists” never lets the truth get in the way of a good story

The Union of Concerned Scientists ( UCS ) released a report falsely accusing electric utilities of harming ratepayers .
UCS alleges that harm is caused by utilities deciding on their own when to turn coal-fired electric generating units on and off , rather than leaving that decision to independent system operators ( ISOs ) .
[ i ] UCS has raised this issue of “ self-commitment ” ( aka “ self-scheduling ” ) before , as have the Sierra Club and other environmental organizations that are opposed to the use of coal to generate electricity .
[ ii ] Each @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been refuted by grid operators , utility commissions , and utilities .
Well , it ’ s déjà vu all over again .
[ iii ] This time UCS focused on the Midcontinent Independent System Operator ( MISO ) .
MISO is one of several large , mostly multi-state , electricity markets in which power plant operators ( the utilities ) can choose to either self-commit ( decide themselves ) or allow each ISO ’ s market algorithm to make the commitment decision ( economic commitment ) .
According to UCS , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to benefit by generating electricity from coal-fired power plants that is more expensive than the market price for electricity , but yet they earn a regulated rate of return on these alleged above-market costs .
UCS claims this practice hurts the utility ’ s ratepayers .
( UCS failed to mention that natural gas , nuclear , wind and hydro within MISO also self-commit . )
This is an interesting conspiracy theory , but it ’ s not true .
For one thing , MISO has refuted the charge that self-commitment of coal-fired @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ iv ] For another , three utilities that belong to MISO have projected that their ratepayers have actually saved money from self-commitment .
One of these utilities estimated the savings to be $ 250 million per year .
[ v ] There are sound reasons for coal-fired generating units to self-commit .
Committing an electricity generator means turning it on at its minimum output level .
Dispatching a committed generator means increasing its power output to the level necessary to serve load .
Individual generating units are committed and dispatched based on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decisions that can be made by either the MISO market operator or the owner of the power plant .
The majority of coal-fired units in MISO opt to self-commit because the approach used by MISO to commit power plants is not able to properly consider the cost and operating characteristics of coal-fired generators : • MISO operates a daily power market and determines which units to commit and dispatch over one 24-hour period at a time .
[ vi ] Large coal-fired generators can incur significant costs to start from a standstill and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minimum output level .
If the cost and time necessary to start are considered over several days instead of a single day , the units can be very economical .
Therefore , utilities self-commit coal-fired generating units outside of the single-day market commitment algorithms that can not value them properly .
• Daily market commitment and dispatch decisions can lead to frequent cycling of units , especially those designed for baseload operation , which results in excessive wear and tear that can be detrimental to reliability and can increase maintenance costs .
Self-committing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ frequent cycling .
• Self-scheduling is often done to perform tests after unit maintenance and repairs , or to test emissions control equipment .
These decisions to self-schedule are not driven by market economics .
• Self-scheduling generators can help utilities manage the risk of transmission congestion in their service areas .
• Dispatchable generators , such as coal units , are needed to provide essential reliability services , such as voltage support , frequency control , and ramping .
A generating unit providing essential reliability services must be online and operating at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
These reasons for self-committing coal-fired generating units are well-understood by MISO and its market participants .
Since at least 2016 , MISO has acknowledged the need for a market commitment model that incorporates a multi-day horizon , and it continues to study the issue .
[ vii ] MISO also noted that the essential reliability services needed for a stable grid ( and provided in part by coal generation ) are not well-addressed by market prices , stating , “ Day-Ahead and Real-Time products and prices may not reflect reliability needs and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ uncertainty of growing renewable portfolio.
” [ viii ] Self-committing allows utilities to provide their own essential reliability services that the market may not reliably provide .
MISO has directly refuted the charge that self-commitment has led to uneconomic results and has pointed out that over 90 % of the electricity generated by coal is dispatched economically by MISO itself , not by utilities.
” [ ix ] In April of this year , MISO noted , “ Some claim that self-commitment of coal-fired resources results in prolonged run times and uneconomic outcomes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they say self-commitment distorts the markets by allowing coal units to displace lower-cost renewables and other resources from the grid .
In fact , the vast majority of all self-committed coal generation in MISO is actually dispatched economically — meaning it is the lowest-cost resource option that MISO markets have available at the time to serve load.
” [ x ] ( Emphasis added . )
Not only are coal-fired generating units run economically , they are run according to market demand as much any other type of generation in MISO .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are needed , not because they are self-committed .
We can see this by observing how closely changes in power generation correlate with changes in electricity demand .
In 2018 , this correlation between coal-fired generation and electricity demand was 87 % in MISO — the same as natural-gas fired generation .
[ xi ] This means that that power demand — and therefore market price —largely explains the operation of both coal-fired and natural gas-fired units , regardless of whether the units were committed by the market or by the utility .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ correlated with market demand , as the table below shows .
Notably , wind generation was negatively correlated with load , meaning that as power demand increases , wind generation tends to decrease .
Correlation between hourly load and generation in MISO , 2018 UCS calls for state utility commissions to investigate the self-commitment of coal-fired units , but this has already happened in several states .
Those investigations have refuted the claim that self-commitment is uneconomic and harms ratepayers .
Instead of finding harm , the investigations found benefits from self-commitment .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that in 2016-2018 , during periods in which the utility self-scheduled their coal units , buying that same power from the market would have cost an additional $ 250 million per year .
[ xii ] • Xcel Energy found that its self-scheduled generating units saved ratepayers more than $ 500 million in generating costs rather than buying power from the market in 2017 and 2018 .
[ xiii ] • Minnesota Power similarly showed that self-scheduling their single coal-fired plant plant led to a $ 23 million benefit compared to buying power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
[ xiv ] We could spend more ink explaining why we disagree with USC ’ s conclusions , but you get the basic point : self-committing coal-fired power plants is not a trick to rip off ratepayers .
Rather , it benefits ratepayers and helps maintain the reliability of the electricity grid .

FROM AMERICA’s POWER:
The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released a report falsely accusing electric utilities of harming ratepayers. UCS alleges that harm is caused by utilities deciding on their own when to turn coal-fired electric generating units on and off, rather than leaving that decision to independent system operators (ISOs).[i] UCS has raised this issue of “self-commitment” (aka “self-scheduling”) before, as have the Sierra Club and other environmental organizations that are opposed to the use of coal to generate electricity.[ii] Each time this accusation is made, it has been refuted by grid operators, utility commissions, and utilities.
Well, it’s déjà vu all over again.[iii]
This time UCS focused on the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO). MISO is one of several large, mostly multi-state, electricity markets in which power plant operators (the utilities) can choose to either self-commit (decide themselves) or allow each ISO’s market algorithm to make the commitment decision (economic commitment). According to UCS, this flexibility to choose allows regulated utilities to benefit by generating electricity from coal-fired power plants that is more expensive than the market price for electricity, but yet they earn a regulated rate of return on these alleged above-market costs. UCS claims this practice hurts the utility’s ratepayers. (UCS failed to mention that natural gas, nuclear, wind and hydro within MISO also self-commit.)
This is an interesting conspiracy theory, but it’s not true. For one thing, MISO has refuted the charge that self-commitment of coal-fired units has led to uneconomic results.[iv] For another, three utilities that belong to MISO have projected that their ratepayers have actually saved money from self-commitment. One of these utilities estimated the savings to be $250 million per year.[v]
There are sound reasons for coal-fired generating units to self-commit.
Committing an electricity generator means turning it on at its minimum output level. Dispatching a committed generator means increasing its power output to the level necessary to serve load. Individual generating units are committed and dispatched based on electricity demand forecasts and operating costs, decisions that can be made by either the MISO market operator or the owner of the power plant. The majority of coal-fired units in MISO opt to self-commit because the approach used by MISO to commit power plants is not able to properly consider the cost and operating characteristics of coal-fired generators:
MISO operates a daily power market and determines which units to commit and dispatch over one 24-hour period at a time.[vi] Large coal-fired generators can incur significant costs to start from a standstill and can take several hours to reach their minimum output level. If the cost and time necessary to start are considered over several days instead of a single day, the units can be very economical. Therefore, utilities self-commit coal-fired generating units outside of the single-day market commitment algorithms that cannot value them properly.
Daily market commitment and dispatch decisions can lead to frequent cycling of units, especially those designed for baseload operation, which results in excessive wear and tear that can be detrimental to reliability and can increase maintenance costs. Self-committing units reduces the wear and tear of frequent cycling.
Self-scheduling is often done to perform tests after unit maintenance and repairs, or to test emissions control equipment. These decisions to self-schedule are not driven by market economics.
Self-scheduling generators can help utilities manage the risk of transmission congestion in their service areas.
Dispatchable generators, such as coal units, are needed to provide essential reliability services, such as voltage support, frequency control, and ramping. A generating unit providing essential reliability services must be online and operating at least at its minimum level of output.
These reasons for self-committing coal-fired generating units are well-understood by MISO and its market participants. Since at least 2016, MISO has acknowledged the need for a market commitment model that incorporates a multi-day horizon, and it continues to study the issue.[vii] MISO also noted that the essential reliability services needed for a stable grid (and provided in part by coal generation) are not well-addressed by market prices, stating, “Day-Ahead and Real-Time products and prices may not reflect reliability needs and costs incurred to manage increasing variability and uncertainty of growing renewable portfolio.”[viii] Self-committing allows utilities to provide their own essential reliability services that the market may not reliably provide.
Coal-fired generating units in MISO operate economically.
MISO has directly refuted the charge that self-commitment has led to uneconomic results and has pointed out that over 90% of the electricity generated by coal is dispatched economically by MISO itself, not by utilities.”[ix] In April of this year, MISO noted, “Some claim that self-commitment of coal-fired resources results in prolonged run times and uneconomic outcomes for end use customers. Further, they say self-commitment distorts the markets by allowing coal units to displace lower-cost renewables and other resources from the grid. In fact, the vast majority of all self-committed coal generation in MISO is actually dispatched economically — meaning it is the lowest-cost resource option that MISO markets have available at the time to serve load.”[x] (Emphasis added.)
Not only are coal-fired generating units run economically, they are run according to market demand as much any other type of generation in MISO. In other words, they run because they are needed, not because they are self-committed.
We can see this by observing how closely changes in power generation correlate with changes in electricity demand. In 2018, this correlation between coal-fired generation and electricity demand was 87% in MISO — the same as natural-gas fired generation.[xi] This means that that power demand — and therefore market price —largely explains the operation of both coal-fired and natural gas-fired units, regardless of whether the units were committed by the market or by the utility. All other classes of generation were less correlated with market demand, as the table below shows. Notably, wind generation was negatively correlated with load, meaning that as power demand increases, wind generation tends to decrease.
Correlation between hourly load and generation in MISO, 2018
Gas Coal Other Hydro Nuclear Wind 87% 87% 61% 57% 20% -20%
Self-committing coal-fired units can benefit ratepayers.
UCS calls for state utility commissions to investigate the self-commitment of coal-fired units, but this has already happened in several states. Those investigations have refuted the claim that self-commitment is uneconomic and harms ratepayers. Instead of finding harm, the investigations found benefits from self-commitment. For example:
Ameren Missouri found that in 2016-2018, during periods in which the utility self-scheduled their coal units, buying that same power from the market would have cost an additional $250 million per year.[xii]
Xcel Energy found that its self-scheduled generating units saved ratepayers more than $500 million in generating costs rather than buying power from the market in 2017 and 2018.[xiii]
Minnesota Power similarly showed that self-scheduling their single coal-fired plant plant led to a $23 million benefit compared to buying power from the market during 2017 and 2018.[xiv]
Conclusion
We could spend more ink explaining why we disagree with USC’s conclusions, but you get the basic point: self-committing coal-fired power plants is not a trick to rip off ratepayers. Rather, it benefits ratepayers and helps maintain the reliability of the electricity grid.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-07-11--New stinging ant species invades Kentucky

In 1954 , movies about “ attacking ants ” in such thrillers as Them !
And The Naked Jungle were all the rage .
Today in 2020 , a real live version involving threatening ants is beginning to cause mayhem in Kentucky .
Known as the Asian needle ant , this species is thought to have invaded Kentucky in 2013 .
It is about twice as large as a typical odorous house ant and carries a stinger that packs a powerful punch .
Entomologists from the University of Kentucky had this to say regarding the ant ’ s stinging prowess @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and people report that they have a burning sensation paired with a pins-and-needles feeling for a couple of weeks after being stung , ” said Jonathan Larson , extension entomologist with the UK College of Agriculture , Food and Environment .
“ Most people do not need to seek medical treatment if they are stung by an Asian needle ant , unless they have a known allergy to other insect stings , such as from a bee or a wasp .
The literature suggests that the venom from this ant may be more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fortunately , Asian needle ants , unlike their sci-fi counterparts in Hollywood classics , are a bit docile in temperament .
They do not tend to be aggressive and only sting when they feel threatened .
However , the chances of a person getting stung greatly increase when the Asian needle ant moves indoors .
Therefore conservationists are saying it ’ s wise for homeowners to take extra precautions to make sure their homes are made less inviting to the marauding ants , which they can do “ by sealing up cracks and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eliminating standing water areas and removing dead trees from their property.
” To read the entire article on the University of Kentucky website , click here .

In 1954, movies about “attacking ants” in such thrillers as Them! And The Naked Jungle were all the rage. Today in 2020, a real live version involving threatening ants is beginning to cause mayhem in Kentucky.
Known as the Asian needle ant, this species is thought to have invaded Kentucky in 2013. It is about twice as large as a typical odorous house ant and carries a stinger that packs a powerful punch.
Entomologists from the University of Kentucky had this to say regarding the ant’s stinging prowess:
“Their sting is painful, and people report that they have a burning sensation paired with a pins-and-needles feeling for a couple of weeks after being stung,” said Jonathan Larson, extension entomologist with the UK College of Agriculture, Food and Environment. “Most people do not need to seek medical treatment if they are stung by an Asian needle ant, unless they have a known allergy to other insect stings, such as from a bee or a wasp. The literature suggests that the venom from this ant may be more hazardous than bee and wasp stings.”
Fortunately, Asian needle ants, unlike their sci-fi counterparts in Hollywood classics, are a bit docile in temperament. They do not tend to be aggressive and only sting when they feel threatened.
However, the chances of a person getting stung greatly increase when the Asian needle ant moves indoors. Therefore conservationists are saying it’s wise for homeowners to take extra precautions to make sure their homes are made less inviting to the marauding ants, which they can do “by sealing up cracks and crevices, keeping their grass mowed, eliminating standing water areas and removing dead trees from their property.”
To read the entire article on the University of Kentucky website, click here.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-07-12--USMCA: Cleaning up the Tijuana River

USMCA: Cleaning up the Tijuana River

The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement went into effect on July 1 , and right away the benefits of this new trade deal are showing up .
A massive cleanup of the Tijuana River on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border is being $ 300 million commitment in the USMCA by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to address wastewater issues shared by the two countries .
The Tijuana River project , which involves actions by the city of San Diego , the International Boundary and Water Commission , and Mexico ’ s National Water Commission , is expected to reduce sewage spill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year to 12 days per year , a reduction of 91 percent .
Unlike the much-maligned North American Free Trade Agreement , for which environmental initiatives were relegated to side agreements , the USMCA has an entire chapter devoted to environmental concerns ( Chapter 24 of the Agreement ) .
Skeptics like the International Institute for Sustainable Development note that the language in Chapter 24 says the right things , such as noting that it is “ inappropriate to encourage trade or investment by weakening or reducing the protection afforded in the respective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , history suggests that such provisions in prior agreements have had little effect in addressing regulatory backsliding .
Yet even the IISD admits that the USMCA also identifies a broad and ambitious range of environmental and conservation topics to be addressed through trilateral cooperation , within both existing legal agreements and other objectives , including tackling illegal trade in forest products , combating marine plastic litter , and reducing alien invasive species .
The Agreement further includes what should become an important breakthrough in prohibiting subsidies that contribute to overfishing .
Chapter 24 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Those available to a vessel or operator and those that negatively affect fish stocks .
Given that the issue of constraining fishing subsidies had eluded agreement for a decade or more at the World Trade Organization , this , the IISD admits , is a significant step forward .
One aspect of the new three-nation agreement , according to U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer , is that the focus of America ’ s trade policy has shifted “ from what is best for big , multinational corporations to instead what is best for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and ranchers.
” This means the USMCA “ contains significant improvements and modernized approaches that will deliver more jobs , stronger worker protections , expanded market access , and greater opportunities to trade for companies large and small.
” As Lighthizer put it , “ The absence of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce influence is another big part of the victory that Americans will benefit from , yet almost no Americans will know about.
” The IISD also praised the USMCA for preserving the Commission for Environmental Cooperation ( CEC ) and continuing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agreement also incorporates the Montreal Protocol , the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora ( CITES ) , the UN Law of the Sea , and various Food and Agriculture Organization codes related to fish stocks – but does not mention the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change or the Paris Climate Agreement .
As to the Tijuana River cleanup , the bulk of the $ 300 million will be used to expand and upgrade the South Bay International Wastewater Treatment Plant by fortifying its water @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of polluted stormwater and wastewater into San Diego .
The funding will be paid in quarterly installments of $ 75 million as EPA grants to its Border Water Infrastructure Program .
This influx of money constitutes a tenfold increase in program funding from 2020 levels .
According to San Diego Democratic Rep. Scott Peters , this “ massive funding investment … can fix the Tijuana River ’ s sewage spills once and for all , ” stopping an environmental crisis “ that has plagued our community for decades.
” As NBC San Diego @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been a longtime problem for residents of Imperial Beach and Tijuana , as sewage and trash from the river have spilled into the Pacific Ocean for decades , often closing beaches near the border and damaging natural habitats along the river.
” For its part , San Diego County has outlined 27 projects to improve wastewater treatment on the U.S. side of the border .
It hopes to build new treatment facilities to handle overflow from the Mexican side , where facilities can not operate on rainy days .
The city ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with treating contaminated water and pumping it deep into the ocean vis the South Bay Ocean Outfall system .
Strategy 2 is to pump raw wastewater far into the ocean via a system of pumps and long pipelines .
A third proposal is to create in-stream basins that would trap trash and sewage for later collection .
Mexico ’ s National Water Commission has also contributed $ 3.6 million to rehabilitate a pump station in Tijuana , which should reduce dry-season wastewater runoff by 70 percent .
According to NBC San Diego , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the plan announced by the Mexican government in October 2019 to address transboundary wastewater spills in the Tijuana River.
” The San Diego reporters further stated that the National Water Commission money will be used to construct a new pump intake and a sedimentation tank to remove silt which will reduce the amount of trash that clogs the pumps and lessen the time the pump station is out of operation for cleaning , decreasing the number of spills and transboundary flows .
Of course , not everyone is thrilled with the USMCA .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hill reported that a group of environmentalist organizations had complained about the avoidance of “ climate change ” and the support for the use of fossil fuels in the agreement and urged a NO vote by Congress .
But Mexican President Lopez Obrador has disappointed supporters of a Green New Deal by showing strong support for oil and gas development – and a disdain for wind turbines – in his country .
And President Trump withdrew all participation by the U.S. government in the Paris Agreement in fulfillment of a campaign promise .

The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement went into effect on July 1, and right away the benefits of this new trade deal are showing up. A massive cleanup of the Tijuana River on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border is being $300 million commitment in the USMCA by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to address wastewater issues shared by the two countries.
The Tijuana River project, which involves actions by the city of San Diego, the International Boundary and Water Commission, and Mexico’s National Water Commission, is expected to reduce sewage spill frequency from the current 138 days per year to 12 days per year, a reduction of 91 percent.
Unlike the much-maligned North American Free Trade Agreement, for which environmental initiatives were relegated to side agreements, the USMCA has an entire chapter devoted to environmental concerns (Chapter 24 of the Agreement).
Skeptics like the International Institute for Sustainable Development note that the language in Chapter 24 says the right things, such as noting that it is “inappropriate to encourage trade or investment by weakening or reducing the protection afforded in the respective environmental law.” But, they add, history suggests that such provisions in prior agreements have had little effect in addressing regulatory backsliding.
Yet even the IISD admits that the USMCA also identifies a broad and ambitious range of environmental and conservation topics to be addressed through trilateral cooperation, within both existing legal agreements and other objectives, including tackling illegal trade in forest products, combating marine plastic litter, and reducing alien invasive species.
The Agreement further includes what should become an important breakthrough in prohibiting subsidies that contribute to overfishing. Chapter 24 includes two categories of prohibited subsidies: Those available to a vessel or operator and those that negatively affect fish stocks. Given that the issue of constraining fishing subsidies had eluded agreement for a decade or more at the World Trade Organization, this, the IISD admits, is a significant step forward.
One aspect of the new three-nation agreement, according to U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, is that the focus of America’s trade policy has shifted “from what is best for big, multinational corporations to instead what is best for America’s workers, farmers, and ranchers.”
This means the USMCA “contains significant improvements and modernized approaches that will deliver more jobs, stronger worker protections, expanded market access, and greater opportunities to trade for companies large and small.” As Lighthizer put it, “The absence of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce influence is another big part of the victory that Americans will benefit from, yet almost no Americans will know about.”
The IISD also praised the USMCA for preserving the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) and continuing the Submissions on Enforcement Matters. The agreement also incorporates the Montreal Protocol, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), the UN Law of the Sea, and various Food and Agriculture Organization codes related to fish stocks – but does not mention the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change or the Paris Climate Agreement.
As to the Tijuana River cleanup, the bulk of the $300 million will be used to expand and upgrade the South Bay International Wastewater Treatment Plant by fortifying its water treatment capabilities and thus stanching the flow of polluted stormwater and wastewater into San Diego. The funding will be paid in quarterly installments of $75 million as EPA grants to its Border Water Infrastructure Program.
This influx of money constitutes a tenfold increase in program funding from 2020 levels. According to San Diego Democratic Rep. Scott Peters, this “massive funding investment … can fix the Tijuana River’s sewage spills once and for all,” stopping an environmental crisis “that has plagued our community for decades.”
As NBC San Diego reported, “The international river has been a longtime problem for residents of Imperial Beach and Tijuana, as sewage and trash from the river have spilled into the Pacific Ocean for decades, often closing beaches near the border and damaging natural habitats along the river.”
For its part, San Diego County has outlined 27 projects to improve wastewater treatment on the U.S. side of the border. It hopes to build new treatment facilities to handle overflow from the Mexican side, where facilities cannot operate on rainy days.
The city’s three-part plan for dealing with overflow starts with treating contaminated water and pumping it deep into the ocean vis the South Bay Ocean Outfall system. Strategy 2 is to pump raw wastewater far into the ocean via a system of pumps and long pipelines. A third proposal is to create in-stream basins that would trap trash and sewage for later collection.
Mexico’s National Water Commission has also contributed $3.6 million to rehabilitate a pump station in Tijuana, which should reduce dry-season wastewater runoff by 70 percent. According to NBC San Diego, “The payment is the first from the plan announced by the Mexican government in October 2019 to address transboundary wastewater spills in the Tijuana River.”
The San Diego reporters further stated that the National Water Commission money will be used to construct a new pump intake and a sedimentation tank to remove silt which will reduce the amount of trash that clogs the pumps and lessen the time the pump station is out of operation for cleaning, decreasing the number of spills and transboundary flows.
Of course, not everyone is thrilled with the USMCA. Prior to its final adoption, The Hill reported that a group of environmentalist organizations had complained about the avoidance of “climate change” and the support for the use of fossil fuels in the agreement and urged a NO vote by Congress.
But Mexican President Lopez Obrador has disappointed supporters of a Green New Deal by showing strong support for oil and gas development – and a disdain for wind turbines – in his country. And President Trump withdrew all participation by the U.S. government in the Paris Agreement in fulfillment of a campaign promise.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-07-13--Forcing “Green” mandates during an economic crisis

National governments in the developed world have a nearly unlimited ability to borrow or print money in the short term , which helps during economic crises and wartime .
Governments in the United States and Europe have been doling out trillions of dollars during the Covid-19 pandemic to sustain the private economy .
The global warming alarmist industry in the U.S. and abroad is exploiting this crisis to mandate climate initiatives on companies as a condition of receiving government bailouts , which themselves are designed to sustain workers ’ livelihoods .
Accordingly , while millions of workers worldwide remain unemployed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , governments primarily in the European Union are forcing a dubious , high-cost environmental agenda on companies .
The Bloomberg New Energy Finance reported in June that the world ’ s top 50 economies have pledged nearly $ 600 billion for climate initiatives such as electric vehicle production , and greater use of “ clean energy ” technologies such as wind , solar and battery storage .
The EU announced it would earmark one quarter of its recovery subsidies to climate initiatives .
Force-feeding inefficient , costly energy sources and expensive electric vehicles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the worst time , when there remains a global public health emergency and more people need to return to work .
But jobs and economic growth have never been the priorities of climate change alarmists in and outside of government .
If imposing “ clean ” energy mandates and blocking more efficient and cheaper fossil fuels results in ordinary citizens paying higher prices or being unemployed , it ’ s worth it to the climate alarmist industry .
Human collateral damage in pursuit of a Green planetary nirvana is a price worth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ begin with the pandemic .
Michael Shellenberger ’ s new book , Apocalypse Never , includes a discussion of international agencies like the World Bank imposing loan conditions on countries in the developing world to produce boutique “ renewable ” energy .
Yet , these poverty-stricken nations have millions of people with no running water or electricity , and burning wood for fuel .
They need more practical and efficient hydropower and fossil fuel development to raise living standards .
Here in the U.S. , the federal government has spent trillions of dollars @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sector businesses and keep Americans employed , without the climate policy conditions imposed in Europe .
The absence of climate mandates is not for lack of trying .
Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden , House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Party leaders sought to impose carbon emissions on airlines and enlarge tax credits for wind and solar projects ( as though they didn ’ t have enough existing taxpayer subsidies ) .
Despite an unprecedented modern economic downturn , Pelosi , Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have bigger priorities – saving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CFACT recently reported on the Democrats ’ latest unveiling of their environmental agenda , modestly entitled “ Solving the Climate Crisis , ” which included electricity mandates to power transportation and industry , along with a plethora of other immodest goals .
The impracticality and resulting job losses are papered over .
Many Republican politicians , too , are bought into this reduce-carbon mania by 2050 with something they named the “ American Climate Contract , ” albeit not as onerous on the economy as the Democrats ’ plan .
Still , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decades hence solves what exactly ?
Might it lower average global temperature by a degree or two ?
No one really knows , but that ’ s not stopping the expenditure of billions of dollars – and demanding trillions more – over decades for this phantom pursuit .
Instead , the assumptions of a carbon-free energy sector should be challenged on its efficacy and necessity .
Which brings us back to government bailouts , specifically , the billions and trillions of dollars being churned out today and proposed in the coming years .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ this unprecedented spending spree , such a pace can not continue once the pandemic ceases .
Following World War II , the U.S. ceased adding to the enormous debt it built up to win the conflict and help allies and former enemies rebuild .
The U.S. may spend three to four trillion on fighting the pandemic this year , but it can not borrow and print the same annually to impose a Green New Deal — inflation and economic chaos would surely follow as it always has historically .
Rather than climate subsidies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should be full private sector employment and growing our economies again as we get passed the pandemic .
Economic prosperity and improved living standards on a global level are the surest , most realistic way to a cleaner environment and reduced carbon emissions .

National governments in the developed world have a nearly unlimited ability to borrow or print money in the short term, which helps during economic crises and wartime. Governments in the United States and Europe have been doling out trillions of dollars during the Covid-19 pandemic to sustain the private economy.
The global warming alarmist industry in the U.S. and abroad is exploiting this crisis to mandate climate initiatives on companies as a condition of receiving government bailouts, which themselves are designed to sustain workers’ livelihoods. Accordingly, while millions of workers worldwide remain unemployed as the pandemic and economic recession linger, governments primarily in the European Union are forcing a dubious, high-cost environmental agenda on companies.
The Bloomberg New Energy Finance reported in June that the world’s top 50 economies have pledged nearly $600 billion for climate initiatives such as electric vehicle production, and greater use of “clean energy” technologies such as wind, solar and battery storage. The EU announced it would earmark one quarter of its recovery subsidies to climate initiatives.
Force-feeding inefficient, costly energy sources and expensive electric vehicles in low demand is a colossal waste at the worst time, when there remains a global public health emergency and more people need to return to work. But jobs and economic growth have never been the priorities of climate change alarmists in and outside of government. If imposing “clean” energy mandates and blocking more efficient and cheaper fossil fuels results in ordinary citizens paying higher prices or being unemployed, it’s worth it to the climate alarmist industry. Human collateral damage in pursuit of a Green planetary nirvana is a price worth paying.
This perverse agenda did not begin with the pandemic. Michael Shellenberger’s new book, Apocalypse Never, includes a discussion of international agencies like the World Bank imposing loan conditions on countries in the developing world to produce boutique “renewable” energy. Yet, these poverty-stricken nations have millions of people with no running water or electricity, and burning wood for fuel. They need more practical and efficient hydropower and fossil fuel development to raise living standards.
Here in the U.S., the federal government has spent trillions of dollars during the Covid-19 emergency to sustain private sector businesses and keep Americans employed, without the climate policy conditions imposed in Europe. The absence of climate mandates is not for lack of trying. Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Party leaders sought to impose carbon emissions on airlines and enlarge tax credits for wind and solar projects (as though they didn’t have enough existing taxpayer subsidies).
Despite an unprecedented modern economic downturn, Pelosi, Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have bigger priorities – saving planet Earth, as they imagine. CFACT recently reported on the Democrats’ latest unveiling of their environmental agenda, modestly entitled “Solving the Climate Crisis,” which included electricity mandates to power transportation and industry, along with a plethora of other immodest goals. The impracticality and resulting job losses are papered over.
Many Republican politicians, too, are bought into this reduce-carbon mania by 2050 with something they named the “American Climate Contract,” albeit not as onerous on the economy as the Democrats’ plan.
Still, the idea of a carbon-free America in three decades hence solves what exactly? Might it lower average global temperature by a degree or two? No one really knows, but that’s not stopping the expenditure of billions of dollars – and demanding trillions more – over decades for this phantom pursuit. Instead, the assumptions of a carbon-free energy sector should be challenged on its efficacy and necessity.
Which brings us back to government bailouts, specifically, the billions and trillions of dollars being churned out today and proposed in the coming years. While the U.S. and other nations continue this unprecedented spending spree, such a pace cannot continue once the pandemic dissipates.
Following World War II, the U.S. ceased adding to the enormous debt it built up to win the conflict and help allies and former enemies rebuild. The U.S. may spend three to four trillion on fighting the pandemic this year, but it cannot borrow and print the same annually to impose a Green New Deal — inflation and economic chaos would surely follow as it always has historically.
Rather than climate subsidies and mandates, the priority for governments should be full private sector employment and growing our economies again as we get passed the pandemic. Economic prosperity and improved living standards on a global level are the surest, most realistic way to a cleaner environment and reduced carbon emissions.