committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-09-29--Climate “emergency” means house arrest

Climate “emergency” means house arrest

A regional transportation agency in California recently approved a far-reaching societal makeover plan that offers a glimpse into the very near future of America , if such absurdities take hold under the ruse of dealing with a “ climate emergency.
” The coronavirus pandemic has revealed the inner-tyrants of many politicians across the country with the mandatory closure of “ non-essential ” businesses , schools and churches under the guise of a health emergency .
The top-down government control over the American populace arising from the pandemic is supposed to be temporary , yet it ’ s a warm-up for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ won ’ t be pretty .
Under the pretense of a “ climate emergency , ” politicians and bureaucrats will increasingly impose Covid-like restrictions on our jobs , transportation , food choices , housing and much else based the purported need to “ reduce greenhouse gases.
” Not surprisingly , the once Golden State is leading the way .
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission , a government agency in the San Francisco Bay area , recently voted 11-to-1 to proceed with a multi-billion dollar , 30-year plan to remake the region ’ s transportation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to reduce carbon emissions .
The commission was not content to stick with transportation issues .
The adopted plan also recommends billions of dollars for job training , affordable housing , high-speed internet , adaptions for “ sea-level rise ” ( est .
cost : $ 19 billion ) , “ retrofit ” residential buildings ( $ 15 billion ) , and “ enable carbon neutrality ” for all existing public and commercial buildings ( $ 18 billion ) .
This central planning scheme also includes this doozy : “ allow a variety @ @ @ @ @ @ @ densities ” including in areas “ with the region ’ s best schools and economic opportunities.
” Translation : public housing projects are coming to suburban communities .
This progressive cornucopia would not be complete without including a proposal for “ guaranteed income ; ” in this case for $ 500 per month , adjusted by household size and composition and “ paired with tax increases for those outside of the low-income tax bracket.
” That means the Bay Area “ Transportation ” commission wants tax hikes on middle income and working class @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , to pay for this estimated $ 205 billion proposal that has nothing to do with highways and transit or even reducing greenhouse gases .
Perhaps the most noticed item in the MTC plan was the proposal to impose “ telecommuting mandates for major office-based employers ” applied to 60 percent of their workforce .
That means if you work in an office , your daily freedom to travel will be restricted to reduce vehicle emissions .
If the MTC prevails , government would force many employers to keep their employees at home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is akin to house arrest for most of the week .
One need not enjoy commuting to have a problem with this sharp curtailment of freedom , along with the necessary massive intrusion by climate bureaucrats to enforce this mandate .
Mandating less travel for errands , leisure , conventions and other basic economic activity can not be far behind , since it ’ s an “ emergency.
” Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf , a member of the commission , gave the game away .
She believes “ very strongly ” in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There is an opportunity to do things that could not have been done in the past.
” In other words , the mayor admits that fighting global warming justifies the government to force permanent , disruptive changes previously unthinkable .
Such a radical mindset will not stop at ordering companies to reduce commuting .
The Libby Schaafs in public office throughout this country will inexorably continue their efforts to limit economic freedom and lifestyles based on their religious belief that fighting climate change justifies any government action to the point of tyranny .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ MTC proposal limiting commuting has gotten pushback .
One Google employee told the commission “ we do not want to continue this as a lifestyle , ” i.e.
, living like it ’ s a pandemic .
Hopefully , such common sense will not cost this man his job , since climate alarmists run Google .
Others rightly voiced concern about the effect on businesses that that rely on office workers ; indeed , the economic fall-out would be enormous .
As with so many climate plans , no attempt is made to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in this one region would have an iota of an impact on the planet ’ s climate .
The commission ’ s approval of this climate plan , including the telecommuting mandate , is the first step in the governmental process toward remaking society .
While such ideas are worthy of ridicule , that alone will not stop Bay Area radicals in public office from forging ahead to become a reckless example designed for the rest of the nation to follow .

A regional transportation agency in California recently approved a far-reaching societal makeover plan that offers a glimpse into the very near future of America, if such absurdities take hold under the ruse of dealing with a “climate emergency.”
The coronavirus pandemic has revealed the inner-tyrants of many politicians across the country with the mandatory closure of “non-essential” businesses, schools and churches under the guise of a health emergency.
The top-down government control over the American populace arising from the pandemic is supposed to be temporary, yet it’s a warm-up for upcoming climate change policies, and it won’t be pretty. Under the pretense of a “climate emergency,” politicians and bureaucrats will increasingly impose Covid-like restrictions on our jobs, transportation, food choices, housing and much else based the purported need to “reduce greenhouse gases.”
Not surprisingly, the once Golden State is leading the way.
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission, a government agency in the San Francisco Bay area, recently voted 11-to-1 to proceed with a multi-billion dollar, 30-year plan to remake the region’s transportation network, housing arrangements and much more to reduce carbon emissions.
The commission was not content to stick with transportation issues. The adopted plan also recommends billions of dollars for job training, affordable housing, high-speed internet, adaptions for “sea-level rise” (est. cost: $19 billion), “retrofit” residential buildings ($15 billion), and “enable carbon neutrality” for all existing public and commercial buildings ($18 billion).
This central planning scheme also includes this doozy: “allow a variety of housing types at a range of densities” including in areas “with the region’s best schools and economic opportunities.” Translation: public housing projects are coming to suburban communities.
This progressive cornucopia would not be complete without including a proposal for “guaranteed income;” in this case for $500 per month, adjusted by household size and composition and “paired with tax increases for those outside of the low-income tax bracket.” That means the Bay Area “Transportation” commission wants tax hikes on middle income and working class families (not just the rich), to pay for this estimated $205 billion proposal that has nothing to do with highways and transit or even reducing greenhouse gases.
Perhaps the most noticed item in the MTC plan is to impose “telecommuting mandates for major office-based employers” applied to 60 percent of their workforce. That means if you work in an office, your daily freedom to travel will be restricted to reduce vehicle emissions.
If the MTC prevails, government would force many employers to keep their employees at home, working from a computer. This is akin to house arrest for most of the week. One need not enjoy commuting to have a problem with this sharp curtailment of freedom, along with the necessary massive intrusion by climate bureaucrats to enforce this mandate.
Mandating less travel for errands, leisure, conventions and other basic economic activity cannot be far behind, since it’s an “emergency.”
Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf, a member of the commission, gave the game away. She believes “very strongly” in the telecommuting mandate, and stated, “There is an opportunity to do things that could not have been done in the past.” In other words, the mayor admits that fighting global warming justifies the government to force permanent, disruptive changes previously unthinkable.
Such a radical mindset will not stop at ordering companies to reduce commuting. The Libby Schaafs in public office throughout this country will inexorably continue their efforts to limit economic freedom and lifestyles based on their religious belief that fighting climate change justifies any government action to the point of tyranny. Count on it.
Fortunately, this MTC proposal limiting commuting has gotten pushback. One Google employee told the commission “we do not want to continue this as a lifestyle,” i.e., living like it’s a pandemic. Hopefully, such common sense will not cost this man his job, since climate alarmists run Google. Others rightly voiced concern about the effect on businesses that that rely on office workers; indeed, the economic fall-out would be enormous.
As with so many climate plans, no attempt is made to justify or explain how reducing carbon emissions in this one region would have an iota of an impact on the planet’s climate.
The commission’s approval of this climate plan, including the telecommuting mandate, is the first step in the governmental process toward remaking society. While such ideas are worthy of ridicule, that alone will not stop Bay Area radicals in public office from forging ahead to become a reckless example for the rest of the nation to follow.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-09-30--Is WAPO unaware of hurricane history?

Is WAPO unaware of hurricane history?

So this showed up .
Please read it .
I want to make sure you look at the opposite side of the issue .
Ah yes yet another new study is used .
The 2020 season is a harbinger of things to come .
What , storms with some of the lowest average ACE index/storm on record ?
Near record low Pacific activity ?
Global activity top 10 LOWS last 30 years .
But how long do we have to hear this , especially since the late Dr Wiliam Gray , who you saw in Climate Hustle 2 , was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worse compared to what they were in the 70 ’ s and 80 ’ s .
Yet his reason for the uptick was natural and comparatively it did occur .
But it has never gotten to the level of the 30 ’ s-60 ’ s .
All this is in spite of the constant jumping on the worst man made AGW bandwagon ever .
Basically they co-opted a correct forecast made from natural reasons , and then decided to pile on with their missive , and that part is easily countered .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did it in my new book .
The Weaponization of Weather in the Phony Climate War .
Given this article , I have many examples why this too must be challenged .
What is puzzling to me is how people just buy into the idea that Hurricanes are worse than they used to be .
I get myself into “ trouble ” because I know too much .
It ’ s not that I am smarter .
It ’ s just that I love going through accounts of storms .
For instance look @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the hurricane reviews back to 1872 .
I wonder how many of the people pushing how bad things are in the tropics have this as something they love to read.. over and over and over again .
What I find bad nowadays is that it ’ s frowned upon , or demonized , and by people that may not have gone over each one of these several times .
Wonder how I know when storms have hit ?
From when I was a kid , I would read everything I could on storms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Weatherwise when it came to the house .
Once I got to college , I went into the PSU map room and library and looked at everything I could..
But I guess I am standing on the track of a train that is running everyone over .
I see it coming down the track , it gets closer every day .
The cadence of complacency that has got us here , the acceptance of the idea that that is the latest is the greatest , accepting without question , has overwhelmed most of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And I can ’ t say I blame them , I really can ’ t .
They have a love of the field .
They want to work in it .
They want to go to college .
Its very strange .
I often ask myself , what I would have done if I was actually fighting in a war , like my wrestling coach did ?
Would I do the hard things ?
( One of the reasons I call this a phony climate war , ( you have no idea what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ) , I wonder as I look at the younger generation , if I was in their shoes , how I would behave ?
A different test in a different time , but I wonder about both these things .
But I will tell my stories and explain myself the best I can with whatever is left , before everything is outsourced to authority .
No I am not being a Debbie Downer , but in spite of a life of being an idealist , there comes a day where realism has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a few of many examples that I look at and wonder why I do not see things like this anymore .
I see a cat 4 Laura come ashore , and it takes a few weeks for reports to come in to even verify gusts to the reported sustained winds .
Yet Laura is a 4 right ?
.
But look at this account of Audrey in 1957 recently downgraded to a 3 from it being a cat .
4 .
I saw no rigs reporting those gusts at 65 feet with Laura @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a gust to 180 mph .
Look at the saturation of rigs in the gulf now , you mean not one of them would have had a gust to 160 or 170 with a storm with a sustained wind of .
150 ?
: I have not seen any rigs with gusts like that with Laura .
The point is Audrey is downplayed yet Laura is pushed as a sign of the coming apocalypse .
Look at this account of the 1944 hurricane The gust at Cape Henry was 156 .
All this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as far offshore as it was !
It was supposedly over 60 miles east of all these sites , How about hurricane Helene in 1958 .
Again , offshore North Carolina , yet at Cape Fear it produced this..
Think about Florence .
Or Isabel .
Or Fran , or Floyd .
Any hurricane that has hit NC in the so called worst ever era .
Even coming ashore , they did not beat a hurricane that remained offshore .
Wilmington is inland and both Wilmington and Cape Fear were on the so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as were Atlantic City and Cape Henry in the 1944 storm .
How were those storms establishing records while not even making direct hits , while offshore ?
Another example , cause I can go on and on .
( Thats what happens when you stay up at night reading hurricane season reports back to 1872 ) But this was the very erratic Ginny a MINIMAL HURRICANE that was more than 60 miles offshore in 1963 IN LATE OCTOBER WELL PAST THE PEAK OF THE SEASON !
Again that is on the weak @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it took was still well offshore .
I look in amazement at these things , because I have not see storms as big .
Think about Harvey a Cat 4 storm .
The extreme rain with the storm grabbed the headlines but that was because a cold trough captured it and the heavy rain bands stalled right over Houston .
But think about Harvey again a cat .
4. vs Carla a cat 4 with this write up .
Look at the extent of TEXAS with Hurricane force gusts , the entire coast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not even close .
No storm that has hit Texas since then was even close in extent such as Carla .
This is a classic example of why the power and impact scale is much more descriptive .
Because of the diameter of Gales and Hurricane winds Carla is a 4.5 .
Harvey is a much smaller storm only a .
3.5 because while having the same pressure and the same max wind , the extent is not nearly as great .
Yet how many people know this ?
What are people told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anyone put it in perspective vs. a Carla .
Or Laura vs Audrey ?
And remember when everyone was flipping out over several storms going at once .
Well WE DID NOT HAVE 4 HURRICANES GOING AT ONCE , as we did the day Carla hit the coast .
And a tropical depression in the Bahamas as well .
But did anyone bring that up .
Anyone put that in perspective .
So you be the judge .
I have written on this several times .
As the hurricane season winds down ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of more that we may have to deal with ) the most I can do is show you such examples .
But as someone with 45 years in the field , there is a world of information out there that does not lie in the latest models , but in the lessons learned from the past .
You would do well to look at it , before it disappears .
One thing off the bat .
You notice I ask you to read the article that runs counter to my ideas .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in that article , do you see examples like this brought up and the natural offshoot which should be why ?
No ?

So this showed up. Please read it. I want to make sure you look at the opposite side of the issue.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2020/09/27/hurricanes-atlantic-coast-climate-change/
Ah yes yet another new study is used. The 2020 season is a harbinger of things to come. What, storms with some of the lowest average ACE index/storm on record? Near record low Pacific activity? Global activity top 10 LOWS last 30 years.
But how long do we have to hear this, especially since the late Dr Wiliam Gray, who you saw in Climate Hustle 2, was explaining well before why hurricanes would get worse compared to what they were in the 70’s and 80’s. Yet his reason for the uptick was natural and comparatively it did occur. But it has never gotten to the level of the 30’s-60’s. All this is in spite of the constant jumping on the worst man made AGW bandwagon ever.
Basically they co-opted a correct forecast made from natural reasons, and then decided to pile on with their missive, and that part is easily countered. I have done it many times. I did it in my new book. The Weaponization of Weather in the Phony Climate War.
http://phonyclimatewar.com/
Given this article, I have many examples why this too must be challenged.
What is puzzling to me is how people just buy into the idea that Hurricanes are worse than they used to be. I get myself into “trouble” because I know too much. It’s not that I am smarter. It’s just that I love going through accounts of storms. For instance look at this link:
https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/general/lib/lib1/nhclib/mwreviews/mwreviews.html
These are all the hurricane reviews back to 1872. I wonder how many of the people pushing how bad things are in the tropics have this as something they love to read.. over and over and over again. What I find bad nowadays is that it’s frowned upon, or demonized, and by people that may not have gone over each one of these several times. Wonder how I know when storms have hit? From when I was a kid, I would read everything I could on storms and loved the monthly weather review and Weatherwise when it came to the house. Once I got to college, I went into the PSU map room and library and looked at everything I could..
But I guess I am standing on the track of a train that is running everyone over. I see it coming down the track, it gets closer every day. The cadence of complacency that has got us here, the acceptance of the idea that that is the latest is the greatest, accepting without question, has overwhelmed most of the younger people in our field. And I can’t say I blame them, I really can’t. They have a love of the field. They want to work in it. They want to go to college. Its very strange. I often ask myself, what I would have done if I was actually fighting in a war, like my wrestling coach did? Would I do the hard things? (
One of the reasons I call this a phony climate war, (you have no idea what war is unless you are actually in it), I wonder as I look at the younger generation, if I was in their shoes, how I would behave? A different test in a different time, but I wonder about both these things. But I will tell my stories and explain myself the best I can with whatever is left, before everything is outsourced to authority.
No I am not being a Debbie Downer, but in spite of a life of being an idealist, there comes a day where realism has to take over.
So here are a few of many examples that I look at and wonder why I do not see things like this anymore. I see a cat 4 Laura come ashore, and it takes a few weeks for reports to come in to even verify gusts to the reported sustained winds. Yet Laura is a 4 right?. But look at this account of Audrey in 1957 recently downgraded to a 3 from it being a cat. 4.
I saw no rigs reporting those gusts at 65 feet with Laura. One oil rig in Audrey had a gust to 180 mph. Look at the saturation of rigs in the gulf now, you mean not one of them would have had a gust to 160 or 170 with a storm with a sustained wind of. 150?:
I have not seen any rigs with gusts like that with Laura.
The point is Audrey is downplayed yet Laura is pushed as a sign of the coming apocalypse.
Look at this account of the 1944 hurricane
The gust at Cape Henry was 156. All this is more remarkable because the hurricane was as far offshore as it was! It was supposedly over 60 miles east of all these sites,
yet produced these winds. What hurricane in the warm era of worst ever has done anything close to that, passing off the east coast?. yet produced these winds. What hurricane in the warm era of worst ever has done anything close to that, passing off the east coast?.
How about hurricane Helene in 1958. Again, offshore North Carolina, yet at Cape Fear it produced this..
Think about Florence. Or Isabel. Or Fran, or Floyd. Any hurricane that has hit NC in the so called worst ever era. Even coming ashore, they did not beat a hurricane that remained offshore. Wilmington is inland and both Wilmington and Cape Fear were on the so called weak side of the storm, as were Atlantic City and Cape Henry in the 1944 storm. How were those storms establishing records while not even making direct hits, while offshore?
Another example, cause I can go on and on. ( Thats what happens when you stay up at night reading hurricane season reports back to 1872) But this was the very erratic Ginny a MINIMAL HURRICANE that was more than 60 miles offshore in 1963 IN LATE OCTOBER WELL PAST THE PEAK OF THE SEASON!
Again that is on the weak side of a storm. The loop it took was still well offshore.
I look in amazement at these things, because I have not see storms as big. Think about Harvey a Cat 4 storm. The extreme rain with the storm grabbed the headlines but that was because a cold trough captured it and the heavy rain bands stalled right over Houston. But think about Harvey again a cat. 4. vs Carla a cat 4 with this write up.
Look at the extent of TEXAS with Hurricane force gusts, the entire coast and how far inland.
Harvey was not even close. No storm that has hit Texas since then was even close in extent such as Carla. This is a classic example of why the power and impact scale is much more descriptive. Because of the diameter of Gales and Hurricane winds Carla is a 4.5. Harvey is a much smaller storm only a. 3.5 because while having the same pressure and the same max wind, the extent is not nearly as great. Yet how many people know this? What are people told when a Harvey shows up, does anyone put it in perspective vs. a Carla. Or Laura vs Audrey?
And remember when everyone was flipping out over several storms going at once. Well WE DID NOT HAVE 4 HURRICANES GOING AT ONCE, as we did the day Carla hit the coast.
And a tropical depression in the Bahamas as well.
But did anyone bring that up. Anyone put that in perspective.
So you be the judge. I have written on this several times. As the hurricane season winds down ( I still think we have a couple of more that we may have to deal with) the most I can do is show you such examples. But as someone with 45 years in the field, there is a world of information out there that does not lie in the latest models, but in the lessons learned from the past. You would do well to look at it, before it disappears.
One thing off the bat. You notice I ask you to read the article that runs counter to my ideas. I want you to see it. But in that article, do you see examples like this brought up and the natural offshoot which should be why? No?
Gee I wonder why.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-09-30--CH2: More ways to watch!

CH2: More ways to watch!

Buy Climate Hustle 2 : Rise of the Climate Monarchy today and own it for life .
Climate Hustle 2 @ @ @ @ @ So many tell us how tired they are of the unceasing torrent of exaggerations and @ @ @ @ @ push out through an all-too-compliant media .
Buy Climate Hustle 2 on DVD or Blu-Ray @ @ @ @ @ online for a 48 hour rental or buy it for life .
Check out the @ @ @ @ @ hustlers terrified .
CH2 has now been viewed in over 97 countries !
In some @ @ @ @ @ of climate change , while in others the debate has been completely squelched .
“ @ @ @ @ @ tell us .
“ Finally , a movie that skewers climate myths and lays out @ @ @ @ @ Climate Hustle 2 : Rise of the Climate Monarchy today , help spread the word @ @ @ @ @ ’ s beat back this con together .

Buy Climate Hustle 2: Rise of the Climate Monarchy today and own it for life.
Climate Hustle 2 is having an impact. So many tell us how tired they are of the unceasing torrent of exaggerations and outright lies global warming campaigners push out through an all-too-compliant media.
Climate Hustle 2 is the antidote.
Buy Climate Hustle 2 on DVD or Blu-Ray. Stream this ground-breaking film online for a 48 hour rental or buy it for life.
Check out the map that has the climate hustlers terrified. CH2 has now been viewed in over 97 countries!
In some countries there is robust discussion of climate change, while in others the debate has been completely squelched. “Finally!” So many tell us. “Finally, a movie that skewers climate myths and lays out the facts!”
This film is important.
Buy Climate Hustle 2: Rise of the Climate Monarchy today, help spread the word, open eyes and let’s beat back this con together.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-10-01--Climate change and the Trump/Biden debate

The first presidential debate this week was a raucous affair and included the topic of “ climate change ” in the final half-hour of the nearly 100-minute event .
The differences between the candidates was informative .
I prefer a more toned down debate , but not too much .
The two candidates argued , which usually leads to interruptions and talking over one another with some insults .
I ’ m not as dismayed as others feign to be ( on cable news & Twitter ) about candidates having a food-fight on television , except to the extent it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issues .
Mr. Wallace started with President Donald Trump on climate change by asking a “ loaded ” question , i.e.
, its premise was dubious but stated as truth .
After mentioning the wildfires in California , Wallace asked , “ What do you believe about the science of climate change ?
And what will you do in the next four years to confront it ?
Similar to former Vice President Joe Biden , Mr. Wallace believes climate change is such that it needs to be confronted .
Like so many in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any notion that the issue is more complicated , and without scientific certainty , much less consensus .
The president ’ s response properly explained that the wildfires were the result of poor forest management that neglects clear-cutting deadwood .
Mr. Wallace was not satisfied and made the cardinal error of becoming part of the debate , rather than directing Mr. Biden to respond .
Wallace asked not one , but several follow-up “ questions “ – in effect , tag-teaming with Biden to debate Trump on climate .
Back and forth they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issues , including the Obama-Biden administration ’ s clean power plan , corporate average fuel economy standards , and the Paris Climate Accords , thus doing Biden ’ s job for him .
The president accurately acknowledged that “ a lot of things ” contribute to the warming of the planet , not merely “ human pollution ” and greenhouse gas as Wallace claimed .
Trump also criticized the Paris Accords and said correctly the country already was reducing carbon emissions .
He further stated the clean power plan would have raised energy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ manufacturing industries , I would add ) , and that reducing CAFE standards keeps the price for new cars lower and more quickly replaces older , less efficient vehicles on the road .
Then came Mr. Biden ’ s turn .
Mr. Wallace continued his partnership by spoon-feeding the candidate ’ s Green platform as a “ question ” as if to remind him what he proposed .
Biden discussed his promises for “ millions of [ green ] jobs , ” retrofitting four million buildings , and his opposition to fossil fuels @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to build another coal fire plant in America .
No one ’ s going to build another oil fire ( sic ) in America.
” Then things got confusing .
After Trump claimed the Green New Deal would cost $ 100 trillion , Biden countered by saying it “ would pay for itself , ” which parrots Sen. Bernie Sanders ’ fatuous claim .
Yet , when Wallace asked if he supported the GND , Biden responded , “ I don ’ t support the Green New Deal.
” The former Vice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his Vice Presidential nominee , Sen. Kamala Harris , his long-held platform dating to mid-2019 when he unveiled his Green proposals , and his own campaign website , where it states , “ Biden believes the Green New Deal is a crucial framework for meeting the climate challenges we face.
” While there have been variations of what comprises the Green New Deal , it is sophistry for Mr. Biden to deny supporting it since his own plan reflects its essential provisions that would remake the country ’ s energy markets and economy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ include retrofitting buildings ; mandating electric vehicles , ending coal , fracking and oil development ; attempting to reduce carbon to “ net-zero ” emissions ; financing through higher taxes ( “ creating ” ) “ renewable ” energy jobs , and much more .
The projected cost of versions of the GND vary in the trillions of dollars , and stretch to near $ 100 trillion depending on the number of years that are counted for implementation .
Notwithstanding the rough-and-tumble of this first presidential debate/brawl , it is worthwhile to cut @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between the candidates ’ positions on addressing climate change , which are stark .
Especially important is to understand cause-and-effect , that is , will the expenditure of trillions of dollars to retrofit buildings and impose renewable energy and the rest alter Earth ’ s climate ?
And , is it worth the higher costs and economic dislocation ?
America faces a climate policy fork in the road , as I ’ ve written , and we are fewer than five weeks from deciding which direction .

The first presidential debate this week was a raucous affair and included the topic of “climate change” in the final half-hour of the nearly 100-minute event. The differences between the candidates were informative.
I prefer a more toned down debate, but not too much. The two candidates argued, which usually leads to interruptions and talking over one another with some insults. I’m not as dismayed as others feign to be (on cable news & Twitter) about candidates having a food-fight on television, except to the extent it may have transcended the substance of the issues.
Mr. Wallace started with President Donald Trump on climate change by asking a “loaded” question, i.e., its premise was dubious but stated as truth. After mentioning the wildfires in California, Wallace asked, “What do you believe about the science of climate change? And what will you do in the next four years to confront it?
Similar to former Vice President Joe Biden, Mr. Wallace believes climate change is such that it needs to be confronted. Like so many in the media, he is bereft of any notion that the issue is more complicated, and without scientific certainty, much less consensus. The president’s response properly explained that the wildfires were the result of poor forest management that neglects clear-cutting deadwood.
Mr. Wallace was not satisfied and made the cardinal error of becoming part of the debate, rather than directing Mr. Biden to respond. Wallace asked not one, but several follow-up “questions “– in effect, tag-teaming with Biden to debate Trump on climate. Back and forth they went, as Wallace raised several climate issues, including the Obama-Biden administration’s clean power plan, corporate average fuel economy standards, and the Paris Climate Accords, thus doing Biden’s job for him.
The president accurately acknowledged that “a lot of things” contribute to the warming of the planet, not merely “human pollution” and greenhouse gas as Wallace claimed. Trump also criticized the Paris Accords and said correctly the country already was reducing carbon emissions. He further stated the clean power plan would have raised energy costs (which is the life-blood of manufacturing industries, I would add), and that reducing CAFE standards keeps the price for new cars lower and more quickly replaces older, less efficient vehicles on the road.
Then came Mr. Biden’s turn. Mr. Wallace continued his partnership by spoon-feeding the candidate’s Green platform as a “question” as if to remind him what he proposed. Biden discussed his promises for “millions of [green] jobs,” retrofitting four million buildings, and his opposition to fossil fuels by stating, “Nobody’s going to build another coal fire plant in America. No one’s going to build another oil fire (sic) in America.”
Then things got confusing. After Trump claimed the Green New Deal would cost $100 trillion, Biden countered by saying it “would pay for itself,” which parrots Sen. Bernie Sanders’ fatuous claim. Yet, when Wallace asked if he supported the GND, Biden responded, “I don’t support the Green New Deal.”
The former Vice President contradicted himself in the debate, his Vice Presidential nominee, Sen. Kamala Harris, his long-held platform dating to mid-2019 when he unveiled his Green proposals, and his own campaign website, where it states, “Biden believes the Green New Deal is a crucial framework for meeting the climate challenges we face.”
While there have been variations of what comprises the Green New Deal, it is sophistry for Mr. Biden to deny supporting it since his own plan reflects its essential provisions that would remake the country’s energy markets and economy through top-down government mandates. These provisions include retrofitting buildings; mandating electric vehicles, ending coal, fracking and oil development; attempting to reduce carbon to “net-zero” emissions; financing through higher taxes (“creating”) “renewable” energy jobs, and much more.
The projected cost of versions of the GND vary in the trillions of dollars, and stretch to near $100 trillion depending on the number of years that are counted for implementation.
Notwithstanding the rough-and-tumble of this first presidential debate/brawl, it is worthwhile to cut through the acrimony and discern the contrast between the candidates’ positions on addressing climate change, which are stark.
Especially important is to understand cause-and-effect, that is, will the expenditure of trillions of dollars to retrofit buildings and impose renewable energy and the rest alter Earth’s climate? And, is it worth the higher costs and economic dislocation?
America faces a climate policy fork in the road, as I’ve written, and we are fewer than five weeks from deciding which direction.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-10-01--Senate sets table laden with green pork

Senate sets table laden with green pork

The US Senate is sitting on what could quickly become the biggest green pork giveaway in history , but it is almost impossible to see , let alone discuss or criticize .
Untold billions for renewables and their kin .
This would be funny if it were not so ridiculous , so a bit of scornful humor is called for .
It all began with an innocent little bill introduced in March by Energy Committee chair Murkowski .
The bill would throw a bit of research money at geothermal power generation .
You can still see S 2657 .
No @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , probably not Murkowski , got the idea to make this little bill the vehicle for giving huge amounts of money and tax breaks to the whole realm of green technologies .
Pure green pork .
John Droz does a great job of telling this story .
Droz is a leading critic of renewables .
His has what is likely the world ’ s biggest collection of critical studies and commentaries and his weekly newsletter listing more is very useful .
He blew the whistle on this high pile of pork .
What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amendments to S 2657 were tabled , many all at once .
I have not looked at them all , possibly no one has , but the ones I have looked at really push renewables .
The trick is that there was no notice of this avalanche of pork .
The Senate bills website still just lists the original bill because while the amendments have all been tabled , none has been voted on and passed .
There is however an amendments button that will start you on your way .
I say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ digging to do .
It turns out that these proposed amendments only exist in the obscure pages of the Congressional Record for early March .
The endless porky amendments start on March 3 , 2020 .
There may well be some later as I have not tried to find them all .
I do know that there is one amendment to which there are then many amendments .
There may be amendments to amendments to amendments , etc .
Once you find them the obstacles do not end .
Many are written in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which means they incorporate references to other laws in such a way that you need to look at the references in order to know what the proposed amendment says .
Let me finish with an example .
In fact this is the first one you get to so I am not picking a ringer .
Here is the beginning : King , and Ms. Sinema ) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill , to support innovation in advanced geothermal research and development , and for other purposes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the table ; as follows : At the end , add the following : TITLE IV–AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986 Note that this one has six cosponsors , which is a big deal .
This one is for tax breaks of some sort , to something called Green Energy Publicly Traded Partners .
Tradable partnerships sound like tax shelters .
Then too it is only “ intended to be proposed ” which is itself a proposal .
Like all of these it is “ ordered to lie on the table @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lying on the table .
What follows is a long list of technologies and other stuff to be added to the tax text .
What that text says we have not a clue .
Here is an example , item 9 in the list : “ ( ix ) the production , storage , or transportation of any “ ( I ) uses as its primary feedstock carbon oxides captured from an anthropogenic source or the atmosphere , “ ( II ) does not use as its primary feedstock carbon oxide which is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ III ) is determined by the Secretary , after consultation with the Secretary of Energy and the Administrator of the not less than a 60 percent in lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions ( as defined in section 211 ( o ) ( 1 ) ( H ) of the Clean Air Act , as in effect on the date of the enactment of this emissions ( as defined in section 211 ( o ) ( 1 ) ( C ) of such Act , as So there it is , a small fragment of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of 222 or so , all buried in the March Congressional Record , just sitting there waiting to fly .
As I said at the beginning , this boondoggle could happen very quickly , with no notice and no way to comment .
Everything is set for Senate action .
Somebody in a paying job , or with time on their hands , needs to pull this mess together and say what it says .
Then we the people can voice our opinions .
Failing that we should all tell our Senators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

Caution! Arcane content ahead.
The US Senate is sitting on what could quickly become the biggest green pork giveaway in history, but it is almost impossible to see, let alone discuss or criticize. Untold billions for renewables and their kin. This would be funny if it were not so ridiculous, so a bit of scornful humor is called for.
It all began with an innocent little bill introduced in March by Energy Committee chair Murkowski. The bill would throw a bit of research money at geothermal power generation. You can still see S 2657 here . No big deal, right?
Then someone, probably not Murkowski, got the idea to make this little bill the vehicle for giving huge amounts of money and tax breaks to the whole realm of green technologies. Pure green pork.
John Droz does a great job of telling this story here . Droz is a leading critic of renewables. His website has what is likely the world’s biggest collection of critical studies and commentaries and his weekly newsletter listing more is very useful. He blew the whistle on this high pile of pork.
What happened is that something like 221 proposed amendments to S 2657 were tabled, many all at once. I have not looked at them all, possibly no one has, but the ones I have looked at really push renewables.
The trick is that there was no notice of this avalanche of pork. The Senate bills website still just lists the original bill because while the amendments have all been tabled, none has been voted on and passed.
There is however an amendments button that will start you on your way. I say start because there is still some serious digging to do. It turns out that these proposed amendments only exist in the obscure pages of the Congressional Record for early March.
The endless porky amendments start here on March 3, 2020. There may well be some later as I have not tried to find them all. I do know that there is one amendment to which there are then many amendments. There may be amendments to amendments to amendments, etc.
Once you find them the obstacles do not end. Many are written in what I call “opaque context” which means they incorporate references to other laws in such a way that you need to look at the references in order to know what the proposed amendment says.
Let me finish with an example. In fact this is the first one you get to so I am not picking a ringer.
Here is the beginning:
“ SA 1345 . Mr. COONS (for himself, Mr. Moran, Ms. Ernst, Mr. Crapo, Mr.
King, and Ms. Sinema) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill S. 2657 , to support innovation in advanced geothermal
research and development, and for other purposes; which was ordered to
lie on the table; as follows:
At the end, add the following:
TITLE IV–AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986
SEC. 4001. GREEN ENERGY PUBLICLY TRADED PARTNERSHIPS.“
Note that this one has six cosponsors, which is a big deal. This one is for tax breaks of some sort, to something called Green Energy Publicly Traded Partners. Tradable partnerships sound like tax shelters.
Then too it is only “intended to be proposed” which is itself a proposal. Like all of these it is “ordered to lie on the table“. Thus the proposed non-proposal is lying on the table.
A table full of pork!
What follows is a long list of technologies and other stuff to be added to the tax text. What that text says we have not a clue. Here is an example, item 9 in the list:
“(ix) the production, storage, or transportation of any
fuel which–
“(I) uses as its primary feedstock carbon oxides captured
from an anthropogenic source or the atmosphere,
“(II) does not use as its primary feedstock carbon oxide
which is deliberately released from naturally occurring
subsurface springs, and
“(III) is determined by the Secretary, after consultation
with the Secretary of Energy and the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, to achieve a reduction of
not less than a 60 percent in lifecycle greenhouse gas
emissions (as defined in section 211(o)(1)(H) of the Clean
Air Act, as in effect on the date of the enactment of this
clause) compared to baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas
emissions (as defined in section 211(o)(1)(C) of such Act, as
so in effect),“
So there it is, a small fragment of a much longer non-proposed amendment, just one of 222 or so, all buried in the March Congressional Record, just sitting there waiting to fly.
As I said at the beginning, this boondoggle could happen very quickly, with no notice and no way to comment. Everything is set for Senate action.
Somebody in a paying job, or with time on their hands, needs to pull this mess together and say what it says. Then we the people can voice our opinions.
Failing that we should all tell our Senators to vote against S 2657, period.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-10-02--Wildfires and the spotted owl hoax

Wildfires and the spotted owl hoax

The owls have come home to roost .
In a world convulsed by COVID-19 , economic lockdowns , urban violence , and a presidential election , some may find it hard to believe that 30 years ago the nation was in the grips of a raging dispute over – owls .
Not just any owl , mind you , but the northern spotted owl , a winged predator and longtime resident of the forests in the Pacific Northwest .
Even those who remember the conflict have for the most part filed it away , along with other “ current events @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But the spotted owl is back , and it ’ s back with a vengeance .
Rapidly spreading wildfires have laid waste to hundreds of thousands of acres of timberland and grassland , destroyed homes and businesses , and killed dozens of people in an area stretching from western Oregon south to Napa and Sonoma counties in California ’ s wine country .
The fires took advantage of the region ’ s hopelessly overgrown forests , which provide combustible fuel for the destructive conflagrations .
And that ’ s where the spotted owl @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the owl ’ s being placed on the federal Endangered Species List in 1990 , severe restrictions were placed on the cutting of trees on millions of acres in the region ’ s national forests .
The listing of the owl under the Endangered Species Act ( ESA ) devastated timber-dependent communities throughout the region and , as it turns out , inflicted enormous ecological harm on the region ’ s forests .
How it came to that is a story well worth retelling .
In 1987 , a newly formed consortium , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which included the Wilderness Society , the Sierra Club , and like-minded groups , filed a petition with the U.S .
Fish & Wildlife Service ( FWS ) to have the northern spotted owl listed as an endangered species under the ESA .
The FWS rejected the petition , citing the lack of data showing the owl to be in trouble .
Undaunted , local chapters of the National Audubon Society then filed separate suits against the U.S. Forest Service ad the Bureau of Land Management ( BLM ) questioning whether the owl @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under their jurisdiction .
The environmentalists ’ claims rested on the argument that the northern spotted owl , strix caurina occidentalis , one of several subspecies of spotted owl , was in danger of going extinct because its primary habitat , old-growth forests , was threatened by commercial logging .
As the drama unfolded , the term “ old-growth forests ” became a staple of the debate over the owl .
Foresters use the term “ old-growth ” in referring to forests in the final , or “ climax , ” phase of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pacific Northwest , Douglas fir and Hemlock are the dominant trees , reaching 200 feet in height at maturity .
Such old-growth forests make for good habitat for spotted owls and flying squirrels .
But owls also thrive in younger forests , where their favorite prey , the northern flying squirrel and other rodents , are abundant .
That the owl ’ s survival depended on millions of acres of timberland made off-limits to logging was an unfounded notion spread by environmentalists .
Truth aside , the emphasis on old-growth forests served an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In the hands of skilled PR people , old-growth quickly be came “ ancient , ” inspiring even more reverence and awe in a public largely unfamiliar with the intricacies of forestry .
The media eagerly joined the environmentalists ’ cause , with Time magazine devoting a cover story to the owl .
Prize-winning political cartoonist Dave Horsey portrayed loggers as stupid , brutish , uncaring thugs , eager to lay waste to nature .
Yes , uncouth , blue-collar workers , who had never set foot in Yale Law School , were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hillary Clinton coined the term .
The constant drumbeat worked like a charm .
In June 1990 , the FWS reversed its 1987 decision and declared the owl endangered under the ESA .
In truth , the spotted owl was coming under pressure , but it had nothing to do with old-growth forests and nothing to do with logging .
Barred owls began moving west from forests in Canada and Minnesota in the early 1900s and had made their way into the Pacific Northwest by the 1970s .
Larger and more aggressive than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ successfully invaded the smaller owl ’ s territory and began winning the competition for prey and thus survival .
In fact , the barred owl was known to be causing problems for is smaller cousin at the time of the debate over what to do with the spotted owl , but this was swept under the rug in the rush to save “ ancient forests.
” Today , those overgrown forests are tinderboxes that threaten wildlife , local residents , firefighters , not to mention many of the very trees – and owls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protect .
Mismanagement of national forests predates the spotted owl controversy .
Beginning in the middle of the last century , the U.S. Forest Service began practicing an aggressive policy of fire suppression .
All forest fires , even small , beneficial fires that clear out undergrowth and dead and diseased trees , were ruthlessly suppressed , leading to the dangerous overgrowth that was well underway when the spotted owl was put on the Endangered Species List .
The listing , which resulted from a flawed narrative , made a bad situation worse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when sound forestry management is abandoned in favor of green orthodoxy .
For green activists carrying the banner of the spotted owl , the goal was not to save either the bird or the forests ; it was to bring about the regulatory destruction of the region ’ s timber-dependent communities .
This is what writer Ron Arnold has referred to as “ rural cleansing.
” But in going after lumberjacks and their families , they also helped bring about the wildfires that are now ravaging the Pacific Northwest .

The owls have come home to roost.
In a world convulsed by COVID-19, economic lockdowns, urban violence, and a presidential election, some may find it hard to believe that 30 years ago the nation was in the grips of a raging dispute over – owls. Not just any owl, mind you, but the northern spotted owl, a winged predator and longtime resident of the forests in the Pacific Northwest.
Even those who remember the conflict have for the most part filed it away, along with other “current events” that no longer seem current. But the spotted owl is back, and it’s back with a vengeance.
Rapidly spreading wildfires have laid waste to hundreds of thousands of acres of timberland and grassland, destroyed homes and businesses, and killed dozens of people in an area stretching from western Oregon south to Napa and Sonoma counties in California’s wine country. The fires took advantage of the region’s hopelessly overgrown forests, which provide combustible fuel for the destructive conflagrations.
And that’s where the spotted owl comes in.
As a result of the owl’s being placed on the federal Endangered Species List in 1990, severe restrictions were placed on the cutting of trees on millions of acres in the region’s national forests. The listing of the owl under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) devastated timber-dependent communities throughout the region and, as it turns out, inflicted enormous ecological harm on the region’s forests.
How it came to that is a story well worth retelling.
In 1987, a newly formed consortium, calling itself the Ancient Forest Alliance, which included the Wilderness Society, the Sierra Club, and like-minded groups, filed a petition with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) to have the northern spotted owl listed as an endangered species under the ESA. The FWS rejected the petition, citing the lack of data showing the owl to be in trouble. Undaunted, local chapters of the National Audubon Society then filed separate suits against the U.S. Forest Service ad the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) questioning whether the owl could survive planned timber harvests on lands under their jurisdiction.
The environmentalists’ claims rested on the argument that the northern spotted owl, strix caurina occidentalis, one of several subspecies of spotted owl, was in danger of going extinct because its primary habitat, old-growth forests, was threatened by commercial logging. As the drama unfolded, the term “old-growth forests” became a staple of the debate over the owl. Foresters use the term “old-growth” in referring to forests in the final, or “climax,” phase of succession. In the forests of the Pacific Northwest, Douglas fir and Hemlock are the dominant trees, reaching 200 feet in height at maturity. Such old-growth forests make for good habitat for spotted owls and flying squirrels. But owls also thrive in younger forests, where their favorite prey, the northern flying squirrel and other rodents, are abundant. That the owl’s survival depended on millions of acres of timberland made off-limits to logging was an unfounded notion spread by environmentalists.
Truth aside, the emphasis on old-growth forests served an important public relations function for environmentalists. In the hands of skilled PR people, old-growth quickly be came “ancient,” inspiring even more reverence and awe in a public largely unfamiliar with the intricacies of forestry. The media eagerly joined the environmentalists’ cause, with Time magazine devoting a cover story to the owl. Prize-winning political cartoonist Dave Horsey portrayed loggers as stupid, brutish, uncaring thugs, eager to lay waste to nature. Yes, uncouth, blue-collar workers, who had never set foot in Yale Law School, were seen as “deplorables” long before Hillary Clinton coined the term.
The constant drumbeat worked like a charm. In June 1990, the FWS reversed its 1987 decision and declared the owl endangered under the ESA. In truth, the spotted owl was coming under pressure, but it had nothing to do with old-growth forests and nothing to do with logging. Barred owls began moving west from forests in Canada and Minnesota in the early 1900s and had made their way into the Pacific Northwest by the 1970s. Larger and more aggressive than the spotted owl, the barred owl successfully invaded the smaller owl’s territory and began winning the competition for prey and thus survival. In fact, the barred owl was known to be causing problems for is smaller cousin at the time of the debate over what to do with the spotted owl, but this was swept under the rug in the rush to save “ancient forests.”
Ecological Consequences of Green Orthodoxy
Today, those overgrown forests are tinderboxes that threaten wildlife, local residents, firefighters, not to mention many of the very trees – and owls — the ESA listing was supposed to protect.
Mismanagement of national forests predates the spotted owl controversy. Beginning in the middle of the last century, the U.S. Forest Service began practicing an aggressive policy of fire suppression. All forest fires, even small, beneficial fires that clear out undergrowth and dead and diseased trees, were ruthlessly suppressed, leading to the dangerous overgrowth that was well underway when the spotted owl was put on the Endangered Species List. The listing, which resulted from a flawed narrative, made a bad situation worse.
This is exactly what you get when sound forestry management is abandoned in favor of green orthodoxy. For green activists carrying the banner of the spotted owl, the goal was not to save either the bird or the forests; it was to bring about the regulatory destruction of the region’s timber-dependent communities. This is what writer Ron Arnold has referred to as “rural cleansing.” But in going after lumberjacks and their families, they also helped bring about the wildfires that are now ravaging the Pacific Northwest.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-10-03--Ramifications of California Governor Newsom’s ban on gas-powered vehicles

Before sky diving , you need to plan ahead by having a parachute before you jump .
California Governor Newsom ’ s recent suicidal jump onto the EV train has a minimum of eight ( 8 ) lack-of-a-plan ramifications from his recent Executive order to ban the sale of gas-powered vehicles by 2035 that will be devastating to the state ’ s economy and environment : • Vehicle ownership : With 45 percent of the California population – that ’ s a whopping 18 of the 40 million residents of the state – being Hispanic and African American – having @ @ @ @ @ @ @ present EV owners , the Governor is incentivizing those least likely being able to afford a new car to continuously re-register their existing vehicles .
Additionally , California has the highest homeless population , and the fifth largest percentage of homeless ( behind D.C. , New York , and Hawaii , and Oregon , and has the second highest poverty rate .
• Vintage cars : Re-registering those less fuel efficient , and bigger emission polluters , than state-of-the-art gas-powered newer vehicles that will be banned in the state will result in many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ producing more emissions in the decades ahead and have California replacing CUBA as the vintage car capital of the world .
• SUV ’ s : By 2025 , the sale of light-trucks that includes S.U.V.s , vans and pickups may make up 78 percent of sales , leaving sedans in the dust .
The larger SUV EV ’ s require more power and are more costly than the smaller less experience EV sedans .
Current and future SUV owners may be reluctant to downgrade to smaller EV sedans that are dominating the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ EV ’ s : The Governor wants to add more electrical charging demands onto a dysfunctional energy program that has already shuttered one nuclear power plant and three natural gas power plants in recent years ( total of 4 in recent years ) , and has five more to shutter in the cross hairs – the last nuclear plant at Diablo Canyon and four more natural gas power plants .
The four targeted natural gas plant closure have been given a temporary stay-of-execution due to recent blackouts , but their I end is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than any other state– currently at 32 percent from the Northwest and Southwest and dysfunctionally HOPES that other states will be able to generate enough power to meet the demands of the state , from the shuttering of nine ( 9 ) in-state power plants in a decade , that have been providing continuous uninterruptible electricity .
• Products demanded by societies : Governor Newsom fails to understand that the oil and gas industry is not just a California business with its few refineries , but an international industry with more than 700 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ oil that are needed to make more than 6,000 products , that are essential to our medical industry , electronics , communications , transportation infrastructure , our electricity generation , our cooling , heating , manufacturing , and agriculture—indeed , virtually every aspect of our daily lives and lifestyles .
Those thousands of products we did not have before 1900 are made from petroleum derivatives are more important than the various fuels needed for aviation , trucking , automobiles , and cruise ship segments that brought a standstill to commerce during the pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ batteries ; The Governor ’ s actions are supportive of jumping onto the EV train , knowing that EV ’ s have a very dark side of environmental atrocities that the Governor is willing to “ leak ” to other countries for their support of what he perceives as a “ clean ” industry .
The shift to the exotic minerals and metals used to produce the parts for industrial wind and solar electricity , and for electric car batteries , are highly concentrated in a small number of countries and their extraction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threat to worldwide ecological degradation and heinous human rights abuses that have been documented by the United Nation and Amnesty International .
• Fees for road maintenance : Governor Newsom may have forgotten that whatever type of vehicles use the roads , there are huge funding requirements for both California ’ s transportation infrastructure , and for the environmental compliance programs , that have come from the gas pumps .
California has almost 400,000 miles of roadways that are heavily dependent on road taxes from fuel that contribute more than $ 7 billion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be diminishing in the decades ahead .
• VMT : The Vehicle Mileage Tax ( VMT ) that has been discussed for years sounds like a logical idea – requiring the users of the highways to pay the fees to maintain those highways .
The challenge will be how to implement that great idea which may require annual odometer readings !
Lookout for Governor Newsom ’ s next Executive Order for a VMT requiring annual odometer readings so that each person pays their fair share to maintains the roads they are using @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The list of other negative ramifications , like impacts on the energy employment market , maintaining a supply of one-fifth of the nation ’ s jet fuel consumption to the states airports , and future escalating energy costs for all 40 million residents of the state .
The list goes on while Governor Newsom continues dancing !

Before sky diving, you need to plan ahead by having a parachute before you jump. California Governor Newsom’s recent suicidal jump onto the EV train has a minimum of eight (8) lack-of-a-plan ramifications from his recent Executive order to ban the sale of gas-powered vehicles by 2035 that will be devastating to the state’s economy and environment:
Vehicle ownership: With 45 percent of the California population – that’s a whopping 18 of the 40 million residents of the state – being Hispanic and African American – having average incomes of less than half of present EV owners, the Governor is incentivizing those least likely being able to afford a new car to continuously re-register their existing vehicles. Additionally, California has the highest homeless population, and the fifth largest percentage of homeless (behind D.C., New York, and Hawaii, and Oregon, and has the second highest poverty rate.
Vintage cars: Re-registering those less fuel efficient, and bigger emission polluters, than state-of-the-art gas-powered newer vehicles that will be banned in the state will result in many of the current 31 million registered vehicles producing more emissions in the decades ahead and have California replacing CUBA as the vintage car capital of the world.
SUV’s: By 2025, the sale of light-trucks that includes S.U.V.s, vans and pickups may make up 78 percent of sales, leaving sedans in the dust. The larger SUV EV’s require more power and are more costly than the smaller less experience EV sedans. Current and future SUV owners may be reluctant to downgrade to smaller EV sedans that are dominating the EV markets.
Electricity for charging EV’s: The Governor wants to add more electrical charging demands onto a dysfunctional energy program that has already shuttered one nuclear power plant and three natural gas power plants in recent years (total of 4 in recent years), and has five more to shutter in the cross hairs – the last nuclear plant at Diablo Canyon and four more natural gas power plants. The four targeted natural gas plant closure have been given a temporary stay-of-execution due to recent blackouts, but their I end is approaching. California already imports more electricity than any other state– currently at 32 percent from the Northwest and Southwest and dysfunctionally HOPES that other states will be able to generate enough power to meet the demands of the state, from the shuttering of nine (9) in-state power plants in a decade, that have been providing continuous uninterruptible electricity.
Products demanded by societies: Governor Newsom fails to understand that the oil and gas industry is not just a California business with its few refineries, but an international industry with more than 700 refineries worldwide that manufacture the derivatives from oil that are needed to make more than 6,000 products, that are essential to our medical industry, electronics, communications, transportation infrastructure, our electricity generation, our cooling, heating, manufacturing, and agriculture—indeed, virtually every aspect of our daily lives and lifestyles. Those thousands of products we did not have before 1900 are made from petroleum derivatives are more important than the various fuels needed for aviation, trucking, automobiles, and cruise ship segments that brought a standstill to commerce during the pandemic.
The dark side of EV batteries; The Governor’s actions are supportive of jumping onto the EV train, knowing that EV’s have a very dark side of environmental atrocities that the Governor is willing to “leak” to other countries for their support of what he perceives as a “clean” industry. The shift to the exotic minerals and metals used to produce the parts for industrial wind and solar electricity, and for electric car batteries, are highly concentrated in a small number of countries and their extraction from mining and refinement pose a serious threat to worldwide ecological degradation and heinous human rights abuses that have been documented by the United Nation and Amnesty International.
Fees for road maintenance: Governor Newsom may have forgotten that whatever type of vehicles use the roads, there are huge funding requirements for both California’s transportation infrastructure, and for the environmental compliance programs, that have come from the gas pumps. California has almost 400,000 miles of roadways that are heavily dependent on road taxes from fuel that contribute more than $7 billion annually, the same tax base that will be diminishing in the decades ahead.
VMT: The Vehicle Mileage Tax (VMT) that has been discussed for years sounds like a logical idea – requiring the users of the highways to pay the fees to maintain those highways. The challenge will be how to implement that great idea which may require annual odometer readings! Lookout for Governor Newsom’s next Executive Order for a VMT requiring annual odometer readings so that each person pays their fair share to maintains the roads they are using to replace the diminishing fuel taxes!
The list of other negative ramifications, like impacts on the energy employment market, maintaining a supply of one-fifth of the nation’s jet fuel consumption to the states airports, and future escalating energy costs for all 40 million residents of the state. The list goes on while Governor Newsom continues dancing!


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-10-04--Subtracting fossil fuels plus adding electric cars equals disaster

If California ’ s struggle to keep the lights on isn ’ t already dim enough , Golden State residents should brace themselves for even darker prospects with a planned ban on the sale of new gas-powered cars by 2035 .
Recall that utility company responses to the state ’ s mandate that 60 % of electricity come from renewables by 2030 and 100 % by 2045 recently left millions of perspiring Californians powerless during a grueling heat wave .
Now imagine adding several tens of thousands of electric vehicles ( EVs ) to drain further dwindling supplies of reliable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ideas regarding how to recharge all those power-hungry plug-ins on windless nights .
For a reality check , let ’ s first recognize that about 80 percent of all U.S. energy ( always measured in BTUs ) comes from fossil sources , with another 8.6 percent contributed by nuclear .
Of that total U.S. energy amount , solar and wind combined presently contribute barely over three percent , with solar contributing less than 0.1 percent .
Even the best wind power and sunlight systems produce energy averaged over the year at 25 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
By comparison , conventional natural gas plants have very high availability in the 80 % -95 % range , and often higher .
Wind and solar energy intermittency demand an equal amount of “ spinning reserve ” power typically provided my natural gas turbines that must be inefficiently throttled up and down like a car driving in stop-and-go traffic to balance the energy grid .
Any excess energy that is produced must either be dumped or stored for times when it will be useful — like , for example at night when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wish to replenish their large power-thirsty batteries .
There ’ s also another big problem with producing those batteries .
China controls about 70 % of the world ’ s lithium supply and 83 % of the anodes to make them .
And a lithium project that has been seeking approval to mine the material in a Nevada desert has been blocked from doing so for more than a decade by environmental groups such as the Center for Biological Diversity .
Nevertheless , limited capacities and unreliability issues aside ( and they are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that “ green energy ” still supposed to be environmentally clean ?
Certainly not when we consider what goes into making those systems .
As reported by my friend Mark Mills at the Manhattan Institute , building wind turbines and solar panels to generate electricity , as well as batteries to fuel electric vehicles , requires , on average , more than 10 times the quantity of materials , compared with building equivalent systems using hydrocarbons to deliver the same amount of energy .
Consider the massive material requirements needed to replace a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a typical residential house with at least 20 wind turbines , each about the size of the Washington Monument and covering about 10 square miles of land .
Wind and solar power also require huge amounts of more land and expansive transmission lines to deliver electricity from remote sites to high power demand metropolitan centers .
Those long-distance power transfers also add significant transmission losses .
The wind alternative would consume about 30,000 tons of iron ore and 50,000 tons of concrete , as well as 900 tons of non-recyclable plastics for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the same output — enough power to supply about 75,000 homes — would require half again more tonnage in cement , steel and glass .
Adding to that , also imagine periodically replacing a utility-scale battery storage system for that same 100-MW wind farm comprising at least 10,000 tons of Tesla-class batteries .
Producing each of them requires mining , moving , and processing more than 500,000 pounds of materials using hydrocarbon-fueled equipment .
This amounts to some 20 times more than the 25,000 pounds of petroleum that an internal combustion engine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Applied for transportation , and averaged over a 1,000 pound EV battery life , imagine that each mile of driving an electric vehicle “ consumes ” about five pounds of earth moved by hydrocarbon powered devices , whereas a comparable petroleum-fueled vehicle only consumes about 0.2 pounds of liquids per mile .
Again , for comparison with hydrocarbons , it requires the energy equivalent of about 100 barrels of oil to fabricate a quantity of storage batteries that can store a single barrel of oil-equivalent energy .
Put still another way , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to store the energy equivalent to that in one pound of hydrocarbons .
Mark Mills reminds us that by 2050 , with current plans , the quantity of worn-out , non-recyclable solar panels will double the tonnage of all today ’ s global plastic waste , along with over 3 million tons per year of unrecyclable plastics from worn-out wind turbine blades .
By 2030 , more than 10 million tons per year of batteries , including rare earth elements such as dysprosium they contain , will become landfill garbage .
As a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ T ] echnologies assumed to populate the clean energy shift … are in fact significantly more material intensive in their composition than current traditional fossil-fuel-based energy supply systems.
” In addition , banning gasoline vehicles is going to cost California lots of funding needed for roads and public works , including the state ’ s bullet train to nowhere .
The state currently collects about $ 8 billion in fuel taxes and $ 3 billion in cap-and trade revenues annually .
Getting to 100 % electric by 2035 will require massively more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cars and an enormous vehicle-charging network to expand from a mere 6.2 % of the auto market represented by EV sales last year .
Finally , as for wind , solar and EV ’ s eliminating either “ carbon pollution ” or climate change , don ’ t believe that for a moment .
The only thing “ green ” about any of them will come from the pocketbooks of taxpayer subsidies and hiked-up energy cost consumers .

If California’s struggle to keep the lights on isn’t already dim enough, Golden State residents should brace themselves for even darker prospects with a planned ban on the sale of new gas-powered cars by 2035.
Recall that utility company responses to the state’s mandate that 60% of electricity come from renewables by 2030 and 100% by 2045 recently left millions of perspiring Californians powerless during a grueling heat wave.
Now imagine adding several tens of thousands of electric vehicles (EVs) to drain further dwindling supplies of reliable energy. Not explained are any bright ideas regarding how to recharge all those power-hungry plug-ins on windless nights.
For a reality check, let’s first recognize that about 80 percent of all U.S. energy (always measured in BTUs) comes from fossil sources, with another 8.6 percent contributed by nuclear. Of that total U.S. energy amount, solar and wind combined presently contribute barely over three percent, with solar contributing less than 0.1 percent.
Even the best wind power and sunlight systems produce energy averaged over the year at 25%-30% of the time or less. By comparison, conventional natural gas plants have very high availability in the 80%-95% range, and often higher.
Wind and solar energy intermittency demand an equal amount of “spinning reserve” power typically provided my natural gas turbines that must be inefficiently throttled up and down like a car driving in stop-and-go traffic to balance the energy grid.
Any excess energy that is produced must either be dumped or stored for times when it will be useful — like, for example at night when large populations of EV owners will simultaneously wish to replenish their large power-thirsty batteries.
There’s also another big problem with producing those batteries.
China controls about 70% of the world’s lithium supply and 83% of the anodes to make them. And a lithium project that has been seeking approval to mine the material in a Nevada desert has been blocked from doing so for more than a decade by environmental groups such as the Center for Biological Diversity.
Nevertheless, limited capacities and unreliability issues aside (and they are big ones), wasn’t that “green energy” still supposed to be environmentally clean?
Certainly not when we consider what goes into making those systems.
As reported by my friend Mark Mills at the Manhattan Institute, building wind turbines and solar panels to generate electricity, as well as batteries to fuel electric vehicles, requires, on average, more than 10 times the quantity of materials, compared with building equivalent systems using hydrocarbons to deliver the same amount of energy.
Consider the massive material requirements needed to replace a single 100-MW gas-fired turbine about the size of a typical residential house with at least 20 wind turbines, each about the size of the Washington Monument and covering about 10 square miles of land.
Wind and solar power also require huge amounts of more land and expansive transmission lines to deliver electricity from remote sites to high power demand metropolitan centers. Those long-distance power transfers also add significant transmission losses.
The wind alternative would consume about 30,000 tons of iron ore and 50,000 tons of concrete, as well as 900 tons of non-recyclable plastics for the huge blades.
A solar plant with the same output — enough power to supply about 75,000 homes — would require half again more tonnage in cement, steel and glass.
Adding to that, also imagine periodically replacing a utility-scale battery storage system for that same 100-MW wind farm comprising at least 10,000 tons of Tesla-class batteries.
Producing each of them requires mining, moving, and processing more than 500,000 pounds of materials using hydrocarbon-fueled equipment. This amounts to some 20 times more than the 25,000 pounds of petroleum that an internal combustion engine uses over the life of a car.
Applied for transportation, and averaged over a 1,000 pound EV battery life, imagine that each mile of driving an electric vehicle “consumes” about five pounds of earth moved by hydrocarbon powered devices, whereas a comparable petroleum-fueled vehicle only consumes about 0.2 pounds of liquids per mile.
Again, for comparison with hydrocarbons, it requires the energy equivalent of about 100 barrels of oil to fabricate a quantity of storage batteries that can store a single barrel of oil-equivalent energy. Put still another way, about 60 pounds of batteries are needed to store the energy equivalent to that in one pound of hydrocarbons.
Mark Mills reminds us that by 2050, with current plans, the quantity of worn-out, non-recyclable solar panels will double the tonnage of all today’s global plastic waste, along with over 3 million tons per year of unrecyclable plastics from worn-out wind turbine blades.
By 2030, more than 10 million tons per year of batteries, including rare earth elements such as dysprosium they contain, will become landfill garbage.
As a 2017 World Bank study concludes, “[T]echnologies assumed to populate the clean energy shift … are in fact significantly more material intensive in their composition than current traditional fossil-fuel-based energy supply systems.”
In addition, banning gasoline vehicles is going to cost California lots of funding needed for roads and public works, including the state’s bullet train to nowhere. The state currently collects about $8 billion in fuel taxes and $3 billion in cap-and trade revenues annually.
Getting to 100% electric by 2035 will require massively more money for subsidies to pay for those cars and an enormous vehicle-charging network to expand from a mere 6.2% of the auto market represented by EV sales last year.
Finally, as for wind, solar and EV’s eliminating either “carbon pollution” or climate change, don’t believe that for a moment. The only thing “green” about any of them will come from the pocketbooks of taxpayer subsidies and hiked-up energy cost consumers.
This article originally appeared at Newsmax


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-10-05--Your life under the Green New Deal

Your life under the Green New Deal

During the cantankerous September 29 presidential “ debate , ” candidate Joe Biden proclaimed “ I am the Democratic Party.
” He is in charge , he insisted , and his views will be Democrat policy .
Others aren ’ t so sure – about that , about what his views actually are , or about how far to the left he would be pushed , prodded and pressured by Kamala Harris , AOC , Bernie Sanders , Nancy Pelosi , Chuck Schumer , Antifa mobs , and coastal and blue city governing , academic and technology elites .
Mr. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tax cuts , but has refused to say whether he supports single-payer nationalized healthcare , Second Amendment self-defense , packing the Supreme Court , eliminating the Senate filibuster , or adding Puerto Rico , Guam and Washington DC as new ( Democrat ) states .
Like Nancy Pelosi on ObamaCare , he wants us to vote for him , so we can find out what his positions are .
When he ’ s in California or Manhattan , he says he ’ ll ban fracking – which he claims to support when he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where he needs rural and blue-collar voters who support and benefit greatly from this amazing technology .
However , Mr. Biden does say he will put controlling Earth ’ s climate at the center of US foreign policy .
So he strongly supports the Green New Deal ( GND ) , which would completely replace fossil fuels with “ clean , green ” electricity and biofuel energy by 2035 .
GND proponents want us to believe this can be done quickly , easily , affordably , ecologically , sustainably and painlessly – almost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Not a chance .
Those in power would undoubtedly protect their privileged status .
But the GND would control and pummel the jobs , lives , living standards , savings , personal choices and ecological heritage of rural , poor , minority , elderly and working classes .
Dependable coal and natural gas power plants will be replaced by intermittent , weather-dependent wind and solar power ; gasoline-powered vehicles with electric models .
That ’ s obvious .
But our nation ’ s abundant coal , oil , natural gas and petroleum @ @ @ @ @ @ @ energy that makes America ’ s jobs , lives and living standards possible .
Locking them in the ground would have far-reaching impacts that are far less apparent , and have ( deliberately ? )
received little media attention .
In 2018 , America ’ s fossil fuels generated about 2.7 billion megawatt-hours ( MWh ) of electricity .
But almost two-thirds of the nation ’ s non-exported natural gas served industrial , commercial and residential needs – including factories , hospital emergency power systems , and furnaces , ovens , stoves and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of millions of US homes .
That ’ s equivalent to another 2.7 billion MWh .
The nation ’ s 65 million cars , light trucks , buses , semi-trailers , motor homes , tractors , backhoes and other vehicles consumed the gasoline and diesel equivalent of yet another 2 billion MWh .
Altogether , that ’ s nearly 7.5 billion MWh that the Green New Deal would have to replace by 2035 !
Even assuming the United States and world could mine , process and transport enough metals and minerals – and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ finished equipment to make this happen – this brave new all-electric nation would require millions of onshore wind turbines , tens of thousands of offshore turbines , billions of solar panels , billions of vehicle batteries , billions of backup energy storage batteries , thousands of miles of new high voltage transmission lines , and billions of tons of concrete !
The GND would turn our Midlands – what elites denigrate as flyover country – into vast energy colonies .
Millions of acres of farmland , wildlife habitat and scenic areas would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ battery facilities , and power lines to electricity-hungry towns and cities .
Windswept ocean vistas and sea lanes would be plagued by towering turbines .
Birds , bats and other wildlife would disappear .
With mining still under assault in the USA , the metals , minerals , components and equipment would come mostly from China or Chinese companies in Africa , using vast quantities of fossil fuels , under minimal to nonexistent environmental , workplace safety , fair wage and child labor laws .
This smells of slavery and racism – making @ @ @ @ @ @ @ making it increasingly difficult for the United States to criticize or challenge China on human rights , pollution , military aggression or territorial expansion .
The GND would also mean ripping out , and throwing out , the natural gas appliances you now have , replacing them with electric models , and installing rapid charging systems for your cars .
That will mean upgrading household , neighborhood and national electrical systems , to handle the extra loads .
Oil and natural gas are also feed stocks for pharmaceuticals , cosmetics , paints , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for computers , wind turbine blades , solar panel films and countless other products .
Under the GND , we ’ d have to shut down those US-based industries , import feed stocks for them , or turn hundreds of millions of acres into biofuel plantations .
Up to 10 million high-pay petroleum , petrochemical and manufacturing jobs would be lost – with many replaced by low-pay , temporary or short-term jobs hauling , installing , maintaining , dismantling and landfilling wind turbines , solar panels and batteries .
The GND would cost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ringleader California wants the entire country to emulate its policies .
Its families and businesses already pay the highest electricity prices in the continental USA – and are getting hammered repeatedly by blackouts .
Now the state has mandated electric cars , cooking and heating .
No more natural gas .
How its legislators expect to generate all that extra electricity and avoid more blackouts , no one knows .
Families , factories , hospitals , schools and businesses used to paying 7 , 9 or 11 cents per kilowatt-hour for 24/7/365 electricity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Under the GND , you ’ ll be paying 14 , 18 , 22 cents per kWh , as they do in green US states – or even 35 US cents per kWh , as they do in Germany .
You ’ ll also be using twice as much electricity , and probably experiencing repeated power interruptions .
Get used to having electricity when it ’ s available , rather than when you need it , however “ essential ” your business services or family needs might be .
How you will survive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether you will join the ranks of those who must choose between heating and eating , is anyone ’ s guess .
A week of cloudy weather will really reduce solar output – and wind turbines generate roughly zero electricity on the hottest and most frigid days .
Be careful where you live or need to recharge your EV .
As to all those electric vehicles , a basic $ 39,000 Model 3 Tesla sedan has a battery module that weighs some 1,200 pounds and gets around 250 miles on a charge .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ or AC , don ’ t take long family trips , and don ’ t get caught in a blizzard , or a traffic jam trying to escape a roaring forest fire .
How many tons of batteries a bus , semi-truck or mining excavator would require , where you ’ d put them , and how many hours a day you ’ d waste recharging them , are other important considerations .
Perhaps Mr. Biden or Ms. Ocasio-Cortez has the answers .
The Obama Administration sent a heavily armed SWAT team into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Species Act violation .
Democrats refuse to condemn BLM and Antifa mob violence , arson and looting .
How a Biden-Harris-AOC Deep State and its allies might respond to organized or even spontaneous resistance to Green New Deal dictates and impacts is pretty easy to imagine .
So is their response to cities , counties and states declaring themselves “ sanctuaries ” to GND or gun control decrees .
Keep in mind , too : This entire GND energy , economic and living standards “ transformation ” is being justified by claims that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and “ ongoing ravages of climate change.
” It ’ s all a gigantic Climate Hustle .
There is no climate emergency .
Humans can not control Earth ’ s climate and weather .
Fossil fuel emissions have negligible effects .
Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant ; it is the miracle molecule that makes plant , human and animal life possible .
Climate change and extreme weather have been “ real ” throughout history .
What we are seeing today is in no way unprecedented .
Green New Dealers would bring us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pain for no gain – except that they would get more money , power and control .

During the cantankerous September 29 presidential “debate,” candidate Joe Biden proclaimed “I am the Democratic Party.” He is in charge, he insisted, and his views will be Democrat policy. Others aren’t so sure – about that, about what his views actually are, or about how far to the left he would be pushed, prodded and pressured by Kamala Harris, AOC, Bernie Sanders, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Antifa mobs, and coastal and blue city governing, academic and technology elites.
Mr. Biden has pledged to eliminate the Trump tax cuts, but has refused to say whether he supports single-payer nationalized healthcare, Second Amendment self-defense, packing the Supreme Court, eliminating the Senate filibuster, or adding Puerto Rico, Guam and Washington DC as new (Democrat) states.
Like Nancy Pelosi on ObamaCare, he wants us to vote for him, so we can find out what his positions are.
When he’s in California or Manhattan, he says he’ll ban fracking – which he claims to support when he’s in Ohio and Pennsylvania, where he needs rural and blue-collar voters who support and benefit greatly from this amazing technology. However, Mr. Biden does say he will put controlling Earth’s climate at the center of US foreign policy. So he strongly supports the Green New Deal (GND), which would completely replace fossil fuels with “clean, green” electricity and biofuel energy by 2035.
GND proponents want us to believe this can be done quickly, easily, affordably, ecologically, sustainably and painlessly – almost with the wave of a magic wand. Not a chance. Those in power would undoubtedly protect their privileged status. But the GND would control and pummel the jobs, lives, living standards, savings, personal choices and ecological heritage of rural, poor, minority, elderly and working classes.
Dependable coal and natural gas power plants will be replaced by intermittent, weather-dependent wind and solar power; gasoline-powered vehicles with electric models. That’s obvious.
But our nation’s abundant coal, oil, natural gas and petroleum liquids provide over 80% of the energy that makes America’s jobs, lives and living standards possible. Locking them in the ground would have far-reaching impacts that are far less apparent, and have (deliberately?) received little media attention.
In 2018, America’s fossil fuels generated about 2.7 billion megawatt-hours (MWh) of electricity. But almost two-thirds of the nation’s non-exported natural gas served industrial, commercial and residential needs – including factories, hospital emergency power systems, and furnaces, ovens, stoves and hot water heaters in restaurants and tens of millions of US homes. That’s equivalent to another 2.7 billion MWh.
The nation’s 65 million cars, light trucks, buses, semi-trailers, motor homes, tractors, backhoes and other vehicles consumed the gasoline and diesel equivalent of yet another 2 billion MWh.
Altogether, that’s nearly 7.5 billion MWh that the Green New Deal would have to replace by 2035!
Even assuming the United States and world could mine, process and transport enough metals and minerals – and manufacture and transport all the components and finished equipment to make this happen – this brave new all-electric nation would require millions of onshore wind turbines, tens of thousands of offshore turbines, billions of solar panels, billions of vehicle batteries, billions of backup energy storage batteries, thousands of miles of new high voltage transmission lines, and billions of tons of concrete!
The GND would turn our Midlands – what elites denigrate as flyover country – into vast energy colonies. Millions of acres of farmland, wildlife habitat and scenic areas would be blanketed by industrial wind, solar and battery facilities, and power lines to electricity-hungry towns and cities. Windswept ocean vistas and sea lanes would be plagued by towering turbines. Birds, bats and other wildlife would disappear.
With mining still under assault in the USA, the metals, minerals, components and equipment would come mostly from China or Chinese companies in Africa, using vast quantities of fossil fuels, under minimal to nonexistent environmental, workplace safety, fair wage and child labor laws. This smells of slavery and racism – making us complicit in perpetuating it, and making it increasingly difficult for the United States to criticize or challenge China on human rights, pollution, military aggression or territorial expansion.
The GND would also mean ripping out, and throwing out, the natural gas appliances you now have, replacing them with electric models, and installing rapid charging systems for your cars. That will mean upgrading household, neighborhood and national electrical systems, to handle the extra loads.
Oil and natural gas are also feed stocks for pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, paints, synthetic fibers, fertilizers … and plastics for computers, wind turbine blades, solar panel films and countless other products. Under the GND, we’d have to shut down those US-based industries, import feed stocks for them, or turn hundreds of millions of acres into biofuel plantations.
Up to 10 million high-pay petroleum, petrochemical and manufacturing jobs would be lost – with many replaced by low-pay, temporary or short-term jobs hauling, installing, maintaining, dismantling and landfilling wind turbines, solar panels and batteries. The GND would cost tens of trillions of dollars!
GND ringleader California wants the entire country to emulate its policies. Its families and businesses already pay the highest electricity prices in the continental USA – and are getting hammered repeatedly by blackouts. Now the state has mandated electric cars, cooking and heating. No more natural gas. How its legislators expect to generate all that extra electricity and avoid more blackouts, no one knows.
Families, factories, hospitals, schools and businesses used to paying 7, 9 or 11 cents per kilowatt-hour for 24/7/365 electricity better brace themselves for rude shocks. Under the GND, you’ll be paying 14, 18, 22 cents per kWh, as they do in green US states – or even 35 US cents per kWh, as they do in Germany. You’ll also be using twice as much electricity, and probably experiencing repeated power interruptions.
Get used to having electricity when it’s available, rather than when you need it, however “essential” your business services or family needs might be. How you will survive, whether your job will disappear, whether you will join the ranks of those who must choose between heating and eating, is anyone’s guess.
A week of cloudy weather will really reduce solar output – and wind turbines generate roughly zero electricity on the hottest and most frigid days. Be careful where you live or need to recharge your EV.
As to all those electric vehicles, a basic $39,000 Model 3 Tesla sedan has a battery module that weighs some 1,200 pounds and gets around 250 miles on a charge. Just don’t use the heater or AC, don’t take long family trips, and don’t get caught in a blizzard, or a traffic jam trying to escape a roaring forest fire.
How many tons of batteries a bus, semi-truck or mining excavator would require, where you’d put them, and how many hours a day you’d waste recharging them, are other important considerations. Perhaps Mr. Biden or Ms. Ocasio-Cortez has the answers.
The Obama Administration sent a heavily armed SWAT team into Gibson Guitar offices over a phony Endangered Species Act violation. Democrats refuse to condemn BLM and Antifa mob violence, arson and looting. How a Biden-Harris-AOC Deep State and its allies might respond to organized or even spontaneous resistance to Green New Deal dictates and impacts is pretty easy to imagine. So is their response to cities, counties and states declaring themselves “sanctuaries” to GND or gun control decrees.
Keep in mind, too: This entire GND energy, economic and living standards “transformation” is being justified by claims that we face a “climate emergency” and “ongoing ravages of climate change.”
It’s all a gigantic Climate Hustle. There is no climate emergency. Humans cannot control Earth’s climate and weather. Fossil fuel emissions have negligible effects. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant; it is the miracle molecule that makes plant, human and animal life possible. Climate change and extreme weather have been “real” throughout history. What we are seeing today is in no way unprecedented.
Green New Dealers would bring us, our country and our planet enormous pain for no gain – except that they would get more money, power and control.