committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-06-03--Batteries not a sustainable backup for wind and solar — Part I: Environmental Concerns

Governors , Utility , and Industry captains are rushing for the headlines , with each claiming the most , the biggest , the newest solar plants and wind plants with the sexiest battery-backup systems .
The last time we saw such a feverish gold-rush was in 1849 , but these new media-miners are off for pyrite , better known as fool ’ s gold .
• None On May 19 , 2020 , Nevada launched the massive Gemini solar project comprising 690MW of solar generation plus a 380MW battery storage facility .
Two years earlier , they launched a 1,000MW @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Storage , to be “ Carbon neutral by 2025.
” • None Not to be outdone , the next day , PG & E , presently under Chapter 11 resulting from gross mismanagement , launched the acquisition of 720MW battery storage facilities for their existing solar plants .
That is on top of the 770 MW battery purchase announced earlier in May .
• None On January 22 , 2020 , “ Arizona ’ s biggest utility ( APS ) says it will get all of its electricity from carbon-free sources by 2050.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ examine a few of the headlines that were not written or stories written in small fonts and swiftly swept under the rug by the popular media giants and mega news services and T.V .
talking heads .
For example , how much attention was given to Bloomberg , April 19 , 2019 , [ d ] article “ Explosions Threatening Lithium-Ion ’ s Edge in a Battery Race.
” … ” Another lithium-ion battery has exploded , this time at an energy-storage complex in the U.S. ” The article goes on to tell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that occurred in S. Korea , including seven at electrical “ green ” generating sites .
Another great example is the down-play of the Michael Moore film PLANET OF THE HUMANS , where Mr. Moore lays bare the unseen and untold destruction of the planet-wide environment in the name of “ saving the planet.
” Even more unnerving is the enormous amounts of fossil fuels burned and CO2 emitted to construct and stand these solar and wind “ green-machines.
” In this first segment , we pay particular attention to the one part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coverage , and that ’ s the ecological disasters from the necessary demolition of these solar/wind plants after their 15 – 20-year service life .
In the second segment we will explore safety or the lack of when dealing with the fundamental science of lithium-ion batteries .
We ’ ll also touch upon the two Boeing 747 freighters that crashed , caused by lithium-ion batteries that were being transported to markets all over the world .
These dangers exist not only in the large storage batteries , but the underlying physics and chemistry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ realities .
In the second segment , we will also examine the many hidden costs presented by our impending new love affair for lithium-ion batteries .
Eco-destruction : In Figure 1 , [ e ] we see the massive amounts of materials needed by the solar and wind industry .
Especially note the scale is logarithmic ; for example , a wind plant needs about 1,400 tons of total material ; that ’ s about 140 times more than a comparable gas plant , and solar is not far behind .
Yes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and wind sites result in massive world-wide destruction to the environment , vast emissions of CO2 in case you see CO2 as a problem and an outpouring of pollutants just to build and transport these ‘ planet-saving machines ’ to their sites in the rich-industrialized countries .
Even if it is zero-carbon dioxide which in itself is delusional , the damage is irreparable .
In figure 2 there is a strip-mine for iron , or aluminum or coal , or rare earth ’ s ?
It does not matter as dozens of these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ green-delusion .
Where is the Sierra Club as millions of acres of fields and forests and streams are destroyed just to access the mines even before the gouging and tearing behemoths start their ore extraction work to create more batteries ?
Where are Sierra Clubbers hiding as these ores are dug , transported , smelted , coked , and blast furnaced as more untold tons of coal and oil and gas are burned to build the parts for green machines and their intended backup batteries ?
More tons of the fossil fuels they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the trains , and ships to transport the raw and processed materials to their installation sites .
As this is going on in places unknown and unseen all over the planet , the installation sites in your states and counties are being prepared .
Millions of trees , brush , and vegetation are razed to dust , and the hills are bulldozed down , valleys and streams are buried over by more machines burning more fossil fuels .
Add a few thousand kilos of dynamite if you must .
How many millions of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sites for the hundreds of tons of steel-reinforced cement anchoring their bases .
To the above madness and vanity , they are now adding batteries , why ?
Every solar and wind plant needs a fossil fuel plant to back them up when the sun is not shining , and the wind isn ’ t blowing at appropriate speeds .
These fossil fuel back up plants will need to run 100 % of the time and burn nearly the same amount of fossil fuels and produce the same emissions as if the solar/wind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ science is presented HERE in detail .
So , our eco-charlatans have come up with new , bigger , better , and more profitable schemes .
They now want to sell us batteries to eliminate the fossil fuel plants .
Will it work ?
Let ’ s make a critical-thinking analysis .
We briefly mentioned the toxic substances used in the manufacturing of wind plants and even more in solar panels .
With the batteries , the toxins are on steroids in volume , in toxicity , and safety .
Meticulous attention will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , use , and decommissioning of the batteries .
And doing it safely dramatically adds to their costs , discussed in detail in Part II .
Even after the solar or wind plant is in operation , we may find out that we will need to run the fossil plant to back up the solar or wind plant while it is charging the batteries .
Lithium batteries do not like large cycles .
For example , they do not like to be downloaded too deep , as that will reduce their useful life @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the same reason .
As we conclude the environmental devastation done by the construction of wind and solar power plants we can not avoid the problem of DECOMMISSIONING .
What do you do with a plant after it ’ s 15-20-year life cycle ?
In the past , there were many cases where a utility simply abandoned them to further scar the landscape .
Most States are starting to require utilities to pay a cash bond up-front as part of the licensing requirements .
That will require more untold tons of fossil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shredders , and grinders .
Then , where are they going to dump the non-recyclable items , in the oceans and at night ?
Load them on ships and ferry them to some developing country and pay them a few more dollars to ruin their environments ?
But now , with the batteries that have to be disposed of every few years , the tonnage of toxins will skyrocket , and so will the costs .
What ’ s PG & E going to do , they are already in a bankruptcy proceeding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decommissioning costs , toxins , and CO2/pollution discharges will be passed off again to taxpayers .
We are quite positive that useful battery backup will not ever come to the nations growing wind and solar facilities , but we are equally positive that additional environmental devastation will come amidst their failed efforts .

Governors, Utility, and Industry captains are rushing for the headlines, with each claiming the most, the biggest, the newest solar plants and wind plants with the sexiest battery-backup systems. The last time we saw such a feverish gold-rush was in 1849, but these new media-miners are off for pyrite, better known as fool’s gold.
On May 19, 2020, Nevada launched the massive Gemini [a] solar project comprising 690MW of solar generation plus a 380MW battery storage facility. Two years earlier, they launched a 1,000MW of solar generation and 100MW of Battery Storage, to be “Carbon neutral by 2025.” [b]
Not to be outdone, the next day, PG&E, [c] presently under Chapter 11 resulting from gross mismanagement, launched the acquisition of 720MW battery storage facilities for their existing solar plants. That is on top of the 770 MW battery purchase announced earlier in May.
On January 22, 2020, “Arizona’s biggest utility (APS) says it will get all of its electricity from carbon-free sources by 2050.”
In this two-part series, we examine a few of the headlines that were not written or stories written in small fonts and swiftly swept under the rug by the popular media giants and mega news services and T.V. talking heads. For example, how much attention was given to Bloomberg, April 19, 2019,[d] article “Explosions Threatening Lithium-Ion’s Edge in a Battery Race.”…” Another lithium-ion battery has exploded, this time at an energy-storage complex in the U.S.” The article goes on to tell of the 21 other major battery explosions that occurred in S. Korea, including seven at electrical “green” generating sites.
Another great example is the down-play of the Michael Moore film PLANET OF THE HUMANS, where Mr. Moore lays bare the unseen and untold destruction of the planet-wide environment in the name of “saving the planet.” Even more unnerving is the enormous amounts of fossil fuels burned and CO2 emitted to construct and stand these solar and wind “green-machines.” In this first segment, we pay particular attention to the one part that Michael Moore did not give fair coverage, and that’s the ecological disasters from the necessary demolition of these solar/wind plants after their 15 – 20-year service life.
In the second segment we will explore safety or the lack of when dealing with the fundamental science of lithium-ion batteries. We’ll also touch upon the two Boeing 747 freighters that crashed, caused by lithium-ion batteries that were being transported to markets all over the world. These dangers exist not only in the large storage batteries, but the underlying physics and chemistry challenges posed by the batteries’ engineering realities. In the second segment, we will also examine the many hidden costs presented by our impending new love affair for lithium-ion batteries.
Eco-destruction: In Figure 1,[e] we see the massive amounts of materials needed by the solar and wind industry. Especially note the scale is logarithmic; for example, a wind plant needs about 1,400 tons of total material; that’s about 140 times more than a comparable gas plant, and solar is not far behind. Yes, we said 140 times greater. Solar and wind sites result in massive world-wide destruction to the environment, vast emissions of CO2 in case you see CO2 as a problem and an outpouring of pollutants just to build and transport these ‘planet-saving machines’ to their sites in the rich-industrialized countries. Even if it is zero-carbon dioxide which in itself is delusional, the damage is irreparable.
In figure 2 there is a strip-mine for iron, or aluminum or coal, or rare earth’s? It does not matter as dozens of these appear each new year to feed the green-delusion. Where is the Sierra Club as millions of acres of fields and forests and streams are destroyed just to access the mines even before the gouging and tearing behemoths start their ore extraction work to create more batteries ? Where are Sierra Clubbers hiding as these ores are dug, transported, smelted, coked, and blast furnaced as more untold tons of coal and oil and gas are burned to build the parts for green machines and their intended backup batteries? More tons of the fossil fuels they despise are burned by the trucks, the trains, and ships to transport the raw and processed materials to their installation sites.
As this is going on in places unknown and unseen all over the planet, the installation sites in your states and counties are being prepared. Millions of trees, brush, and vegetation are razed to dust, and the hills are bulldozed down, valleys and streams are buried over by more machines burning more fossil fuels. Add a few thousand kilos of dynamite if you must. How many millions of tons of pollutants are released at these sites for the hundreds of tons of steel-reinforced cement anchoring their bases.
To the above madness and vanity, they are now adding batteries, why? Every solar and wind plant needs a fossil fuel plant to back them up when the sun is not shining, and the wind isn’t blowing at appropriate speeds. These fossil fuel back up plants will need to run 100% of the time and burn nearly the same amount of fossil fuels and produce the same emissions as if the solar/wind plants were not there. The full science is presented HERE in detail. So, our eco-charlatans have come up with new, bigger, better, and more profitable schemes. They now want to sell us batteries to eliminate the fossil fuel plants. Will it work? Let’s make a critical-thinking analysis.
We briefly mentioned the toxic substances used in the manufacturing of wind plants and even more in solar panels. With the batteries, the toxins are on steroids in volume, in toxicity, and safety. Meticulous attention will be needed in their transportation, installation, use, and decommissioning of the batteries. And doing it safely dramatically adds to their costs, discussed in detail in Part II.
Even after the solar or wind plant is in operation, we may find out that we will need to run the fossil plant to back up the solar or wind plant while it is charging the batteries. Lithium batteries do not like large cycles. For example, they do not like to be downloaded too deep, as that will reduce their useful life. They do not like fast-power charging for the same reason.
As we conclude the environmental devastation done by the construction of wind and solar power plants we can not avoid the problem of DECOMMISSIONING. What do you do with a plant after it’s 15-20-year life cycle? In the past, there were many cases where a utility simply abandoned them to further scar the landscape. Most States are starting to require utilities to pay a cash bond up-front as part of the licensing requirements.
That will require more untold tons of fossil fuels for the jackhammers, bulldozers, shredders, and grinders. Then, where are they going to dump the non-recyclable items, in the oceans and at night? Load them on ships and ferry them to some developing country and pay them a few more dollars to ruin their environments? But now, with the batteries that have to be disposed of every few years, the tonnage of toxins will skyrocket, and so will the costs. What’s PG&E going to do, they are already in a bankruptcy proceeding? Ultimately these tens of millions of decommissioning costs, toxins, and CO2/pollution discharges will be passed off again to taxpayers.
We are quite positive that useful battery backup will not ever come to the nations growing wind and solar facilities, but we are equally positive that additional environmental devastation will come amidst their failed efforts.
[a] https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/projects/gemini-solar-project/
[b] https://www.azfamily.com/news/aps-facility-that-exploded-is-part-of-clean-energy-project-aps-plans-to-build-more/article_bed54c08-6567-11e9-9902-93687b8275db.html
[c] https://www.power-eng.com/2020/05/20/pge-hopes-to-ramp-up-massive-california-energy-storage-procurements/
[d] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-23/explosions-are-threatening-lithium-ion-s-edge-in-a-battery-race
[e] https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/magazines/bulletin/bull21-1/21104091117.pdf


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-06-02--CFACT Makes It Official: The Virginia Clean Economy Act is a Disaster

Over the last two weeks , four experienced CFACT analysts – David Wojick , Paul Driessen , Charles Battig , and myself – have reviewed the Virginia Clean Economy Act ( VCEA ) , passed in April of this year , and commented both on the legal framework it provides for electric energy production in the Commonwealth and also on the required mandates it imposes on Dominion Energy , the regulated monopoly authorized by law to provide electric energy for Virginia .
The reason for this enhanced attention to the VCEA is that it is one of the first pieces @ @ @ @ @ @ @ formulated by a Democratic controlled Legislature and signed by a Democrat Governor , Ralph Northam , which purports to provide electricity under a mandate of “ net zero ” carbon dioxide “ emission ” by 2050 .
In other words , it is legislation crafted by “ green ” activists to fulfill their belief that the release of manmade CO2 during the production of energy should be cut to zero .
This radical philosophy , which is embodied perfectly in the “ Green New Deal ” , is a doctrine fervently embraced by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
What kind of electric energy world would this philosophy , when put into actual practice , impose on Virginia consumers ?
What would it cost ?
What would it do to the Virginia countryside ?
Would it be reliable ?
How would the State Corporation Commission – the body which historically has been responsible for regulating Dominion ’ s electricity monopoly – implement the novel directives contained in the VCEA ?
The answers to these questions – confirmed by the veteran observers noted above – are shocking and appalling .
Never before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been a legislative mandate of such sweeping and radical proportions for electrical generation .
CFACT ’ s comprehensive analysis confirms that the VCEA will result in : – a massive increase in the yearly electricity bill for the average Virginia family of $ 500 per year , a 40 % increase over levels without the VCEA ; – a blighting of the Virginia landscape with hundreds of thousands of acres of new solar panel farms and high-tension transmission lines ; – over $ 30 billion in increased capital costs for electrical infrastructure , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ engineering expense embedded in such novel distribution facilities ; and – a blend of electricity sources which will severely undermine the reliability of electricity production , especially when ( spoiler alert ) the sun doesn ’ t shine and the wind doesn ’ t blow .
So radical are these mandates that , for the first time in history , the State Corporation Commission has effectively been entirely stripped of its authority to regulate electricity generation in Virginia , thereby jettisoning the SCC ’ s historical responsibility to assure Virginians of both the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the highest reliability .
The CFACT analysis also discovered a number of other dangerous consequences which will be levied on the average Virginia family by the VCEA : • None The increase in average annual electricity prices extracted from Virginia electricity rate payers will amount to an additional $ 2,250,000,000 annually in order to finance the pipe dreams of the eco-left ; • None The construction of massive offshore wind facilities that will require significantly elevated levels of cement , steel , and rare earth metals because they will lie in the path @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the damage inflicted by Hurricane Sandy on New York City , and then imagine what would have happened to the VA offshore wind farms , which would have been located directly in its path .
And to make matters worse , the wind farms will be subject to the annual “ Bermuda High ” , which sits off the VA coast for weeks at a time during the summer , meaning that no wind will be activating the turbine blades , and thus no electricity will be generated for the air conditioners of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ summer heat .
Because wind is so unreliable , similar wind farm in the United States requires backup generation capability powered by diesel or natural gas , an expense not even included in the Dominion plan .
And don ’ t forget – because Dominion is a regulated monopoly – every expense which it incurs as a result of the VCEA will be paid for , one way or the other , by VA ratepayers , in order to assure that Dominion shareholders earn a legally required return on capital .
As CFACT @ @ @ @ @ @ @ VCEA requires – like the famous quote from the Vietnam war – that the Virginia countryside must be destroyed in order to save it .
The new solar fields coerced by the VCEA will blanket 490 square miles of Virginia farm and forest land – an area nearly half the size of the State of Rhode Island and eight times the size of the District of Columbia – in order to generate the solar power required by the VCEA .
In addition , Dominion will need to construct four massive interstate transmission lines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to carry electricity from these solar fields to consumers .
Let ’ s just see what the county zoning commissions – much less the voters – of each impacted county have to say about the placement of these transmission lines and solar fields in their backyards .
Better yet , let ’ s just see what the voters have to say to the politicians who voted for the VCEA when they come up for re-election .
As one of the CFACT analysts concluded , “ There is nothing clean , green , renewable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And then the question becomes : All of this cost , unreliability , and environmental degradation is required exactly for ……… what ?
Certainly not cheaper or more reliable energy .
As I pointed out in my previous article on this subject : The VCEA has absolutely zero positive impact on climate , and a devastating negative impact on the environment .
Under the VCEA , Virginia will not have cleaner air , purer water , or a more beautiful countryside .
Fifteen years from now , not a single Virginian will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ smell any difference or improvement in the environment resulting from the VCEA .
But they will be able to see a landscape ruined by solar panel eyesores and ugly transmission towers .
In summary , the VCEA will result in : • None an annual additional electricity cost of $ 500 per household .
• None an additional $ 30 billion in capital cost for electrical infrastructure .
• None the ruination of hundreds of thousands of acres of Virginia countryside and wildlife habitat by solar farms , electric transmission line , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of electrical system reliability , such that there will be no capability of power restoration , to quote Dominion , “ in the event of a large-scale blackout ” .
In short , for the Virginia consumer , it is all pocketbook pain , and no climate gain .
By embracing radical environmentalism , Virginia seems to be vying with California for the title of the creator of the most destructive and unreliable energy policy at the highest cost to its citizens in the country .
When these consequences become known to Virginia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ VCEA may ultimately become known as the “ Political Career-Ending Energy Act of 2019 ” .
Predictably , Virginia politicians who voted for this catastrophic piece of legislation will try to blame Dominion Energy for its disastrous consequences .
Good luck with that .
Virginia voters are smart enough to see through that smokescreen .
Are you listening Governor Ralph Northam , Senate Majority Leader Dick Daskaw , Attorney General Mark Herring , and House Speaker Eileen Filler-Corn ?

Over the last two weeks, four experienced CFACT analysts – David Wojick, Paul Driessen, Charles Battig, and myself – have reviewed the Virginia Clean Economy Act (VCEA), passed in April of this year, and commented both on the legal framework it provides for electric energy production in the Commonwealth and also on the required mandates it imposes on Dominion Energy, the regulated monopoly authorized by law to provide electric energy for Virginia.
The reason for this enhanced attention to the VCEA is that it is one of the first pieces of energy legislation in the US, formulated by a Democratic controlled Legislature and signed by a Democrat Governor, Ralph Northam, which purports to provide electricity under a mandate of “net zero” carbon dioxide “emission” by 2050. In other words, it is legislation crafted by “green” activists to fulfill their belief that the release of manmade CO2 during the production of energy should be cut to zero.
This radical philosophy, which is embodied perfectly in the “Green New Deal”, is a doctrine fervently embraced by the far-left wing of the environmental movement.
What kind of electric energy world would this philosophy, when put into actual practice, impose on Virginia consumers? What would it cost? What would it do to the Virginia countryside? Would it be reliable? How would the State Corporation Commission – the body which historically has been responsible for regulating Dominion’s electricity monopoly – implement the novel directives contained in the VCEA?
The answers to these questions – confirmed by the veteran observers noted above – are shocking and appalling. Never before in Virginia’s history has there been a legislative mandate of such sweeping and radical proportions for electrical generation.
CFACT’s comprehensive analysis confirms that the VCEA will result in:
– a massive increase in the yearly electricity bill for the average Virginia family of $500 per year, a 40% increase over levels without the VCEA;
– a blighting of the Virginia landscape with hundreds of thousands of acres of new solar panel farms and high-tension transmission lines;
– over $30 billion in increased capital costs for electrical infrastructure, which does not even include the new engineering expense embedded in such novel distribution facilities; and
– a blend of electricity sources which will severely undermine the reliability of electricity production, especially when (spoiler alert) the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow.
So radical are these mandates that, for the first time in history, the State Corporation Commission has effectively been entirely stripped of its authority to regulate electricity generation in Virginia, thereby jettisoning the SCC’s historical responsibility to assure Virginians of both the lowest possible cost of electricity coupled with the highest reliability.
The CFACT analysis also discovered a number of other dangerous consequences which will be levied on the average Virginia family by the VCEA:
The increase in average annual electricity prices extracted from Virginia electricity rate payers will amount to an additional $2,250,000,000 annually in order to finance the pipe dreams of the eco-left;
The construction of massive offshore wind facilities that will require significantly elevated levels of cement, steel, and rare earth metals because they will lie in the path of Atlantic hurricanes. Just think of the damage inflicted by Hurricane Sandy on New York City, and then imagine what would have happened to the VA offshore wind farms, which would have been located directly in its path. And to make matters worse, the wind farms will be subject to the annual “Bermuda High”, which sits off the VA coast for weeks at a time during the summer, meaning that no wind will be activating the turbine blades, and thus no electricity will be generated for the air conditioners of Virginians who will be broiling in the summer heat. Because wind is so unreliable, every similar wind farm in the United States requires backup generation capability powered by diesel or natural gas, an expense not even included in the Dominion plan.
And don’t forget – because Dominion is a regulated monopoly – every expense which it incurs as a result of the VCEA will be paid for, one way or the other, by VA ratepayers, in order to assure that Dominion shareholders earn a legally required return on capital.
As CFACT analyst Paul Driessen points out, the VCEA requires – like the famous quote from the Vietnam war – that the Virginia countryside must be destroyed in order to save it. The new solar fields coerced by the VCEA will blanket 490 square miles of Virginia farm and forest land – an area nearly half the size of the State of Rhode Island and eight times the size of the District of Columbia – in order to generate the solar power required by the VCEA.
In addition, Dominion will need to construct four massive interstate transmission lines at a cost of $8.4 billion to carry electricity from these solar fields to consumers. Let’s just see what the county zoning commissions – much less the voters – of each impacted county have to say about the placement of these transmission lines and solar fields in their backyards. Better yet, let’s just see what the voters have to say to the politicians who voted for the VCEA when they come up for re-election. As one of the CFACT analysts concluded, “There is nothing clean, green, renewable or sustainable about the VCEA”.
And then the question becomes: All of this cost, unreliability, and environmental degradation is required exactly for ……… what? Certainly not cheaper or more reliable energy.
As I pointed out in my previous article on this subject:
The VCEA has absolutely zero positive impact on climate, and a devastating negative impact on the environment. Under the VCEA, Virginia will not have cleaner air, purer water, or a more beautiful countryside. Fifteen years from now, not a single Virginian will be able to feel, touch, or smell any difference or improvement in the environment resulting from the VCEA. But they will be able to see a landscape ruined by solar panel eyesores and ugly transmission towers.
In summary, the VCEA will result in:
an annual additional electricity cost of $500 per household.
an additional $30 billion in capital cost for electrical infrastructure.
the ruination of hundreds of thousands of acres of Virginia countryside and wildlife habitat by solar farms, electric transmission line, and ugly towers.
the degradation of electrical system reliability, such that there will be no capability of power restoration, to quote Dominion, “in the event of a large-scale blackout”.
In short, for the Virginia consumer, it is all pocketbook pain, and no climate gain.
By embracing radical environmentalism, Virginia seems to be vying with California for the title of the creator of the most destructive and unreliable energy policy at the highest cost to its citizens in the country. When these consequences become known to Virginia voters – and they will – the VCEA may ultimately become known as the “Political Career-Ending Energy Act of 2019”.
Predictably, Virginia politicians who voted for this catastrophic piece of legislation will try to blame Dominion Energy for its disastrous consequences.
Good luck with that. Virginia voters are smart enough to see through that smokescreen.
Are you listening Governor Ralph Northam, Senate Majority Leader Dick Daskaw, Attorney General Mark Herring, and House Speaker Eileen Filler-Corn?


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-06-04--Ending U.S. and African protein shortages

Nearly two centuries ago , amid a fungal infestation that destroyed Irish potato crops and brought famine , starvation , death , and the emigration of countless men , women and children , Gulliver ’ s Travels author Dr. Jonathon Swift offered “ A Modest Proposal for preventing the children of poor people in Ireland from being a burden on their parents or country , and for making them beneficial to the publick.
” Dr .
Swift suggested that children too young to work could be eaten in place of potatoes .
As he explained , “ a young healthy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a year old , a most delicious , nourishing and wholesome food , whether stewed , roasted , baked , or boiled ; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricasee , or a ragoust.
” Surely , he said , this is preferable to aborting unborn or murdering newly born children .
Of course , his proposal was only in jest , a sly response to the callous disregard many of his countrymen displayed toward the Irish tragedy and the plight of poor families throughout the United @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in seeds , fertilizers , irrigation , mechanized equipment , pest control and agricultural practices , famine still stalks dozens of countries , especially in Africa .
Millions still live on the edge of starvation , all too often kept there by despicable government agencies , pressure groups and financiers that despise modern agriculture , promote “ agro-ecology ” and even oppose Golden Rice .
Africa ’ s poverty , malnutrition , despair and premature death have been made even worse this year by one of the worst plagues of desert locusts in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ descended on East Africa , which was completely unprepared to cope with them .
The first swarms unleashed even larger second and third waves , with swarms larger than Manhattan .
The insatiable insects are devouring millions of square miles of crops , pasture lands , gardens and forests , creating massive food shortages that could cause hundreds of thousands of deaths from starvation .
Meanwhile , coronavirus outbreaks among workers forced meat packing plants to close .
Wendy ’ s took burgers off the menu at many locations , and the fast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asking “ where ’ s the beef ?
” – echoing the iconic television commercials from 35 years ago .
Pork is also in short supply , even as American pork shipments to China quadrupled in recent months .
Chicken too is scarce .
But now we may have a fortuitous alignment of the stars , a happy confluence of events , where abundant food in the form of locusts could benefit the hungry “ publicks ” of two continents .
Up to now , we have had an unhappy confluence of sick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people are a cancer on the Earth , depleting fossil fuels that are destroying our climate and planet , and ignoring what former Obama science advisor John Holdren insisted was a vital need for modern societies to de-develop , de-industrialize , and dictate to still-poor countries how much they will be permitted to develop .
The ideologies have forced too many Africans to continue living primitive subsistence lifestyles or pack into impoverished cities that lack basic energy , water , roadway , communication , refrigeration , hospital , sanitation , and employment opportunities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ awful situation around .
Enormous nets strung between two trucks or airplanes could harvest millions of locusts at a time .
Thousands could be employed constructing and operating food processing facilities , hauling insects to them , running them through roasting ovens and freeze drying machines , packing and shipping the finished delicacies to hungry families around Africa and North America , and teaching people to savor them .
Thousands more jobs could be created managing the new export and import businesses .
Commercial airliners sidelined by COVID would be rejuvenated .
Millions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hunger to enjoying what Popular Science magazine has described as delicious , nutritious food , rich in protein and all nine amino acids essential for human development .
The new meat substitutes would give entirely new meanings to “ in-flight meals.
” There is yet another benefit .
These activities and facilities would require reliable , affordable electricity , on a far larger scale than can possibly be provided by wind turbines and solar panels .
They will require coal , gas , nuclear and hydroelectric power plants .
However , environmentalist pressure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bank and multilateral ( anti ) development banks have been telling Africans that wind and solar power must be their energy future .
They and the EU clearly won ’ t finance those power plants .
But perhaps Chinese agencies and companies will finance and build them , as they have in many other countries – often under exploitative , extortionist loan arrangements , to be sure .
The projects could also be incentivized by a desire to resurrect China ’ s tarnished reputation for having unleashed the Wuhan virus on unsuspecting nations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on locust products that would be right at home in China ’ s wet markets and on its television equivalent to “ Bizarre Food ” with Andrew Zimmernn .
Popular Science expresses deep concern that “ raising cattle requires a lot of space and water , and more room for cattle means less [ sic ] trees , which in turn means a diminished natural capacity of the planet to process carbon dioxide.
” Its writers clearly have no clue that modern non-organic farming with biotech crops enables fewer farmers to raise more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less water and fewer pesticides , than any other farming methods in history – or that cattle typically graze on lands that have limited value for growing crops .
They obviously have not read any of my reports and articles about the monumental impacts that wind , solar , battery and biofuel technologies have on farm , scenic and wildlife habitat lands .
Instead , PopSci cites a 2013 report by the ever-helpful UN Food and Agriculture Organization , which has worked for years with radical environmentalist groups to oppose modern farming , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insecticides and fertilizers , and even mechanized equipment like tractors .
PopSci and the FAO extol the virtues of “ entomophagy , ” a fancy progressive term for eating bugs , not beef .
Indeed , they say , this could be “ the answer humanity is looking for.
” ( If that ’ s the answer , it must have been a very foolish question . )
The FAO report offers techniques for processing “ edible insects ” into tasty consumable products that can improve people ’ s diets and livelihoods , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ promote “ inclusion of women.
” It has sections on overcoming the yuck factor and setting up industrial-scale processing operations .
( I should have known the FAO would be ahead of me on that . )
The FAO study says bugs can have twice as much protein as beef and 1.5 times as much as fish and poultry .
PopSci sings the praises of grasshoppers , locusts , crickets , ants and mealworms – whole or powdered – as snacks , desserts , guacamole or entire meals .
Mealworms have “ an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beets , ” says Joseph Yoon , chef and founder of Brooklyn Bugs , a “ catering company and education platform ” in New York that serves an entire menu featuring insects .
You can add them to brownies – or toss some salt on sautéed mealworms to get “ protein-boosted potato chips.
” Since they are committed to saving the planet from fossil fuels , climate change , big corporations and modern technologies , people attending the next UN climate confab in November 2021 in Glasgow should expect to dine on an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bugs .
Perhaps they can be paired with haggis , Scotland ’ s savory traditional pudding of bone broth , sheep heart , liver and lungs , onion , oatmeal , suet and spices , cooked together in the animal ’ s stomach .
Back here in the States , for the same reason , those delectable African locusts should figure prominently at the upcoming Democratic National convention in Wisconsin ’ s Brew City this August .
They would go very nicely with those pilsner beers that made Milwaukee famous .
Personally , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , lamb , chicken , ribs – and really big bugs : shrimp , lobster , crabs and crawfish – served up at the Republican National Convention , accompanied by a good IPA .

Nearly two centuries ago, amid a fungal infestation that destroyed Irish potato crops and brought famine, starvation, death, and the emigration of countless men, women and children, Gulliver’s Travels author Dr. Jonathon Swift offered “A Modest Proposal for preventing the children of poor people in Ireland from being a burden on their parents or country, and for making them beneficial to the publick.”
Dr. Swift suggested that children too young to work could be eaten in place of potatoes. As he explained, “a young healthy child well nursed, is, at a year old, a most delicious, nourishing and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricasee, or a ragoust.” Surely, he said, this is preferable to aborting unborn or murdering newly born children.
Of course, his proposal was only in jest, a sly response to the callous disregard many of his countrymen displayed toward the Irish tragedy and the plight of poor families throughout the United Kingdom.
Today, despite enormous advances in seeds, fertilizers, irrigation, mechanized equipment, pest control and agricultural practices, famine still stalks dozens of countries, especially in Africa. Millions still live on the edge of starvation, all too often kept there by despicable government agencies, pressure groups and financiers that despise modern agriculture, promote “agro-ecology” and even oppose Golden Rice.
Africa’s poverty, malnutrition, despair and premature death have been made even worse this year by one of the worst plagues of desert locusts in memory. Swarms numbering in the billions descended on East Africa, which was completely unprepared to cope with them. The first swarms unleashed even larger second and third waves, with swarms larger than Manhattan.
The insatiable insects are devouring millions of square miles of crops, pasture lands, gardens and forests, creating massive food shortages that could cause hundreds of thousands of deaths from starvation.
Meanwhile, coronavirus outbreaks among workers forced meat packing plants to close. Wendy’s took burgers off the menu at many locations, and the fast food chain’s customers are again asking “where’s the beef?” – echoing the iconic television commercials from 35 years ago. Pork is also in short supply, even as American pork shipments to China quadrupled in recent months. Chicken too is scarce.
But now we may have a fortuitous alignment of the stars, a happy confluence of events, where abundant food in the form of locusts could benefit the hungry “publicks” of two continents.
Up to now, we have had an unhappy confluence of sick ideologies: the belief that too many people are a cancer on the Earth, depleting fossil fuels that are destroying our climate and planet, and ignoring what former Obama science advisor John Holdren insisted was a vital need for modern societies to de-develop, de-industrialize, and dictate to still-poor countries how much they will be permitted to develop.
The ideologies have forced too many Africans to continue living primitive subsistence lifestyles or pack into impoverished cities that lack basic energy, water, roadway, communication, refrigeration, hospital, sanitation, and employment opportunities. The locust plagues could turn this awful situation around.
Enormous nets strung between two trucks or airplanes could harvest millions of locusts at a time. Thousands could be employed constructing and operating food processing facilities, hauling insects to them, running them through roasting ovens and freeze drying machines, packing and shipping the finished delicacies to hungry families around Africa and North America, and teaching people to savor them.
Thousands more jobs could be created managing the new export and import businesses. Commercial airliners sidelined by COVID would be rejuvenated. Millions of people could go almost overnight from hunger to enjoying what Popular Science magazine has described as delicious, nutritious food, rich in protein and all nine amino acids essential for human development.
The new meat substitutes would give entirely new meanings to “in-flight meals.”
There is yet another benefit. These activities and facilities would require reliable, affordable electricity, on a far larger scale than can possibly be provided by wind turbines and solar panels. They will require coal, gas, nuclear and hydroelectric power plants. However, environmentalist pressure groups, UN agencies, the World Bank and multilateral (anti)development banks have been telling Africans that wind and solar power must be their energy future. They and the EU clearly won’t finance those power plants.
But perhaps Chinese agencies and companies will finance and build them, as they have in many other countries – often under exploitative, extortionist loan arrangements, to be sure. The projects could also be incentivized by a desire to resurrect China’s tarnished reputation for having unleashed the Wuhan virus on unsuspecting nations. They might also secure special prices on locust products that would be right at home in China’s wet markets and on its television equivalent to “Bizarre Food” with Andrew Zimmernn.
Popular Science expresses deep concern that “raising cattle requires a lot of space and water, and more room for cattle means less [sic] trees, which in turn means a diminished natural capacity of the planet to process carbon dioxide.” Its writers clearly have no clue that modern non-organic farming with biotech crops enables fewer farmers to raise more crops, from less land, with less water and fewer pesticides, than any other farming methods in history – or that cattle typically graze on lands that have limited value for growing crops. They obviously have not read any of my reports and articles about the monumental impacts that wind, solar, battery and biofuel technologies have on farm, scenic and wildlife habitat lands.
Instead, PopSci cites a 2013 report by the ever-helpful UN Food and Agriculture Organization, which has worked for years with radical environmentalist groups to oppose modern farming, biotech and even hybrid seeds, synthetic insecticides and fertilizers, and even mechanized equipment like tractors. PopSci and the FAO extol the virtues of “entomophagy,” a fancy progressive term for eating bugs, not beef.
Indeed, they say, this could be “the answer humanity is looking for.” (If that’s the answer, it must have been a very foolish question.) The FAO report offers techniques for processing “edible insects” into tasty consumable products that can improve people’s diets and livelihoods, create thriving local businesses, and even promote “inclusion of women.” It has sections on overcoming the yuck factor and setting up industrial-scale processing operations. (I should have known the FAO would be ahead of me on that.)
The FAO study says bugs can have twice as much protein as beef and 1.5 times as much as fish and poultry. PopSci sings the praises of grasshoppers, locusts, crickets, ants and mealworms – whole or powdered – as snacks, desserts, guacamole or entire meals.
Mealworms have “an earthy flavor, similar to mushrooms or beets,” says Joseph Yoon, chef and founder of Brooklyn Bugs, a “catering company and education platform” in New York that serves an entire menu featuring insects. You can add them to brownies – or toss some salt on sautéed mealworms to get “protein-boosted potato chips.”
Since they are committed to saving the planet from fossil fuels, climate change, big corporations and modern technologies, people attending the next UN climate confab in November 2021 in Glasgow should expect to dine on an entire smorgasbord of tasty locusts and other bugs. Perhaps they can be paired with haggis, Scotland’s savory traditional pudding of bone broth, sheep heart, liver and lungs, onion, oatmeal, suet and spices, cooked together in the animal’s stomach.
Back here in the States, for the same reason, those delectable African locusts should figure prominently at the upcoming Democratic National convention in Wisconsin’s Brew City this August. They would go very nicely with those pilsner beers that made Milwaukee famous.
Personally, I’ll stick with hearty beef, lamb, chicken, ribs – and really big bugs: shrimp, lobster, crabs and crawfish – served up at the Republican National Convention, accompanied by a good IPA.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-06-04--“Scientist” reveals politicized GISS as NASA returns Americans to space

This has been a ( mostly ) great week for NASA .
We saw the first successful launch of astronauts into space on an American rocket since 2011 — on a private spacecraft .
Last night SpaceX sent up another Falcon 9 rocket with ( count-em ) 60 communications satellites on board !
NASA getting back to serious work in space is long overdue .
Then there ’ s the Goddard Institute for Space Studies ( GISS ) , far removed from NASA ’ s launch pads , in an office building on Manhattan ’ s upper west side .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ on race , GISS scientist Dr. Kate Marvel declared on June 1 : “ Climate justice and racial justice are the same thing , and we ’ ll never head off climate catastrophe without dismantling white supremacy.
” CFACT ’ s Marc Morano has full coverage over at Climate Depot .
GISS went all-in on left-wing , politically correct science some time ago , prompting a huge group of astronauts , ground controllers and mission specialists to co-sign a hard-hitting letter to NASA asking the space agency to knock it off and get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a fundamental human right .
NASA has long led the way which was well dramatized in the movie Hidden Figures .
“ Climate justice , ” however , is a Socialist buzzword and should have no place at NASA .
It ’ s code for wealth redistribution .
Protecting the rights of all people and ending racism is paramount .
Leave the nation-destroying Socialism out of it .
That goes double for you NASA .

This has been a (mostly) great week for NASA. We saw the first successful launch of astronauts into space on an American rocket since 2011 — on a private spacecraft. Last night SpaceX sent up another Falcon 9 rocket with (count-em) 60 communications satellites on board!
NASA getting back to serious work in space is long overdue.
Then there’s the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), far removed from NASA’s launch pads, in an office building on Manhattan’s upper west side.
With America working through a painful moment on race, GISS scientist Dr. Kate Marvel declared on June 1: “Climate justice and racial justice are the same thing, and we’ll never head off climate catastrophe without dismantling white supremacy.”
CFACT’s Marc Morano has full coverage over at Climate Depot.
GISS went all-in on left-wing, politically correct science some time ago, prompting a huge group of astronauts, ground controllers and mission specialists to co-sign a hard-hitting letter to NASA asking the space agency to knock it off and get back to work.
Racial equality is a fundamental human right. NASA has long led the way which was well dramatized in the movie Hidden Figures.
“Climate justice,” however, is a Socialist buzzword and should have no place at NASA. It’s code for wealth redistribution.
Protecting the rights of all people and ending racism is paramount.
Leave the nation-destroying Socialism out of it.
That goes double for you NASA.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-06-05--It’s time to follow Mexico and pull the plug on “renewables”

Does California have the leadership mettle to reverse decades of price increases for electricity ?
Based on what Newsom did in San Francisco , maybe not .
Governor Newsom was the San Francisco Mayor for eight years .
In 2003 , Newsom was elected the 42nd Mayor of San Francisco , becoming the city ’ s youngest mayor in a century .
Newsom was re-elected in 2007 .
In the event our leadership does nothing to curtail continuous increases in the cost of electricity , this California Political Review article America ’ s Havana – Thousands Say Ciao to San @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outlook for the entire state under current leadership .
Hopefully , Newsom could deliver such a message .
I , as a Toastmaster graduate , focus on the number of “ ahs ” from public speakers .
Governor Newsom starts almost every sentence with an “ ah ” , so much so that it ’ s so distracting that I have stopped listening to his COVID-19 updates and wait for a condensed summary from the news broadcasters .
When you listen to his next pandemic update , focus on all those “ ahs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For decades , California ’ s bizarre laws and regulations and subsides for “ green ” renewables have driven up the cost of electricity for its 40 million residents .
It ’ s time for California to reverse that upward trend that gotten prices for electricity in California are already fifty percent higher than the national average for residents , and double the national average for commercial , and are projected to go even higher .
With the shuttering of Pacific Gas & Electric ’ s Diablo Canyon ’ s Nuclear 2,160 megawatts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Garcetti ’ s desire for the forthcoming closures of three natural gas-powered plants that have been generating continuously uninterruptible electricity .
Our elected officials seem to be oblivious to the fact that the State has no plans for electricity generating capacity to replace what ’ s going to be lost .
Further , that “ green ” electricity from wind and solar is only intermittent , as neither generates when the wind is not blowing , and when the sun ’ s not shining .
Since California is currently unable to generate sufficient @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state is forced by its own policies to import more electricity than any other state , an outcome that is not in the financial interest of any California resident .
Without any known state-fostered plans to rebuild with more in-state power generation , California continues to shut down its safely functioning nuclear and natural gas electricity generation plants !
With this path forward , in the event other states can not generate enough electricity to export to California to replace what ’ s being lost by shutting down the last nuclear plant and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s lights out for California ’ s future .
Who knows how high they will go as the state continues its importing appetite for expensive electricity ?
The subsidies for “ green ” electricity has driven up California ’ s cost of electricity to be among the most expensive in America , and with decades of bizarre laws and regulations that have contributed to California being a complex regulatory state , Joel Kotlin from NewGeogrpahy summarized the future in the state in his article : The Coronavirus means millennials are more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the COVID-19 shelter-in-place mandates , California can not rid itself from the continuing and state-prescribed high costs of energy that other states are not shackled by , and those elected California officials are doing nothing to effectively and forever resolve the causes of the high energy costs that severely limit the state ’ s economic base and its potential for improvement .
It ’ s time for California to align Mexico ’ s leadership bold move and pull the plug on intermittent renewables as the state needs is continuous uninterruptable electricity that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ever .

The only things ‘inevitable’ about the ‘transition’ to wind and solar are rocketing electricity prices and unstable power grids. Recognizing that industrial wind and solar electricity bring little to no value to electrical grids, Mexico is moving to avoid the higher electrical prices experienced by Germany, Denmark, Great Britain, South Australia, California, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and other governments that have heavily subsidized their supply of intermittent electricity. Time for California to follow the lead of our Southern neighbor and pull the plug on renewable subsidies.
To stop continuous increases in the cost of electricity, Mexico stepped up to the plate and pulled the plug on subsidy dependent intermittent power from wind and solar that has been driving up the cost of electricity for its financially challenged population. The Mexican government has taken a stand that has sent renewable energy rent seekers into a tailspin.
Does California have the leadership mettle to reverse decades of price increases for electricity?
Based on what Newsom did in San Francisco, maybe not. Governor Newsom was the San Francisco Mayor for eight years. In 2003, Newsom was elected the 42nd Mayor of San Francisco, becoming the city’s youngest mayor in a century. Newsom was re-elected in 2007. In the event our leadership does nothing to curtail continuous increases in the cost of electricity, this California Political Review article America’s Havana – Thousands Say Ciao to San Francisco may be a preview of the outlook for the entire state under current leadership.
Hopefully, Newsom could deliver such a message. I, as a Toastmaster graduate, focus on the number of “ahs” from public speakers. Governor Newsom starts almost every sentence with an “ah”, so much so that it’s so distracting that I have stopped listening to his COVID-19 updates and wait for a condensed summary from the news broadcasters. When you listen to his next pandemic update, focus on all those “ahs” and you’ll understand!
For decades, California’s bizarre laws and regulations and subsides for “green” renewables have driven up the cost of electricity for its 40 million residents. It’s time for California to reverse that upward trend that gotten prices for electricity in California are already fifty percent higher than the national average for residents, and double the national average for commercial, and are projected to go even higher.
With the shuttering of Pacific Gas & Electric’s Diablo Canyon’s Nuclear 2,160 megawatts in 2024 and Los Angeles’ Mayor Garcetti’s desire for the forthcoming closures of three natural gas-powered plants that have been generating continuously uninterruptible electricity. Our elected officials seem to be oblivious to the fact that the State has no plans for electricity generating capacity to replace what’s going to be lost. Further, that “green” electricity from wind and solar is only intermittent, as neither generates when the wind is not blowing, and when the sun’s not shining.
Since California is currently unable to generate sufficient electricity in-state to meet demand, the state is forced by its own policies to import more electricity than any other state, an outcome that is not in the financial interest of any California resident. Without any known state-fostered plans to rebuild with more in-state power generation, California continues to shut down its safely functioning nuclear and natural gas electricity generation plants!
With this path forward, in the event other states cannot generate enough electricity to export to California to replace what’s being lost by shutting down the last nuclear plant and three natural gas plants in California, it’s lights out for California’s future. Who knows how high they will go as the state continues its importing appetite for expensive electricity?
Never mentioned by the green leadership is the worldwide ecological destruction from the mining of precious minerals to support renewables that leave lands uninhabitable and worthless for plants and trees. Renewable taxpayer handouts have stripped landscapes worldwide. Left in the wake of intermittent electricity farms and subsidized biomass-fueled power plants is cynical at best, and mercenary in their ability to destroy nature’s ability to alleviate the coronavirus via cleaner air.
During this global pandemic, dependence on China for rare earth minerals, which solar panels and wind turbines are useless without, renewable electricity a costly as well as dirty proposition.
Renewables make no sense when the entire world is sick. Only using Warren Buffet’s logic does chaotic wind power bring financial wealth when Mr. Buffett said: “We get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That is the only reasons to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.”
The subsidies for “green” electricity has driven up California’s cost of electricity to be among the most expensive in America, and with decades of bizarre laws and regulations that have contributed to California being a complex regulatory state, Joel Kotlin from NewGeogrpahy summarized the future in the state in his article: The Coronavirus means millennials are more screwed than ever.
As America recovers from the COVID-19 shelter-in-place mandates, California cannot rid itself from the continuing and state-prescribed high costs of energy that other states are not shackled by, and those elected California officials are doing nothing to effectively and forever resolve the causes of the high energy costs that severely limit the state’s economic base and its potential for improvement.
It’s time for California to align Mexico’s leadership bold move and pull the plug on intermittent renewables as the state needs is continuous uninterruptable electricity that’s reliable and affordable, more than ever.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-06-06--Book review: “Natural” asks the wrong question

Alan Levinovitz begins Natural : How faith in nature ’ s goodness leads to harmful fads , unjust laws , and flawed science by asking the question , “ How can we live in harmony with nature ?
” A better question might be , “ Should we ?
” Levinovitz spends the rest of the book showing how attempts to “ live in harmony with nature ” have created havoc in our society .
He seeks to convince us that “ natural ” itself is but a social construct that lacks real definition .
More specifically , this “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ natural ” is a religious term – and that is the primary flaw in his analysis .
“ Natural ” in this context means “ holy , ” and thus to the believer , unnatural ( everything else ) is unholy – whether you are speaking of childbirth , legal principles , or the food we eat .
Wherever the term “ natural ” is used to describe a favored practice , there is , Levinovitz would have you believe , a religious foundation .
But it is paganism ( a term he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the recognition of the divine in nature .
A true religious scholar would know there is a massive gulf between worship of the creation ( nature ) and worship of the Creator .
Levinovitz sees himself as an enlightened soul , one who knows that the best future for humanity and nature must be built on dialogue and evidence , “ not taboos and zealotry.
” Those who “ wrap their rhetoric in the mantle of ‘ what ’ s natural , ’ he says , tend to be propagandists , bigots , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Levinovitz ’ s list of debunkable myths is that of “ natural childbirth , ” which he rightly notes is fraught with dangers both for humans and members of the animal kingdom .
A better standard , he suggests , is to prevent the transformation of childbirth into a dehumanizing experience , infused with fear and drained of symbolic power .
After all , he reminds us , “ nature gave birth to humanity.
” Or take “ natural vanilla ” versus artificial vanilla , about 85 percent of which today is derived @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is extracted from orchids and was initially meticulously processed by Mayans in a four-step process involving killing , sweating , drying , and conditioning over a period of 8 to 10 months .
Eventually , growers began artificially inseminating the orchid flowers , a highly labor-intensive practice that can hardly be described as “ natural.
” Levinovitz dislodges the myth that noble savages lived in harmony with nature and suggests that our environmental crises are better solved with technology than nostalgia .
Citing the work of anthropologist Shepard Krech , Levinovitz points to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and left the carcasses to rot .
Slavery , rape , and torture were also common in many Native American cultures .
The central weakness of this book is Levinovitz ’ s assault on “ the natural order ” and later on “ the laws of Nature and Nature ’ s God.
” He speaks of the “ myth ” that humanity “ fell ” from a state of nature ( perfection ) as in reality a state of ignorance but laments that evolving societies have classified those living in more primitive cultures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as pack animals .
Seizing upon a strange speech by one 19th Century preacher ( Henry Drummond ) , who called out hermit crabs for “ failing to live by nature ’ s laws ” ( by “ borrowing ” mollusk shells ) , Levinovitz juxtaposes the values of evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould , who asserted that science is the realm of descriptive authority while claiming that religion and secular ethics deal only with normative truths .
This viewpoint naturally leads to a deconstruction of the Declaration of Independence .
Levinovitz argues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Swiss scholar Jean Jacques Burlamaqui in presuming that “ natural ” is a synonym for “ rational , ” hence that the law of Nature ( and Nature ’ s God ) is clearly discernible through reason .
Levinovitz disagrees , lamenting that the “ very idea of ‘ natural laws ’ ordained by God invites haphazard conversions of the is of the natural world ’ s regularities into the ought of politics and religion.
” Levinovitz next challenges the concept of “ the invisible hand ” of Adam Smith , using as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ the original bitcoin.
” He cites a comment from a former Securities and Exchange Commission chair who saw his mission as allowing “ the natural interplay of market forces to shape markets according to the demands of investors.
” But Levinovitz asserts that this “ religious ” worldview on markets belies the fact that “ the benevolent design of Nature rarely works out in practice , ” even though Smith assails monopolies for working against the common good ( including elevating the real price of goods ) .
He sees social Darwinism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hand and notes that social Darwinists lacked sympathy for the less fit .
While social Darwinism gave rise to the eugenics movement , which sought to eliminate “ the unfit ” from society , Levinovitz says many so-called social Darwinists merely picked and chose whatever biological principles happened to best fit their economic ideologies .
But does not Levinovitz follow after these pickers and choosers when he rebukes as a religious construct the idea that transgender women have any unfair advantages over biological women ?
In closing , Levinovitz admits that his skepticism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had become its own kind of faith , a photonegative of the false ideology he sought to discredit .
His conclusion is that natural is neither good nor evil but rather a meaningless construct often exploited by advertisers , whether for healthful supplements or childbirth .
His solution is to see the problem as ideological monoculture in which disobedience to the stated norms is sacrilege .
He proposes instead a polycultural approach that cultivates diversity , yet he admits that “ I am more philosophically confused about nature than I was when I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ humility – and sees humility as a sacred concept .
After tediously following Levinovitz ’ s circular journey , there is some value in this book despite its ambiguities .
Natural has ( perhaps unwittingly ) questioned traditional pagan and animist and quasi-religious ways of looking at the world and demythologized the very concept of “ natural ” – which he sees in many cases as little more than a sales pitch .
In so doing , he demonstrates that faith in natural goodness belies the wisdom that comes from science , economics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what is truly missing here is the distinction between the natural and the divine – that living in harmony with God is far more important than living in harmony with nature .
Indeed , the Apostle Paul states clearly ( I Corinthians 2:14 ) that “ the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God , for they are foolishness to him ; nor can he know them , because they are spiritually discerned.
” Thus , Levinovitz does not truly grasp the concepts of the law of Nature @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not NATURE ’ s goodness – but God ’ s – that is transformative .
Levinovitz thus has laid the foundation for debunking a society based on the premise that enriching oneself requires taking advantage of others .
A far better template is the win-win approach that asks the question , how can we serve one another , which is the same question as “ How can we live in harmony with the Divine ?
”

Alan Levinovitz begins Natural: How faith in nature’s goodness leads to harmful fads, unjust laws, and flawed science by asking the question, “How can we live in harmony with nature?” A better question might be, “Should we?”
Levinovitz spends the rest of the book showing how attempts to “live in harmony with nature” have created havoc in our society. He seeks to convince us that “natural” itself is but a social construct that lacks real definition. More specifically, this “scholar of religion” asserts that “natural” is a religious term – and that is the primary flaw in his analysis.
“Natural” in this context means “holy,” and thus to the believer, unnatural (everything else) is unholy – whether you are speaking of childbirth, legal principles, or the food we eat. Wherever the term “natural” is used to describe a favored practice, there is, Levinovitz would have you believe, a religious foundation.
But it is paganism (a term he ignores) that has at its heart the recognition of the divine in nature. A true religious scholar would know there is a massive gulf between worship of the creation (nature) and worship of the Creator.
Levinovitz sees himself as an enlightened soul, one who knows that the best future for humanity and nature must be built on dialogue and evidence, “not taboos and zealotry.” Those who “wrap their rhetoric in the mantle of ‘what’s natural,’ he says, tend to be propagandists, bigots, demagogues, and marketers.”
High on Levinovitz’s list of debunkable myths is that of “natural childbirth,” which he rightly notes is fraught with dangers both for humans and members of the animal kingdom. A better standard, he suggests, is to prevent the transformation of childbirth into a dehumanizing experience, infused with fear and drained of symbolic power. After all, he reminds us, “nature gave birth to humanity.”
Or take “natural vanilla” versus artificial vanilla, about 85 percent of which today is derived from petrochemicals. “Natural” vanilla is extracted from orchids and was initially meticulously processed by Mayans in a four-step process involving killing, sweating, drying, and conditioning over a period of 8 to 10 months. Eventually, growers began artificially inseminating the orchid flowers, a highly labor-intensive practice that can hardly be described as “natural.”
Levinovitz dislodges the myth that noble savages lived in harmony with nature and suggests that our environmental crises are better solved with technology than nostalgia. Citing the work of anthropologist Shepard Krech, Levinovitz points to tribes that slaughtered entire herds of buffalo and left the carcasses to rot. Slavery, rape, and torture were also common in many Native American cultures.
The central weakness of this book is Levinovitz’s assault on “the natural order” and later on “the laws of Nature and Nature’s God.” He speaks of the “myth” that humanity “fell” from a state of nature (perfection) as in reality a state of ignorance but laments that evolving societies have classified those living in more primitive cultures as subhuman and thus worthy of treating as pack animals.
Seizing upon a strange speech by one 19th Century preacher (Henry Drummond), who called out hermit crabs for “failing to live by nature’s laws” (by “borrowing” mollusk shells), Levinovitz juxtaposes the values of evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould, who asserted that science is the realm of descriptive authority while claiming that religion and secular ethics deal only with normative truths.
This viewpoint naturally leads to a deconstruction of the Declaration of Independence. Levinovitz argues that Jefferson followed the writings of the Swiss scholar Jean Jacques Burlamaqui in presuming that “natural” is a synonym for “rational,” hence that the law of Nature (and Nature’s God) is clearly discernible through reason.
Levinovitz disagrees, lamenting that the “very idea of ‘natural laws’ ordained by God invites haphazard conversions of the is of the natural world’s regularities into the ought of politics and religion.”
Levinovitz next challenges the concept of “the invisible hand” of Adam Smith, using as his foil a man who calls meat “the original bitcoin.” He cites a comment from a former Securities and Exchange Commission chair who saw his mission as allowing “the natural interplay of market forces to shape markets according to the demands of investors.”
But Levinovitz asserts that this “religious” worldview on markets belies the fact that “the benevolent design of Nature rarely works out in practice,” even though Smith assails monopolies for working against the common good (including elevating the real price of goods). He sees social Darwinism as the bastard child of the invisible hand and notes that social Darwinists lacked sympathy for the less fit.
While social Darwinism gave rise to the eugenics movement, which sought to eliminate “the unfit” from society, Levinovitz says many so-called social Darwinists merely picked and chose whatever biological principles happened to best fit their economic ideologies. But does not Levinovitz follow after these pickers and choosers when he rebukes as a religious construct the idea that transgender women have any unfair advantages over biological women?
In closing, Levinovitz admits that his skepticism about faith in nature’s goodness had become its own kind of faith, a photonegative of the false ideology he sought to discredit. His conclusion is that natural is neither good nor evil but rather a meaningless construct often exploited by advertisers, whether for healthful supplements or childbirth.
His solution is to see the problem as ideological monoculture in which disobedience to the stated norms is sacrilege. He proposes instead a polycultural approach that cultivates diversity, yet he admits that “I am more philosophically confused about nature than I was when I began.” Thus he embraces uncertainty as humility – and sees humility as a sacred concept.
After tediously following Levinovitz’s circular journey, there is some value in this book despite its ambiguities. Natural has (perhaps unwittingly) questioned traditional pagan and animist and quasi-religious ways of looking at the world and demythologized the very concept of “natural” – which he sees in many cases as little more than a sales pitch. In so doing, he demonstrates that faith in natural goodness belies the wisdom that comes from science, economics, and other intellectual disciplines.
But what is truly missing here is the distinction between the natural and the divine – that living in harmony with God is far more important than living in harmony with nature. Indeed, the Apostle Paul states clearly (I Corinthians 2:14) that “the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”
Thus, Levinovitz does not truly grasp the concepts of the law of Nature and the invisible hand, for it is not NATURE’s goodness – but God’s – that is transformative.
Levinovitz thus has laid the foundation for debunking a society based on the premise that enriching oneself requires taking advantage of others. A far better template is the win-win approach that asks the question, how can we serve one another, which is the same question as “How can we live in harmony with the Divine?”


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-06-07--Fear: The best tool of the ruling class

Fear: The best tool of the ruling class

Social and political responses to the fears of the Corona-19 virus pandemic are news headlines , but do they deserve headlines ?
Of course , they are news , but they are not really new news .
We have been repeatedly warned about the destructive power of fear .
Making themselves virtually unassailable , at least initially , politicians embraced the pandemic and associated public health fears it has engendered , and assumed near dictatorial powers in the name of protecting the public health .
Unmasked and unhindered , some politicians ’ actions have validated the descriptive term of “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ film by the same name gave one view of the dysfunctional life-style of a fictional British nobleman whose aspirations were quite noble and infused with a sense of god-like powers , not unlike some of our governors and mayors .
A less fanciful , but more philosophically grounded observation of the 1930 ’ s was made by H.L .
Menken : “ The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed ( and hence clamorous to be led to safety ) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins @ @ @ @ @ @ @ question that the Corona virus is real , not imaginary , but Menken astutely recognizes the basic urge in politicians to use fear to control the populous .
During President Roosevelt ’ s first inaugural address , on March 4th,1933 , he said that “ The only thing we have to fear is fear itself ” .
The more recent 2010 book by A. Codevilla bears the name “ The Ruling Class , ” and describes the outsized influence on American society by a clique of intellectuals scattered throughout the upper echelons of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and educational institutions .
Constitutional rights are denigrated , as is the traditional role of religion in American daily life .
These folks know that they know better than you do .
Combining a stretch of environmental-saving enthusiasm and fuzzy thinking , activists have wasted no effort in trying to link the imagined effects of climate change to its imagined impact on the Corona virus pandemic .
Economic hardships and social deprivations imposed by the ruling class are said to be good for the globe , and that the necessary price to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ retrenchment .
One author whose fictional narrative seems prescient in this current setting is Michael Crichton .
His 2004 “ State of Fear ” is a fictional thriller whose environmental and philosophical underpinnings are well documented by him , and whose validity has largely stood the test of time .
Al Gore ’ s perpetual predictions of global environmental disasters secondary to man-made carbon dioxide and fossil fuel use have not materialized in the intervening decade .
In a Socratic method exposition , Crichton develops the concept of fear as a tool to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his characters explains : “ I am leading to the notion of social control… .
To the requirement of every sovereign state to exert control over the behavior of its citizens , to keep them orderly and reasonably docile… .
To keep them paying taxes… and , of course , we know that social control is best managed through fear.
” “ …in reality , in the last fifteen years we have been under the control of an entirely new complex , far more powerful and far more pervasive .
I call it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And it is dedicated to promoting fear in the population , under the guise of promoting safety.
” He identifies the role of experts and universities in the enshrinement of fear as a political tool : “ Because they had a new role to play .
They became the creators of new fears for the PLM .
Universities today are factories of fear .
They invent all the new terrors and new social anxieties…they produce a steady stream of new anxieties , dangers , and social terrors to be used by politicians , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate change fit that narrative , in spite of the continued failure of computer modeling of global climate to accurately predict future changes .
With the onset of the Coronavirus pandemic , pandemonium erupted worldwide as fear of the unknown initially governed both social and scientific responses .
Leaders abhor the prospect of telling a frightened public that they do not know how to respond to a new pathogen .
Informed response would require a learning curve time-span to fully understand the clinical impact on the public , but no one wants to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s random death sentence .
Experts in epidemiology and infectious diseases were tapped for advice , and they turned to computer models for answers .
Years of failed computer-based climate predictions would be no reason to doubt the ability of virus modeling to predict its worldwide impact .
By mid-March , the computer had spoken and British scientist Neil Ferguson reported that many millions would die .
“ Flatten the curve ” entered the lexicon of the media , though few noted that the area under the flattened curve likely contained the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
No small matter because if the areas are the same then the number of deaths represented would remain the same ; they would just take place over a longer time interval .
Subsequently , the computer derived predictions of millions of deaths proved to be grossly exaggerated .
Virologists and epidemiologists inhabit a different mental world than that of economists , sociologists , and physicians , and their recommended remedies might well kill the virus at some point , but the patient might also have been killed by the cure .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the past few months as the collateral damage to a highly integrated , interdependent , and complex modern society from the epidemiological cure of isolation , implemented by the ruling class , has become evident .
“ Stay-at-home ” and avoid social contact is a simplistic fallback to stop an epidemic in the 21st century .
It may have been the only answer in the form of walled cities in the middle ages ; it may work if you isolate that first infected person and prevent him/her from transmitting the pathogen .
However @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pathogen was well out of the bottle long before it was recognized to be a new pathological entity .
This virus has shape changer variants in its clinical manifestations , and makes accurate and timely tracking difficult .
The pandemic may or may not be beginning to burn itself out , only time will tell .
However , there is no difficulty seeing the global destruction of human lives secondary to near economic collapse .
What also has been revealed is the latent enthusiasm with which the political/ruling class has claimed the moral @ @ @ @ @ @ @ name of the public good .
“ Stay-at-home ” orders range from weeks to months with no solid scientific justification for a particular time span , but with political/legal imperative .
Wearing of masks by the general public has become a schizophrenic policy issue .
Numerous studies claim that they are not protective against the Corona virus , especially the homemade cloth varieties .
At 120 nm diameter , these virus particles are not filtered out by surgical or fabric face masks .
Wearing of such masks may aggravate other existing medical conditions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The WHO says no to wearing them by the general public ; our CDC says yes .
Wearing a mask becomes a measure of virtue signaling , albeit much cheaper than driving a “ pious.
” Some governors are true believers and issue orders to wear a mask , any sort of mask , else risk criminal charges and fines .
Without hesitation , such politicians disregard basic constitutional rights based on personal whim and selective use of diverse scientific data .
Fear is a valuable , basic human emotion which functions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the current Coronavirus pandemic has demonstrated that members of the ruling class are adroitly curtailing our constitutional basic rights in the name of saving us from ourselves .

Social and political responses to the fears of the Corona-19 virus pandemic are news headlines, but do they deserve headlines? Of course, they are news, but they are not really new news. We have been repeatedly warned about the destructive power of fear.
Making themselves virtually unassailable, at least initially, politicians embraced the pandemic and associated public health fears it has engendered, and assumed near dictatorial powers in the name of protecting the public health. Unmasked and unhindered, some politicians’ actions have validated the descriptive term of “the ruling class.” The 1972 cult film by the same name gave one view of the dysfunctional life-style of a fictional British nobleman whose aspirations were quite noble and infused with a sense of god-like powers, not unlike some of our governors and mayors.
A less fanciful, but more philosophically grounded observation of the 1930’s was made by H.L. Menken: “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” No question that the Corona virus is real, not imaginary, but Menken astutely recognizes the basic urge in politicians to use fear to control the populous.
During President Roosevelt’s first inaugural address, on March 4th,1933, he said that “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself”.
The more recent 2010 book by A. Codevilla bears the name “The Ruling Class,” and describes the outsized influence on American society by a clique of intellectuals scattered throughout the upper echelons of business, the media, political parties, and educational institutions. Constitutional rights are denigrated, as is the traditional role of religion in American daily life. These folks know that they know better than you do.
Combining a stretch of environmental-saving enthusiasm and fuzzy thinking, activists have wasted no effort in trying to link the imagined effects of climate change to its imagined impact on the Corona virus pandemic. Economic hardships and social deprivations imposed by the ruling class are said to be good for the globe, and that the necessary price to save it is a cultural and scientific retrenchment.
One author whose fictional narrative seems prescient in this current setting is Michael Crichton. His 2004 “State of Fear” is a fictional thriller whose environmental and philosophical underpinnings are well documented by him, and whose validity has largely stood the test of time. Al Gore’s perpetual predictions of global environmental disasters secondary to man-made carbon dioxide and fossil fuel use have not materialized in the intervening decade.
In a Socratic method exposition, Crichton develops the concept of fear as a tool to control the public. As one of his characters explains:
“I am leading to the notion of social control…. To the requirement of every sovereign state to exert control over the behavior of its citizens, to keep them orderly and reasonably docile…. To keep them paying taxes… and, of course, we know that social control is best managed through fear.”
He continues:
“…in reality, in the last fifteen years we have been under the control of an entirely new complex, far more powerful and far more pervasive. I call it the politico-legal-media complex. The PLM. And it is dedicated to promoting fear in the population, under the guise of promoting safety.”
He identifies the role of experts and universities in the enshrinement of fear as a political tool:
“Because they had a new role to play. They became the creators of new fears for the PLM. Universities today are factories of fear. They invent all the new terrors and new social anxieties…they produce a steady stream of new anxieties, dangers, and social terrors to be used by politicians, lawyers, and reporters.”
Fears of climate change fit that narrative, in spite of the continued failure of computer modeling of global climate to accurately predict future changes.
With the onset of the Coronavirus pandemic, pandemonium erupted worldwide as fear of the unknown initially governed both social and scientific responses. Leaders abhor the prospect of telling a frightened public that they do not know how to respond to a new pathogen. Informed response would require a learning curve time-span to fully understand the clinical impact on the public, but no one wants to be the unfortunate guinea pig awaiting nature’s random death sentence.
Experts in epidemiology and infectious diseases were tapped for advice, and they turned to computer models for answers. Years of failed computer-based climate predictions would be no reason to doubt the ability of virus modeling to predict its worldwide impact. By mid-March, the computer had spoken and British scientist Neil Ferguson reported that many millions would die. “Flatten the curve” entered the lexicon of the media, though few noted that the area under the flattened curve likely contained the same area as the initial peaked curve. No small matter because if the areas are the same then the number of deaths represented would remain the same; they would just take place over a longer time interval. Subsequently, the computer derived predictions of millions of deaths proved to be grossly exaggerated.
Virologists and epidemiologists inhabit a different mental world than that of economists, sociologists, and physicians, and their recommended remedies might well kill the virus at some point, but the patient might also have been killed by the cure.
This latter scenario has painfully played out over the past few months as the collateral damage to a highly integrated, interdependent, and complex modern society from the epidemiological cure of isolation, implemented by the ruling class, has become evident.
“Stay-at-home” and avoid social contact is a simplistic fallback to stop an epidemic in the 21st century. It may have been the only answer in the form of walled cities in the middle ages; it may work if you isolate that first infected person and prevent him/her from transmitting the pathogen. However, in the present pandemic, the pathogen was well out of the bottle long before it was recognized to be a new pathological entity. This virus has shape changer variants in its clinical manifestations, and makes accurate and timely tracking difficult. The pandemic may or may not be beginning to burn itself out, only time will tell. However, there is no difficulty seeing the global destruction of human lives secondary to near economic collapse.
What also has been revealed is the latent enthusiasm with which the political/ruling class has claimed the moral high ground in issuing edicts in the name of the public good. “Stay-at-home” orders range from weeks to months with no solid scientific justification for a particular time span, but with political/legal imperative. Wearing of masks by the general public has become a schizophrenic policy issue. Numerous studies claim that they are not protective against the Corona virus, especially the homemade cloth varieties. At 120 nm diameter, these virus particles are not filtered out by surgical or fabric face masks. Wearing of such masks may aggravate other existing medical conditions. Official agencies differ in their recommendations. The WHO says no to wearing them by the general public; our CDC says yes. Wearing a mask becomes a measure of virtue signaling, albeit much cheaper than driving a “pious.” Some governors are true believers and issue orders to wear a mask, any sort of mask, else risk criminal charges and fines. Without hesitation, such politicians disregard basic constitutional rights based on personal whim and selective use of diverse scientific data.
Fear is a valuable, basic human emotion which functions as a self-preservation instinct. However, the current Coronavirus pandemic has demonstrated that members of the ruling class are adroitly curtailing our constitutional basic rights in the name of saving us from ourselves.
This article originally appeared at American Thinker


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-06-08--Can “Superworms” help rescue world from plastic pollution?

MPolystyrene is a useful form of plastic ideal for containers , packing materials , disposable cups and a host of other items .
But when polystyrene products are buried in landfills or tossed on the ground as litter , they can become a nuisance to the environment by lasting hundreds of years before decomposing .
Now comes an unlikely hero to the rescue … call him “ Superworm.
” Superworms , like Superman , have a secret identity that makes them appear like nothing special .
In fact , these two-inch long worms are really beetle larvae ( technically known @ @ @ @ @ @ @ commonly purchased in your everyday pet store as feed for reptiles , fish and birds .
But despite their Clark Kent-like outward appearance , these worms are actually pretty special because they have a superpower : They can degrade polystyrene plastic .
So just where do they get their ability that is far beyond the power of mortal insects ?
Researchers reporting in the American Chemical Society ’ s ( ACS ) Environmental Science & Technology publication believe they have the answer : It is linked to a strain of bacteria that lives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Recently , several studies have found that mealworms and superworms can ingest and degrade polystyrene within a few weeks .
In mealworms , this ability was linked to a certain strain of polystyrene-degrading bacteria in the worms ’ gut .
Jiaojie Li , Dae-Hwan Kim and colleagues wanted to search for similar bacteria in superworms .
The team placed 50 superworms in a chamber with polystyrene as their only carbon source , and after 21 days , the worms had consumed about 70 % of the plastic .
The researchers then isolated a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gut of the worms and showed that it could grow directly on the surface of polystyrene and break it down .
Finally , they identified an enzyme from the bacteria , called serine hydrolase , that appeared to be responsible for most of the biodegradation .
This enzyme , or the bacteria that produce it , could someday be used to help break down waste polystyrene , the researchers say .
To read the original ACS press release on this story , click here .

Polystyrene is a useful form of plastic ideal for containers, packing materials, disposable cups and a host of other items. But when polystyrene products are buried in landfills or tossed on the ground as litter, they can become a nuisance to the environment by lasting hundreds of years before decomposing.
Now comes an unlikely hero to the rescue … call him “Superworm.”
Superworms, like Superman, have a secret identity that makes them appear like nothing special. In fact, these two-inch long worms are really beetle larvae (technically known as Zophobas atratus) that can be commonly purchased in your everyday pet store as feed for reptiles, fish and birds. But despite their Clark Kent-like outward appearance, these worms are actually pretty special because they have a superpower: They can degrade polystyrene plastic.
So just where do they get their ability that is far beyond the power of mortal insects? Researchers reporting in the American Chemical Society’s (ACS) Environmental Science & Technology publication believe they have the answer: It is linked to a strain of bacteria that lives in the larvae’s gut.
As reported in a ACS press release:
Recently, several studies have found that mealworms and superworms can ingest and degrade polystyrene within a few weeks. In mealworms, this ability was linked to a certain strain of polystyrene-degrading bacteria in the worms’ gut. Jiaojie Li, Dae-Hwan Kim and colleagues wanted to search for similar bacteria in superworms.
The team placed 50 superworms in a chamber with polystyrene as their only carbon source, and after 21 days, the worms had consumed about 70% of the plastic. The researchers then isolated a strain of Pseudomonas aeruginosa bacteria from the gut of the worms and showed that it could grow directly on the surface of polystyrene and break it down. Finally, they identified an enzyme from the bacteria, called serine hydrolase, that appeared to be responsible for most of the biodegradation. This enzyme, or the bacteria that produce it, could someday be used to help break down waste polystyrene, the researchers say.
To read the original ACS press release on this story, click here.