committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-12-15--Who will lead Biden’s Interior Dept.? Expect a preservationist, climate-centered agency

Much to the chagrin of radical environmentalists and legacy media , President Donald Trump ’ s Department of Interior ( DOI ) largely succeeded in promoting true conservation policies .
Since 2017 , the department gave sportsmen and women— the largest drivers of conservation funding— a bigger seat at the table , bolstered relations with landowners out West and strengthened the multiple-use , sustained yield philosophy guiding public lands management .
Post-Trump , DOI could morph into a preservationist , climate-focused agency largely mirroring the House Natural Resources Committee under Chairman Raul Grijalva ( D-AZ ) .
This should concern @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Who will succeed Secretary David Bernhardt come January , and how will they transform DOI ?
Here are four possible contenders .
A top contender for the post , retiring U.S .
Senator Tom Udall ( D-NM ) is being floated as Joe Biden ’ s likely Interior pick .
The New Mexico senator ’ s father , Stewart Udall , also held this post from 1961-69 .
If selected and confirmed , he intends to move the agency in a radical direction focusing on climate issues and renewable energy .
For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ANWR , supports the Green New Deal , and endorses Senate Resolution 372 in support of the “ 30 by 30 ” plan that would lead to more hunting and fishing closures .
According to the Santa Fe New Mexican , Udall is eyeing the job : While Udall did not directly address whether he had an interest in becoming interior secretary , he noted the extensive work he ’ s done on public lands and natural resources in the Senate and said that was “ the area that I have the real @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what I think has resonated with New Mexicans and it ’ s the work I really like to do , ” Udall said in an interview .
“ I think I have something to offer there.
” Another possible contender emerging is former Obama Interior Deputy Secretary Michael L. Connor , who served from 2014 to 2017 .
He was confirmed by a 97-0 vote in the U.S. Senate .
Prior to becoming the number two at DOI , he was commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation from 2009 to 2014 .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Clinton administration .
Connor , a descendant of the Taos Pueblo tribe , currently works as a partner for WilmerHale focusing on “ natural resources , energy development , environmental compliance and Native American law.
” According to one report , his law firm represents oil and gas companies—a connection progressives are actively denouncing .
“ It would be an honor to serve in the Biden-Harris Administration and carry out the important work necessary to address the country ’ s most pressing challenges , ” Connor wrote in an email statement to New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ D-NM ) , a self-described progressive , would be the first Native American woman to oversee the agency if nominated and confirmed .
Democrats see her as a “ historic ” pick .
And she ’ s getting elevated by the aforementioned Rep. Grijalva ( D-AZ ) —a vocal anti-hunting advocate .
Haaland is an original Green New Deal backer and is endorsed by the Sunrise Movement .
She also supports restoring the size of the controversial Bears Ears National Monument in Utah , opposes Endangered Species Act reforms , and endorses the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House Resolution 835 .
If Republicans retain control of the Senate after January 5th , however , her confirmation is definitely dead-on-arrival .
A sportsman , Senator Martin Heinrich ( D-NM ) could appeal to hunters and anglers .
Yet , he ’ s in lockstep with Biden in prioritizing “ environmental justice ” and climate issues .
Interestingly enough , Heinrich did vote to confirm both Trump Interior Secretaries : Ryan Zinke and David Bernhardt .
But he ’ s also is one of 14 co-sponsors of the Senate Green New Deal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and believes public lands shouldn ’ t prioritize ranching or timber interests much going forward : The New Mexico lawmaker lamented that both Interior and the Forest Service continue to operate under “ foundational laws ” created to emphasize beef production , timber harvesting or ore extraction , arguing the modern economy “ needs very different things.
” “ Given the desire of Americans for outdoor recreation , environmental justice , climate solutions , the preservation of biodiversity , clean water and rural economic development , we really need to reorientate the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Forest Service toward those objectives , ” he added .
“ The mission of public land management should really be focused on serving the American public and safeguarding the values that deliver all of those public benefits.
” For true conservationists , the Biden era will be difficult to navigate .
Hunters , anglers , ranchers , foresters , and other consumptive users of America ’ s wild lands must stay vigilant and fight back egregious attacks on their way of life should and when they arise .

Much to the chagrin of radical environmentalists and legacy media, President Donald Trump’s Department of Interior (DOI) largely succeeded in promoting true conservation policies.
Since 2017, the department gave sportsmen and women— the largest drivers of conservation funding— a bigger seat at the table, bolstered relations with landowners out West and strengthened the multiple-use, sustained yield philosophy guiding public lands management.
Post-Trump, DOI could morph into a preservationist, climate-focused agency largely mirroring the House Natural Resources Committee under Chairman Raul Grijalva (D-AZ). This should concern the millions of true conservationists across America.
Who will succeed Secretary David Bernhardt come January, and how will they transform DOI?
Here are four possible contenders.
U.S. Senator Tom Udall (D-NM)
A top contender for the post, retiring U.S. Senator Tom Udall (D-NM) is being floated as Joe Biden’s likely Interior pick. The New Mexico senator’s father, Stewart Udall, also held this post from 1961-69.
If selected and confirmed, he intends to move the agency in a radical direction focusing on climate issues and renewable energy. For example, he pledges no drilling in ANWR, supports the Green New Deal, and endorses Senate Resolution 372 in support of the “30 by 30” plan that would lead to more hunting and fishing closures.
According to the Santa Fe New Mexican, Udall is eyeing the job:
While Udall did not directly address whether he had an interest in becoming interior secretary, he noted the extensive work he’s done on public lands and natural resources in the Senate and said that was “the area that I have the real passion about.”
“It’s what I think has resonated with New Mexicans and it’s the work I really like to do,” Udall said in an interview. “I think I have something to offer there.”
Former Interior Deputy Secretary Michael L. Connor
Another possible contender emerging is former Obama Interior Deputy Secretary Michael L. Connor, who served from 2014 to 2017. He was confirmed by a 97-0 vote in the U.S. Senate. Prior to becoming the number two at DOI, he was commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation from 2009 to 2014. He also worked for the agency during the Clinton administration.
Connor, a descendant of the Taos Pueblo tribe, currently works as a partner for WilmerHale focusing on “natural resources, energy development, environmental compliance and Native American law.” According to one report, his law firm represents oil and gas companies—a connection progressives are actively denouncing.
“It would be an honor to serve in the Biden-Harris Administration and carry out the important work necessary to address the country’s most pressing challenges,” Connor wrote in an email statement to New York Times.
Congresswoman Deb Haaland (D-NM)
Rep. Deb Haaland (D-NM), a self-described progressive, would be the first Native American woman to oversee the agency if nominated and confirmed. Democrats see her as a “historic” pick. And she’s getting elevated by the aforementioned Rep. Grijalva (D-AZ)—a vocal anti-hunting advocate.
Haaland is an original Green New Deal backer and is endorsed by the Sunrise Movement. She also supports restoring the size of the controversial Bears Ears National Monument in Utah, opposes Endangered Species Act reforms, and endorses the “30 by 30” plan via House Resolution 835.
If Republicans retain control of the Senate after January 5th, however, her confirmation is definitely dead-on-arrival.
U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich (D-NM)
A sportsman, Senator Martin Heinrich (D-NM) could appeal to hunters and anglers. Yet, he’s in lockstep with Biden in prioritizing “environmental justice” and climate issues.
Interestingly enough, Heinrich did vote to confirm both Trump Interior Secretaries: Ryan Zinke and David Bernhardt.
But he’s also is one of 14 co-sponsors of the Senate Green New Deal, a supporter of the carbon tax, and believes public lands shouldn’t prioritize ranching or timber interests much going forward:
The New Mexico lawmaker lamented that both Interior and the Forest Service continue to operate under “foundational laws” created to emphasize beef production, timber harvesting or ore extraction, arguing the modern economy “needs very different things.”
“Given the desire of Americans for outdoor recreation, environmental justice, climate solutions, the preservation of biodiversity, clean water and rural economic development, we really need to reorientate the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Forest Service toward those objectives,” he added. “The mission of public land management should really be focused on serving the American public and safeguarding the values that deliver all of those public benefits.”
Conclusion
For true conservationists, the Biden era will be difficult to navigate. Hunters, anglers, ranchers, foresters, and other consumptive users of America’s wild lands must stay vigilant and fight back egregious attacks on their way of life should and when they arise.
Originally posted on Townhall.com


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-12-15--Listen to the science

Listen to the science

“ Listen to the science !
” shouts the Left .
Are they ready to put their money where their mouths are ?
No less a scientific expert than Greta Thunberg appeared at a House of Representatives committee hearing and used those very words .
Greta came wielding the latest report by the UN ’ s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ) .
Little did she know this very report debunks some of the Left ’ s favorite global warming talking points — such as those related to storm intensity , sea level rise and extreme weather .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to educate the public on science .
Jay holds a degree in geology from Princeton and a Ph.D. in groundwater hydrology from the University of Arizona .
He is an accomplished scientist .
Dr. Lehr has been posting a series of important science articles at CFACT.org , often partnering with Tom Harris and Terrigi Ciccone ( who themselves are outstanding engineers ) .
Their work is first rate and much needed .
In 2014 , John Oliver devoted an entire episode of his HBO comedy series Last Week Tonight to climate change .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Marc Morano and then brought out Bill Nye the Science Guy .
Unfortunately he then had an actor play the role of Morano , instead of inviting Marc himself .
Oliver then did something outrageous .
He had 96 extras in white lab coats flood the stage to illustrate the phony “ 96 % consensus ” trope team warming constantly puts out .
This is a straw man argument .
Their definition of “ consensus , ” namely that humans have an impact on climate , includes everyone at CFACT and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just why does Oliver think climate computer modelers would wear white coats ?
To avoid getting toner on their clothing when they print out a simulation that runs too hot ?
Dr. Lehr and his colleagues , on the other hand , are fearlessly laying out the hard science team warming wants to shout down .
Just this week he posted a pair of highly instructive articles to CFACT.org .
The first explains the greenhouse effect , and the second launches into a new series on weather .
CFACT ’ s challenge to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the science .
”

“Listen to the science!” shouts the Left.
Are they ready to put their money where their mouths are?
No less a scientific expert than Greta Thunberg appeared at a House of Representatives committee hearing and used those very words. Greta came wielding the latest report by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Little did she know this very report debunks some of the Left’s favorite global warming talking points — such as those related to storm intensity, sea level rise and extreme weather.
CFACT senior policy analyst Jay Lehr lives to educate the public on science. Jay holds a degree in geology from Princeton and a Ph.D. in groundwater hydrology from the University of Arizona. He is an accomplished scientist. Dr. Lehr has been posting a series of important science articles at CFACT.org, often partnering with Tom Harris and Terrigi Ciccone (who themselves are outstanding engineers). Their work is first rate and much needed.
In 2014, John Oliver devoted an entire episode of his HBO comedy series Last Week Tonight to climate change. Oliver put up a clip of CFACT’s Marc Morano and then brought out Bill Nye the Science Guy. Unfortunately he then had an actor play the role of Morano, instead of inviting Marc himself. Oliver then did something outrageous. He had 96 extras in white lab coats flood the stage to illustrate the phony “96% consensus” trope team warming constantly puts out. This is a straw man argument. Their definition of “consensus,” namely that humans have an impact on climate, includes everyone at CFACT and Marc himself! By the way, just why does Oliver think climate computer modelers would wear white coats? To avoid getting toner on their clothing when they print out a simulation that runs too hot?
Dr. Lehr and his colleagues, on the other hand, are fearlessly laying out the hard science team warming wants to shout down.
Just this week he posted a pair of highly instructive articles to CFACT.org. The first explains the greenhouse effect, and the second launches into a new series on weather.
CFACT’s challenge to the Left — We fearlessly “listen to the science.”
Will you?


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-12-15--Be More Like Missouri— And Less Like New Jersey— With Respect to Wildlife Management

“ Be more like Missouri—and less like New Jersey— with respect to wildlife management , ” argues Gabriella Hoffman , @ @ @ @ @ Podcast , on Episode 127 of the podcast .
In today ’ s installment , @ @ @ @ @ on the hunting front that may have slipped under your radar .
Good news : @ @ @ @ @ to hunting .
And it isn ’ t going extinct anytime soon .
Here ’ @ @ @ @ @ Missouri ’ s Department of Conservation approved a highly-regulated black bear beginning October 2021—despite misinformation @ @ @ @ @ Second , WSJ and Pew Trusts positively covered the surge of hunting in USA in @ @ @ @ @ third , why you should subscribe to Blood Origins ’ new podcast .

“Be more like Missouri—and less like New Jersey— with respect to wildlife management,” argues Gabriella Hoffman, host of District of Conservation Podcast, on Episode 127 of the podcast.
In today’s installment, Gabriella discusses three positive developments on the hunting front that may have slipped under your radar. Good news: COVID-19 has given new life to hunting. And it isn’t going extinct anytime soon. Here’s why:
First, Missouri’s Department of Conservation approved a highly-regulated black bear beginning October 2021—despite misinformation from the Humane Society. Second, WSJ and Pew Trusts positively covered the surge of hunting in USA in wake of COVID. And third, why you should subscribe to Blood Origins’ new podcast.
Listen on Apple Podcasts:
###


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-12-16--Fascinating variations — Weather made (sort of) understandable: Part Two

As we did in Part One of this series of essays on the weather , we shall start with what you may believe is a shocking exclamation .
Weather is nothing more and nothing less than nature trying to equilibrate the balance of all energy transmitted to the Earth by the Sun .
It is a never-ending multi-level physics show trying to overcome imbalances and irregularities too numerous to quantify accurately .
Yet , we try hour after hour , day after day , all across the Earth .
There are significant temperature differences between the air in valleys and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In Figure 1 , we see snows on top of Mount Kilimanjaro in Africa .
While Mt Kilimanjaro is on the equator , the higher up you go on the mountain , it no longer has equatorial temperatures .
It gets very cold .
It ’ s so tall and massive that i t creates its own sub-weather system .
The top of the mountain is cold enough to snow and accumulate it .
The low atmospheric pressure there literally sucks up much of the available water vapor/air from miles around its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ condenses and becomes clouds .
Then it precipitates on the colder northern side of the mountain in the form of rain or snow , depending on temperature and pressure differences .
So , when it ’ s snowing on top of Kilimanjaro , say it ’ s 29° F , it accumulates , but in the valley , below it maybe 80° F. Therefore , the hot air from the valley starts to rush up the mountain quickly , and when it reaches near the top , some of the snow melts in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But some of the snow does something strange .
Because of the lower boiling point at high elevations , the snow is heated so rapidly that it turns directly into water vapor , a process called sublimation .
The snow is melting so fast that it does not bother to first liquefy into water .
It goes straight to the gas phase , water vapor .
As the cold air strips and condenses the water vapor as it ’ s sucked up the mountain , it ’ s condensed on the colder mountainside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but the other , warmer side of the mountain , is an arid wasteland .
Ecologically speaking , the weather system is in a dynamic balance , but the people , animals , and vegetation on the mountain ’ s wrong side have difficult living conditions .
A balanced ecosystem is not necessarily a “ good ” system for all .
An even more prominent example of this extreme temperature/pressure difference and its cycle is in the tropical Pacific Ocean .
Here this similar upward rush of air from the western Pacific Ocean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is the primary driver of the now- familiar and periodic El Niño , which creates a temporary atmosphere and is the air/water equivalent to that of Kilimanjaro .
After some years , the process reverses , causing the cooling cycle , which we call La Niña .
This cycle was only recently discovered , and we still have a lot to learn about it .
Let ’ s now compare the properties of water and water vapor and see how they affect the weather .
Keep in mind that 20-30 percent of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reaches the land or the oceans .
Some is reflected back to outer space by the air and the clouds , and some is absorbed by the atmosphere and clouds .
More than 70 percent of the Earth ’ s surface is covered and filled with water , accounting for about 96 percent of all Earth ’ s water .
The rest of the 4 percent exists as water vapor in the air , flowing in rivers , stored in lakes , in icecaps and glaciers , and in the ground as soil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ How water heats up , cools down , loses , and redistributes the Sun ’ s heat is very different than how the land and air do it .
Water , primarily in the oceans , receives the Sun ’ s rays .
Before the rays penetrate the shallow surface water , a significant amount is reflected by the water back through the air , where some is stored in the air and /clouds , which creates “ the greenhouse effect.
” The seas absorb the rest of the Sun ’ s rays/heat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s energy/heat , mostly from the infrared rays ( IR ) and the visible wavelengths , and it does so much more slowly than land .
The oceans can absorb and store four times more heat than the air .
The heated water on top expands , which makes it is less dense than the colder water .
As a result , the warmer waters keep rising to the top layers ; whereas , the more frigid , denser waters sink and keep sinking to the bottom .
At great depths , these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many millennia .
The warmer waters generally stay within 100-200 meters from the ocean top , and the temperatures keep declining as we go deeper and deeper .
These top 100 meters of warmer waters may move at about one or two miles per hour and may take a decade or more to redistribute and mix with adjacent cooler waters .
But they are still generally limited to the top 100-200 meters .
The coldest of the cold waters are at the deepest parts of the ocean , and the mixing speeds there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ per century .
The tiny amount of warmer water that is mixed with the colder waters below is generally limited to conduction .
The warmer top layers in the seas are also why ocean ice , icebergs , and coastal glaciers will continue to melt around the waterline , even when the air temperature is below the freezing point .
This also explains why so much fog is over the oceans where the warm waters on the surface continue to evaporate up and then condense as it comes into contact with the colder @ @ @ @ @ @ @ temperatures of the oceans redistribute locally and over the planet at very different rates .
The best-known example of this temperature redistribution is the Gulf Stream of the Atlantic Ocean .
As seen in Figure – 2 , the flow speeds of the top layers of the Gulf Stream can reach a breakneck pace of about 5 five miles per /hour .
But it gets slower and slower as we go deeper and deeper .
All told , it takes about 500 years for these top layers of water to complete the full @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this series , we will close with a few more of the weather ’ s intricacies , which make those who can successfully forecast long-range , like months , not years , real superstars .
Remember , most of us have not been taking the Farmer ’ s Almanac forecasts for the coming year too seriously , yet we actually pay attention to those that tell us the Earth is doomed in a decade or more .
Portions of this article are excerpted from the 2020 book A HITCHHIKER ’ S JOURNEY @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dr. Jay Lehr .
The book is the best source for parents and grandparents to explain climate change reality to their children .
It ’ s especially recommended for young teens and Gen-Z as they will bear the consequences of climate change folly .
Available from Amazon at https : //www.amazon.com/Hitchhikers-Journey-Through-Climate-Change-ebook/dp/B086R49RS6 In kindle , black and white paperback and large format full-color figures .
Or send an email to [ email protected ]

As we did in Part One of this series of essays on the weather, we shall start with what you may believe is a shocking exclamation. Weather is nothing more and nothing less than nature trying to equilibrate the balance of all energy transmitted to the Earth by the Sun. It is a never-ending multi-level physics show trying to overcome imbalances and irregularities too numerous to quantify accurately. Yet, we try hour after hour, day after day, all across the Earth.
TEMPERATURE AND LOCALIZED DIFFERENCES
There are significant temperature differences between the air in valleys and air at the top of the mountains. In Figure 1, we see snows on top of Mount Kilimanjaro in Africa. While Mt Kilimanjaro is on the equator, the higher up you go on the mountain, it no longer has equatorial temperatures. It gets very cold. It’s so tall and massive that i t creates its own sub-weather system. The top of the mountain is cold enough to snow and accumulate it. The low atmospheric pressure there literally sucks up much of the available water vapor/air from miles around its base. This rising air/ water vapor condenses and becomes clouds. Then it precipitates on the colder northern side of the mountain in the form of rain or snow, depending on temperature and pressure differences.
So, when it’s snowing on top of Kilimanjaro, say it’s 29° F, it
accumulates, but in the valley, below it maybe 80° F. Therefore, the hot air from the valley starts to rush up the mountain quickly, and when it reaches near the top, some of the snow melts in the air, and it rains. But some of the snow does something strange. Because of the lower boiling point at high elevations, the snow is heated so rapidly that it turns directly into water vapor, a process called sublimation. The snow is melting so fast that it does not bother to first liquefy into water. It goes straight to the gas phase, water vapor. As the cold air strips and condenses the water vapor as it’s sucked up the mountain, it’s condensed on the colder mountainside. There it rains or snows, but the other, warmer side of the mountain, is an arid wasteland. Ecologically speaking, the weather system is in a dynamic balance, but the people, animals, and vegetation on the mountain’s wrong side have difficult living conditions. A balanced ecosystem is not necessarily a “good” system for all.
An even more prominent example of this extreme temperature/pressure difference and its cycle is in the tropical Pacific Ocean. Here this similar upward rush of air from the western Pacific Ocean to the sky is so fast that it is the primary driver of the now- familiar and periodic El Niño, which creates a temporary atmosphere and is the air/water equivalent to that of Kilimanjaro. After some years, the process reverses, causing the cooling cycle, which we call La Niña. This cycle was only recently discovered, and we still have a lot to learn about it.
THE WATERS
Let’s now compare the properties of water and water vapor and see how they affect the weather. Keep in mind that 20-30 percent of the Sun’s’ energy never reaches the land or the oceans. Some is reflected back to outer space by the air and the clouds, and some is absorbed by the atmosphere and clouds.
More than 70 percent of the Earth’s surface is covered and filled with water, accounting for about 96 percent of all Earth’s water. The rest of the 4 percent exists as water vapor in the air, flowing in rivers, stored in lakes, in icecaps and glaciers, and in the ground as soil moisture and as groundwater in aquifers.
How water heats up, cools down, loses, and redistributes the Sun’s heat is very different than how the land and air do it. Water, primarily in the oceans, receives the Sun’s rays. Before the rays penetrate the shallow surface water, a significant amount is reflected by the water back through the air, where some is stored in the air and /clouds, which creates “the greenhouse effect.” The seas absorb the rest of the Sun’s rays/heat. But water absorbs the Sun’s energy/heat, mostly from the infrared rays (IR) and the visible wavelengths, and it does so much more slowly than land. The oceans can absorb and store four times more heat than the air. The heated water on top expands, which makes it is less dense than the colder water. As a result, the warmer waters keep rising to the top layers; whereas, the more frigid, denser waters sink and keep sinking to the bottom. At great depths, these colder waters remain for centuries or even many millennia.
The warmer waters generally stay within 100-200 meters from the ocean top, and the temperatures keep declining as we go deeper and deeper. These top 100 meters of warmer waters may move at about one or two miles per hour and may take a decade or more to redistribute and mix with adjacent cooler waters. But they are still generally limited to the top 100-200 meters. The coldest of the cold waters are at the deepest parts of the ocean, and the mixing speeds there may be less than 1 one inch per century. The tiny amount of warmer water that is mixed with the colder waters below is generally limited to conduction. The warmer top layers in the seas are also why ocean ice, icebergs, and coastal glaciers will continue to melt around the waterline, even when the air temperature is below the freezing point.
This also explains why so much fog is over the oceans where the warm waters on the surface continue to evaporate up and then condense as it comes into contact with the colder air on top. The different water temperatures of the oceans redistribute locally and over the planet at very different rates. The best-known example of this temperature redistribution is the Gulf Stream of the Atlantic Ocean. As seen in Figure – 2, the flow speeds of the top layers of the Gulf Stream can reach a breakneck pace of about 5 five miles per /hour. But it gets slower and slower as we go deeper and deeper. All told, it takes about 500 years for these top layers of water to complete the full Gulf Stream cycle.
In Part 3 of this series, we will close with a few more of the weather’s intricacies, which make those who can successfully forecast long-range, like months, not years, real superstars. Remember, most of us have not been taking the Farmer’s Almanac forecasts for the coming year too seriously, yet we actually pay attention to those that tell us the Earth is doomed in a decade or more.
Portions of this article are excerpted from the 2020 book A HITCHHIKER’S JOURNEY THROUGH CLIMATE CHANGE by Terigi Ciccone and Dr. Jay Lehr. The book is the best source for parents and grandparents to explain climate change reality to their children. It’s especially recommended for young teens and Gen-Z as they will bear the consequences of climate change folly.
Available from Amazon at https://www.amazon.com/Hitchhikers-Journey-Through-Climate-Change-ebook/dp/B086R49RS6 In kindle, black and white paperback and large format full-color figures. Or send an email to [email protected].


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-12-17--Nuking the anti-nuke crowd

Nuking the anti-nuke crowd

How has the Trump Administration fared in meeting the multiple challenges that have slowed the growth of nuclear energy in the U.S. to a near-halt ?
And what are the prospects for nuclear energy in a Biden-Harris Administration ?
It is now seventy-five years since the U.S. ended the war against Japan by dropping nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ( both currently thriving ) .
Eight years later , President Eisenhower , in his world-famous “ Atoms for Peace ” speech before the United Nations , invited citizens to the debate over using nuclear science and technology for power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s attention from nuclear to the space program , but beginning in the Nixon Administration ( and augmented following the 1973 oil embargo ) through the Three Mile Island incident in 1979 , the U.S. authorized most of the 99 nuclear reactors at 61 plants still operating in 2017 .
* As President Trump came to office , the Aspen Institute issued a report asserting , “ Nuclear power in the U.S. is at a moment of existential crisis .
If the present challenges are not addressed , then the future of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and superior U.S. nuclear expertise diminished.
” [ *Note .
– President Obama ’ s Clean Energy Plan provided funding for nuclear energy , including creating the Gateway for Accelerated Innovation in Nuclear ( GAIN ) .
And in 2012 , despite objections by the chairman , the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ( NRC ) authorized Southern Co. to build and operate two new reactors at its Vogtle nuclear power plant in Georgia , the first in the U.S. since 1979 . ]
The Aspen report asserted boldly that the U.S. needs a strong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ competence to address safety , threat reduction , and nonproliferation issues .
They courted the environmental community by noting further that nuclear is a necessary component in the war against climate change if we are to also maintain an adequate supply of affordable electricity .
“ A world without nuclear power , ” the Aspen authors concluded , “ would require an incredible – and likely unrealistic – amount of renewables to meet climate targets.
” The Aspen authors further stated that the U.S. public is generally supportive of nuclear power but concerned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too many nuclear power plants in development have broken budgets and fallen behind schedule .
Given the lack of political will or a national energy crisis at the time , the authors placed their hope that advanced reactors that use new types of coolants , operate and different pressures and temperatures , or are smaller and more modular , would win widespread approval .
Nuclear waste is now seen as an overhyped , unscientific issue .
In a 2019 paper , Aspen Institute trustee Bill Budinger argued that the fear of nuclear waste @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hugely exaggerated when we were trying to scare people away from nuclear.
” The total amount of nuclear waste accumulated over the past 60 years from all U.S. nuclear power plants would fit inside a two-story building covering one city block .
And cost overruns and delays are largely the product of anti-nuclear attitudes that have driven regulation to extremes ( and are inappropriate for newer reactor designs ) .
In April 2020 President Trump unveiled his Strategy to Restore American Nuclear Energy Leadership , an initiative to restore America ’ s long-lost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outlined in the plan is to revive and strengthen the U.S. uranium mining industry , support uranium conversion services , end reliance on foreign uranium enrichment , and sustain the current fleet of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and submarines .
Among the Trump plan ’ s many objectives was creating a Uranium Reserve , streamlining regulatory reform and land access for uranium extraction ( cutting red tape ) , supporting the National Reactor Innovation Center and Versatile Test Reactor , demonstrating the use of Small Modular Reactors ( SMRs ) and micro-reactors to power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prevent future uranium dumping into the U.S. market .
[ The complete list can be found here . ]
In November , the Associated Press reported that the Idaho National Laboratory was the Energy Department ’ s first choice for constructing and operating the Versatile Test Reactor ( VTR ) .
This first new test reactor built in the U.S. in decades would give the nation a dedicated “ fast-neutron-spectrum ” testing capability .
Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette explained that the VTR “ continues to be a high-priority project for DOE to ensure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country ’ s energy portfolio.
” Meanwhile , Llewellyn King reported in Forbes in October that there is an active community of entrepreneurs promoting reactors of various designs ( including molten salt modular reactors ) , using in part seed money for SMRs provided through the Obama-era GAIN program .
The increase in private investment in nuclear technology and development is a strong sign that nuclear may have finally overcome the media-induced stigma resulting from Three Mile Island , Chernobyl , and Fukushima .
* [ *Note .
– As Indian researcher Vijay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accident happened partly because of intentional negligence of a faulty reactor .
Environmentalist Michael Shellenberger pointed out recently that , “ Radiation from Chernobyl will kill , at most , 200 people , while the radiation from Fukushima and Three Mile will kill zero people.
” Moreover , despite the fact that hundreds of thousands of women aborted their babies after the Chernobyl incident , UCLA researchers found that the children that have been born close to Chernobyl had no detectable abnormalities during their birth.
” ] And just this past week , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Public Works approved a bipartisan bill , the American Nuclear Infrastructure Act ( ANIA ) , that advances President Trump ’ s initiative to establish a U.S. national strategic uranium reserve .
The bill got strong backing from industry officials , including Uranium Energy Corp CEO Amir Adnani .
Adnani said in a statement that , “ The bipartisan [ American ] Nuclear Infrastructure Act is broad-reaching legislation , important for supporting the U.S. nuclear fuel industry , national security , and clean energy .
The legislation will provide a clear path for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and provide a strong platform to revitalize the U.S. uranium industry.
” Under ANIA , the Department of Energy may only buy uranium recovered from facilities licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or equivalent agreement state agencies ; uranium from companies owned , controlled , or subject to the jurisdiction of Russia or China would be excluded .
According to several prognosticators , the presumed Biden Administration will carry on , or even accelerate , the work initiated by President Obama and championed by President Trump to revitalize and prioritize the U.S. nuclear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrote during the Democratic Party convention that the primary difference between Trump ’ s and Biden ’ s nuclear policy is that Biden ’ s is part of a climate change agenda , while Trump ’ s focus was on the national security elements of nuclear energy .
According to Conca , “ ( A ) ll the leading climate scientists say we can not address climate change without significant nuclear power , so supporting nuclear power – or not – is a clear signal about how serious a candidate is about climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supporting science over mere activism.
” He further insisted that , “ if Democrats want any clean energy plan to succeed at all , it better include nuclear.
” Similarly , Josh Siegel , writing in the Washington Examiner , agreed that ” Biden ’ s support for nuclear power … promises to be one of the rare instances of energy policy continuity between the incoming and outgoing administrations.
” Siegel also acknowledged that Democrats , realizing that wind and solar alone are insufficient to decarbonize the power grid , are for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to nuclear energy .
There is just one caveat .
Should for any reason Kamala Harris replace Biden as Commander-in-Chief , her responses during the 2020 Presidential campaign to questions about whether she supported nuclear energy were not so sanguine .
On multiple occasions her answer was , “ Yes , temporarily , while we increase investment into cleaner renewable alternatives.
” Not exactly a ringing endorsement or acknowledgment of the growing bipartisan energy reality .

How has the Trump Administration fared in meeting the multiple challenges that have slowed the growth of nuclear energy in the U.S. to a near-halt? And what are the prospects for nuclear energy in a Biden-Harris Administration?
It is now seventy-five years since the U.S. ended the war against Japan by dropping nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (both currently thriving). Eight years later, President Eisenhower, in his world-famous “Atoms for Peace” speech before the United Nations, invited citizens to the debate over using nuclear science and technology for power generation.
President Kennedy switched the nation’s attention from nuclear to the space program, but beginning in the Nixon Administration (and augmented following the 1973 oil embargo) through the Three Mile Island incident in 1979, the U.S. authorized most of the 99 nuclear reactors at 61 plants still operating in 2017.* As President Trump came to office, the Aspen Institute issued a report asserting, “Nuclear power in the U.S. is at a moment of existential crisis. If the present challenges are not addressed, then the future of nuclear energy may be far less promising and superior U.S. nuclear expertise diminished.”
[*Note. – President Obama’s Clean Energy Plan provided funding for nuclear energy, including creating the Gateway for Accelerated Innovation in Nuclear (GAIN). And in 2012, despite objections by the chairman, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) authorized Southern Co. to build and operate two new reactors at its Vogtle nuclear power plant in Georgia, the first in the U.S. since 1979.]
The Aspen report asserted boldly that the U.S. needs a strong domestic nuclear program to maintain its exceptional competence to address safety, threat reduction, and nonproliferation issues. They courted the environmental community by noting further that nuclear is a necessary component in the war against climate change if we are to also maintain an adequate supply of affordable electricity. “A world without nuclear power,” the Aspen authors concluded, “would require an incredible – and likely unrealistic – amount of renewables to meet climate targets.”
The Aspen authors further stated that the U.S. public is generally supportive of nuclear power but concerned about nuclear waste. Worse, far too many nuclear power plants in development have broken budgets and fallen behind schedule. Given the lack of political will or a national energy crisis at the time, the authors placed their hope that advanced reactors that use new types of coolants, operate and different pressures and temperatures, or are smaller and more modular, would win widespread approval.
Nuclear waste is now seen as an overhyped, unscientific issue. In a 2019 paper, Aspen Institute trustee Bill Budinger argued that the fear of nuclear waste is largely unfounded – an issue “hugely exaggerated when we were trying to scare people away from nuclear.” The total amount of nuclear waste accumulated over the past 60 years from all U.S. nuclear power plants would fit inside a two-story building covering one city block. And cost overruns and delays are largely the product of anti-nuclear attitudes that have driven regulation to extremes (and are inappropriate for newer reactor designs).
In April 2020 President Trump unveiled his Strategy to Restore American Nuclear Energy Leadership, an initiative to restore America’s long-lost competitive nuclear advantage. The first step outlined in the plan is to revive and strengthen the U.S. uranium mining industry, support uranium conversion services, end reliance on foreign uranium enrichment, and sustain the current fleet of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and submarines.
Among the Trump plan’s many objectives was creating a Uranium Reserve, streamlining regulatory reform and land access for uranium extraction (cutting red tape), supporting the National Reactor Innovation Center and Versatile Test Reactor, demonstrating the use of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) and micro-reactors to power federal facilities, and adding protections to prevent future uranium dumping into the U.S. market. [The complete list can be found here.]
In November, the Associated Press reported that the Idaho National Laboratory was the Energy Department’s first choice for constructing and operating the Versatile Test Reactor (VTR). This first new test reactor built in the U.S. in decades would give the nation a dedicated “fast-neutron-spectrum” testing capability. Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette explained that the VTR “continues to be a high-priority project for DOE to ensure nuclear energy plays a role in our country’s energy portfolio.”
Meanwhile, Llewellyn King reported in Forbes in October that there is an active community of entrepreneurs promoting reactors of various designs (including molten salt modular reactors), using in part seed money for SMRs provided through the Obama-era GAIN program. The increase in private investment in nuclear technology and development is a strong sign that nuclear may have finally overcome the media-induced stigma resulting from Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima.*
[*Note. – As Indian researcher Vijay Raj Jayaraj reported recently, the Chernobyl accident happened partly because of intentional negligence of a faulty reactor. Environmentalist Michael Shellenberger pointed out recently that, “Radiation from Chernobyl will kill, at most, 200 people, while the radiation from Fukushima and Three Mile will kill zero people.” Moreover, despite the fact that hundreds of thousands of women aborted their babies after the Chernobyl incident, UCLA researchers found that the children that have been born close to Chernobyl had no detectable abnormalities during their birth.”]
And just this past week, the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works approved a bipartisan bill, the American Nuclear Infrastructure Act (ANIA), that advances President Trump’s initiative to establish a U.S. national strategic uranium reserve. The bill got strong backing from industry officials, including Uranium Energy Corp CEO Amir Adnani.
Adnani said in a statement that, “The bipartisan [American] Nuclear Infrastructure Act is broad-reaching legislation, important for supporting the U.S. nuclear fuel industry, national security, and clean energy. The legislation will provide a clear path for the implementation of the U.S. uranium reserve and provide a strong platform to revitalize the U.S. uranium industry.”
Under ANIA, the Department of Energy may only buy uranium recovered from facilities licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or equivalent agreement state agencies; uranium from companies owned, controlled, or subject to the jurisdiction of Russia or China would be excluded.
According to several prognosticators, the presumed Biden Administration will carry on, or even accelerate, the work initiated by President Obama and championed by President Trump to revitalize and prioritize the U.S. nuclear energy program. Progressive analyst James Conca wrote during the Democratic Party convention that the primary difference between Trump’s and Biden’s nuclear policy is that Biden’s is part of a climate change agenda, while Trump’s focus was on the national security elements of nuclear energy.
According to Conca, “(A)ll the leading climate scientists say we cannot address climate change without significant nuclear power, so supporting nuclear power – or not – is a clear signal about how serious a candidate is about climate change and how serious they are about supporting science over mere activism.” He further insisted that, “if Democrats want any clean energy plan to succeed at all, it better include nuclear.”
Similarly, Josh Siegel, writing in the Washington Examiner, agreed that ”Biden’s support for nuclear power … promises to be one of the rare instances of energy policy continuity between the incoming and outgoing administrations.” Siegel also acknowledged that Democrats, realizing that wind and solar alone are insufficient to decarbonize the power grid, are for the most part giving up their longstanding opposition to nuclear energy.
There is just one caveat. Should for any reason Kamala Harris replace Biden as Commander-in-Chief, her responses during the 2020 Presidential campaign to questions about whether she supported nuclear energy were not so sanguine. On multiple occasions her answer was, “Yes, temporarily, while we increase investment into cleaner renewable alternatives.”
Not exactly a ringing endorsement or acknowledgment of the growing bipartisan energy reality.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-12-18--Deb Haaland is Biden’s radical pick for Interior Secretary

President-elect Joe Biden ’ s likely pick for Interior Secretary is New Mexico Representative Deb Haaland ( D-NM ) .
Haaland , first elected to Congress in 2018 , was one of four contenders for the role—besting three fellow New Mexicans : Senators Tom Udall and Martin Heinrich along with former Obama Interior Deputy Secretary Michael Conner .
Without a doubt , Haaland ’ s nomination to the post is historic .
If confirmed , she would be the first Native American Interior Secretary in department history .
But how does she stand on the issues ?
And if Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what ’ s the likelihood of her confirmation ?
As I wrote in Town Hall recently , Haaland ’ s positions on critical conservation and environmental issues would alienate most Americans : Haaland is an original Green New Deal backer and is endorsed by the Sunrise Movement .
She also supports restoring the size of the controversial Bears Ears National Monument in Utah , opposes Endangered Species Act reforms , and endorses the “ 30 by 30 ” plan via House Resolution 835. Who has endorsed Rep. Haaland for this role ?
Anti-hunting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ current chair of the House Natural Resources Committee , gave his seal of approval on a potential Haaland nod .
He said this about Haaland in a letter obtained by The Hill newspaper : “ It is well past time that an Indigenous person brings history full circle at the Department of Interior .
As her colleague on the Natural Resources Committee , I have seen first-hand the passion and dedication she puts into these issues at the forefront of the Interior Department from tackling the epidemic of missing and murdered Indigenous women @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate crisis using America ’ s public lands .
”

President-elect Joe Biden’s likely pick for Interior Secretary is New Mexico Representative Deb Haaland (D-NM).
.
Haaland, first elected to Congress in 2018, was one of four contenders for the role—besting three fellow New Mexicans: Senators Tom Udall and Martin Heinrich along with former Obama Interior Deputy Secretary Michael Conner. Without a doubt, Haaland’s nomination to the post is historic. If confirmed, she would be the first Native American Interior Secretary in department history. But how does she stand on the issues? And if Republicans maintain control of the U.S. Senate, what’s the likelihood of her confirmation?
.
As I wrote in Town Hall recently, Haaland’s positions on critical conservation and environmental issues would alienate most Americans: Haaland is an original Green New Deal backer and is endorsed by the Sunrise Movement. She also supports restoring the size of the controversial Bears Ears National Monument in Utah, opposes Endangered Species Act reforms, and endorses the “30 by 30” plan via House Resolution 835.
.
Who has endorsed Rep. Haaland for this role? Anti-hunting Congressman Raul Grijalva (D-NM), current chair of the House Natural Resources Committee, gave his seal of approval on a potential Haaland nod. He said this about Haaland in a letter obtained by The Hill newspaper: “It is well past time that an Indigenous person brings history full circle at the Department of Interior. As her colleague on the Natural Resources Committee, I have seen first-hand the passion and dedication she puts into these issues at the forefront of the Interior Department from tackling the epidemic of missing and murdered Indigenous women to crafting thoughtful solutions to combating the climate crisis using America’s public lands.”


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-12-17--Watch SpaceX’s last launch of 2020 — Join CFACT LIVE!

We ’ ve all got our 2020 stories to tell but for America in space 2020 has been glorious .
@ @ @ @ @ military satellite on a REUSABLE Falcon 9 rocket , possibly in minutes .
WATCH NOW @ @ @ @ @ .
Launch window still open Thursday morning , next launch window Friday morning .
Stay @ @ @

We’ve all got our 2020 stories to tell but for America in space 2020 has been glorious.
Watch SpaceX launch a classified military satellite on a REUSABLE Falcon 9 rocket, possibly in minutes. WATCH NOW
UPDATE: Currently aiming for a 9 AM launch, Saturday 12/19/20.
From SpaceX: SpaceX is targeting Thursday, December 17 at 9:45 a.m. EST for launch of the NROL-108 mission, which will launch from Launch Complex 39A (LC-39A) at Kennedy Space Center, Florida. Friday’s three-hour launch window closes at 12:00 p.m. EST, or 17:00 UTC, and a backup launch opportunity is available on Friday, December 18 with a three-hour launch window opening at 9:00 a.m. EST, or 14:00 UTC. Falcon 9’s first stage booster previously supported launch of SpaceX’s 19th and 20th cargo resupply missions to the International Space Station, a Starlink mission, and the SAOCOM 1B mission. Following stage separation, SpaceX will land Falcon 9’s first stage on Landing Zone 1 at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida. Falcon 9 Overview HEIGHT 70 m / 229.6 ft DIAMETER 3.7 m / 12 ft MASS 549,054 kg / 1,207,920 lb PAYLOAD TO LEO 22,800 kg / 50,265 lb PAYLOAD TO GTO 8,300 kg / 18,300 lb PAYLOAD TO MARS 4,020 kg / 8,860 lb
Falcon 9 First stage Falcon 9’s first stage incorporates nine Merlin engines and aluminum-lithium alloy tanks containing liquid oxygen and rocket-grade kerosene (RP-1) propellant.
Falcon 9 generates more than 1.7 million pounds of thrust at sea level.
Falcon 9 Second stage The second stage, powered by a single Merlin Vacuum Engine, delivers Falcon 9’s payload to the desired orbit. The second stage engine ignites a few seconds after stage separation, and can be restarted multiple times to place multiple payloads into different orbits. NUMBER OF ENGINES 1 vacuum BURN TIME 397 sec THRUST 981 kN / 220,500 lbf
Falcon 9 Interstage The interstage is a composite structure that connects the first and second stages, and houses the pneumatic pushers that allow the first and second stage to separate during flight. Grid fins Falcon 9 is equipped with four hypersonic grid fins positioned at the base of the interstage. They orient the rocket during reentry by moving the center of pressure.
Falcon 9 Payload Made of a carbon composite material, the fairing protects satellites on their way to orbit. The fairing is jettisoned approximately 3 minutes into flight, and SpaceX continues to recover fairings for reuse on future missions.
HEIGHT 13.1 m / 43 ft DIAMETER 5.2 m / 17.1 ft


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-12-18--Biden-Harris administration taking shape – beware

President-elect Joe Biden on a daily basis has been announcing high-level appointments to his administration that will take control of the federal executive branch on January 20th .
None of the individuals come as a shock , but many are no less objectionable in terms of the radical policy shift they portend for America , particularly on climate policy and energy development .
Mr. Biden is expected to appoint Gina McCarthy to be “ Domestic Climate Coordinator , ” a new position to be housed in the White House Executive Office of the President .
From this perch , she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regulate and manage their responsibilities around reducing carbon dioxide emissions .
Mr. Biden did announce this week cabinet appointments that will implement climate policy overseen by Ms. McCarthy .
They include Jennifer Granholm for Secretary of Energy , who was Michigan Governor and champion of “ renewable ” solar and wind energy ; and Michael Regan for the Environmental Protection Agency , an African American who is the Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality and espouses “ environmental justice ” for communities of color .
The president-elect also is expected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mexico for Secretary of the Interior , who is opposed to decades long energy development on federal lands .
This appointment of Ms. McCarthy would follow Biden ’ s naming of former Secretary of State , John Kerry , as “ Special Envoy ” for climate change with a seat on the National Security Council .
These new elevated positions , which overlay all domestic and foreign policy , clearly show the seriousness of the incoming Biden-Harris administration to shift climate and energy policies in a radical , ominous direction .
Ms. McCarthy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change , that is , mankind ’ s tangential role in global warming .
She previously served as an environmental regulator in Massachusetts and headed the Environmental Protection Agency in Barack Obama ’ s second term .
She currently heads the Natural Resources Defense Council .
One of the major black marks against her time as EPA chief was her mishandling of the catastrophic water crisis in Flint , Michigan and contaminating the Animus River in Colorado .
Yet , she will be more influential than ever in the Biden White House .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the federal government will be steered to all things climate change under Ms. McCarthy .
Among the countless policy restrictions coming soon will affect oil and gas leasing on federal lands and offshore , emissions standards , and new mandates on the financial sector for more Green project investments .
Economic activity necessarily results in carbon emissions , including the products we produce and consume , the means by which we travel , and the heat and air conditioning in our homes and workplaces .
Proposed Green New Deal policies to reduce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; specifically many of the 300 million non-wealthy Americans whose jobs will be eliminated and the higher costs everyone will pay more for energy , goods and services across the board .
Ms. McCarthy ’ s obsession is for reducing carbon emissions , regardless of the resulting economic dislocation .
Yet any “ success ” in doing so provides zero guarantees the Earth ’ s climate will change in a different direction from its present trajectory , which she tacitly admitted , and which is unpredictable , especially 30 years hence .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shows man-made carbon emissions are a tiny fraction of atmospheric gases , and a variety of other natural phenomena impact the planet ’ s climate .
All of this is well beyond the reach of McCarthy , Kerry and the rest of the Biden-Harris team no matter how many trillions of tax dollars they spend on solar panels , electric cars , and retrofitting office buildings .
Scientific climate realities also are bereft in the pliant news media echo chamber , which parrots without scrutiny .
National Public Radio , for example , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , dutifully propagated the falsehood that climate change has resulted in “ record wildfires , hurricanes and flooding in recent years.
” During his 36 years in the U.S. Senate , Joe Biden was collegial and considered mainstream in the Democratic Party , in contrast to more liberal senators .
But the Party itself has shifted sharply to the political Left , especially on climate and energy policies , which are the priority of the Party ’ s mega-donors such as Michael Bloomberg , Tom Steyer and George Soros .
Mr. Biden has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another example of that reality .
The immediate question becomes , what of the Republicans ?
Will they rubber stamp these Biden cabinet appointments , especially if they retain a majority in the U.S. Senate ?
That would be the easy route .
The climate and energy appointments by President-elect Biden demand a rigorous debate to check the radicalism that threatens the economy and standard of living of the U.S. With the pandemic expected recede in 2021 due to the vaccine , the climate agenda and energy restrictions that will be imposed by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prosperity in America .

President-elect Joe Biden on a daily basis has been announcing high-level appointments to his administration that will take control of the federal executive branch on January 20th. None of the individuals come as a shock, but many are no less objectionable in terms of the radical policy shift they portend for America, particularly on climate policy and energy development.
Mr. Biden is expected to appoint Gina McCarthy to be “Domestic Climate Coordinator,” a new position to be housed in the White House Executive Office of the President. From this perch, she will ensure the multitude of federal agencies regulate and manage their responsibilities around reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
Mr. Biden this week announced cabinet appointments that will implement climate policy overseen by Ms. McCarthy. They include Jennifer Granholm for Secretary of Energy, who was Michigan Governor and champion of “renewable” solar and wind energy; and Michael Regan for the Environmental Protection Agency, an African American who is the Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality and espouses “environmental justice” for communities of color. The president-elect also is expected to name Congresswoman Deb Haaland of New Mexico for Secretary of the Interior, who is opposed to decades long energy development on federal lands.
This appointment of Ms. McCarthy would follow Biden’s naming of former Secretary of State, John Kerry, as “Special Envoy” for climate change with a seat on the National Security Council. These new elevated positions, which overlay all domestic and foreign policy, clearly show the seriousness of the incoming Biden-Harris administration to shift climate and energy policies in a radical, ominous direction.
Ms. McCarthy is fanatical when it comes to climate change, that is, mankind’s tangential role in global warming. She previously served as an environmental regulator in Massachusetts and headed the Environmental Protection Agency in Barack Obama’s second term. She currently heads the Natural Resources Defense Council. One of the major black marks against her time as EPA chief was her mishandling of the catastrophic water crisis in Flint, Michigan and contaminating the Animus River in Colorado. Yet, she will be more influential than ever in the Biden White House.
The enormous regulatory and financial power wielded by the federal government will be steered to all things climate change under Ms. McCarthy. Among the countless policy restrictions coming soon will affect oil and gas leasing on federal lands and offshore, emissions standards, and new mandates on the financial sector for more Green project investments.
Economic activity necessarily results in carbon emissions, including the products we produce and consume, the means by which we travel, and the heat and air conditioning in our homes and workplaces. Proposed Green New Deal policies to reduce carbon emissions necessarily will harm the economy; specifically many of the 300 million non-wealthy Americans whose jobs will be eliminated and the higher costs everyone will pay for energy, goods and services across the board.
Ms. McCarthy’s obsession is for reducing carbon emissions, regardless of the resulting economic dislocation. Yet any “success” in doing so provides zero guarantees the Earth’s climate will change in a different direction from its present trajectory, which she tacitly admitted, and which is unpredictable, especially 30 years hence.
As CFACT has frequently documented, actual science shows man-made carbon emissions are a tiny fraction of atmospheric gases, and a variety of other natural phenomena impact the planet’s climate. All of this is well beyond the reach of McCarthy, Kerry and the rest of the Biden-Harris team no matter how many trillions of tax dollars they spend on solar panels, electric cars, and retrofitting office buildings.
Scientific climate realities also are bereft in the pliant news media echo chamber, which parrots without scrutiny. National Public Radio, for example, when reporting on the pending McCarthy appointment, dutifully propagated the falsehood that climate change has resulted in “record wildfires, hurricanes and flooding in recent years.”
During his 36 years in the U.S. Senate, Joe Biden was collegial and considered mainstream in the Democratic Party, in contrast to more liberal senators. Since then, the Party has shifted sharply to the political Left, especially on climate and energy policies, which are the priority of the its mega-donors such as Michael Bloomberg, Tom Steyer and George Soros. Mr. Biden has shifted accordingly, and his appointments are another example of that reality.
The immediate question becomes, what of the Republicans? Will they rubber stamp these Biden cabinet appointments, especially if they retain a majority in the U.S. Senate? That would be the easy route.
The climate and energy appointments by President-elect Biden demand a rigorous debate to check the radicalism that threatens the economy and standard of living of the U.S. With the pandemic expected recede in 2021 due to the vaccine, the climate agenda and energy restrictions that will be imposed by the fledging Biden-Harris team threatens long-term economic prosperity in America.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-12-19--The recolonization of Africa by China

The recolonization of Africa by China

Joe Biden has pledged as one of his first acts as President to rejoin the Paris climate agreement , which continues to give China a pass until at least 2030 .
Biden ’ s designated envoy , former Secretary of State John Kerry , has stated that the existing agreement “ has to be stronger.
” Kerry also claims that China , though a competitor and potential adversary , will become an active partner .
His rationale : “ Climate is imperative , it ’ s as imperative for China as it is for us.
” The evidence regarding China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ along with the press to rejoin ( much less strengthen ) the Paris agreement , is at best spotty .
While President Trump pulled the U.S. out of Paris , the U.S. as of May 2019 had shuttered 50 coal-fired power plants since he took office , with 51 more shutdowns announced , bringing the total shutdowns since 2010 to 289 ( 330 once the announced shutdowns take place ) and soon leaving under 200 still operating .
China , on the other hand , had 2,363 active plants as of 2019 and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – plus many more in Africa and elsewhere .
According to a CO2 Coalition White Paper written by Kathleen Hartnett White and Dr. Caleb Rossiter , China is now using modern scrubbing technology in over 80 percent of its coal-fired power plants , there are no scrubbers at any of the Chinese-built coal-fired power plants in Africa ( or likely anywhere else ) .
Wattsupwiththat.com also reported that India , Turkey , the Philippines , South Korea , Japan , South Africa , and even EU nations are building over 700 new coal-fired @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that , according to Harvard University China specialist Edward Cunningham , China is building or planning more than 300 coal plants in places as widely spread as Turkey , Vietnam , Indonesia , Bangladesh , Egypt , and the Philippines .
NPR reporters Steve Inskeep and Ashley Westerman cited Boston University data indicating that China has invested over $ 50 billion to build new coal plants overseas in recent years , and that over a quarter of new coal plants outside the Middle Kingdom have some commitment or offer of funds from Chinese @ @ @ @ @ @ @ question , “ Why is China placing a global bet on coal ?
( given that coal plants are a 40- to 50-year commitment ) , ” the NPR authors quoted Southeast Asia analyst Courtney Weatherby of the Stinson Center , “ ( I ) t ’ s not clear when you look at the actual projects that China is funding that they are truly Green.
” But that ’ s not totally true – China sees “ green ” as the color of money , and is happy to place back-breaking nooses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A new report from Patricia Adams of the Global Warming Policy Foundation lambastes environmentalists ( like John Kerry ) as “ useful idiots ” who “ praise the scale of Chinese ambition on climate change , while paying lip service in criticizing China ’ s massive coal expansion.
” Adams scoffs that China does not honor its international agreements and has no intention of reducing fossil fuel consumption , quite the opposite .
But what is Africa ( not to mention other developing nations ) to do ?
The West will not fund @ @ @ @ @ @ @ indoor and outdoor air quality over the burning of dung and wood while also providing reliable , affordable electricity for industrialization , education , and so much more .
China will – and despite the heavy price , the demand for energy requires obtaining the supply by any means necessary .
Sub-Saharan Africa ( SSA ) remains the world ’ s poorest and least modernized part of the world , despite massive mineral resources and a young , energetic population with an affinity for entrepreneurship and capitalism .
Dutch economist Wim Naudé argues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terrorism , and , yes , fight climate change , Africa MUST industrialize .
And that means Africa needs to have affordable , reliable electricity .
Unfortunately , U.S. and EU policies have stymied the development of African energy resources especially in the past decade .
According to White and Rossiter , current U.S. policy , dating to the Obama era , opposes Africans using the continent ’ s abundant coal resources to fuel power plants on grounds that burning coal produces carbon dioxide and might impact “ climate change.
” NJ Ayuk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , reported just this week that the United Kingdom has declared it will stop support and funding to any new oil , gas , and coal projects as of November 4 , 2021 , the 5th anniversary of the Paris Agreement .
The decision lines up with Green opposition to the recently announced support of the UK Export Finance ’ s ( UKEF ) for Total ’ s 12.88 metric tons per year Mozambique LNG export terminal in Cabo Delgado .
Ayuk had been touting natural gas as an increasing option for African @ @ @ @ @ @ @ home to four of the world ’ s top 20 crude oil producers ( Nigeria , Angola , Algeria , and Libya ) and that Algeria and Nigeria are also among the top 20 natural gas producers .
The huge gas reserves in Mozambique are scheduled to begin production by 2024 .
“ It is troubling , ” Ayuk said , “ that an aggressive foreign-funded anti-African energy campaign continues to undermine the potential of making Mozambique an oasis for gas monetization and meeting our increasing energy demands.
” Despite this setback , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be unwavering in our commitment to stand up for Africa ’ s energy sector , its workers , energy poverty , and those free-market values that will make our continent attractive to committed energy investors.
” In much of Africa , demand for electricity has far outstripped supply .
White and Rossiter report that , “ In factories , businesses , government buildings , and wealthy neighborhoods in every African country , a cacaphonous symphony of soot-spewing backup diesel engines erupts when the grid goes down , which is usually every day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s International Finance Corporation , many African countries spend more on dirty backup power than on the electricity grid itself .
In West Africa , backup kilowatts equal 40 percent of grid kilowatts .
In Sudan , which gets 30 percent of its energy from dams on the Nile River , diesel pumps run constantly to lift river water for irrigation , even at the confluence of the Blue and White Niles in Khartoum .
In Nigeria , hotels ban guests from jogging because of the danger of breathing in the soot from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ every few hours as the neighborhood goes dark .
In Southern Africa , construction sites simply run generators all day , filling nearby streets with a noxious cloud .
Even universities rely on diesels to run old , inefficient air conditioning units .
White and Rossiter boasted that American clean coal technology , as exemplified by the Turk power plant in Arkansas , virtually eliminates health hazards from sulfur dioxide , nitrogen oxides , and particulate matter .
They urged the U.S. to support proposals by African governments to import this technology , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the central nervous system of a modern economy and modern life expectancy .
Africa ’ s electricity deficit translates directly into its life-expectancy deficit of 15 years per person.
” But under a Biden-Harris Administration with John Kerry at the forefront , there is little hope that the pleas of these entrepreneurial Africans will be heard .
With our European allies in myopic puritanical lockstep , China , which has been given a total pass from compliance with Green demands , will have free rein to turn all of sub-Saharan Africa into a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , significant debt , and only modest benefits to Africans .

Joe Biden has pledged as one of his first acts as President to rejoin the Paris climate agreement, which continues to give China a pass until at least 2030. Biden’s designated envoy, former Secretary of State John Kerry, has stated that the existing agreement “has to be stronger.” Kerry also claims that China, though a competitor and potential adversary, will become an active partner. His rationale: “Climate is imperative, it’s as imperative for China as it is for us.”
The evidence regarding China’s commitment to Green technology, along with the press to rejoin (much less strengthen) the Paris agreement, is at best spotty. While President Trump pulled the U.S. out of Paris, the U.S. as of May 2019 had shuttered 50 coal-fired power plants since he took office, with 51 more shutdowns announced, bringing the total shutdowns since 2010 to 289 (330 once the announced shutdowns take place) and soon leaving under 200 still operating.
China, on the other hand, had 2,363 active plants as of 2019 and was building another 1,171 domestic coal plants – plus many more in Africa and elsewhere. According to a CO2 Coalition White Paper written by Kathleen Hartnett White and Dr. Caleb Rossiter, China is now using modern scrubbing technology in over 80 percent of its coal-fired power plants, there are no scrubbers at any of the Chinese-built coal-fired power plants in Africa (or likely anywhere else).
Wattsupwiththat.com also reported that India, Turkey, the Philippines, South Korea, Japan, South Africa, and even EU nations are building over 700 new coal-fired power plants. NPR in 2019 reported that, according to Harvard University China specialist Edward Cunningham, China is building or planning more than 300 coal plants in places as widely spread as Turkey, Vietnam, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Egypt, and the Philippines.
NPR reporters Steve Inskeep and Ashley Westerman cited Boston University data indicating that China has invested over $50 billion to build new coal plants overseas in recent years, and that over a quarter of new coal plants outside the Middle Kingdom have some commitment or offer of funds from Chinese financial institutions.
In answer to their question, “Why is China placing a global bet on coal? (given that coal plants are a 40- to 50-year commitment),” the NPR authors quoted Southeast Asia analyst Courtney Weatherby of the Stinson Center, “(I)t’s not clear when you look at the actual projects that China is funding that they are truly Green.” But that’s not totally true – China sees “green” as the color of money, and is happy to place back-breaking nooses around the necks of its borrowers.
A new report from Patricia Adams of the Global Warming Policy Foundation lambastes environmentalists (like John Kerry) as “useful idiots” who “praise the scale of Chinese ambition on climate change, while paying lip service in criticizing China’s massive coal expansion.” Adams scoffs that China does not honor its international agreements and has no intention of reducing fossil fuel consumption, quite the opposite.
But what is Africa (not to mention other developing nations) to do? The West will not fund even clean coal projects that would improve indoor and outdoor air quality over the burning of dung and wood while also providing reliable, affordable electricity for industrialization, education, and so much more. China will – and despite the heavy price, the demand for energy requires obtaining the supply by any means necessary.
Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) remains the world’s poorest and least modernized part of the world, despite massive mineral resources and a young, energetic population with an affinity for entrepreneurship and capitalism. Dutch economist Wim Naudé argues that, to overcome poverty, discourage terrorism, and, yes, fight climate change, Africa MUST industrialize. And that means Africa needs to have affordable, reliable electricity.
Unfortunately, U.S. and EU policies have stymied the development of African energy resources especially in the past decade. According to White and Rossiter, current U.S. policy, dating to the Obama era, opposes Africans using the continent’s abundant coal resources to fuel power plants on grounds that burning coal produces carbon dioxide and might impact “climate change.”
NJ Ayuk, Executive Chairman, African Energy Chamber, reported just this week that the United Kingdom has declared it will stop support and funding to any new oil, gas, and coal projects as of November 4, 2021, the 5th anniversary of the Paris Agreement. The decision lines up with Green opposition to the recently announced support of the UK Export Finance’s (UKEF) for Total’s 12.88 metric tons per year Mozambique LNG export terminal in Cabo Delgado.
Ayuk had been touting natural gas as an increasing option for African power plants, boasting that Africa is home to four of the world’s top 20 crude oil producers (Nigeria, Angola, Algeria, and Libya) and that Algeria and Nigeria are also among the top 20 natural gas producers. The huge gas reserves in Mozambique are scheduled to begin production by 2024.
“It is troubling,” Ayuk said, “that an aggressive foreign-funded anti-African energy campaign continues to undermine the potential of making Mozambique an oasis for gas monetization and meeting our increasing energy demands.” Despite this setback, he continued, “we must continue to be unwavering in our commitment to stand up for Africa’s energy sector, its workers, energy poverty, and those free-market values that will make our continent attractive to committed energy investors.”
In much of Africa, demand for electricity has far outstripped supply. White and Rossiter report that, “In factories, businesses, government buildings, and wealthy neighborhoods in every African country, a cacaphonous symphony of soot-spewing backup diesel engines erupts when the grid goes down, which is usually every day. According to the World Bank’s International Finance Corporation, many African countries spend more on dirty backup power than on the electricity grid itself. In West Africa, backup kilowatts equal 40 percent of grid kilowatts.
In Sudan, which gets 30 percent of its energy from dams on the Nile River, diesel pumps run constantly to lift river water for irrigation, even at the confluence of the Blue and White Niles in Khartoum. In Nigeria, hotels ban guests from jogging because of the danger of breathing in the soot from their diesel backups, which kick in every few hours as the neighborhood goes dark. In Southern Africa, construction sites simply run generators all day, filling nearby streets with a noxious cloud. Even universities rely on diesels to run old, inefficient air conditioning units.
White and Rossiter boasted that American clean coal technology, as exemplified by the Turk power plant in Arkansas, virtually eliminates health hazards from sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter. They urged the U.S. to support proposals by African governments to import this technology, noting that, “Electrical power is the central nervous system of a modern economy and modern life expectancy. Africa’s electricity deficit translates directly into its life-expectancy deficit of 15 years per person.”
But under a Biden-Harris Administration with John Kerry at the forefront, there is little hope that the pleas of these entrepreneurial Africans will be heard. With our European allies in myopic puritanical lockstep, China, which has been given a total pass from compliance with Green demands, will have free rein to turn all of sub-Saharan Africa into a giant Chinese colony despite the environmental damage, significant debt, and only modest benefits to Africans.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-12-19--CLINTEL study finds most of the CO2 increase is natural

Using a new observational approach to an old but most important question , CLINTEL President Guus Berkhout finds that about 62 % of the atmospheric CO2 increase is due to natural sources , not human emissions .
The study then looks at the implications for drastic CO2 reduction measures , finding that these measures will not stop the atmospheric increase .
Actually , they will have very limited effect .
Hence the title of the report is “ Managing the Carbon Dioxide Content in the Earth ’ s Atmosphere “ .
Professor Berkhout ’ s approach is based on proven @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his method spectral ‘ fingerprint detection ( FPD ) ’ , because it looks at the relationship between fine-grained details of the atmospheric CO2 increase and anthropogenic emissions over time by computing auto and cross correlation functions .
Note that in the spectral FPD approach knowledge about the existence of different CO2 isotopes ( C12 and C13 ) is not required .
This is consistent with the current decarbonization practice , where minimization of the atmospheric CO2 concentration is the target , whatever the isotopic composition .
Note also that spectral FPD reveals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the variability of observations .
Therefore , spectral FPD starts with decomposing observations into trends and changes along the trends .
The study puts it this way : “ The fine-grained variability of the anthropogenic emission represents the ‘ fingerprintof the human CO2-source , telling us that most of the anthropogenic CO2-emission is absorbed by the land-ocean reservoir ( fingerprint detection ) .
It also reveals the existence of internal oscillations between the atmosphere and the land-ocean reservoir.
” There is a lot of math here , including least-squares minimization , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 62 % of the increased CO2 concentration is entirely natural .
The study then applies these findings to determine the impact of four different emission reduction scenarios , as follows : “ Four policy scenarios for decarbonization purposes have been built : ‘ Business as Usual ’ , ‘ Stabilizing the Emission ’ , ‘ Reducing the emission ’ and ‘ Making use of CCS ’ .
A big impact conclusion for policy making is that zero anthropogenic emission – being a major achievement– does not mean at all that the atmospheric accumulation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a warning : “ Each scenario has its own phase diagram , showing the relationship between atmospheric concentration and anthropogenic emission .
It is advised that decarbonization policies are designed such that the transition path in the phase diagram is technically , economically and socially feasible.
” ( Emphasis added ) Given that even the most stringent ( and hugely expensive ) scenario does not stop the natural CO2 increase , their rationale is greatly diminished .
Also , given that most of the past increase is natural , we can stop blaming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this is just the first step in applying spectral FPD to the science of climate change : “ By considering spectral fingerprint detection on any source variability , there will be a lot of applications .
Apart from CO2 variability , we will look at solar-irradiation variability , cloudiness variability , etc .
to determine their individual influence on atmospheric temperature .
It leads to a multidimensional causality determination .
Again , without any theoretical assumptions .
It is all based on observations.
” In science new methods often yield surprising results .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ determination with great interest .
In the meantime , the climate science and policy communities need to rethink the contribution of human emission to the atmospheric CO2 increase , especially with regard to the potentially destructive mitigation actions .
Combining this conclusion with the evidence that more CO2 will make our planet greener , what the hell are politicians up to ?
Are they racing to see who can enact the worst policies ?

Using a new observational approach to an old but most important question, CLINTEL President Guus Berkhout finds that about 62% of the atmospheric CO2 increase is due to natural sources, not human emissions. The study then looks at the implications for drastic CO2 reduction measures, finding that these measures will not stop the atmospheric increase. Actually, they will have very limited effect. Hence the title of the report is “Managing the Carbon Dioxide Content in the Earth’s Atmosphere“.
Professor Berkhout’s approach is based on proven technology in geophysical imaging. He calls his method spectral ‘fingerprint detection (FPD)’, because it looks at the relationship between fine-grained details of the atmospheric CO2 increase and anthropogenic emissions over time by computing auto and cross correlation functions.
Note that in the spectral FPD approach knowledge about the existence of different CO2 isotopes (C12 and C13) is not required. This is consistent with the current decarbonization practice, where minimization of the atmospheric CO2 concentration is the target, whatever the isotopic composition.
Note also that spectral FPD reveals that a lot of information is hidden in the variability of observations. Therefore, spectral FPD starts with decomposing observations into trends and changes along the trends.
The study puts it this way:
“The fine-grained variability of the anthropogenic emission represents the ‘fingerprintof the human CO2-source, telling us that most of the anthropogenic CO2-emission is absorbed by the land-ocean reservoir (fingerprint detection). It also reveals the existence of internal oscillations between the atmosphere and the land-ocean reservoir.”
There is a lot of math here, including least-squares minimization, but the results are clear. An estimated 62% of the increased CO2 concentration is entirely natural.
The study then applies these findings to determine the impact of four different emission reduction scenarios, as follows:
“Four policy scenarios for decarbonization purposes have been built: ‘Business as Usual’, ‘Stabilizing the Emission’, ‘Reducing the emission’ and ‘Making use of CCS’. A big impact conclusion for policy making is that zero anthropogenic emission – being a major achievement– does not mean at all that the atmospheric accumulation becomes zero.”
The analysis comes with a warning:
“Each scenario has its own phase diagram, showing the relationship between atmospheric concentration and anthropogenic emission. It is advised that decarbonization policies are designed such that the transition path in the phase diagram is technically, economically and socially feasible.” (Emphasis added)
Given that even the most stringent (and hugely expensive) scenario does not stop the natural CO2 increase, their rationale is greatly diminished. Also, given that most of the past increase is natural, we can stop blaming ourselves for it.
Professor Berkhout says this is just the first step in applying spectral FPD to the science of climate change:
“By considering spectral fingerprint detection on any source variability, there will be a lot of applications. Apart from CO2 variability, we will look at solar-irradiation variability, cloudiness variability, etc. to determine their individual influence on atmospheric temperature. It leads to a multidimensional causality determination. Again, without any theoretical assumptions. It is all based on observations.”
In science new methods often yield surprising results. I look forward to this multidimensional causality determination with great interest. In the meantime, the climate science and policy communities need to rethink the contribution of human emission to the atmospheric CO2 increase, especially with regard to the potentially destructive mitigation actions.
Combining this conclusion with the evidence that more CO2 will make our planet greener, what the hell are politicians up to? Are they racing to see who can enact the worst policies?


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-12-19--China’s big fat climate lie

China’s big fat climate lie

One of our favorite headlines from the clever parody site The Onion reads , “ China Vows To Begin Aggressively Falsifying Air Pollution Numbers.
” Once again parody has a way of becoming reality .
Last Saturday the UN held an online “ Climate Ambition Summit , ” and China used the occasion to play the rest of the world for fools .
China has been using a provision in the Paris Climate Accord called “ common but differentiated responsibilities ” to demand that the United States and other nations slash emissions while China continues to build coal plants as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This is a surefire way to continue the massive shift of manufacturing from the free world to China .
Chinese Communist Party General Secretary Xi Jinping tried to cover China ’ s rapidly expanding emissions by offering vague promises far down the road .
He told the UN summit that China agreed merely to “ aim ” at capping their emissions by 2030 , and will then try and be “ carbon neutral ” by 2060 .
Any theoretical Chinese economic pain would occur long after Secretary Xi has departed this world , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this ruse at face value .
They dare not criticize China for fear of jeopardizing their funding and ability to operate in China .
China accounts for over 28 % of worldwide emissions and is growing rapidly .
The U.S. accounts for only 15 % of world emissions and , thanks to the fracking revolution , has used natural gas to dramatically slash its own emissions ( if that ’ s your thing ) .
The Greens , however , persist in treating China as a saint and the U.S. as the sinner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its words , but only by its actions .
It is axiomatic that Socialists always lie .
Saying one thing while planning another is fundamental to the way China operates .
Under the Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1984 , China promised to respect the individual freedom and democratic traditions of the people of Hong Kong .
China assured the British that Hong Kong could rely on a future under which there would be “ one country , two systems.
” 2020 has been a rough year for everyone , but particularly for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them of their liberties and is now blatantly arresting those who dissent .
For China , climate change is nothing more than a ruse de guerre they employ to throttle their competition , grow their economy and build their worldwide influence and might .

One of our favorite headlines from the clever parody site The Onion reads, “China Vows To Begin Aggressively Falsifying Air Pollution Numbers.”
Once again parody has a way of becoming reality.
Last Saturday the UN held an online “Climate Ambition Summit,” and China used the occasion to play the rest of the world for fools.
China has been using a provision in the Paris Climate Accord called “common but differentiated responsibilities” to demand that the United States and other nations slash emissions while China continues to build coal plants as fast as its economy will allow. This is a surefire way to continue the massive shift of manufacturing from the free world to China.
Chinese Communist Party General Secretary Xi Jinping tried to cover China’s rapidly expanding emissions by offering vague promises far down the road. He told the UN summit that China agreed merely to “aim” at capping their emissions by 2030, and will then try and be “carbon neutral” by 2060. Any theoretical Chinese economic pain would occur long after Secretary Xi has departed this world, if ever.
Green pressure groups accept this ruse at face value. They dare not criticize China for fear of jeopardizing their funding and ability to operate in China.
.
China accounts for over 28% of worldwide emissions and is growing rapidly. The U.S. accounts for only 15% of world emissions and, thanks to the fracking revolution, has used natural gas to dramatically slash its own emissions (if that’s your thing). The Greens, however, persist in treating China as a saint and the U.S. as the sinner.
China should not be judged by its words, but only by its actions.
It is axiomatic that Socialists always lie. Saying one thing while planning another is fundamental to the way China operates.
Under the Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1984, China promised to respect the individual freedom and democratic traditions of the people of Hong Kong. China assured the British that Hong Kong could rely on a future under which there would be “one country, two systems.” 2020 has been a rough year for everyone, but particularly for the people of Hong Kong as China stripped them of their liberties and is now blatantly arresting those who dissent.
Watch out Taiwan.
For China, climate change is nothing more than a ruse de guerre they employ to throttle their competition, grow their economy and build their worldwide influence and might.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-12-19--New Falcon 9 attempt.  Launch window 9 AM – Noon 12-19

The last SpaceX rocket launch of the year can go as early as 9 AM .
They are fueling and @ @ @ @ @ is a classified surveillance satellite .
The government contacted SpaceX and asked , can you @ @ @ @ @ and SpaceX replied yes !
This is a bold new era in America ’ s @ @ @ @ @ full force and power of private sector efficiency to bear .
SpaceX plans to attempt @ @ @ @ @ ’ s see if they can stick the landing this time .

The last SpaceX rocket launch of the year can go as early as 9 AM. They are fueling and making ready.
The payload is a classified surveillance satellite. The government contacted SpaceX and asked, can you launch this in quickly? and SpaceX replied yes! This is a bold new era in America’s capabilities in space bringing the full force and power of private sector efficiency to bear.
Watch right now.
SpaceX plans to attempt a soft landing. Let’s see if they can stick the landing this time.
UPDATE: Launched and flying! Successfully stuck the landing!
From SpaceX: