committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-12-09--EPA announces reform of clean air regulation-making process

In a livestream webinar hosted by the Heritage Foundation , EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler announced a rule change in how the EPA performs cost-benefit analyses in air pollution regulations going forward .
Currently , EPA can include what are called “ co-benefits ” to new regulations to try to justify the regulations .
Co-benefits are economic or health benefits that are not directly related to the regulation at hand .
This was most infamously done with the mercury rule by the Obama administration , which had placed new mercury emissions regulations on power plants that was said to cost the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while saving just $ 6 million in health costs annually , according to The New York Times .
The Obama Administration tried to justify the regulation by adding the co-benefits of what they claimed to be $ 80 billion in health costs saved by the mercury regulation , trying to tie it to a reduction in soot and nitrogen oxide that would supposedly occur as a result .
“ That case went up to the Supreme Court , and the Supreme Court dinged the Agency [ EPA ] for the way they conducted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in regard to the Obama EPA ’ s mercury rule issue .
“ So , it ’ s absolutely a poster-child case for how not to do it.
” The new rule from the Trump EPA would require such co-benefits to be clearly laid out and explained in the preamble of any future proposals .
It would be required to explain how the co-benefits were determined , and how they influenced the final rule .
Additionally , a designation between domestic and international benefits would have to be explained , to make it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American lives or being justified through more broad means .
“ Our goal with this rule is to better help the public understand the ‘ why ’ of a rule making , in addition to the ‘ what , ’ ” Wheeler said in explaining the rule change .
“ While many parts of the Clean Air Act demand that an analysis be made of costs and benefits in implementation , up to now , there have been no regulations to hold us , the EPA , accountable to a standardized process and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those calculations informed decisions.
” Yet the future of the new rule is uncertain .
Should a Biden administration take over , the new EPA Administrator would be likely to simply reverse this decision .
Steve Milloy , a CFACT ally and author of the book “ Scare Pollution : Why and How to Fix the EPA ” , was quoted in the New York Times on the new rule : “ A Biden administration could just come in and propose a different rule .
Ultimately these final Trump rules won ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ll have some political rhetorical value for people like me.
” CFACT submitted a question to the moderator in regard to this subject , as did many others , and in response , Wheeler pitched a more optimistic tone .
“ I would hope that they [ a new administration ] believe in transparency .
And that ’ s what this regulation is all about – is being transparent with the American public and explaining to the American public what [ EPA is ] doing .
So , I would hope that…a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want to follow this regulation , because it ’ s about explaining to the American public the rationales behind the regulatory decisions .
”

In a livestream webinar hosted by the Heritage Foundation, EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler announced a rule change in how the EPA performs cost-benefit analyses in air pollution regulations going forward.
Currently, EPA can include what are called “co-benefits” to new regulations to try to justify the regulations. Co-benefits are economic or health benefits that are not directly related to the regulation at hand.
This was most infamously done with the mercury rule by the Obama administration, which had placed new mercury emissions regulations on power plants that was said to cost the industry $9.6 billion per year, while saving just $6 million in health costs annually, according to The New York Times.
The Obama Administration tried to justify the regulation by adding the co-benefits of what they claimed to be $80 billion in health costs saved by the mercury regulation, trying to tie it to a reduction in soot and nitrogen oxide that would supposedly occur as a result.
“That case went up to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court dinged the Agency [EPA] for the way they conducted their economic analysis,” Wheeler said in regard to the Obama EPA’s mercury rule issue. “So, it’s absolutely a poster-child case for how not to do it.”
The new rule from the Trump EPA would require such co-benefits to be clearly laid out and explained in the preamble of any future proposals. It would be required to explain how the co-benefits were determined, and how they influenced the final rule. Additionally, a designation between domestic and international benefits would have to be explained, to make it abundantly clear if a regulation is helping American lives or being justified through more broad means.
“Our goal with this rule is to better help the public understand the ‘why’ of a rule making, in addition to the ‘what,’” Wheeler said in explaining the rule change. “While many parts of the Clean Air Act demand that an analysis be made of costs and benefits in implementation, up to now, there have been no regulations to hold us, the EPA, accountable to a standardized process and guarantee the public can now see how those calculations informed decisions.”
Yet the future of the new rule is uncertain. Should a Biden administration take over, the new EPA Administrator would be likely to simply reverse this decision.
Steve Milloy, a CFACT ally and author of the book “Scare Pollution: Why and How to Fix the EPA”, was quoted in the New York Times on the new rule: “A Biden administration could just come in and propose a different rule. Ultimately these final Trump rules won’t really matter, other than that they’ll have some political rhetorical value for people like me.”
CFACT submitted a question to the moderator in regard to this subject, as did many others, and in response, Wheeler pitched a more optimistic tone.
“I would hope that they [a new administration] believe in transparency. And that’s what this regulation is all about – is being transparent with the American public and explaining to the American public what [EPA is] doing. So, I would hope that…a future administration, from either party will want to follow this regulation, because it’s about explaining to the American public the rationales behind the regulatory decisions.”


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-12-09--Fauci’s climate pandemic comments more predictable than weather

There are 2 chapters in my book ( shameless plug ) The Weaponization of Weather in the Phony Climate War , that foresaw the linkage that was easy to see coming , between the fear whipped up by Covid , ( certainly with some validity ) and how to use that to link to climate change and whip up that fear .
Well our favorite non meteorologist prognosticator of extremes with Covid ( again some right , some not so right ) has now thrown down the gauntlet and stepped into it…where “ it ” is what was opined in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Here it is : Fauci : “ We have entered the Pandemic Era ” because of Climate Change .
Now this is fascinating on many levels having nothing to do with climate .
• If there are more people on the planet , largely because of man ’ s progress , would not there be a much larger population pool for viruses to spread to ?
Fauci ’ s statement is the same kind of strange logic as Al Gore , etal , when they say damage is rising from storms .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in places where there were not , then guess what , even with no increase in storms , there is going to be more damage .
Well , more people , more sickness .
Did you know for instance that more people are dying now than ever before in human history ?
And that is with no increase in the % of total population that eventually dies .
Must be climate change .
That is the kind of logic here that is being used .
And no one in the mainstream media stops @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if you have more people living , are not more people open to getting sick ?
2 ) Given the life expectancy now is some 35 years or so longer than the a pandemic like the Spanish flu , how is it climate change is responsible when if we had the same life expectancy as the “ good old days ” ( circa 1918 ) not nearly as many people would have died since the vast majority of the deaths were with people aged 15-34 ?
• How is it viruses thrive in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it not intuitive that a warmer climate would mean viruses would not thrive where its warm .
As far as melting in far north areas that would allow dormant viruses to spring to life , the very fact that they are in such cold areas in the first place should at least get one to question the validity of saying a warmer climate would mean more pandemics .
And here is an inconvenient question that needs an answer .
If warmth is so deadly why is it so many people are living where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way ?
And another inconvenient observation : If we look at the warming the last 30 years , guess where the lions share has been ?
WHERE PEOPLE DON ’ T LIVE !
If you didn ’ t tell people how bad its getting , they would have no idea that its getting so bad .
Even areas that have had a .25C increase over 30 years , like Europe , do you not think that humans with the advances made simply adapt ?
4 ) Now I can go on and on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is unaware that previous times even warmer than today were referred to as climate optimums .
Why ?
Because those warmer times were optimum for the advancement of life on the planet .
I have shown this chart a kajillion times .
Here , for the good Doctor is kajillion and one .
Cold kills more than heat .
That is from the CDC who I would think Dr. Fauci would have some knowledge of before he makes such statements .
In fact , this article from a paper than can not be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ piece , The Washington Post , lays it out pretty nicely The graphic in this shows that ( source attribution is included on the bottom of the graphic ) But this is all predictable .
Not only the chapters in the book but I have had over a half dozen Covid/Climate blogs here at CFACT .
Here are just 3 examples wonder if Dr. Fauci saw this chart this was out on March 23 BTW I finished the book in March so those chapters were written then .
My point all this is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that has little to do with actual science but other motives .
The reader is left to figure out what that may be .
But I wrote this is because I was sent that quote and thought it gave me an opportunity to show some counter arguments .

There are 2 chapters in my book (shameless plug) The Weaponization of Weather in the Phony Climate War,
Chapter 10: COVID-19/Climate-Change Alliance Weaponization
Chapter 11: The False Equivalency Between Climate Change & COVID-19
that foresaw the linkage that was easy to see coming, between the fear whipped up by Covid, (certainly with some validity) and how to use that to link to climate change and whip up that fear.
Well our favorite non meteorologist prognosticator of extremes with Covid (again some right, some not so right) has now thrown down the gauntlet and stepped into it…where “it” is what was opined in my book and on this very site.
Here it is:
Fauci: “We have entered the Pandemic Era” because of Climate Change.
Now this is fascinating on many levels having nothing to do with climate.
If there are more people on the planet, largely because of man’s progress, would not there be a much larger population pool for viruses to spread to? Fauci’s statement is the same kind of strange logic as Al Gore, etal, when they say damage is rising from storms. If there are more people and property in places where there were not, then guess what, even with no increase in storms, there is going to be more damage. Well, more people, more sickness.
Did you know for instance that more people are dying now than ever before in human history? And that is with no increase in the % of total population that eventually dies. Must be climate change. That is the kind of logic here that is being used. And no one in the mainstream media stops and says, wait a minute, if you have more people living, are not more people open to getting sick?
2)Given the life expectancy now is some 35 years or so longer than the a pandemic like the Spanish flu, how is it climate change is responsible when if we had the same life expectancy as the “good old days” (circa 1918) not nearly as many people would have died since the vast majority of the deaths were with people aged 15-34?
How is it viruses thrive in colder climates, not warmer. Is it not intuitive that a warmer climate would mean viruses would not thrive where its warm. As far as melting in far north areas that would allow dormant viruses to spring to life, the very fact that they are in such cold areas in the first place should at least get one to question the validity of saying a warmer climate would mean more pandemics. And here is an inconvenient question that needs an answer. If warmth is so deadly why is it so many people are living where its warmer, putting themselves in harms way?
And another inconvenient observation: If we look at the warming the last 30 years, guess where the lions share has been? WHERE PEOPLE DON’T LIVE!
If you didn’t tell people how bad its getting, they would have no idea that its getting so bad. Even areas that have had a .25C increase over 30 years, like Europe, do you not think that humans with the advances made simply adapt?
4) Now I can go on and on about this, but perhaps Dr. Fauci is unaware that previous times even warmer than today were referred to as climate optimums. Why? Because those warmer times were optimum for the advancement of life on the planet. I have shown this chart a kajillion times. Here, for the good Doctor is kajillion and one.
Cold kills more than heat. That is from the CDC who I would think Dr. Fauci would have some knowledge of before he makes such statements. In fact, this article from a paper than can not be accused of being a far right mouth piece, The Washington Post, lays it out pretty nicely
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/12/17/cold-temperatures-kill-more-americans-than-hot-ones-cdc-data-show/
The graphic in this shows that (source attribution is included on the bottom of the graphic)
But this is all predictable. Not only the chapters in the book but I have had over a half dozen Covid/Climate blogs here at CFACT. Here are just 3 examples
From March 17
https://www.cfact.org/2020/03/17/climate-change-accused-of-being-deadlier-than-covid-19-fact-check/
wonder if Dr. Fauci saw this chart
this was out on March 23
https://www.cfact.org/2020/03/23/covid-19-and-climate-false-equivalencies/
May 7
https://www.cfact.org/2020/05/07/be-it-covid-19-or-climate-americans-have-to-answer-this-essential-question/
BTW I finished the book in March so those chapters were written then. My point all this is predictable and simple part of the agenda that has little to do with actual science but other motives. The reader is left to figure out what that may be. But I wrote this is because I was sent that quote and thought it gave me an opportunity to show some counter arguments.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-12-10--Weather made (sort of) understandable: Part One

We shall start at the beginning with possibly 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 multilevel show of physics trying to overcome imbalances and irregularities too numerous to accurately quantify and yet we try hour after hour day after day all across the Earth .
Climate is simply the trends of weather over a long period .
We never stop talking about it .
It ’ s too hot .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the rain .
I wish this spring would last forever .
Don ’ t worry , there ’ s plenty of snow at the top of the mountain .
This is the weather .
We talk about it , we complain about it , we wish about it , but nobody can do anything about it .
With the help of technology in recent decades , like satellites , Doppler radar , telemetry , etc.
, we are getting pretty good at predicting how the weather is most likely to change over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Hawaii , it ’ s so easy , we don ’ t even need weather persons .
At other locations , say , near tall mountains or along the coastlines , predicting the weather is harder , and forecasts are less reliable .
Wind is simply the movement of air .
Its action is caused by temperature differences and atmospheric pressure differences from one place to another .
Some differences are the result of the sun heating the earth in one area and not another .
It also happens where a portion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a mountain , and another part is a valley .
Along the coast , the earth is warmed faster than the ocean or if half of the sky is cloudy and half is not .
Warm air is lighter than cold air , so it climbs into the sky , and then colder air rushes in to fill the void created by the warm air rising .
Nature doesn ’ t like imbalances of any kind .
Near a warm and sunny beach in the early afternoon , we will get a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the ocean to replace the rising warm air which heated up faster than the water .
As shown in Fig 1 at night , the process generally reverses , because the water is now warmer than the land .
At other locations and circumstances , it can be a wild ride , like a jet stream .
These are fast-moving rivers of air at the boundaries of massive weather fronts .
Here one is hot and the other cold .
They flow west to east in the opposite direction in response to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ east to west .
At the jet stream core , which is about ten to fifteen kilometers high , the airspeeds can reach several hundreds of miles per hour and move in serpentine paths over continents .
These fast-moving core winds drag the adjacent air , forming a velocity gradient that ’ s very -very fast near the center and keeps slowing down and down until it reaches near-zero speeds some hundreds of Kilometers away .
Naturally , if mountains or tall buildings get in the way , the wind changes directions and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This is the weight of the volume of air on top of you .
At sunrise , if you are at the beach at sea level , and the temperature is 15° C , ( 69 F ) there ’ s a column of air on top of you going all the way up into outer space .
The weight of that air pressing down on you has a force of about 14.7 PSI ( pounds per square inch ) on your body .
If you then go to the rooftop restaurant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pressure on you decreases from 14.7 to 14.3 PSI .
Meanwhile , if you have a friend , who is mountain climbing at 2,400 feet , the pressure on him is only about 10.9 PSI .
Now the heaviest air , meaning the densest air , is at sea level , and as we go up , it progressively gets less and less dense until near outer space , it ’ s about zero PSI .
Figure 2 illustrators the impact of changing atmospheric pressure on a sealed bottle of water moving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feet .
Back at the beach the sun has been warming it up for about five hours .
It ’ s the hottest time of the day when the sun is directly overhead , about noon .
Now you might say , “ But wait .
Why does it usually feel warmer an hour or two into the afternoon , when the sun is no longer at its highest position ( called the apex ) .
That ’ s because an hour or two after the apex , while you ’ re getting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on your head , the earth you are standing on has already been heated by the sun and some of that stored heat in the ground starts radiating and convecting up to you .
You are now heated on the top by the sun and from the bottom by the warm ground .
If you are a football fan you will remember Deflate-Gate where Tom Brady was accused of deflating footballs to his liking.Maybe he didn ’ t .
It was noon at Indianapolis ’ Lucus Oil Stadium , and the footballs are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then for play .
The balls came out of a toasty locker room at 75° ( Fahrenheit ) , and the footballs and the air inside the footballs are also at 75° F , and the PSI is 13.0 .
Where the NFL likes them .
But on the playing field , it ’ s a chilly 25° F. The footballs and the air inside starts to immediately cool down until the balls , and the air inside , reach 25° F. The question is – what ’ s happened to the balls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pressure in the balls decreased to 11 PSI the way Brady likes them .
Let ’ s now put together these three measures , pressure , temperature , and volume and see how they generate wind .
If we decrease the air temperature , the air density will increase , and the volume will decrease .
Alternatively , if we reduce the pressure , the air volume will increase , and temperature will rise .
So , we will need to specify two of these variables to see what it does to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , if hot air rises , why is it colder at the top of the mountain than at the base ?
The answer is that on top of the mountain , the air is less dense because of the lower barometric pressure .
Another example of this relationship is that at sea level , water boils/turns to steam at 100° C. But if you are at the top of Mount Kilimanjaro at 20,000 feet , it will start boiling at 81° C. Or if you ’ re below sea level , like in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ boiling point is about 103° C. We have laid out our crazy cartoon model weather machine , in Fig 3 .
The sun is the engine , and it provides nearly 100 percent of the power to drive it , which we ’ ll call “ temperature.
” The transmission , is the way , the heat from the sun is distributed geographically in one part of the world and not in the other .
It ’ s like a transmission that sends different speeds to each wheel , resulting in erratic motion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ specific volume.
” We then have barometric pressure , which regulates how much air enters the engine .
Does it all seem if not crazy , awfully complex .
That is because it is .
How does the earth receive the sun ’ s energy .
Let ’ s turn on the engine and see what happens .
We have sunlight arriving on the planet and spreading out like a three-dimensional bell curve as shown in Fig 4 .
The top-center of the bell is precisely on the equator , and it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bell .
That means that the energy density there is the maximum .
At the bottom of the bell are the north and south polar regions .
The amount of energy received from the sun is almost the same , but it ’ s now spread over a vastly larger area .
On earth , where we have land , oceans , and air , they are all set in motion to eliminate these temperature and pressure imbalances .
It does so in the atmosphere primarily by the wind .
In the seas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Atlantic and in the Pacific with the “ Pacific Oscillator ” and “ El Niño Nino/La Niña .
On land , it does it primarily by radiation , convection mostly to the air .
On the earth , some of this heat is also conducted deeper in the ground , which is essential for plants to grow .
It warms up and dries out the soil in the spring , allowing plant roots to grow .
Some of the heat in the warmed earth is radiated and convected back up into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that help gliders fly around without engines , and birds without flapping their wings .
But along the way , the winds have to overcome many obstacles posed by obstructions like mountain ranges and narrow canyons , plus human-made buildings and cars , trucks , planes , and wind turbines .
In rare cases , it can also be caused independently of the effects of the sun .
For example , the low temperatures mass of the Antarctic ice will always be much colder than the sea and air temperatures of the southern @ @ @ @ @ @ @ jet stream in the north , it forms a planetary sub-weather system , which we call a “ polar vortex.
” As you learn more about weather it will be come clear to you how preposterous it is that people think they can predict and control weather a century from now In Part two of this series we will discuss fascinating variations in weather as it relates to places and mediums .

We shall start at the beginning with possibly 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 multilevel show of physics trying to overcome imbalances and irregularities too numerous to accurately quantify and yet we try hour after hour day after day all across the Earth.
Climate is simply the trends of weather over a long period. We never stop talking about it. It’s too hot. It’s too cold. I’m tired of the rain. I wish this spring would last forever. Don’t worry, there’s plenty of snow at the top of the mountain. This is the weather. We talk about it, we complain about it, we wish about it, but nobody can do anything about it.
With the help of technology in recent decades, like satellites, Doppler radar, telemetry, etc., we are getting pretty good at predicting how the weather is most likely to change over the next SEVERAL days. In Florida and Hawaii, it’s so easy, we don’t even need weather persons. At other locations, say, near tall mountains or along the coastlines, predicting the weather is harder, and forecasts are less reliable.
THE WIND
Wind is simply the movement of air. Its action is caused by temperature differences and atmospheric pressure differences from one place to another. Some differences are the result of the sun heating the earth in one area and not another. It also happens where a portion of the land that’s heated is a mountain, and another part is a valley. Along the coast, the earth is warmed faster than the ocean or if half of the sky is cloudy and half is not. Warm air is lighter than cold air, so it climbs into the sky, and then colder air rushes in to fill the void created by the warm air rising. Nature doesn’t like imbalances of any kind.
Near a warm and sunny beach in the early afternoon, we will get a gentle, cooling summer breeze coming in from the ocean to replace the rising warm air which heated up faster than the water. As shown in Fig 1 at night, the process generally reverses, because the water is now warmer than the land.
At other locations and circumstances, it can be a wild ride, like a jet stream. These are fast-moving rivers of air at the boundaries of massive weather fronts. Here one is hot and the other cold. They flow west to east in the opposite direction in response to the sun’s warming rotation from east to west. At the jet stream core, which is about ten to fifteen kilometers high, the airspeeds can reach several hundreds of miles per hour and move in serpentine paths over continents. These fast-moving core winds drag the adjacent air, forming a velocity gradient that’s very -very fast near the center and keeps slowing down and down until it reaches near-zero speeds some hundreds of Kilometers away. Naturally, if mountains or tall buildings get in the way, the wind changes directions and speed in many turbulent and unpredictable ways.
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE
This is the weight of the volume of air on top of you. At sunrise, if you are at the beach at sea level, and the temperature is 15° C, (69 F) there’s a column of air on top of you going all the way up into outer space. The weight of that air pressing down on you has a force of about 14.7 PSI (pounds per square inch) on your body. If you then go to the rooftop restaurant for brunch at 250 feet high, the pressure on you decreases from 14.7 to 14.3 PSI. Meanwhile, if you have a friend, who is mountain climbing at 2,400 feet, the pressure on him is only about 10.9 PSI. Now the heaviest air, meaning the densest air, is at sea level, and as we go up, it progressively gets less and less dense until near outer space, it’s about zero PSI. Figure 2 illustrators the impact of changing atmospheric pressure on a sealed bottle of water moving from 14,000 feet elevation down to 1000 feet.
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE AND TEMPERATURE RELATIONSHIP
Back at the beach the sun has been warming it up for about five hours. It’s the hottest time of the day when the sun is directly overhead, about noon. Now you might say, “But wait. Why does it usually feel warmer an hour or two into the afternoon, when the sun is no longer at its highest position (called the apex). That’s because an hour or two after the apex, while you’re getting a little less energy from the sun on your head, the earth you are standing on has already been heated by the sun and some of that stored heat in the ground starts radiating and convecting up to you. You are now heated on the top by the sun and from the bottom by the warm ground.
If you are a football fan you will remember Deflate-Gate where Tom Brady was accused of deflating footballs to his liking.Maybe he didn’t. It was noon at Indianapolis’ Lucus Oil Stadium, and the footballs are brought to the field for practice and then for play. The balls came out of a toasty locker room at 75° (Fahrenheit ), and the footballs and the air inside the footballs are also at 75° F, and the PSI is 13.0. Where the NFL likes them. But on the playing field, it’s a chilly 25° F. The footballs and the air inside starts to immediately cool down until the balls, and the air inside, reach 25° F. The question is – what’s happened to the balls? The simple answer is that the pressure in the balls decreased to 11 PSI the way Brady likes them.
Michael place picture of footballs Here
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE AND SPECIFIC VOLUME
Let’s now put together these three measures, pressure, temperature, and volume and see how they generate wind. If we decrease the air temperature, the air density will increase, and the volume will decrease. Alternatively, if we reduce the pressure, the air volume will increase, and temperature will rise. So, we will need to specify two of these variables to see what it does to the third. But, you may ask, if hot air rises, why is it colder at the top of the mountain than at the base? The answer is that on top of the mountain, the air is less dense because of the lower barometric pressure. Another example of this relationship is that at sea level, water boils/turns to steam at 100° C. But if you are at the top of Mount Kilimanjaro at 20,000 feet, it will start boiling at 81° C. Or if you’re below sea level, like in parts of Death Valley California, the boiling point is about 103° C.
THE WEATHER VEHICLE
We have laid out our crazy cartoon model weather machine, in Fig 3. The sun is the engine, and it provides nearly 100 percent of the power to drive it, which we’ll call “temperature.” The transmission, is the way, the heat from the sun is distributed geographically in one part of the world and not in the other. It’s like a transmission that sends different speeds to each wheel, resulting in erratic motion. We’ll call this “specific volume.”
We then have barometric pressure, which regulates how much air enters the engine. Does it all seem if not crazy, awfully complex. That is because it is.
How does the earth receive the sun’s energy. Let’s turn on the engine and see what happens. We have sunlight arriving on the planet and spreading out like a three-dimensional bell curve as shown in Fig 4. The top-center of the bell is precisely on the equator, and it’s at the highest point on the bell. That means that the energy density there is the maximum. At the bottom of the bell are the north and south polar regions. The amount of energy received from the sun is almost the same, but it’s now spread over a vastly larger area.
On earth, where we have land, oceans, and air, they are all set in motion to eliminate these temperature and pressure imbalances. It does so in the atmosphere primarily by the wind. In the seas by water movements like the Gulf Stream in the Atlantic and in the Pacific with the “Pacific Oscillator” and “El Niño Nino/La Niña. On land, it does it primarily by radiation, convection mostly to the air. On the earth, some of this heat is also conducted deeper in the ground, which is essential for plants to grow. It warms up and dries out the soil in the spring, allowing plant roots to grow. Some of the heat in the warmed earth is radiated and convected back up into the air, creating vertical wind streams that help gliders fly around without engines, and birds without flapping their wings.
But along the way, the winds have to overcome many obstacles posed by obstructions like mountain ranges and narrow canyons, plus human-made buildings and cars, trucks, planes, and wind turbines. In rare cases, it can also be caused independently of the effects of the sun. For example, the low temperatures mass of the Antarctic ice will always be much colder than the sea and air temperatures of the southern temperate regions. Thus, like the jet stream in the north, it forms a planetary sub-weather system, which we call a “polar vortex.”
As you learn more about weather it will be come clear to you how preposterous it is that people think they can predict and control weather a century from now
In Part two of this series we will discuss fascinating variations in weather as it relates to places and mediums.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-12-10--The greenhouse effect in more depth

The greenhouse effect in more depth

There is little doubt that the global earth temperature would be averaging 25-30° C colder without the greenhouse effect than it is today .
That is a huge deal !
Without the greenhouse effect , we would be looking at a global temperature at about -15° C instead of the +15° C that we enjoy today .
In that case , our blue-green planet might look more like a dirty and lifeless snowball .
The greenhouse effect is an essential natural mechanism .
It helps regulate the Earth ‘ s temperature , making it more stable and able to sustain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The effects of the greenhouse gasses start with the sun ‘ s golden rays coming to Earth , as seen in Figure – 1 .
Warming the planet during the day with a Total Solar Irradiance ( TSI ) average of about 341 Watts per square meter W/M2 .
Some of this energy that approaches the Earth is reflected back to outer space by the clouds , the air , the oceans , the Earth ‘ s ice cover , and a little by land .
The part that reaches the Earth ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or about 47 percent , where three things start to happen to these sun rays .
The first part is used to power the planet ‘ s needs , like plants that use the sunshine for photosynthesis and animals to breathe and keep warm .
Humans get clean energy with solar electricity , farmers to grow their crops , and beach lovers to get a great tan .
The second part is stored in the warm air we enjoy and warm oceans and seas when we swim in the summer on Cape Cod @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is also stored in parking lots and streets , and buildings that stay warm for many hours after dark .
At night , most or all of this stored heat radiates and convects back up to the air .
Some of this heat is temporarily stored in the air and clouds , and the rest radiates back to outer space .
This heat that arrived on the Earth ’ s surface ( land and oceans ) must find its way back to space for the Earth to remain in the thermal balance we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too much heat went straight back to outer space , it would cause a big problem , which we actually see in high altitude deserts .
There , during the day , the Earth gets very hot very quickly .
The air is super thin , there are few clouds , and more of the sun ‘ s rays get through to heat the soil .
But at night , all that stored energy in the earth and rocks is quickly radiated and convected back towards the sky .
Some of this heat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that is like a hot air balloon going up the atmosphere .
Some goes up by “ Transpiration ” , like that cooling feeling you get when you come out of the pool , and the wind dries your skin .
But most of it goes up by radiation , which we will discuss here in detail because that is the heart of the greenhouse effect .
This radiated heat comes in two forms , longwave and shortwave infrared .
Most of the heat is radiated directly to outer space in the form @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heat in the shortwave is captured by the greenhouse gasses and water vapor and held for a while and warms up the air .
After it has warmed up the atmosphere and clouds , the shortwave s becomes longwave and finally escapes to space .
The fundamental questions in understanding the greenhouse effect are : • How do these greenhouse gasses capture this shortwave energy ?
• How does it convert this shortwave energy to heat energy to warm the air ?
• And finally , how long will the atmosphere/greenhouse gasses hold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comfortable .
Climate scientists , dedicated to the scientific method , are only beginning to scratch the surface of these questions and more questions remain open that can be scientifically explained.These greenhouse gasses and water vapor essentially form a blanket around the Earth .
In a perfect scenario , the Earth will radiate back to space during the night , the amount of energy equal to the sun ’ s input energy received during the day .
However , if more heat to be trapped and stored in the air , the clouds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enough radiated into outer space , it would not be a good thing .
If this keeps going too long , it will mean each new morning would start out being a little warmer than the day before , and so on .
After some time , it would keep getting warmer and warmer and cause significant changes not only on all life ( plants and animals ) but also the geography of the entire planet .
We see a dramatic example of this on Venus , where CO2 makes up nearly 100 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent on Earth .
Even here on Earth , in the far distant past , the oceans rose to alarming levels , and the planetary temperatures increased so much that there was little ice on the surface .
Tropical plants and animals thrived even in the polar regions .
For this reason , many scientists sound the alarm about global warming .
The cause of this imbalance , meaning more energy coming to Earth from the sun than is radiated back into space , is due primarily to water vapor and a small @ @ @ @ @ @ @ primary greenhouse gasses include CO2 , methane , nitrous oxide .
, we must understand two straightforward realities : · Exactly how much greenhouse effect is contributed by each gas , and · Exactly what portion of each greenhouse gas is human-made versus nature-made .
Fortunately , brilliant climate scientists have already made this analysis , and their findings are presented in Figure – 2 [ i ] below .
A summary of the significant revelations include : 1 .
Water vapor accounts for 95 % of the entire greenhouse effect , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The total carbon dioxide contribution to the greenhouse effect is only 3.168 % , of which the human-made portion is only 0.117 % 3 .
Of the entire greenhouse effect , nature accounts for 99.72 % , and the human-made contribution , including all human-made gasses ( CO2 , methane , etc . )
, is a mere 0.28 % .
We call weather nothing more and nothing less than the Earth ‘ s air , land , and oceans attempting to eliminate the temperature and pressure imbalances caused by the sun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not the other .
These imbalances are imposed on Earth by the asymmetrical heating caused by the sun .
Consequently , the weather is how the Earth responds to these forces imposed on the planet by the ever-changing dynamics of what happens within the sun and the relative position of the sun concerning the Earth .
Weather patterns over 15 to 30 years are what we call “ climate.
” We then learned that weather is challenging to predict .
Even a 7-day forecast is typically only accurate about 56 % of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be to predict climate forecasts 5 , 10 , 30 , or 50 years out .
Lastly , we learned that the human-caused contribution to the greenhouse effect is small , trivial .
Science is never settled .
Science is a journey with unknown destinations .
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 ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 email to [ email protected ] .

There is little doubt that the global earth temperature would be averaging 25-30° C colder without the greenhouse effect than it is today. That is a huge deal! Without the greenhouse effect, we would be looking at a global temperature at about -15° C instead of the +15° C that we enjoy today. In that case, our blue-green planet might look more like a dirty and lifeless snowball. The greenhouse effect is an essential natural mechanism. It helps regulate the Earth‘s temperature, making it more stable and able to sustain all life as we know it.
HEAT INPUT
The effects of the greenhouse gasses start with the sun‘s golden rays coming to Earth, as seen in Figure – 1. Warming the planet during the day with a Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) average of about 341 Watts per square meter W/M2.
Some of this energy that approaches the Earth is reflected back to outer space by the clouds, the air, the oceans, the Earth‘s ice cover, and a little by land. The part that reaches the Earth’s system is about 161 W/M2, or about 47 percent, where three things start to happen to these sun rays. The first part is used to power the planet‘s needs, like plants that use the sunshine for photosynthesis and animals to breathe and keep warm. Humans get clean energy with solar electricity, farmers to grow their crops, and beach lovers to get a great tan. The second part is stored in the warm air we enjoy and warm oceans and seas when we swim in the summer on Cape Cod and year-round in Florida.
This heat is also stored in parking lots and streets, and buildings that stay warm for many hours after dark. At night, most or all of this stored heat radiates and convects back up to the air. Some of this heat is temporarily stored in the air and clouds, and the rest radiates back to outer space.
HEAT OUTPUT
This heat that arrived on the Earth’s surface (land and oceans) must find its way back to space for the Earth to remain in the thermal balance we call “The Goldilocks Zone.” If too much heat went straight back to outer space, it would cause a big problem, which we actually see in high altitude deserts. There, during the day, the Earth gets very hot very quickly. The air is super thin, there are few clouds, and more of the sun‘s rays get through to heat the soil. But at night, all that stored energy in the earth and rocks is quickly radiated and convected back towards the sky. Some of this heat goes up by “Thermals”, that is like a hot air balloon going up the atmosphere. Some goes up by “Transpiration”, like that cooling feeling you get when you come out of the pool, and the wind dries your skin. But most of it goes up by radiation, which we will discuss here in detail because that is the heart of the greenhouse effect.
This radiated heat comes in two forms, longwave and shortwave infrared. Most of the heat is radiated directly to outer space in the form of longwave radiation. But, the heat in the shortwave is captured by the greenhouse gasses and water vapor and held for a while and warms up the air. After it has warmed up the atmosphere and clouds, the shortwave s becomes longwave and finally escapes to space. The fundamental questions in understanding the greenhouse effect are:
How do these greenhouse gasses capture this shortwave energy?
How does it convert this shortwave energy to heat energy to warm the air?
And finally, how long will the atmosphere/greenhouse gasses hold this heat and keep us warm and comfortable.
Climate scientists, dedicated to the scientific method, are only beginning to scratch the surface of these questions and more questions remain open that can be scientifically explained.These greenhouse gasses and water vapor essentially form a blanket around the Earth. In a perfect scenario, the Earth will radiate back to space during the night, the amount of energy equal to the sun’s input energy received during the day.
BALANCED SYSTEM
However, if more heat to be trapped and stored in the air, the clouds, and land and oceans and not enough radiated into outer space, it would not be a good thing. If this keeps going too long, it will mean each new morning would start out being a little warmer than the day before, and so on. After some time, it would keep getting warmer and warmer and cause significant changes not only on all life (plants and animals) but also the geography of the entire planet. We see a dramatic example of this on Venus, where CO2 makes up nearly 100 percent of the atmosphere compared to 0.04 percent on Earth. Even here on Earth, in the far distant past, the oceans rose to alarming levels, and the planetary temperatures increased so much that there was little ice on the surface. Tropical plants and animals thrived even in the polar regions. For this reason, many scientists sound the alarm about global warming.
The cause of this imbalance, meaning more energy coming to Earth from the sun than is radiated back into space, is due primarily to water vapor and a small amount by the greenhouse gasses. The primary greenhouse gasses include CO2, methane, nitrous oxide. But most importantly , we must understand two straightforward realities:
· Exactly how much greenhouse effect is contributed by each gas, and
· Exactly what portion of each greenhouse gas is human-made versus nature-made.
Fortunately, brilliant climate scientists have already made this analysis, and their findings are presented in Figure – 2[i] below. A summary of the significant revelations include:
1. Water vapor accounts for 95% of the entire greenhouse effect, which is nearly 100% nature-made.
2. The total carbon dioxide contribution to the greenhouse effect is only 3.168%, of which the human-made portion is only 0.117%
3. Of the entire greenhouse effect, nature accounts for 99.72%, and the human-made contribution, including all human-made gasses (CO2, methane, etc.), is a mere 0.28%.
LET‘S SUMMARIZE THIS ARTICLE
We call weather nothing more and nothing less than the Earth‘s air, land, and oceans attempting to eliminate the temperature and pressure imbalances caused by the sun heating one part of the planet and not the other. These imbalances are imposed on Earth by the asymmetrical heating caused by the sun. Consequently, the weather is how the Earth responds to these forces imposed on the planet by the ever-changing dynamics of what happens within the sun and the relative position of the sun concerning the Earth.
Weather patterns over 15 to 30 years are what we call “climate.” We then learned that weather is challenging to predict. Even a 7-day forecast is typically only accurate about 56% of the time. Imagine how challenging it must be to predict climate forecasts 5, 10, 30, or 50 years out. Lastly, we learned that the human-caused contribution to the greenhouse effect is small, trivial.
Science is never settled. Science is a journey with unknown destinations.
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 also 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 email to [email protected].
[i] https://climatecite.com/water-vapor-rules-the-greenhouse-system/ by Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, and former director of the US Weather.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-12-11--California lawmakers sending fishermen to ruin

Small business across America have taken a major hit during COVID-19 lockdowns .
While Big Box stores have been allowed to stay open and have thrived , mom and pop retailers have been forced to shut down en masse , and many will never reopen .
California ’ s ruling elite has been as brutal as it has been hypocritical in ensuring that the well-to-do have it easy .
The working stiffs , on the other hand , are to shelter in place .
Their livelihoods be damned .
In the Golden State , this was how things were done @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Take California ’ s commercial fishermen .
In 2018 , lawmakers in Sacramento approved a law that bans drift gill nets by 2024 .
The law was championed by environmentalists who claim that drift gill nets pose a serious risk to creatures such as whales and sea turtles .
But existing federal and state regulations such as seasonal closures and the required use of acoustic pingers on drift gill nets have already reduced the accidental catch of these species to near zero .
But that ’ s of no interest to virtue-signaling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Francisco , Hollywood , and Silicon Valley .
The big losers in all this will be small commercial fishermen .
These are typically family-owned businesses , many of them going back several generations .
Especially hard hit will be swordfish fishermen .
Drift gillnets are the only sensible way to catch swordfish , a favorite of seafood diners the world over .
Fishermen specializing in catching swordfish will go out of business if the drift gillnet law is allowed to stay on the books .
There ’ s no other sensible way to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( PLF ) has challenged the ban , arguing that California can ’ t override existing federal program for drift gillnet permitting by banning use of drift gillnets at the state level .
If the lawsuit is successful , California will have to allow fishermen who obtain federal permits to continue to use drift gillnets to target swordfish and other species .
However , the same environmental groups that backed the 2018 California law are taking their anti-drift gillnet case to Congress , hoping to use federal power to snuff out the swordfish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ particularly important in light of the political changes coming to Washington in January .
Political appointees of the Biden administration can be counted on to side with environmentalists on a host of issues , including fisheries .
For that reason , PLF is also challenging other onerous federal regulations that could easily be turned against commercial fishermen by a hostile administration .
The fishermen in California are not alone .
People who produce food , energy ( excluding wind mills and solar panels ) , and other necessities of life are going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ White House .
As Bette Davis ’ s character said in “ All About Eve , ” : “ Fasten your seatbelts , it ’ s going to be a bumpy night .
”

Small business across America have taken a major hit during COVID-19 lockdowns. While Big Box stores have been allowed to stay open and have thrived, mom and pop retailers have been forced to shut down en masse, and many will never reopen.
California’s ruling elite has been as brutal as it has been hypocritical in ensuring that the well-to-do have it easy. The working stiffs, on the other hand, are to shelter in place. Their livelihoods be damned.
In the Golden State, this was how things were done even before the outbreak of the coronavirus. Take California’s commercial fishermen. In 2018, lawmakers in Sacramento approved a law that bans drift gill nets by 2024. The law was championed by environmentalists who claim that drift gill nets pose a serious risk to creatures such as whales and sea turtles. But existing federal and state regulations such as seasonal closures and the required use of acoustic pingers on drift gill nets have already reduced the accidental catch of these species to near zero. But that’s of no interest to virtue-signaling lawmakers in Sacramento and greens in San Francisco, Hollywood, and Silicon Valley.
Targeting Family Businesses
The big losers in all this will be small commercial fishermen. These are typically family-owned businesses, many of them going back several generations. Especially hard hit will be swordfish fishermen. Drift gillnets are the only sensible way to catch swordfish, a favorite of seafood diners the world over. Fishermen specializing in catching swordfish will go out of business if the drift gillnet law is allowed to stay on the books. There’s no other sensible way to catch the fish.
Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) has challenged the ban, arguing that California can’t override existing federal program for drift gillnet permitting by banning use of drift gillnets at the state level. If the lawsuit is successful, California will have to allow fishermen who obtain federal permits to continue to use drift gillnets to target swordfish and other species. However, the same environmental groups that backed the 2018 California law are taking their anti-drift gillnet case to Congress, hoping to use federal power to snuff out the swordfish fishermen.
Ill Winds Will Blow from Washington
PLF’s lawsuit is particularly important in light of the political changes coming to Washington in January. Political appointees of the Biden administration can be counted on to side with environmentalists on a host of issues, including fisheries. For that reason, PLF is also challenging other onerous federal regulations that could easily be turned against commercial fishermen by a hostile administration.
The fishermen in California are not alone. People who produce food, energy (excluding wind mills and solar panels), and other necessities of life are going to be out of favor in the Biden White House. As Bette Davis’s character said in “All About Eve,”: “Fasten your seatbelts, it’s going to be a bumpy night.”


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-12-12--Electric vehicle shock treatment: Lessons from Britain

Joe Biden , and his fellow Democrats , apparently big U.S. automakers , have joined the rush to transform U.S. transportation to 100 % electric vehicles ( EV ) whether We the People want it or not .
During an October town hall , Biden asserted that his plan save “ billions of gallons of oil ” and help create 1 million auto industry jobs , in part by banning the sale or manufacture of new internal combustion ( IC ) engine vehicles by 2030 .
Exactly how this will happen in the Real World , he didn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ excludes hybrid vehicles , includes installing 500,000 EV charging stations and provides “ cash for clunkers ” style rebates for new EV buyers .
As of 2018 , nearly half of all EV registrations ( 256,800 out of 543,600 ) were in California , with Hawaii , Washington and Oregon not far behind .
Yet as of 2018 , EVs comprised less than 2 % of California ’ s 15 million total vehicles – despite huge tax credits , free charging stations , free access to HOV lanes , and other subsidies and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sold in the U.S. in 2019 , and nearly half were plug-in hybrids .
Hybrid sales peaked in 2013 , but by 2019 had fallen to 2.3 % ( about 400,000 vehicles ) of all light-duty vehicle sales , largely due to shunning by EV purists .
Compare those numbers with the 6.3 million total vehicles sold in 2016 , or to the 273,600,000 passenger cars , motorcycles , trucks , buses and other vehicles on the road throughout the United States in 2018 .
Following China ’ s lead , U.S. automakers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aboard for this big switchover .
As IC vehicles are replaced and gasoline stations are transformed into EV charging stations , the pressure will rise to ditch remaining IC vehicles and buy more EVs .
China-friendly General Motors plans to spend $ 20 billion on EV and self-driving vehicle technology through 2025 , including producing 23 different EVs by 2023 .
Ford Motor Company has pledged to invest $ 11 billion by 2022 on EV development .
Biden is following in the footsteps of British Prime Minister Boris Johnson , whose new climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by 2030 and hybrids by 2035 .
But , as economist and Global Britain think tank director Ewen Stewart argued , this is “ frankly one of the most illiberal and economically destructive policies ever to come from Whitehall .
It risks hundreds of thousands of livelihoods and much-needed exports for the most marginal benefit.
” “ The implications of this ban [ in a country with only 1 % EVs ] are immense in terms of manufacture , supply chains , investment , sunk capital , employment , infrastructure , consumer choice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so much more , ” Stewart explained .
“ Never before has a Government dared to close down an entire and critical industry almost overnight by diktat.
” It is delusional , he continued , to believe that destroying a successful British industry by banning IC engines – rather than letting consumer choice make the market – will be good for the economy .
Today ’ s British automotive sector comprises a fifth of the nation ’ s manufacturing base , with over 80 % of the 1.3 million cars it manufactured being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the UK ’ s entire export market .
The UK automotive industry employs over 180,000 Britons directly and many hundreds of thousands more indirectly .
But the United Kingdom can not compete with China for the global EV market , because UK labor costs are far higher , and its energy is far more expensive and increasingly unreliable .
Worse , Stewart pointed out , this virtue signaling will have at best a miniscule benefits for the UK and global environment , but will be devastating for automobile owners .
The British @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the nation ’ s 12 million diesel vehicles with surcharges that cost owners of pre-2015 diesel vehicles up to $ 67 per week just to drive in “ ultra low emission zones.
” Other costs included doubling parking permit rates and higher taxes for diesel vehicles .
The new initiatives will do the same to IC vehicles – including the phaseout of gasoline pumps and the loss of resale value , not to mention the devastation of the nation ’ s export market .
Andrew Montford , deputy director of the Global Warming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plan could cost motorists £700 billion ( US $ 938 billion ) .
Several aspects of EVs , Montford contended , make them more costly than petrol cars : replacing expensive batteries , installing home charging stations ( often requiring upgrading household wiring ) , time and inconvenience during battery recharges , and more .
Montford estimated that by 2050 the average household might have spent an extra £19,000 ( US $ 25,460 ) – if they can still afford to own a vehicle .
Moreover , with other government mandates driving up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of motoring could double , driving working classes entirely off the roads .
The absurdity of this British assault on its own existing auto industry is made even more ridiculous by the fact that wide-scale electrification which doesn ’ t change current mobility patterns only manages to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation by 15 % by 2050 , Spanish systems engineering expert Margarita Mediaville explained .
To call EVs “ green ” or “ sustainable ” is equally absurd .
Ms. Mediaville ’ s conclusion is based on her company ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that manufacturing all those new EV batteries will deplete proven global reserves of copper , lithium , nickel and manganese , unless mining and/or recycling rates grow enormously by 2050 .
But opening new mines , mostly in other countries , as the European Union proposes , would have “ devastating repercussions on water , biodiversity and the human rights of local communities.
” Mining and processing ores , and manufacturing batteries , would also require enormous amounts of fossil fuels , involve hundreds or thousands of tons of ore and overburden for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ result in prodigious emissions of pollutants and carbon dioxide .
Indeed , a new report by Competitive Enterprise Institute analyst Ben Lieberman concludes that replacing gasoline with electricity as the energy source for vehicles does not eliminate those emissions , but only changes where they are emitted .
Yet another downside of vastly increasing the number of EVs is that the metals and minerals increasingly come from countries like China , Chile and Congo – where fair wage , child labor , workplace safety and environmental standards are far below anything the US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also require more energy to manufacture than batteries and engines for IC vehicles , and recycling them is likewise complicated , expensive , and fraught with pollution and public health risks .
The financial firm UBS found that replacing global sales of conventional IC vehicles with electric versions would require a 2,898 % increase in lithium production ; a 1,928 % increase in cobalt ; a 524 % increase in graphite ; a 105 % increase in nickel ; a 655 % increase in rare-earth minerals ; and at least a tripling of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gasoline burning would also skyrocket , to fuel the work .
A separate report from Securing America ’ s Future Energy indicates China controls nearly 70 % of electric vehicle battery manufacturing capacity , compared to just 10 % by the USA .
The report projects that 107 of the 142 EV battery manufacturing projects scheduled by 2021 will be in China , with only nine in the U.S .
In short , any move toward mandatory EVs will enrich the Chinese economy at America ’ s expense .
Before taking any steps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fuel electricity generation , U.S. policymakers must carefully examine the human and environmental costs – in precise numbers , including rising lung disease , cancer , injury and death rates in foreign mines , processing plants and factories .
They must also consider the impact on American workers and communities from outsourcing battery manufacturing to Chinese companies .
The Chinese , with assistance from a President Biden , will happily take most of those manufacturing jobs back to the Middle Kingdom , while saddling American families with soaring costs for unreliable electricity , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , our dependence on China for minerals and component parts for high-tech military equipment will also soar !
All these issues demand the attention of our legislators and regulators , environmentalists and journalists .
Unless of course they ’ re just engaging in cheap virtue-signaling , and they actually don ’ t give a hoot about American workers and energy consumers , the U.S. and global environment , or the global adult and child workforce that will put their health and lives at risk to provide these EVs and other technologies .

Joe Biden, and his fellow Democrats, apparently big U.S. automakers, have joined the rush to transform U.S. transportation to 100% electric vehicles (EV) whether We the People want it or not. During an October town hall, Biden asserted that his plan save “billions of gallons of oil” and help create 1 million auto industry jobs, in part by banning the sale or manufacture of new internal combustion (IC) engine vehicles by 2030. Exactly how this will happen in the Real World, he didn’t say.
Biden’s California-inspired vision excludes hybrid vehicles, includes installing 500,000 EV charging stations and provides “cash for clunkers” style rebates for new EV buyers. As of 2018, nearly half of all EV registrations (256,800 out of 543,600) were in California, with Hawaii, Washington and Oregon not far behind. Yet as of 2018, EVs comprised less than 2% of California’s 15 million total vehicles – despite huge tax credits, free charging stations, free access to HOV lanes, and other subsidies and incentives.
Only 727,000 electric-drive vehicles were sold in the U.S. in 2019, and nearly half were plug-in hybrids. Hybrid sales peaked in 2013, but by 2019 had fallen to 2.3% (about 400,000 vehicles) of all light-duty vehicle sales, largely due to shunning by EV purists. Compare those numbers with the 6.3 million total vehicles sold in 2016, or to the 273,600,000 passenger cars, motorcycles, trucks, buses and other vehicles on the road throughout the United States in 2018.
Following China’s lead, U.S. automakers – not just Tesla – are all aboard for this big switchover. As IC vehicles are replaced and gasoline stations are transformed into EV charging stations, the pressure will rise to ditch remaining IC vehicles and buy more EVs. China-friendly General Motors plans to spend $20 billion on EV and self-driving vehicle technology through 2025, including producing 23 different EVs by 2023. Ford Motor Company has pledged to invest $11 billion by 2022 on EV development.
Biden is following in the footsteps of British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, whose new climate plan includes banning sales of gasoline-powered vehicles by 2030 and hybrids by 2035. But, as economist and Global Britain think tank director Ewen Stewart argued, this is “frankly one of the most illiberal and economically destructive policies ever to come from Whitehall. It risks hundreds of thousands of livelihoods and much-needed exports for the most marginal benefit.”
“The implications of this ban [in a country with only 1% EVs] are immense in terms of manufacture, supply chains, investment, sunk capital, employment, infrastructure, consumer choice, value of existing stock, and so much more,” Stewart explained. “Never before has a Government dared to close down an entire and critical industry almost overnight by diktat.”
It is delusional, he continued, to believe that destroying a successful British industry by banning IC engines – rather than letting consumer choice make the market – will be good for the economy. Today’s British automotive sector comprises a fifth of the nation’s manufacturing base, with over 80% of the 1.3 million cars it manufactured being exported. That’s 13% of the UK’s entire export market.
The UK automotive industry employs over 180,000 Britons directly and many hundreds of thousands more indirectly. But the United Kingdom cannot compete with China for the global EV market, because UK labor costs are far higher, and its energy is far more expensive and increasingly unreliable.
Worse, Stewart pointed out, this virtue signaling will have at best a miniscule benefits for the UK and global environment, but will be devastating for automobile owners. The British government already vastly diminished the value of the nation’s 12 million diesel vehicles with surcharges that cost owners of pre-2015 diesel vehicles up to $67 per week just to drive in “ultra low emission zones.” Other costs included doubling parking permit rates and higher taxes for diesel vehicles.
The new initiatives will do the same to IC vehicles – including the phaseout of gasoline pumps and the loss of resale value, not to mention the devastation of the nation’s export market.
Andrew Montford, deputy director of the Global Warming Policy Forum, says the misguided British plan could cost motorists £700 billion (US$938 billion). Several aspects of EVs, Montford contended, make them more costly than petrol cars: replacing expensive batteries, installing home charging stations (often requiring upgrading household wiring), time and inconvenience during battery recharges, and more.
Montford estimated that by 2050 the average household might have spent an extra £19,000 (US$25,460) – if they can still afford to own a vehicle. Moreover, with other government mandates driving up the cost of electricity, the cost of motoring could double, driving working classes entirely off the roads.
The absurdity of this British assault on its own existing auto industry is made even more ridiculous by the fact that wide-scale electrification which doesn’t change current mobility patterns only manages to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation by 15% by 2050, Spanish systems engineering expert Margarita Mediaville explained. To call EVs “green” or “sustainable” is equally absurd.
Ms. Mediaville’s conclusion is based on her company’s MEDEAS-World energy-economy-environment assessment model, which shows that manufacturing all those new EV batteries will deplete proven global reserves of copper, lithium, nickel and manganese, unless mining and/or recycling rates grow enormously by 2050. But opening new mines, mostly in other countries, as the European Union proposes, would have “devastating repercussions on water, biodiversity and the human rights of local communities.”
Mining and processing ores, and manufacturing batteries, would also require enormous amounts of fossil fuels, involve hundreds or thousands of tons of ore and overburden for every ton of finished metals, and result in prodigious emissions of pollutants and carbon dioxide. Indeed, a new report by Competitive Enterprise Institute analyst Ben Lieberman concludes that replacing gasoline with electricity as the energy source for vehicles does not eliminate those emissions, but only changes where they are emitted.
Yet another downside of vastly increasing the number of EVs is that the metals and minerals increasingly come from countries like China, Chile and Congo – where fair wage, child labor, workplace safety and environmental standards are far below anything the US or EU would tolerate. EV batteries also require more energy to manufacture than batteries and engines for IC vehicles, and recycling them is likewise complicated, expensive, and fraught with pollution and public health risks.
The financial firm UBS found that replacing global sales of conventional IC vehicles with electric versions would require a 2,898% increase in lithium production; a 1,928% increase in cobalt; a 524% increase in graphite; a 105% increase in nickel; a 655% increase in rare-earth minerals; and at least a tripling of copper production. Coal, diesel and gasoline burning would also skyrocket, to fuel the work.
A separate report from Securing America’s Future Energy indicates China controls nearly 70% of electric vehicle battery manufacturing capacity, compared to just 10% by the USA. The report projects that 107 of the 142 EV battery manufacturing projects scheduled by 2021 will be in China, with only nine in the U.S. In short, any move toward mandatory EVs will enrich the Chinese economy at America’s expense.
Before taking any steps toward converting America to EVs and non-fossil fuel electricity generation, U.S. policymakers must carefully examine the human and environmental costs – in precise numbers, including rising lung disease, cancer, injury and death rates in foreign mines, processing plants and factories.
They must also consider the impact on American workers and communities from outsourcing battery manufacturing to Chinese companies. The Chinese, with assistance from a President Biden, will happily take most of those manufacturing jobs back to the Middle Kingdom, while saddling American families with soaring costs for unreliable electricity, short-range driving and collapsing industries. Incredibly, our dependence on China for minerals and component parts for high-tech military equipment will also soar!
All these issues demand the attention of our legislators and regulators, environmentalists and journalists. Unless of course they’re just engaging in cheap virtue-signaling, and they actually don’t give a hoot about American workers and energy consumers, the U.S. and global environment, or the global adult and child workforce that will put their health and lives at risk to provide these EVs and other technologies.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-12-14--The geothermal energy revolution

The geothermal energy revolution

There is a revolution coming in geothermal energy .
How big it will be and how fast it can grow remains to be seen , but the revolutionary technology is here now .
We already know about the new technology by name — fracking .
But that is fracking for oil and gas , the energy revolution we are already living on , that the greens hate .
The geothermal revolution is fracking for heat .
Here is the technical bit .
The Earth ’ s crust we live on is just a thin film wrapped around an 8,000 mile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under the deep ocean this crust is estimated to be just 3 miles or so thick .
It is somewhat thicker under the continents but the point remains ; it gets hot fast as you drill down into the crust .
That heat is geothermal energy .
We have used geothermal energy to make electricity for a long time , but only in tiny amounts .
California does the most in the US and its entire generating capacity is about the size of a single large coal fired power plant , about 3000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to just have a minuscule 15,000 MW .
The obstacle to doing more has been that useful energy sources are hard to find .
You need a confined reservoir of hot water in fractured crust rock .
The reservoir size , location and temperature of the water are all determined by nature .
Suitable sites have been very few .
Now all of this has suddenly changed .
With hydraulic fracturing ( or fracking ) we can make these geothermal reservoirs where we want them , the size we want them , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want , especially very hot .
This includes the so-called “ supercritical ” water at 400 degrees C , which is now used in the most advanced power-plants .
It is like the difference between living on wild edibles , if and when you find them , and farming .
Fracking for heat is literally a whole new world .
Of course there are still pesky things like cost , feasibility and regulation , but the principal is clear ; the technology of revolutionary thermal energy has arrived .
The greens are in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Geothermal juice looks like the ideal renewable .
Unlike wind and solar , geothermal electricity is constantly available and it is not a land hog .
But the greens despise fracking and have labeled it evil .
Some States and even whole Countries have banned fracking for oil and gas .
Whether this applies to fracking for heat remains to be seen , since the fracturing processes are rather different .
How this dichotomy will play out is anybody ’ s guess .
As they say here in the mountains : “ What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is , don ’ t start trouble lest it bite you someplace soft .
The greens desperately need geothermal fracking , they just don ’ t know it yet .
The US Energy Department has a Geothermal Technologies Office and they are understandably optimistic .
They project something like 60,000 MW of advanced geothermal juice capacity by 2050 .
Mind you this is still small , given that our present generating capacity is around a million MW .
The amount of geothermal generating capacity installed by 2050 could be much larger , for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the only way to make wind and solar work .
A number of analysts , including me , have pointed out that electricity storage on the scale needed to power America with intermittent renewables is impossible .
But many States have mandated a high level of renewables , even 100 % in extreme cases .
This makes geothermal the perfect renewable , because its power can be available whenever the intermittent generators can not provide the power we need .
The more power we want from renewables , the more geothermal capacity we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We could be talking about many hundreds of thousands of MW .
If the technology works cost wise it might actually be better than unreliable , land grabbing renewables .
Happily there is a massive frenzy of geothermal research going on , much of it aimed at reducing the obvious obstacles .
Searching the engineering and scientific literature for the last five years on the word combination “ geothermal ” and “ research ” yields over 100,000 technical articles .
That is a lot of research .
So there it is .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ revolution .
No question the heat is there , thanks to the big molten ball we call Earth .
And now we suddenly have the technology to create the infrastructure needed to tap into it .
How practical it is , and how acceptable , still remains to be seen .
Interesting times lie ahead .

There is a revolution coming in geothermal energy. How big it will be and how fast it can grow remains to be seen, but the revolutionary technology is here now.
We already know about the new technology by name — fracking. But that is fracking for oil and gas, the energy revolution we are already living on, that the greens hate. The geothermal revolution is fracking for heat.
Here is the technical bit. The Earth’s crust we live on is just a thin film wrapped around an 8,000 mile diameter molten ball. In some places under the deep ocean this crust is estimated to be just 3 miles or so thick. It is somewhat thicker under the continents but the point remains; it gets hot fast as you drill down into the crust. That heat is geothermal energy.
We have used geothermal energy to make electricity for a long time, but only in tiny amounts. California does the most in the US and its entire generating capacity is about the size of a single large coal fired power plant, about 3000 MW. The whole world is said to just have a minuscule 15,000 MW.
The obstacle to doing more has been that useful energy sources are hard to find. You need a confined reservoir of hot water in fractured crust rock. The reservoir size, location and temperature of the water are all determined by nature. Suitable sites have been very few.
Now all of this has suddenly changed. With hydraulic fracturing (or fracking) we can make these geothermal reservoirs where we want them, the size we want them, and where the heat is the temperature we want, especially very hot. This includes the so-called “supercritical” water at 400 degrees C, which is now used in the most advanced power-plants.
It is like the difference between living on wild edibles, if and when you find them, and farming. Fracking for heat is literally a whole new world. Of course there are still pesky things like cost, feasibility and regulation, but the principal is clear; the technology of revolutionary thermal energy has arrived.
The greens are in a bit of a bind here. Geothermal juice looks like the ideal renewable. Unlike wind and solar, geothermal electricity is constantly available and it is not a land hog. But the greens despise fracking and have labeled it evil. Some States and even whole Countries have banned fracking for oil and gas. Whether this applies to fracking for heat remains to be seen, since the fracturing processes are rather different.
How this dichotomy will play out is anybody’s guess. As they say here in the mountains: “What goes around, comes around.” That is, don’t start trouble lest it bite you someplace soft. The greens desperately need geothermal fracking, they just don’t know it yet.
The US Energy Department has a Geothermal Technologies Office and they are understandably optimistic. They project something like 60,000 MW of advanced geothermal juice capacity by 2050. Mind you this is still small, given that our present generating capacity is around a million MW.
The amount of geothermal generating capacity installed by 2050 could be much larger, for one simple reason. It is probably the only way to make wind and solar work. A number of analysts, including me, have pointed out that electricity storage on the scale needed to power America with intermittent renewables is impossible. But many States have mandated a high level of renewables, even 100% in extreme cases.
This makes geothermal the perfect renewable, because its power can be available whenever the intermittent generators cannot provide the power we need. The more power we want from renewables, the more geothermal capacity we will need. It is that simple. We could be talking about many hundreds of thousands of MW. If the technology works cost wise it might actually be better than unreliable, land grabbing renewables.
Happily there is a massive frenzy of geothermal research going on, much of it aimed at reducing the obvious obstacles. Searching the engineering and scientific literature for the last five years on the word combination “geothermal” and “research” yields over 100,000 technical articles. That is a lot of research.
So there it is. Geothermal energy is potentially the second fracking revolution. No question the heat is there, thanks to the big molten ball we call Earth. And now we suddenly have the technology to create the infrastructure needed to tap into it. How practical it is, and how acceptable, still remains to be seen. Interesting times lie ahead.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-12-14--NIMBY’s are making more noise than wind turbines

There is increasing concern that electricity generation from fossil fuels contributes to climate change and air pollution .
In response to these concerns , governments around the world are encouraging the installation of intermittent electricity generation projects including Industrial Wind Turbines ( IWT ’ s ) .
But Whoa , Nelly !
NIMBY ’ s ( Not-In-My-Backyard ) around the globe from Germany to Australia , California , New York , and Massachusetts are speaking loudly , and acting , to put a halt to the invasion of noisy wind farms in their backyards .
Following numerous reports from Maryland @ @ @ @ @ @ @ noise , the NIMBY ’ s are becoming energized ( no pun intended ) .
• The National Center for Biotechnology Information located in Bethesda , Maryland ( NCBI ) reported that industrial wind turbine noise amplitude modulation , audible low frequency noise , tonal noise , infrasound , and lack of nighttime abatement have been identified as plausible noise characteristics that could cause annoyance and other health effects .
Documented symptoms reported by individuals exposed to wind turbines , include : Sleep disturbance , Headaches , Ear pressure , Dizziness , Vertigo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Problems with concentration and memory , and Panic episodes associated with sensations of internal pulsation or quivering when awake or asleep .
• The Green Energy Act ( GEA ) of Ontario , Canada may have been well-intended , but a recent analysis published by the Fraser Institute , Environmental and Economic Consequences of Ontario ’ s Green Energy Act , demonstrates that the GEA has had disastrous impacts on Ontario ’ s energy rates and is going to seriously threaten economic competitiveness for the manufacturing and mining sectors .
• The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Health Nuisance .
The planned extension of the terrestrial wind energy sector raises an increasing number of complaints from associations of local residents reporting functional disturbances achieving what is known as the “ wind turbine syndrome ” .
The report notes that noise is the most frequent complaint .
The noise is described as piercing , preoccupying , and continually surprising , as it is irregular in intensity .
The noise includes grating and incongruous sounds that distract the attention or disturb rest .
The spontaneous recurrence of these noises disturbs the sleep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wind rises and preventing the subject from going back to sleep .
Despite the political obsession for intermittent electricity generated from wind turbines , NIMBY ’ s are alive and well !
Here is a sampling of NIMBY ’ s around the globe from Germany to Australia , California , New York , and Massachusetts that are stepping up to stop the installation of those monstrosities in their backyards : • In Germany , thousands are being driven mad by practically incessant , turbine generated low-frequency noise and infra-sound , and are fighting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has rattled the wind industry .
There are now hundreds of anti-wind industry groups across Germany .
And many of those groups and individuals have launched litigation against developers and government to either prevent wind farms from being built , or to seek substantial financial compensation for the loss of the use and enjoyment of their homes .
In Germany , locals expressed their opposition in no uncertain terms – voting 25 to 1 against a giant wind project proposed for their patch of paradise .
• In Australia and New Zealand , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quality of life are also documented in Industrial Wind Turbines ( IWTs ) projects in their countries .
• In California , San Bernardino is the state ’ s largest county , and “ has banned the construction of large solar and wind farms of more than 1 million acres of private land.
” Residents do not want their rural desert community littered with renewables • In New York , America ’ s Rural Communities , like Arkwright , NY have gone on the offensive against big wind ’ s turbine onslaught .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ wind power obsessed Governor is determined to carpet his state with thousands of wind turbines .
Faced with the threatened onslaught , and already fed up with what they have had to suffer , the upstate New Yorkers have taken matters into their own hands and produced a documentary about noise from local wind turbines .
• In Massachusetts , the Town of Falmouth had documentation prior to the installations of its wind turbines that the megawatt wind turbines were too loud for residential locations .
The documentation includes emails , maps , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center in 2013 that “ mistakes ” were made in the original acoustic noise predictions .
The first Falmouth wind turbine started operating in 2010 .
Ultimately the wind turbine installations in Falmouth are far worse than any experiment ever conducted in the United States as state and local officials always had first-hand knowledge of the damage to health and the requirement to take property with no compensation .
State and local officials were following an agenda to achieve 2000 megawatts of commercial wind turbine power by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NIMBY resistance goes on and on at locations like New York , Wisconsin , and Scotland , etc .
Before too hastily pursuing those wind turbines for the generation of intermittent electricity , politicians should read the numerous published reports from Maryland to Canada to France about the effects of wind turbine noise , and listen to their NIMBY constituents that are rejecting those monstrosities in their backyards .

There is increasing concern that electricity generation from fossil fuels contributes to climate change and air pollution. In response to these concerns, governments around the world are encouraging the installation of intermittent electricity generation projects including Industrial Wind Turbines (IWT’s).
But Whoa, Nelly! NIMBY’s (Not-In-My-Backyard) around the globe from Germany to Australia, California, New York, and Massachusetts are speaking loudly, and acting, to put a halt to the invasion of noisy wind farms in their backyards. Following numerous reports from Maryland to Canada to France on wind turbine noise, the NIMBY’s are becoming energized (no pun intended).
The National Center for Biotechnology Information located in Bethesda, Maryland (NCBI) reported that industrial wind turbine noise amplitude modulation, audible low frequency noise, tonal noise, infrasound, and lack of nighttime abatement have been identified as plausible noise characteristics that could cause annoyance and other health effects. Documented symptoms reported by individuals exposed to wind turbines, include: Sleep disturbance, Headaches, Ear pressure, Dizziness, Vertigo, Nausea, Visual blurring, Irritability, Problems with concentration and memory, and Panic episodes associated with sensations of internal pulsation or quivering when awake or asleep.
The Green Energy Act (GEA) of Ontario, Canada may have been well-intended, but a recent analysis published by the Fraser Institute, Environmental and Economic Consequences of Ontario’s Green Energy Act, demonstrates that the GEA has had disastrous impacts on Ontario’s energy rates and is going to seriously threaten economic competitiveness for the manufacturing and mining sectors.
The French Academy of Medicine Declare Wind Turbines Health Nuisance. The planned extension of the terrestrial wind energy sector raises an increasing number of complaints from associations of local residents reporting functional disturbances achieving what is known as the “wind turbine syndrome”. The report notes that noise is the most frequent complaint. The noise is described as piercing, preoccupying, and continually surprising, as it is irregular in intensity. The noise includes grating and incongruous sounds that distract the attention or disturb rest. The spontaneous recurrence of these noises disturbs the sleep, suddenly awakening the subject when the wind rises and preventing the subject from going back to sleep.
Despite the political obsession for intermittent electricity generated from wind turbines, NIMBY’s are alive and well! Here is a sampling of NIMBY’s around the globe from Germany to Australia, California, New York, and Massachusetts that are stepping up to stop the installation of those monstrosities in their backyards:
In Germany, thousands are being driven mad by practically incessant, turbine generated low-frequency noise and infra-sound, and are fighting back with a fury and energy which has rattled the wind industry. There are now hundreds of anti-wind industry groups across Germany. And many of those groups and individuals have launched litigation against developers and government to either prevent wind farms from being built, or to seek substantial financial compensation for the loss of the use and enjoyment of their homes. In Germany, locals expressed their opposition in no uncertain terms – voting 25 to 1 against a giant wind project proposed for their patch of paradise.
In Australia and New Zealand, reports of adverse health effects and reduced quality of life are also documented in Industrial Wind Turbines (IWTs) projects in their countries.
In California, San Bernardino is the state’s largest county, and “has banned the construction of large solar and wind farms of more than 1 million acres of private land.” Residents do not want their rural desert community littered with renewables
In New York, America’s Rural Communities, like Arkwright, NY have gone on the offensive against big wind’s turbine onslaught. Andrew Cuomo, New York’s wind power obsessed Governor is determined to carpet his state with thousands of wind turbines. Faced with the threatened onslaught, and already fed up with what they have had to suffer, the upstate New Yorkers have taken matters into their own hands and produced a documentary about noise from local wind turbines.
In Massachusetts, the Town of Falmouth had documentation prior to the installations of its wind turbines that the megawatt wind turbines were too loud for residential locations. The documentation includes emails, maps, a written letter warning and an admission by the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center in 2013 that “mistakes” were made in the original acoustic noise predictions. The first Falmouth wind turbine started operating in 2010. Ultimately the wind turbine installations in Falmouth are far worse than any experiment ever conducted in the United States as state and local officials always had first-hand knowledge of the damage to health and the requirement to take property with no compensation. State and local officials were following an agenda to achieve 2000 megawatts of commercial wind turbine power by the year 2020.
The list of the NIMBY resistance goes on and on at locations like New York, Wisconsin, and Scotland, etc.
Before too hastily pursuing those wind turbines for the generation of intermittent electricity, politicians should read the numerous published reports from Maryland to Canada to France about the effects of wind turbine noise, and listen to their NIMBY constituents that are rejecting those monstrosities in their backyards.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-12-14--EPA Admin. Wheeler: Environmental Reporters Aren’t Practicing Journalistic Standards

In Episode 126 of District of Conservation , Gabriella sits down with EPA Administration Andrew Wheeler – the agency ’ @ @ @ @ @ in and listen to this wide-ranging interview regarding climate and environmental issues .
On February @ @ @ @ @ U.S. Senate confirmed Andrew Wheeler as the fifteenth Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency .
@ @ @ @ @ announced his appointment as the Acting EPA Administrator on July 5 , 2018 .
Mr. @ @ @ @ @ by the U.S. Senate as the EPA Deputy Administrator on April 12 , 2018 .
@ @ @ @ @ career to advancing sound environmental policies .
He began his career during the George H. @ @ @ @ @ Special Assistant in EPA ’ s Pollution Prevention and Toxics office .

In Episode 126 of District of Conservation, Gabriella sits down with EPA Administration Andrew Wheeler – the agency’s 15th administrator. Join in and listen to this wide-ranging interview regarding climate and environmental issues.
On February 28, 2019, the U.S. Senate confirmed Andrew Wheeler as the fifteenth Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. President Donald J. Trump had announced his appointment as the Acting EPA Administrator on July 5, 2018. Mr. Wheeler had previously been confirmed by the U.S. Senate as the EPA Deputy Administrator on April 12, 2018.
Mr. Wheeler has dedicated his career to advancing sound environmental policies. He began his career during the George H. W. Bush Administration as a Special Assistant in EPA’s Pollution Prevention and Toxics office.