committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-08-28--California reveals the sad reality of “renewables”

As everyone outside of the green energy bubble has heard by now , California has given the world yet another great example of how foolish and shortsighted the rush to renewables has been in the golden state .
On top of the usual litany of California disasters : wildfires , earthquakes , mud slides , urban decay , massive homelessness , gang violence , periodic riots , and now plague ( COVID-19 ) we can now add “ rolling blackouts ” to the attractions offered in beautiful California .
And that doesn ’ t even count the chronically high concentration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state .
Thus it happened that in August of the Year of our Plague 2020 , California was forced to institute rolling blackouts , turning the lights out for millions of citizens in August , a sweltering month in much of California .
( Having grown up in the San Fernando Valley ( oh m ’ gawd ! )
I can attest to that reality first-hand . )
Of course , analysts are “ stumped ” and “ bewildered ” as to how this could possibly have happened .
After all , despite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experts pointing out that wind and solar power are expensive , unreliable sources of power that can ’ t be stored at any meaningful scale , we were assured that those warnings were just smoke-screens paid for by fossil fuel companies working with climate deniers .
But the sage folks at the California Independent Systems Operator ( ISO ) apparently do have some clue as to what might have gone wrong : The California Independent System Operator , the non-profit entity that controls the flow of electricity for 80 percent of California , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shut down and wind power production dropped .
It also cited a lack of access to electricity from out-of-state sources…We understand rolling outages are not easy , and we do everything we can to avoid them , ” said Anne Gonzales , a spokeswoman for California ISO .
“ The reason for the energy shortfall is high heat and people naturally wanting to stay cool.
” Right .
It was hot , and the juice stores were out of juice .
Which begs the question , why , exactly , were the energy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tale of “ hide the reality ” of renewable power , which is that when the wind doesn ’ t blow , and the sun doesn ’ t shine , you need backup power .
You can either generate that with conventional power such as gas or nuclear power , or if your state is rabidly anti fossil fuels , you buy electricity from outside the state while avoiding any mention of how it was produced .
Setting aside that this means sending California rate-payer money to out-of-state power producers ( and their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that you ’ ve simply moved your vulnerability to intermittent “ renewable energy ” out of sight .
That ’ s all fine , as these things go , until you ask this very difficult question : “ Might the people selling us our backup power actually need to use it sometimes for their own high-demand weather patterns , that , amazingly enough , heavily overlap with California ’ s ?
” And the answer to that question turns out to be – surprise – YES , because the states around California have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also largely deserts .
But apparently the sage heads in California didn ’ t let this dissuade them : Last year , the [ Public Utilities ] commission ordered utilities and retail power suppliers to procure 3,300 megawatts of additional capacity between 2021 and 2023 , calling it a “ ‘ least regrets ’ strategy , since electricity shortages would most certainly lead to regrets.
” Yes , sweltering to death in the desert heat could be considered regrettable .
Yet the obfuscation continues , with green energy advocates “ baffled ” about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people to blame : incompetent regulators !
Enron !
( Really , they ’ re still blaming Enron for this ? )
Deregulation !
The reality is much more simple .
Renewable power is a lot like an electric car .
If you have an EV , you need a backup car when the EV power is not enough for the job , so you buy a conventional gasoline car that sits , mostly unused ( and hidden from your eco-nut neighbors ) , in your garage , where you pay for it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So most of the time , you ’ re paying for two cars to have the use of one , but you look “ green.
” But then sometimes , you run out of juice in the EV , only to find that your spouse has taken the old reliable gas-powered car out for some important errands , and there you are , stranded , on the California freeway , in the heat of a riot-filled , plague-ridden broiling summer of discontent .
They ought to make a movie .
“ Lights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Lights !
Can we have some lights here ?

As everyone outside of the green energy bubble has heard by now, California has given the world yet another great example of how foolish and shortsighted the rush to renewables has been in the golden state.
On top of the usual litany of California disasters: wildfires, earthquakes, mud slides, urban decay, massive homelessness, gang violence, periodic riots, and now plague (COVID-19) we can now add “rolling blackouts” to the attractions offered in beautiful California. And that doesn’t even count the chronically high concentration of bad thespians who routinely infect the state.
Thus it happened that in August of the Year of our Plague 2020, California was forced to institute rolling blackouts, turning the lights out for millions of citizens in August, a sweltering month in much of California. (Having grown up in the San Fernando Valley (oh m’ gawd!) I can attest to that reality first-hand.)
Of course, analysts are “stumped” and “bewildered” as to how this could possibly have happened. After all, despite some 30 years of warnings from energy experts pointing out that wind and solar power are expensive, unreliable sources of power that can’t be stored at any meaningful scale, we were assured that those warnings were just smoke-screens paid for by fossil fuel companies working with climate deniers.
But the sage folks at the California Independent Systems Operator (ISO) apparently do have some clue as to what might have gone wrong:
The California Independent System Operator, the non-profit entity that controls the flow of electricity for 80 percent of California, said it acted after three power plants shut down and wind power production dropped. It also cited a lack of access to electricity from out-of-state sources…We understand rolling outages are not easy, and we do everything we can to avoid them,” said Anne Gonzales, a spokeswoman for California ISO. “The reason for the energy shortfall is high heat and people naturally wanting to stay cool.”
Right. It was hot, and the juice stores were out of juice. Which begs the question, why, exactly, were the energy cupboards so bare?
Therein lies a tale of “hide the reality” of renewable power, which is that when the wind doesn’t blow, and the sun doesn’t shine, you need backup power. You can either generate that with conventional power such as gas or nuclear power, or if your state is rabidly anti fossil fuels, you buy electricity from outside the state while avoiding any mention of how it was produced.
Setting aside that this means sending California rate-payer money to out-of-state power producers (and their jobs and profits), it means that you’ve simply moved your vulnerability to intermittent “renewable energy” out of sight. That’s all fine, as these things go, until you ask this very difficult question: “Might the people selling us our backup power actually need to use it sometimes for their own high-demand weather patterns, that, amazingly enough, heavily overlap with California’s?”
And the answer to that question turns out to be – surprise – YES, because the states around California have something in common – they’re also largely deserts. But apparently the sage heads in California didn’t let this dissuade them:
Last year, the [Public Utilities] commission ordered utilities and retail power suppliers to procure 3,300 megawatts of additional capacity between 2021 and 2023, calling it a “‘least regrets’ strategy, since electricity shortages would most certainly lead to regrets.”
Yes, sweltering to death in the desert heat could be considered regrettable.
Yet the obfuscation continues, with green energy advocates “baffled” about this event, and looking madly for people to blame: incompetent regulators! Enron! (Really, they’re still blaming Enron for this?) Deregulation!
The reality is much more simple. Renewable power is a lot like an electric car. If you have an EV, you need a backup car when the EV power is not enough for the job, so you buy a conventional gasoline car that sits, mostly unused (and hidden from your eco-nut neighbors), in your garage, where you pay for it regardless of how little you use it. So most of the time, you’re paying for two cars to have the use of one, but you look “green.” But then sometimes, you run out of juice in the EV, only to find that your spouse has taken the old reliable gas-powered car out for some important errands, and there you are, stranded, on the California freeway, in the heat of a riot-filled, plague-ridden broiling summer of discontent.
They ought to make a movie. “Lights! Camera! Action!” Lights? Lights! Can we have some lights here?


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-08-28--Republican Convention – It’s a wrap

Republican Convention – It’s a wrap

The quadrennial Republican National Convention ended last evening on the south lawn of the White House with the nomination acceptance speech by President Donald Trump .
The president outlined the stark contrasts on many policy issues between himself and the Democratic presidential nominee , former Vice President Joe Biden .
Among these sharp contrasts are energy and climate policies .
President Trump stressed America ’ s energy independence and support for continued development of traditional fossil fuel sources .
By contrast , Mr. Biden last week , in his acceptance speech that concluded the Democratic National Convention , touched on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change , ” which he called a “ crisis.
” The details of his plans are provided in the Biden-Sanders Unity Task Force Recommendations .
The stagecraft for President Trump ’ s convention speech was unprecedented , and confirmed actor Michael Douglas ’ line spoken in the 1995 film , The American President : “ The White House is the single greatest home court advantage in the modern world.
” Coincidentally enough , this otherwise enjoyable film was a Rob Reiner-directed “ global warming ” propaganda exercise back when the alarmist camp was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the catch-all amorphous moniker , “ climate change.
” Another movie line , “ Global warming is a calamity , the effects of which will be second only to nuclear war , ” was uttered by film co-star Annette Bening ’ s crusading lobbyist character .
This has not exactly panned out in the 25 years since , like so many such planetary assertions made in the 1990 ’ s .
Douglas , playing the president , smirks at the lobbyist ’ s oh-so-serious claim , obviously more interested in her than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Back to the RNC .
President Trump ’ s speech was lengthy and detailed as he touched on a range of issues .
He stuck to the script and avoided ad-libbing .
Some commentators described his delivery as “ flat.
” I thought rather the president ’ s presentation was properly sober and serious , and consistent with his ( debatable ) claim of being “ the most important election in the history of this country.
” Certainly , this election is among the most important .
Elections , is it rightly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even though the determining factor for most voters is the record of the incumbent compared to his opponent .
On the energy front , in particular , President Trump boasted in his speech of securing “ for the first time , American energy independence.
” He recounted his administration ’ s approval of the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines , and withdrawal from the “ unfair and costly Paris Climate Accord.
” This international treaty , which the Obama administration signed and committed the country without constitutionally mandated Senate approval , required @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an attempt to mitigate global warming .
The folly and unfairness of this treaty is well documented by CFACT .
The president later contrasted his energy agenda with his opponent ’ s : Biden has promised to abolish the production of American oil , coal , shale , and natural gas – laying waste to the economies of Pennsylvania , Ohio , Texas , North Dakota , Oklahoma , Colorado , and New Mexico .
Millions of jobs will be lost , and energy prices will soar .
These same policies led to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week .
How can Joe Biden claim to be an “ ally of the Light ” when his own party can ’ t even keep the lights on ?
Interestingly , not once did the president mention Vice Presidential-nominee , Sen. Kamala Harris , Mr. Biden ’ s running mate .
Instead , he presented Biden as a “ Trojan Horse [ for ] wild-eyed Marxists like [ Sen. ] Bernie Sanders and his fellow radicals.
” The Democratic Party establishment very much feared the nomination of Sen. Sanders , and successfully coalesced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the nomination .
President Trump last evening presented Sanders—a better known controversial figure than Sen. Harris—as Biden ’ s de facto running mate .
It is worth a reminder that while President Trump emphasizes continued fossil fuel development and energy independence , it is not as though the federal government will cease providing billions of dollars annually in funding and tax credits for renewable energy research and development ; nor does he propose such .
The U.S. Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency , among many other bureaucracies , are loaded with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and “ renewable ” energy , which will continue if there is a Trump second term .
With both political party conventions now concluded , it is clear that Donald Trump and Joe Biden offer very different directions for energy and climate policies .
The American electorate will ultimately determine that direction , and we will live with the consequences of the election ’ s outcome .

The quadrennial Republican National Convention ended last evening on the south lawn of the White House with the nomination acceptance speech by President Donald Trump. The president outlined the stark contrasts on many policy issues between himself and the Democratic presidential nominee, former Vice President Joe Biden.
Among these sharp contrasts are energy and climate policies. President Trump stressed America’s energy independence and support for continued development of traditional fossil fuel sources.
By contrast, Mr. Biden last week, in his acceptance speech that concluded the Democratic National Convention, touched on his promise to “deal with climate change,” which he called a “crisis.” The details of his plans are provided in the Biden-Sanders Unity Task Force Recommendations.
The stagecraft for President Trump’s convention speech was unprecedented, and confirmed actor Michael Douglas’ line spoken in the 1995 film, The American President: “The White House is the single greatest home court advantage in the modern world.”
Coincidentally enough, this otherwise enjoyable film was a Rob Reiner-directed “global warming” propaganda exercise back when the alarmist camp was still using that label before it changed to the catch-all amorphous moniker, “climate change.” Another movie line, “Global warming is a calamity, the effects of which will be second only to nuclear war,” was uttered by film co-star Annette Bening’s crusading lobbyist character. This has not exactly panned out in the 25 years since, like so many such planetary assertions made in the 1990’s. Douglas, playing the president, smirks at the lobbyist’s oh-so-serious claim, obviously more interested in her than her legislative agenda.
But I digress. Back to the RNC.
President Trump’s speech was lengthy and detailed as he touched on a range of issues. He stuck to the script and avoided ad-libbing. Some commentators described his delivery as “flat.” I thought rather the president’s presentation was properly sober and serious, and consistent with his (debatable) claim of being “the most important election in the history of this country.” Certainly, this election is among the most important.
Elections, is it rightly claimed, are about the future, even though the determining factor for most voters is the record of the incumbent compared to his opponent.
On the energy front, in particular, President Trump boasted in his speech of securing “for the first time, American energy independence.” He recounted his administration’s approval of the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines, and withdrawal from the “unfair and costly Paris Climate Accord.” This international treaty, which the Obama administration signed and committed the country without constitutionally mandated Senate approval, required the U.S. to reduce carbon emissions in an attempt to mitigate global warming. The folly and unfairness of this treaty is well documented by CFACT.
The president later contrasted his energy agenda with his opponent’s:
Biden has promised to abolish the production of American oil, coal, shale, and natural gas – laying waste to the economies of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Colorado, and New Mexico. Millions of jobs will be lost, and energy prices will soar. These same policies led to crippling power outages in California just last week. How can Joe Biden claim to be an “ally of the Light” when his own party can’t even keep the lights on?
Interestingly, not once did the president mention Vice Presidential-nominee, Sen. Kamala Harris, Mr. Biden’s running mate. Instead, he presented Biden as a “Trojan Horse [for] wild-eyed Marxists like [Sen.] Bernie Sanders and his fellow radicals.” The Democratic Party establishment very much feared the nomination of Sen. Sanders, and successfully coalesced behind the former Vice President to win the nomination. President Trump last evening presented Sanders—a better known controversial figure than Sen. Harris—as Biden’s de facto running mate.
It is worth a reminder that while President Trump emphasizes continued fossil fuel development and energy independence, it is not as though the federal government will cease providing billions of dollars annually in funding and tax credits for renewable energy research and development; nor does he propose such. The U.S. Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency, among many other bureaucracies, are loaded with grants and initiatives for “green” and “renewable” energy, which will continue if there is a Trump second term.
With both political party conventions now concluded, it is clear that Donald Trump and Joe Biden offer very different directions for energy and climate policies. The American electorate will ultimately determine that direction, and we will live with the consequences of the election’s outcome.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-08-29--Reuse, recycle, or just reduce solar panel waste?

This question is important , because in today ’ s world , that which is Green is favored even if it is more expensive and less reliable .
We have been taught that solar is Green .
But does it pass the Three R ’ s Test that for 50 years has been the Green standard ?
Legend has it that the mantra “ reduce , reuse , recycle ” entered the collective consciousness somewhere before or after the first national EARTH DAY in 1970 .
Shortly afterward , President Nixon created the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Congress passed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Logic indicates that a Green product should therefore reusable ( with reasonable effectiveness ) or recyclable ( at reasonable cost ) .
If it is neither , then should we not ask whether we just need to reduce its supply ( especially since solar energy is intermittent and still requires backup power ) ?
The EPA website , for example , notes that laptops and cell phones meet Green requirements .
They note that recycling a million laptops saves enough energy to power more than 3,500 U.S. homes for a year .
Also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recycle , we ca recover 35,000 pounds of copper , 772 pounds of silver , 75 pounds of gold , and 33 pounds of palladium .
The justification for massive subsidies in the past is essentially that , that just as parents have traditionally subsidized their children until they reach maturity , the $ 100 billion in subsidies provided to solar ( and wind ) energy have done their job .
America ’ s Power is now urging an end to renewable energy subsidies , based on Energy Information Agency data that claim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fallen by 82 percent in the past decade .
The EIA even claims solar ( wind , too ! )
is cheaper than natural gas ( though , of course , unlike wind and solar , gas plants operate 24/7/365 ) .
Here ’ s a news flash !
Even its strongest advocates admit that economical recycling of solar panels is at least two decades away , while reusing deteriorating solar panels can be likened to giving your teenager a $ 500 car .
In the United States today , discarded solar panels @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they fail the Green requirement that a product be recyclable .
California , however , is in the process of implementing a new law that reclassifies solar panel waste as a subset of hazardous waste known as “ universal waste.
” This will enable generators of solar panel waste an entire year , rather than today ’ s 90 days , to move the waste to an off-site recycling facility .
This again begs the question : Is hazardous waste Green ?
Let ’ s review .
Way back in 2014 , National @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the disposal , but also the manufacture , of solar panels ( especially in China , where environmental standards have been less responsive to public outcry ) generates hazardous waste .
Back then , people were already realizing that recycling would remain an expensive option for at least two decades .
According to one expert cited in the article , who lamented that used up panels were being dumped into landfills , “ Companies that are reporting on a quarterly basis , surviving on razor-thin margins—they ’ re not thinking 20 , 30 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scarcity issue might actually enter the conversation.
” But recycling has always been the dream , and slowly , still expensively , it is becoming a reality .
A 2016 article in the Nikkei Asian Review cited projections from Japan ’ s Environment Ministry that the island nation will need to recycle 100,000 tons of solar panel waste in 2031 and three times that much two years later .
The waste pile will rise to over 800,000 tons by 2040 – equivalent to 110,000 panels per day .
The magnitude of the coming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ partnership with private companies and the state-backed New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization , to seek innovative technologies to lower the costs of recycling of these complex devices .
Yet , while many developed processes for separating the various , diverse components , they all admitted that it will quite a while until there are enough dead panels to lower costs .
When the article switched over to the “ reuse ” question , many readers may have been in for a shock .
First was the admission that ( unlike nuclear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the generating capacity of solar panels declines up to 4 percent every few years .
Thus , the author suggests that the already inefficient ( solar generates almost no energy at night , during storms , or under heavy cloud cover ) panels be pawned off for reuse to Africa where electricity grids do not exist .
After all , Africans ( the author noted ) only need to power a few household appliances to have a much higher standard of living .
And , well , one can gain virtue signaling points @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — to keep Africans from using fossil fuels and developing a REAL power grid — are defective .
But isn ’ t this just saying that reuse is not really an option ?
It is not as though you can just replace the mother board or the battery and the old panel would be anywhere near as good as new .
A recent Reuters article discussing the latest round of California power outages concluded that , “ recent events show California ’ s power grid failed the reliability test , the top priority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s importance to the modern economy.
” The California Independent System Operator ( CAISO ) power grid was unable to meet peak demand over a two-day period this August .
PG & E acknowledged that about 220,000 customers lost power two nights in a row .
What might be the problem ?
My colleague Larry Bell has noted that a new California mandate requires that 60 percent of the state ’ s electricity be supplied by wind and solar by 2030 – just a decade away – and thus power providers have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use .
Reuters market analyst John Kemp concluded that because the output of solar ( and wind ) generators is determined by external factors ( time of day , season , and weather conditions ) , they are not responsive to the needs of the power grid .
Gas-fired power plants are , he says , ideally suited for peak management because they can ramp their output up or down rapidly .
Thus , the insistence of California and other would-be Green-seeking governments makes the power grid less flexible and lowers its reliability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ panels means providing very low quality energy .
Recycling solar panels only becomes economically viable with vastly increased market penetration .
But , greater the reliance on solar ( and wind ) for electricity generation , the greater the likelihood of rolling blackouts , especially in both very hot and very cold weather .
The obvious conclusion is , first , that solar panel waste is not Green , and second , that states need to REDUCE their pie-in-the-sky goals to totally eliminate the use of both fossil fuels and nuclear energy – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not cut the mustard .
See also https : //www.cfact.org/2014/08/21/parasitic-power-solar-energys-five-fatal-flaws/ for another take on why solar energy is not an acceptable Green solution to clean power .

Is solar power truly Green?
This question is important, because in today’s world, that which is Green is favored even if it is more expensive and less reliable. We have been taught that solar is Green. But does it pass the Three R’s Test that for 50 years has been the Green standard?
Legend has it that the mantra “reduce, reuse, recycle” entered the collective consciousness somewhere before or after the first national EARTH DAY in 1970. Shortly afterward, President Nixon created the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Congress passed the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
Logic indicates that a Green product should therefore reusable (with reasonable effectiveness) or recyclable (at reasonable cost). If it is neither, then should we not ask whether we just need to reduce its supply (especially since solar energy is intermittent and still requires backup power)?
The EPA website, for example, notes that laptops and cell phones meet Green requirements. They note that recycling a million laptops saves enough energy to power more than 3,500 U.S. homes for a year. Also, for every million cell phones we recycle, we ca recover 35,000 pounds of copper, 772 pounds of silver, 75 pounds of gold, and 33 pounds of palladium.
The justification for massive subsidies in the past is essentially that, that just as parents have traditionally subsidized their children until they reach maturity, the $100 billion in subsidies provided to solar (and wind) energy have done their job.
America’s Power is now urging an end to renewable energy subsidies, based on Energy Information Agency data that claim the cost of solar photovoltaic capacity has fallen by 82 percent in the past decade. The EIA even claims solar (wind, too!) is cheaper than natural gas (though, of course, unlike wind and solar, gas plants operate 24/7/365).
Is Solar Waste Recyclable Today?
Here’s a news flash! Even its strongest advocates admit that economical recycling of solar panels is at least two decades away, while reusing deteriorating solar panels can be likened to giving your teenager a $500 car. In the United States today, discarded solar panels end up in landfills – which means they fail the Green requirement that a product be recyclable.
California, however, is in the process of implementing a new law that reclassifies solar panel waste as a subset of hazardous waste known as “universal waste.” This will enable generators of solar panel waste an entire year, rather than today’s 90 days, to move the waste to an off-site recycling facility.
This again begs the question: Is hazardous waste Green?
Let’s review. Way back in 2014, National Geographic was lamenting that n ot only the disposal, but also the manufacture, of solar panels (especially in China, where environmental standards have been less responsive to public outcry) generates hazardous waste. Back then, people were already realizing that recycling would remain an expensive option for at least two decades.
According to one expert cited in the article, who lamented that used up panels were being dumped into landfills, “Companies that are reporting on a quarterly basis, surviving on razor-thin margins—they’re not thinking 20, 30 years down the road, where the scarcity issue might actually enter the conversation.”
But recycling has always been the dream, and slowly, still expensively, it is becoming a reality. A 2016 article in the Nikkei Asian Review cited projections from Japan’s Environment Ministry that the island nation will need to recycle 100,000 tons of solar panel waste in 2031 and three times that much two years later. The waste pile will rise to over 800,000 tons by 2040 – equivalent to 110,000 panels per day.
The magnitude of the coming panel-demic caused the Japanese government, in partnership with private companies and the state-backed New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization, to seek innovative technologies to lower the costs of recycling of these complex devices. Yet, while many developed processes for separating the various, diverse components, they all admitted that it will quite a while until there are enough dead panels to lower costs.
Are Solar Panels Reusable?
When the article switched over to the “reuse” question, many readers may have been in for a shock. First was the admission that (unlike nuclear and fossil fuel power plants), the generating capacity of solar panels declines up to 4 percent every few years.
Thus, the author suggests that the already inefficient (solar generates almost no energy at night, during storms, or under heavy cloud cover) panels be pawned off for reuse to Africa where electricity grids do not exist.
After all, Africans (the author noted) only need to power a few household appliances to have a much higher standard of living. And, well, one can gain virtue signaling points even if the panels you are sending — to keep Africans from using fossil fuels and developing a REAL power grid — are defective.
But isn’t this just saying that reuse is not really an option? It is not as though you can just replace the mother board or the battery and the old panel would be anywhere near as good as new.
The Third R
A recent Reuters article discussing the latest round of California power outages concluded that, “recent events show California’s power grid failed the reliability test, the top priority for suppliers and grid operators given electricity’s importance to the modern economy.”
The California Independent System Operator (CAISO) power grid was unable to meet peak demand over a two-day period this August. PG&E acknowledged that about 220,000 customers lost power two nights in a row. What might be the problem?
My colleague Larry Bell has noted that a new California mandate requires that 60 percent of the state’s electricity be supplied by wind and solar by 2030 – just a decade away – and thus power providers have already begun cutting back on fossil fuel use.
Reuters market analyst John Kemp concluded that because the output of solar (and wind) generators is determined by external factors (time of day, season, and weather conditions), they are not responsive to the needs of the power grid. Gas-fired power plants are, he says, ideally suited for peak management because they can ramp their output up or down rapidly.
Thus, the insistence of California and other would-be Green-seeking governments makes the power grid less flexible and lowers its reliability.
To recap, reusing deteriorating solar panels means providing very low quality energy. Recycling solar panels only becomes economically viable with vastly increased market penetration. Yet, greater the reliance on solar (and wind) for electricity generation, the greater the likelihood of rolling blackouts, especially in both very hot and very cold weather.
The obvious conclusion is, first, that solar panel waste is not Green, and second, that states need to REDUCE their pie-in-the-sky goals to totally eliminate the use of both fossil fuels and nuclear energy – because solar (and wind) cannot cut the mustard.
See also https://www.cfact.org/2014/08/21/parasitic-power-solar-energys-five-fatal-flaws/ for another take on why solar energy is not an acceptable Green solution to clean power.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-08-29--Post Laura airing of grievances

Post Laura airing of grievances

First of all , I am thankful for people on the other side of the “ phony ” climate war as I call this , since many of the people involved have no idea what war really is , but fancy themselves as some kind of warrior out to save the planet .
The chance to rebut them is great cause it gives me a chance to expose their ignorance of facts and show the reader the why ’ s behind the what that are perfectly natural , and have occurred before .
But remember , there are some honest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ done great work and continue to do so .
I want that made clear .
I read what they say , I want to know what they say , and I have come to the conclusion that it ’ s a matter of attribution ( they put too much stock into co2 as the climate control knob IMO , rather than all the other natural drivers that have controlled the climate since known records began ) , and then adaptation to all this , no matter what the cause .
But there is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the issue as I , who really have little knowledge of past weather and reveal that every time they say something about this , This is the bandwagon agenda driven train that see this as a weapon to eliminate the American pursuit of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness .
In some ways , this reprint from twitchy is a great classic examples Now first of all , in reality there were no 2 hurricane hits .
Marco fell apart completely ( explain that , was it climate change ? )
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ WE OUTLINED IN APRIL AND SAID TO LOOK OUT FOR THIS YEAR , and said so with the map below , the tendency this year , for storms to intensify close to the US .
This impact map came out on April 7 , The yellow dots are tropical storm landfalls the red hurricanes , the blue , the recent major hurricane Laura .
You can see where we were taking the storms that would pile up the ACE index .
Do you think for one second , the people pushing the climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to simple linkage to previous seasons and what has so far been a correct assessment of the natural drivers to cause this , back in April ?
Anyone can say 20 storms or 10 storms or whatever , but where are they going to go ?
This is what my job is because I have people that pay me to give them an edge , so making willy nilly statements about climate change causing something is not of interest to them , what is of interest to them are the metrics that affect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saw no mention from these warriors of the Madden Julian Oscillation ’ s effect on all this .
Do they realize that with the exception of Isaias all of the storms this year have hit in phases 8,1,2 or 3 ?
Even Isaias developed in 3 .
If its just “ warm water ” then why is the western Pacific ( even though a major typhoon is going to hit soon there ) at 25 % of average and that is where over 50 % of the global tropical cyclone activity occurs !
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ than average Atlantic season and we knew both were on the the table .
Is that not a good thing that multiple major typhoons have not devastated the far east yet ?
Does the person tweeting this know that Harvey , Michael , and Laura all developed in the same overall pattern of the MJO ( phase 2 ) and that well before , there were people forecasting these to be majors , when they were weak and no one was paying attention ?
.
Does the person understand that storms like Camille @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intensified rapidly within 2 days of land , and they are number 2 and number 1 as far as landfall intensity goes ?
.
So we did not have 2 hurricanes hit the gulf in a period of a couple of days , 1 was bad enough but it took 11 days for Laura to finally get to where it could “ explode ” .
Why not before if all this warm water is causing all this mayhem ?
And why , thru this writing , are we nearing the end of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the US on record ?
2 in the gulf at once ?
In 1933 , A major hurricane hit S FLA on Sept 4 , and 18 hours later another one hit South Texas .
Just look at this map , This is hard to believe even happened .
TWO MAJORS !
In 1955 2 hurricanes , Connie and Diane hit the NC coast within 5 days of each other .
At last look , that is a smaller area further north than the gulf coast .
The year before .
2 in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is Carol early afternoon Aug 31 over New England after driving 12 feet of water into Providence Rhode Island Here is Edna , on September 11th But I am grateful for these people , for in rebuttals like this , I also get to explain the why ’ s behind it .
My take is that there are aspects of the warming that are beneficial because the warming is distorted , no matter what the cause , and its leading to a ) less long tracked storms reaching the US at their peak @ @ @ @ @ @ @ patterns spreading out the heat , b ) Something like we are seeing the WPAC , that even though we are getting a big typhoon now , the season has been amazingly quiet ( the east PAC is below average also , C ) The MJO is more amplified which as a forecast tool , means we are getting better hints in the longer term .
Already we are forecasting a warm winter in the east and south because of where we think the MJO will be .
This very important tool is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a side benefit is if its more amplified , we can link it better BTW If we are thinking globally , are not things like the lack of devastating typhoons in repetitive fashion , or even warm winters though snow lovers hate it , good things ?
Look at the economic hits and misery both things cause .
Really I keep hearing global this and global that , well if you are shut down in one place , another picks it up and the crucial ACE index , the metric by which we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ UP .
However , there are grievances that people on my side of the AGW issue are not going to like .
I am tired of people assuming the National hurricane center is hyping every event .
I have never seen them make a forecast that is not an objective evaluation of the situation in front of them .
I do understand why , given NOAA and NASA statements on climate change , people would think their agencies would follow along but I have seen no evidence of that in the forecasting , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I am an issue by issue person , I have disagreed with them before .
So when I hear some of the criticism when something is not as bad , and then I hear its because of an agenda , I have to speak up .
Lets say this evil conspiracy to hype everything is worth consideration .
What good does it do , when it doesn ’ t turn out that way ?
This is not a leftist zealot just saying something they nothing about , and just gets the headlines no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrong .
( mainly cause the media picks up on it marches along with it ) NHC has people that live eat and breathe this stuff and given I am the same way , and even older than most of the people working there , I have a good idea on what drives them to nail forecasts , and it is not a political agenda .
Granted , for the people that follow the merchants of manmade mayhem of climate change , they just go their own way , don ’ t say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the first grievance , cause I do call them out ) when they are wrong , and simply get their point out , no matter what and no calls them on it .
If you do call them out , you are demonized .
But if you are forecasting for a living , or you are not only in charge of hitting a forecast but part of the necessary safety that that provides for the common security of the nation , there is no way you want a forecast to be wrong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surge is being used as an example of this .
The forecast was made based on the data , model output and past storms of the same intensity , When it fell short , the howls started , which was interesting to me given I don ’ t know too many people that if 11-14 feet of water , which it wound up being , and then pile on top of that waves to 50 feet on the coast , got caught , would survive .
Just let me assure you , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who has been a thorn in the side of NHC for many years but has a lot of respect for that organization and just thinks that after all these years and the freedoms we are still allowed , I can disagree from time to time , THERE IS NO CLIMATE CHANGE BIAS IN THE NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER IN THEIR FORECASTS .
They are above board , they want to nail it , just like I do , and I don ’ t let my ideas on that get in the way , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there are honest people on the other side of the issue .
I don ’ t think people attacking the many great people on my side of the issue are right in doing that .
But I also know there are people I don ’ t agree with that I have always found to be above board , on the other side , again mainly people that have to make the right call in what they do .
So that is far different from the opening example , and I could offer countless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for their own agenda .
So disagree with the hurricane center or storm prediction center or whoever all you want , but their motives are to nail the forecast .
I have watched this since I was a kid and the bottom line is no one wants to be wrong , especially if bias is what does it .
If I downplay an event it is because of what I see .
( My bias has been the other way , quite frankly I love the challenge of extreme events the further out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sayings “ Enjoy the weather it ’ s the only weather you got ” , and my mission statement , “ I look for trouble and supply the forecast for it ” ) So when I see jibberish with no basis in knowledge of what has happened and what is perfectly capable of happening .
I am going to say something Now that I have gotten that off my chest , though early , Happy Festivus everyone

First of all, I am thankful for people on the other side of the “phony” climate war as I call this, since many of the people involved have no idea what war really is. Yet fancy themselves as some kind of warrior out to save the planet. The chance to rebut them is great cause affording me a chance to expose their ignorance of facts and show the reader the why’s behind the what. Of which are perfectly natural, and have occurred before.
But remember, there are some honest brokers on the other side who have done great work and continue to do so. I want that made clear. I read what they say, I want to know what they say, and I have come to the conclusion that it’s a matter of attribution. (They put too much stock into CO2 as the climate control knob IMO, rather than all the other natural drivers that have controlled the climate since known records began.) Next you see the adaptation to all this, no matter what the cause.
There is a another group on the opposite side of the issue as I, who really have little knowledge of past weather and reveal that every time they say something about this. This is the bandwagon agenda driven train that see this as a weapon to eliminate the American pursuit of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In some ways, this reprint from twitchy is a great classic examples:
https://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2020/08/22/science-aoc-uses-possibility-of-2-hurricanes-in-gulf-at-same-time-to-mock-those-who-think-green-new-deal-goes-too-far/
Now first of all, in reality there were no 2 hurricane hits. Marco fell apart completely (explain that, was it climate change?). Laura was in the EXACT PATTERN WE OUTLINED IN APRIL AND SAID TO LOOK OUT FOR THIS YEAR. We said so with the map below, the tendency this year, for storms to intensify close to the US. This impact map came out on April 7. The yellow dots are tropical storm landfalls, the red hurricanes, the blue, the recent major hurricane Laura. You can see where we were taking the storms that would pile up the ACE index.
Do you think for one second, the people pushing the climate change missive had any idea, due to simple linkage to previous seasons and what has so far been a correct assessment of the natural drivers to cause this, back in April? Anyone can say 20 storms or 10 storms or whatever, but where are they going to go? This is what my job is because I have people that pay me to give them an edge, so making willy nilly statements about climate change causing something is not of interest to them, what is of interest to them are the metrics that affect their business.
In addition, I saw no mention from these warriors of the Madden Julian Oscillation’s effect on all this. Do they realize that with the exception of Isaias all of the storms this year have hit in phases 8, 1, 2 or 3?
Even Isaias developed in 3. If its just “warm water” then why is the western Pacific (even though a major typhoon is going to hit soon there) at 25% of average and that is where over 50% of the global tropical cyclone activity occurs?! That is also correlated with a higher than average Atlantic season and we knew both were on the the table. Isn’t it a good thing that multiple major typhoons have not devastated the far East yet? Does the person tweeting this know that Harvey, Michael, and Laura all developed in the same overall pattern of the MJO (phase 2) and that well before, there were people forecasting these to be majors, when they were weak and no one was paying attention?. Does the person understand that storms like Camille and the 1935 Labor Day hurricane all intensified rapidly within 2 days of land, and they are number 2 and number 1 as far as landfall intensity goes?.
So we did not have 2 hurricanes hit the gulf in a period of a couple of days, 1 was bad enough but it took 11 days for Laura to finally get to where it could “explode”. Why not before, if all this warm water is causing this mayhem? And why, thru this writing, are we nearing the end of a decade with the least major hits on the US on record? 2 in the Gulf at once? In 1933, a major hurricane hit S FLA on Sept 4, and 18 hours later another one hit South Texas. Just look at this map, This is hard to believe even happened.
TWO MAJORS! In 1955 2 hurricanes, Connie and Diane hit the NC coast within 5 days of each other.
Aug 12, 1955 1:30 A.M.
Aug 17, 1955 1:30 A.M.
At last look, that is a smaller area further north than the Gulf coast.
The year before. 2 in New England, Carol Aug 31st
Here is Carol early afternoon Aug 31 over New England after driving 12 feet of water into Providence Rhode Island
But I am grateful for these people, for in rebuttals like this, I also get to explain the why’s behind it. My take is that there are aspects of the warming that are beneficial because the warming is distorted, no matter what the cause, and its leading to a) less long tracked storms reaching the US at their peak likely due to changes in global pressure patterns spreading out the heat, b) Something like we are seeing the WPAC, that even though we are getting a big typhoon now, the season has been amazingly quiet (the east PAC is below average also, C) The MJO is more amplified which as a forecast tool, means we are getting better hints in the longer term. Already we are forecasting a warm winter in the east and south because of where we think the MJO will be. This very important tool is a key to making better forecasts and a side benefit is if its more amplified, it can be better linked.
BTW if we are thinking globally, are not things like the lack of devastating typhoons in repetitive fashion, or even warm winters though snow lovers hate it, good things? Look at the economic hits and misery both things cause. Really I keep hearing global this and global that, well if you are shut down in one place, another picks it up and the crucial ACE index, the metric by which we measure global tropical activity IS NOT GOING UP.
However, there are grievances that people on my side of the AGW issue are not going to like. I am tired of people assuming the National Hurricane Center is hyping every event. I have never seen them make a forecast that is not an objective evaluation of the situation in front of them. I do understand why, given NOAA and NASA statements on climate change, people would think their agencies would follow along but I have seen no evidence of that in the forecasting, and as most people know, given I am an issue by issue person. I have disagreed with them before. So when I hear some of the criticism when something is not as bad, and then I hear its because of an agenda, I have to speak up.
Lets say this evil conspiracy to hype everything is worth consideration. What good does it do, when it doesn’t turn out that way? This is not a leftist zealot just saying something they nothing about, and just gets the headlines no one calls them on when they are wrong. (Mainly because the media picks it up and run with it) NHC has people that live eat and breathe this stuff and given I am the same way. Even older than most of the people working there, I have a good idea on what drives them to nail forecasts, and it is not a political agenda.
Granted, for the people that follow the merchants of manmade mayhem of climate change, they just go their own way, don’t say boo (Which is why this opened with the first grievance, cause I do call them out) when they are wrong. They simply get their point out, no matter what and no calls them on it. If you do call them out, you are demonized. But if you are forecasting for a living, or you are not only in charge of hitting a forecast but part of the necessary safety that that provides for the common security of the nation, there is no way you want a forecast to be wrong.
The idea of an unsurvivable storm surge is being used as an example of this. The forecast was made based on the data, model output and past storms of the same intensity. When it fell short, the howls started, which was interesting to me given I don’t know too many people that if 11-14 feet of water, which it wound up being, and then pile on top of that waves to 50 feet on the coast, got caught, would survive. Just let me assure you, and this is from someone, me, who has been a thorn in the side of NHC for many years but has a lot of respect for that organization and just thinks that after all these years and the freedoms we are still allowed, I can disagree from time to time.
THERE IS NO CLIMATE CHANGE BIAS IN THE NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER IN THEIR FORECASTS. They are above board, they want to nail it, just like I do, and I don’t let my ideas on that get in the way, and neither do they.
Above all, there are honest people on the other side of the issue. I don’t think people attacking the many great people on my side of the issue are right in doing that. But I also know there are people I don’t agree with that I have always found to be above board, on the other side, again mainly people that have to make the right call in what they do. So that is far different from the opening example, and I could offer countless more, that is simply using this for their own agenda.
So disagree with the hurricane center or storm prediction center or whoever you want, but their motives are to nail the forecast. I have watched this since I was a kid and the bottom line is no one wants to be wrong, especially if bias is what does it. If I downplay an event, it is because of what I see. (My bias has been the other way, quite frankly I love the challenge of extreme events the further out, the better. I have 2 sayings “Enjoy the weather it’s the only weather you got”, and my mission statement, “I look for trouble and supply the forecast for it”) So when I see jibberish with no basis in knowledge of what has happened and what is perfectly capable of happening. I am going to say something.
Now that I have gotten that off my chest, though early, Happy Festivus everyone!


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-08-30--Climate elite say thee, not me, must $acrifice for the planet

The rich are different from you and me , as the saying goes .
They have money .
The super-rich have even more .
Some of the wealthiest people on the planet are driving and funding the climate change political agenda for more electric cars , wind turbines and solar panels , and eradication of nuclear energy and fossil fuels .
Their message is clear : America and the world must reduce their reliance on traditional energy sources and adapt in order to save the planet .
That means higher costs , less energy consumption and reduced living standards .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate policies , with all their negative ramifications , is that none of them are leading by example , which calls into question their own sincerity and the validity of their cause .
One example among many is Michael Bloomberg , the successful former three-term mayor of New York City and spectacularly unsuccessful presidential candidate .
Mr. Bloomberg is worth about $ 55 billion .
His climate agenda includes elimination of the coal industry in the United States , which remains the linchpin employer for many working class communities .
The larger fossil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million jobs , including many union jobs , which face major contraction if climate policies take effect .
Jeff Bezos , the head of the Amazon Corporation , also embraces the climate change dogma and has committed $ 10 billion of his own money to address it , somehow .
This is serious cash , yet he will have plenty left over since he just became the first human to reach the $ 200 billion threshold of personal wealth ; this , after his record-shattering recent divorce settlement with the former Mrs. Bezos @ @ @ @ @ @ @ countries have a gross domestic product less than Mr. Bezos ’ proverbial bank account , which relatively speaking may someday surpass the oil Titan himself , John D. Rockefeller , Sr. Former oil investor and also failed presidential candidate , Tom Steyer , is another multi-million dollar donor to climate change causes and supplicant politicians .
Though a billionaire , he is a relative pauper compared to Messrs. Bloomberg and Bezos , each of whom owns more homes than most people have pairs of shoes .
Let ’ s not overlook the British @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Charles and sort-of Prince Harry , recently Duke of Beverly Hills and now Santa Barbara ’ s newest resident .
Both of them often virtue-signal how concerned they are about the urgency of climate change while they live like , well … royalty .
About the only time royals “ go green ” is when one of them marries or is coronated .
Final mention has to be the global warming alarmist-in-chief , Al Gore .
The former vice president turned centi-millionaire has a three-decade history of vapid pronouncements and snake-oil climate predictions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into hiding long ago .
Rather than exile , he shamelessly screeches on , accumulates his fortune , and remains impervious as ever to his ice-melting avalanche of hypocrisy and fabrication .
The list of wealthy individuals who are funding global warming causes and politicians , and urging enactment of climate policies , is a long one , including lesser known millionaires and billionaires from Wall Street , Silicon Valley and Hollywood .
No doubt many , if not all , such people really believe something is occurring with Earth ’ s climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .
This begs the question : how strongly do any of these high-consumption climate adherents actually believe in the planet ’ s doomsday from carbon emissions ?
For example , has Mike Bloomberg or Jeff Bezos contemplated razing one or more of their mega-mansions into open space or mothballing their private jets ?
It would be akin the average person losing a 20-dollar bill in a shopping mall .
Instead , they have piled up real estate castles with all the fossil fuel energy and excavation needed to sustain them , while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fighting ” climate change .
Their opulence betrays them .
I don ’ t begrudge any of these people amassing fortunes .
America remains a mostly free country , and freedom includes the right to build wealth as large as your talents , initiative , labor and luck will take you .
It is nonetheless distasteful in the extreme for highly affluent people to fund a dubious agenda that threatens the livelihoods of middle income , working class , and poor people , especially in the developing world , who are heavily dependent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , preening rich people can easily be noticed .
It would be newsworthy and impactful if some of them announced they were eschewing their carbon-tonnage lifestyles to fight climate change , and demanded the same from their fellow travelers .
In a bygone era , steel mogul Andrew Carnegie donated about 90 percent of his enormous wealth .
His present-day peers should follow suit .
Don ’ t bet the ranch or shoe collection that any such thing will occur .
The pervasive pattern of climate tycoons is akin to billionaire investor Warren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ IRS over prior-year unpaid taxes .
Virtue signaling from the wealthy and corporate chieftains by supporting tax hikes and climate change policies is cheap and easy .
It costs them a pittance , and they sacrifice nothing .
Not so for everyone else .

The rich are different from you and me, as the saying goes. They have money. The super-rich have even more.
Some of the wealthiest people on the planet are driving and funding the climate change political agenda for more electric cars, wind turbines and solar panels, and eradication of nuclear energy and fossil fuels. Their message is clear: America and the world must reduce their reliance on traditional energy sources and adapt in order to save the planet. That means higher costs, less energy consumption and reduced living standards.
The problem with such people advocating these climate policies, with all their negative ramifications, is that none of them are leading by example, which calls into question their own sincerity and the validity of their cause.
One example among many is Michael Bloomberg, the successful former three-term mayor of New York City and spectacularly unsuccessful presidential candidate. Mr. Bloomberg is worth about $55 billion. His climate agenda includes elimination of the coal industry in the United States, which remains the linchpin employer for many working class communities.
The larger fossil fuel industry in America comprises nearly five million jobs, including many union jobs, which face major contraction if climate policies take effect.
Jeff Bezos, the head of the Amazon Corporation, also embraces the climate change dogma and has committed $10 billion of his own money to address it, somehow. This is serious cash, yet he will have plenty left over since he just became the first human to reach the $200 billion threshold of personal wealth; this, after his record-shattering recent divorce settlement with the former Mrs. Bezos. Most of the world’s countries have a gross domestic product less than Mr. Bezos’ proverbial bank account, which relatively speaking may someday surpass the oil Titan himself, John D. Rockefeller, Sr.
Former oil investor and also failed presidential candidate, Tom Steyer, is another multi-million dollar donor to climate change causes and supplicant politicians. Though a billionaire, he is a relative pauper compared to Messrs. Bloomberg and Bezos, each of whom owns more homes than most people have pairs of shoes.
Let’s not overlook the British House of Windsor, specifically, Prince Charles and sort-of Prince Harry, recently Duke of Beverly Hills and now Santa Barbara’s newest resident. Both of them often virtue-signal how concerned they are about the urgency of climate change while they live like, well … royalty. About the only time royals “go green” is when one of them marries or is coronated.
Final mention has to be the global warming alarmist-in-chief, Al Gore. The former vice president turned centi-millionaire has a three-decade history of vapid pronouncements and snake-oil climate predictions gone bust that should have sent him into hiding long ago. Rather than exile, he shamelessly screeches on, accumulates his fortune, and remains impervious as ever to his ice-melting avalanche of hypocrisy and fabrication.
The list of wealthy individuals who are funding global warming causes and politicians, and urging enactment of climate policies, is a long one, including lesser known millionaires and billionaires from Wall Street, Silicon Valley and Hollywood. No doubt many, if not all, such people really believe something is occurring with Earth’s climate such that reduced carbon emissions would alter it.
This begs the question: how strongly do any of these high-consumption climate adherents actually believe in the planet’s doomsday from carbon emissions? For example, has Mike Bloomberg or Jeff Bezos contemplated razing one or more of their mega-mansions into open space or mothballing their private jets? It would be akin the average person losing a 20-dollar bill in a shopping mall. Instead, they have piled up real estate castles with all the fossil fuel energy and excavation needed to sustain them, while doubling down on their commitment to “fighting” climate change. Their opulence betrays them.
I don’t begrudge any of these people amassing fortunes. America remains a mostly free country, and freedom includes the right to build wealth as large as your talents, initiative, labor and luck will take you. It is nonetheless distasteful in the extreme for highly affluent people to fund a dubious agenda that threatens the livelihoods of middle income, working class, and poor people, especially in the developing world, who are heavily dependent on affordable, reliable energy.
High-profile, preening rich people can easily be noticed. It would be newsworthy and impactful if some of them announced they were eschewing their carbon-tonnage lifestyles to fight climate change, and demanded the same from their fellow travelers. In a bygone era, steel mogul Andrew Carnegie donated about 90 percent of his enormous wealth. His present-day peers should follow suit.
Don’t bet the ranch or shoe collection that any such thing will occur. The pervasive pattern of climate tycoons is akin to billionaire investor Warren Buffett supporting tax increases while fighting the IRS over prior-year unpaid taxes.
Virtue signaling from the wealthy and corporate chieftains by supporting tax hikes and climate change policies is cheap and easy. It costs them a pittance, and they sacrifice nothing. Not so for everyone else.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-08-31--A simplified global warming tutorial: Who are we kidding? Judy Collins was right

If climate scientists used a simpler vocabulary when explaining to the public about adding carbon dioxide and methane to the atmosphere , they would have a harder time scaring them .
Our goal is to undermine the resulting fear by making the science of climate change simple and easy to understand , so we are going to have a simple discussion about it .
And we are starting with the question ; what is Radiative Forcing .
Well , it is simply the difference between how much sunlight is absorbed by the Earth during the day and how much of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Radiative forcing is calculated in watts per square meter of the Earth ( the same watts that measure your light bulbs intensity ) .
Typically , both values are the same , and the Earth ’ s temperature is stable .
Changes to this balance are what causes the temperature to rise or fall .
If the changes occur over long periods , we call it climate change .
Positive radiation forcing means the Earth is not sending as much energy back to space as it receives from the sun .
Climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ carbon dioxide and methane into our atmosphere is causing the Earth to send less heat energy back to space at night than it gets from the sun during the daytime , hence warming .
That may be true , but this change is so small it can not be measured , so it might just as well be called ZERO , and we have nothing to fear .
CO2 and methane levels have increased a great deal from the benchmark “ the pre-industrial year ” 1755 .
Since 1755 CO2 increased from 280 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % ) and methane from about 0.75 PPM to about 1.8 PPM ( +140 % ) .
From figure 1 ( ai ) , we also see that these volume increases have also increased their radiative forcing ; CO2 by about 1.8 Watts/m2 and methane by about 0.6 w/m2 .
On a molecule , by molecule basis , methane is about 85ii times more powerful , but because there is so much more CO2 in the atmosphere , methane ’ s importance is greatly diminished .
The quantities of CO2 and methane we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plus human-made sources .
Natural sources include bio-decomposition , volcanoes , coal , the oceans , and especially gas deposits .
The human-contribution is only a few percent .
In figure 2 , iii we see that both methane and CO2 are logarithmic functions , meaning as the volumes keep increasing , the incrementally added energy diminishes , eventually reaching their asymptotic limits .
This declining relationship is best illustrated in Figure 3iv in greater detail and is based on the ideal condition of a transparent atmosphere .
For example , the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but the next 100 PPM , going from 100 to 200 PPM , generates only 6 Watts/m2 ( 28-22 ) , and going from 200 to 300 PPM generates only 2 Watts/m2 .
( 30-28 ) .
By the time we reach about 1,000 PPM , the energy tops out at about 37-38 Watts/m2 .
At about 1,000 PPM , adding more CO2 essentially generates no additional measurable energy .
Furthering our explanation of Radiative Forcing , which we said is a measure of energy , stated in watts per square meter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for one second on a flat surface , w/m2 .
The goal is not to let human activities interfere with the natural balance of the amount of solar energy coming to Earth , how much exits , or how long the Earth holds on to it before it escapes to space .
For example , water va por , clouds , CO2 , methane , and other gases , capture and hold some of this heat for a time , like a greenhouse .
But especially note at this point , the greenhouse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Earth .
Without it , the Earth would be 86 degrees F colder and a lifeless ice ball .
Without CO2 , plants can not manufacture sugars , the first step for all food and life on Earth .
There are two benchmark ways to measure this energy ; first , is the amount coming from the sun to the Earth .
It is measured by an imaginary mirror “ positioned ” over Earth ’ s equator , about 500 Kilometers up and facing squarely at the sun .
It usually amounts to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it to what is the Earth ’ s average sun energy input to be about 341 watts/m sq .
About 30 % of this energy is immediately reflected back to space , mostly by the clouds .
The rest is absorbed and heats the Earth , then cools at night by radiating this heat/energy up , escaping towards space .
But one type of radiation , called short wave Infrared , is captured by the greenhouse gases and water vapor , and clouds are holding on to it for a time .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how much of this small quantity of radiation energy is absorbed , and how long it ’ s held before finally escaping to space .
In Figure 2 , from a visual comparison between CO2 and methane , it appears that methane is slightly behind CO2 on their respective saturation curves .
This leads us to estimate that methane might saturate at about 0.8 to 0.9 Watts/m2 at about 2.0 PPM .
So , no matter how much more CO2 and Methane we add to the atmosphere , combined , they will not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Watts/m2 or representing an increase of about 0.147 % from where we are today at baseline 341 Watts/m .
Meaning ; if the average “ Global ” temperature in your back yard today is 60.00 0 F , these gases will not increase the temperature by more than 0.1 to 0.20 F no matter that we double them and double them again and again .
Enjoy your burgers and SUV ’ s ; these gases are that inconsequential .
Now WHERE the methane and CO2 produce excess heat energy , and thus the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Figure 4 provides some interesting information.v The blue line shows where the CO2 heat is added in the atmosphere as a function of altitude .
The red dashed line represents the temperature change from the doubling of the atmospheric CO2 from 420 PPM to 840 PPM .
( We also use CO2 here as a proxy for methane because , with methane , the change in temperatures would not be noticeable . )
This red line shows a tiny increase in atmospheric tropospheric temperature from sea level to 11-15 kilometers up .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ temperatures above that .
This intuitively makes sense .
If we apply more of this limited amount of heat in the lower levels , there would be less to apply in the upper levels .
More importantly , this incremental heat seems to stay in the lower levels and does not mix well at the higher levels until it finally starts to exit the Earth ’ s atmosphere and to reestablish thermal equilibrium .
The IPCC and climate change alarmists are happy to go with this scenario since 99 % of humanity and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They are correct , and this is the climate change reality we care about .
Even thermodynamic experts are happy that no energy has magically been created , just spread around differently .
College professors are happy and fold it into their climate models , and the press and politicians are happy .
Life is good .
But then reality starts leaking through the media filters , with questions raised like ; what is happening with water vapor and the water in the clouds while all the above temperature changes are happening and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , why are the climate models consistently overstating temperatures compared to the unadulterated satellite and balloon recorded temperatures ; Figure 5 ?
It ’ s all about clouds .
It ’ s clouds .
There is evidence that water vapor and water in the clouds account for 70 % to 95 % of all radiative forcing , which induces global warming .
There is also ample data and evidence that higher global temperatures will cause an increase in water vapor in the atmosphere .
Alarmists jump on this ; A-HA , more water @ @ @ @ @ @ @ call it a positive feedback loop .
They claim that the increased greenhouse gases and temperatures trigger an increase in water vapor , thereby amplifying the already increased temperature .
Is it proof of the positive feedback loop , thus make global warming even worse and happening faster ?
Back to basics .
But where are the facts ?
As Dr. Happer points out in the referenced paper , it ’ s all about water vapors and how little scientists know about it .
Dr. Richard Lindzen and Dr. Judith Curry , both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ IPCC team , certainly support this position .
So , where are the facts and what we can infer from them ?
There is evidence that water vapor accounts from 70 % to 95 % of all radiative f orcing induced global warming .
There is also data and evidence that higher global temperatures will cause an increase in water vapor in the atmosphere .
But , in our aerosol-rich atmosphere , more water vapor also means more , and denser , and bigger clouds , especially in the lower troposphere where most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That means more of the sun ’ s energy is reflected in outer space , and less solar heat is left to warm the air , lands , and seas and less to radiate back up .
Maybe the assumed 30 % of the sun ’ s energy reflected by the air and clouds increases to 31 % or 34 % or some other number ?
Secondly , in the atmosphere , when water vapor transitions from its gaseous state to liquid water or ice crystals , it releases significant amounts of heat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ space , thereby further cooling the troposphere .
Could these combined effects actually cause a net cooling of the planet ?
Trouble is scientists do not know how to calculate the impact of all these changes and their dynamics accurately .
While the climate change alarmists are happy to credit the global energy budget with the increased radiative forcing , do they debit the global energy budget by the increased albedo and the increase in water vapor condensation cooling , and if so , how and with what accuracy ?
Is this why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
We don ’ t know clouds —- aat — all .
Going back to the referenced Dr. Happer article , it probably all balances out , and the laws of thermodynamics are safe , at least for now .
We do not expect layman , untrained in science , too fully understand our simplification of carbon dioxide ’ s role in retaining a little extra heat in our atmosphere .
Our ultimate goal is to show how complex it is and how we do not even understand the system ( especially the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ serious stab at it .
That , however , will not ever stop climate scientists from trying or climate alarmists from trying to scare the public into allowing them to run our lives .
Portions of this article are excerpted from the 2020 book A HITCHHIKERS 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 .

If climate scientists used a simpler vocabulary when explaining to the public about adding carbon dioxide and methane to the atmosphere, they would have a harder time scaring them.
Our goal is to undermine the resulting fear by making the science of climate change simple and easy to understand, so we are going to have a simple discussion about it. And we are starting with the question; what is Radiative Forcing. Well, it is simply the difference between how much sunlight is absorbed by the Earth during the day and how much of it flows back to space at night. Radiative forcing is calculated in watts per square meter of the Earth (the same watts that measure your light bulbs intensity). Typically, both values are the same, and the Earth’s temperature is stable. Changes to this balance are what causes the temperature to rise or fall. If the changes occur over long periods, we call it climate change. Positive radiation forcing means the Earth is not sending as much energy back to space as it receives from the sun. Climate alarmists are claiming that the addition of carbon dioxide and methane into our atmosphere is causing the Earth to send less heat energy back to space at night than it gets from the sun during the daytime, hence warming. That may be true, but this change is so small it cannot be measured, so it might just as well be called ZERO, and we have nothing to fear.
CO2 and methane levels have increased a great deal from the benchmark “the pre-industrial year” 1755 . Since 1755 CO2 increased from 280 PPM to about 420 PPM (+50%) and methane from about 0.75 PPM to about 1.8 PPM (+140%). From figure 1(ai), we also see that these volume increases have also increased their radiative forcing; CO2 by about 1.8 Watts/m2 and methane by about 0.6 w/m2. On a molecule, by molecule basis, methane is about 85ii times more powerful, but because there is so much more CO2 in the atmosphere, methane’s importance is greatly diminished.
The quantities of CO2 and methane we are discussing is the total of nature-made plus human-made sources. Natural sources include bio-decomposition, volcanoes, coal, the oceans, and especially gas deposits. The human-contribution is only a few percent.
In Figure 2,iii we see that both methane and CO2 are logarithmic functions, meaning as the volumes keep increasing, the incrementally added energy diminishes, eventually reaching their asymptotic limits. This declining relationship is best illustrated in Figure 3iv in greater detail and is based on the ideal condition of a transparent atmosphere. For example, the first 100 PPM of CO2 generates 22 Watts/m2, but the next 100 PPM, going from 100 to 200 PPM, generates only 6 Watts/m2 (28-22), and going from 200 to 300 PPM generates only 2 Watts/m2. (30-28). By the time we reach about 1,000 PPM, the energy tops out at about 37-38 Watts/m2. At about 1,000 PPM, adding more CO2 essentially generates no additional measurable energy.
Furthering our explanation of Radiative Forcing, which we said is a measure of energy, stated in watts per square meter, we now add that it is for one second on a flat surface, w/m2. The goal is not to let human activities interfere with the natural balance of the amount of solar energy coming to Earth, how much exits, or how long the Earth holds on to it before it escapes to space. For example, water va por, clouds, CO2, methane, and other gases, capture and hold some of this heat for a time, like a greenhouse. But especially note at this point, the greenhouse effect is essential for all life on Earth. Without it, the Earth would be 86 degrees F colder and a lifeless ice ball. Without CO2, plants cannot manufacture sugars, the first step for all food and life on Earth.
There are two benchmark ways to measure this energy; first, is the amount coming from the sun to the Earth. It is measured by an imaginary mirror “positioned” over Earth’s equator, about 500 Kilometers up and facing squarely at the sun. It usually amounts to about 1,360 w/m2. Scientists mathematically convert it to what is the Earth’s average sun energy input to be about 341 watts/m sq. About 30% of this energy is immediately reflected back to space, mostly by the clouds. The rest is absorbed and heats the Earth, then cools at night by radiating this heat/energy up, escaping towards space. But one type of radiation, called short wave Infrared, is captured by the greenhouse gases and water vapor, and clouds are holding on to it for a time. This is the heart of Radiative Forcing, how much of this small quantity of radiation energy is absorbed, and how long it’s held before finally escaping to space.
In Figure 2, from a visual comparison between CO2 and methane, it appears that methane is slightly behind CO2 on their respective saturation curves. This leads us to estimate that methane might saturate at about 0.8 to 0.9 Watts/m2 at about 2.0 PPM. So, no matter how much more CO2 and Methane we add to the atmosphere, combined, they will not increase the energy/heat by more than 0.5 Watts/m2 or representing an increase of about 0.147% from where we are today at baseline 341 Watts/m. Meaning; if the average “Global” temperature in your back yard today is 60.00 0 F, these gases will not increase the temperature by more than 0.1 to 0.20 F no matter that we double them and double them again and again. Enjoy your burgers and SUV’s; these gases are that inconsequential.
The hard part, thermodynamics
Now WHERE the methane and CO2 produce excess heat energy, and thus the temperature in the atmosphere is equally important. Figure 4 provides some interesting information.v The blue line shows where the CO2 heat is added in the atmosphere as a function of altitude. The red dashed line represents the temperature change from the doubling of the atmospheric CO2 from 420 PPM to 840 PPM. (We also use CO2 here as a proxy for methane because, with methane, the change in temperatures would not be noticeable.) This red line shows a tiny increase in atmospheric tropospheric temperature from sea level to 11-15 kilometers up. But then we note a decrease in temperatures above that. This intuitively makes sense. If we apply more of this limited amount of heat in the lower levels, there would be less to apply in the upper levels. More importantly, this incremental heat seems to stay in the lower levels and does not mix well at the higher levels until it finally starts to exit the Earth’s atmosphere and to reestablish thermal equilibrium.
The IPCC and climate change alarmists are happy to go with this scenario since 99% of humanity and human activities occur in the troposphere. They are correct, and this is the climate change reality we care about. Even thermodynamic experts are happy that no energy has magically been created, just spread around differently. College professors are happy and fold it into their climate models, and the press and politicians are happy. Life is good. But then reality starts leaking through the media filters, with questions raised like; what is happening with water vapor and the water in the clouds while all the above temperature changes are happening and where they are happening? More importantly, why are the climate models consistently overstating temperatures compared to the unadulterated satellite and balloon recorded temperatures; Figure 5?
The fun part, climate change models
It’s all about clouds. It’s clouds. There is evidence that water vapor and water in the clouds account for 70% to 95% of all radiative forcing, which induces global warming. There is also ample data and evidence that higher global temperatures will cause an increase in water vapor in the atmosphere. Alarmists jump on this; A-HA, more water vapor means more radiative forcing heat, call it a positive feedback loop. They claim that the increased greenhouse gases and temperatures trigger an increase in water vapor, thereby amplifying the already increased temperature. Is it proof of the positive feedback loop, thus make global warming even worse and happening faster?
Back to basics. But where are the facts? As Dr. Happer points out in the referenced paper, it’s all about water vapors and how little scientists know about it. Dr. Richard Lindzen and Dr. Judith Curry, both former members of the UN’s IPCC team, certainly support this position. So, where are the facts and what we can infer from them? There is evidence that water vapor accounts from 70% to 95% of all radiative f orcing induced global warming. There is also data and evidence that higher global temperatures will cause an increase in water vapor in the atmosphere. But, in our aerosol-rich atmosphere, more water vapor also means more, and denser, and bigger clouds, especially in the lower troposphere where most of the weather and climate occur. That means more of the sun’s energy is reflected in outer space, and less solar heat is left to warm the air, lands, and seas and less to radiate back up. Maybe the assumed 30% of the sun’s energy reflected by the air and clouds increases to 31% or 34% or some other number?
Secondly, in the atmosphere, when water vapor transitions from its gaseous state to liquid water or ice crystals, it releases significant amounts of heat, with most going directly to outer space, thereby further cooling the troposphere. Could these combined effects actually cause a net cooling of the planet? Trouble is scientists do not know how to calculate the impact of all these changes and their dynamics accurately. While the climate change alarmists are happy to credit the global energy budget with the increased radiative forcing, do they debit the global energy budget by the increased albedo and the increase in water vapor condensation cooling, and if so, how and with what accuracy? Is this why climate change models consistently overestimate global warming?
The musical part – Sung by Judy Collins:
We don’t know clouds —- aat — all.
Going back to the referenced Dr. Happer article, it probably all balances out, and the laws of thermodynamics are safe, at least for now.
We do not expect layman, untrained in science, too fully understand our simplification of carbon dioxide’s role in retaining a little extra heat in our atmosphere. Our ultimate goal is to show how complex it is and how we do not even understand the system (especially the clouds) well enough to take a serious stab at it. That, however, will not ever stop climate scientists from trying or climate alarmists from trying to scare the public into allowing them to run our lives.
Portions of this article are excerpted from the 2020 book A HITCHHIKERS 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.
Footnotes


Green pork

We all know what happens when government decides to interfere with free markets by subsidizing the production of something that is uneconomical with the subsidies : Taxpayers shoulder the costs and cronyism is the name of the game because subsidies go to the politically connected .
[ An important economic : Please don ’ t call such pork-barrel politics is “ crony capitalism.
” “ Crony capitalism is like liquid ice – an oxymoron .
Under capitalism , consumers pick the economic winners and losers among competing businesses , and the state doesn ’ t interfere with the process .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ state mandates ; thus , the government determines the economic winners and losers .
Cronyism , by which the government favors certain producers by subsidizing them , is the first cousin of socialism and not at all capitalistic . ]
When it comes to “ green pork , ” the stated purpose is to offset economic costs with environmental benefits .
Unfortunately , in many cases the beleaguered American taxpayer ends up subsidizing production that results in environmental losses in addition to economic losses .
This article doesn ’ t offer a comprehensive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ focus on the negative environmental impacts of environmentalists ’ decades-old hostility to petroleum .
In the late 1970s , President Jimmy Carter steered the government toward the production of synthetic fuels to compensate for the apparent oil shortage .
The “ apparent ” oil shortage was artificial , caused by a combination of government-imposed price controls and the green movement ’ s opposition to petroleum extraction marring nature ’ s pristine beauty .
Interestingly , in the ‘ 70s , greens weren ’ t overly concerned about the CO2 content of oil , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ global cooling , not global warming .
Thus , when Pres .
Carter launched the “ synfuels ” program in 1980 , the main focus was how to convert coal ( which emits far more CO2 than oil ) into a substitute for oil .
But the greens should have been skeptical about synfuels because it was well known then that synfuels would “ drain away needed water in the West.
” Because of the short life of the federal Synfuels Corporation ( it dissolved in 1986 , so you know a government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last only six years ! )
there was little permanent damage from synfuels production .
However , the Synfuels Corporation did lay some groundwork for subsequent government subsidies of ethanol and solar energy .
Ethanol subsidies started in the last two years of the Carter presidency and accelerated during the Reagan years .
These subsidies were most welcomed by struggling farmers who benefited from the resulting higher prices of the corn they grew .
Enabling farmers to benefit from a green agenda was a shrewd moved .
It has made it almost impossible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because Republicans need the farm vote and Democrats never met a green subsidy that they don ’ t like .
Unfortunately , though , corn-based ethanol is not environmentally benign .
On the contrary ( apart from the hotly debated question about whether ethanol production and use results in a net decrease of CO2 emissions , the extra corn that is grown to make ethanol taxes the environment in at least four ways : 1 ) accelerated depletion of water tables ; 2 ) accelerated depletion of topsoil ; 3 ) increased usage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; 4 ) loss of millions of acres of wildlife habitat .
In regard to the first point , an analysis published by Muhlenkamp & Company , Inc. , calculated that “ shale gas is 14,000 times more water efficient in the production of energy than corn ethanol.
” Ouch !
And in regard to the fourth point , some argue that the loss of undisturbed land is overstated , because American farmers are producing much more corn per acre than they were four decades ago .
Specifically , the total land area @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about 82 million acres per year to about 90 million .
What they neglect to say is that with ~40 percent of today ’ s corn crop being turned into fuel that we burn in our motor vehicles , without the ethanol subsidies and mandates , ~36 million acres would either lie fallow or could be used for other purposes .
Over the past couple of decades , massive subsidies have funded a massive increase in wind and solar energy alongside the ongoing ethanol binge .
The environmental degradation caused by these examples @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
( Volumes could be written about the exorbitant land use , toxic mineral extraction , widespread destruction of birds and bats , etc.
, etc . )
The recent Michael Moore/Jeff Gibbs video “ Planet of the Humans ” shows what a farce greens have perpetrated with their renewable fuels fetish .
American economic growth has been held back by the artificially high prices Americans have been paying for “ renewable ” energy for electricity .
Lavish subsidies for uneconomical green energy boondoggles have proliferated ( President Obama ’ s Solyndra being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And the environment has taken a taxpayer-subsidized beating .
Government pork always makes more political sense than economic sense , but the special tragedy of green pork is that it doesn ’ t even make environmental sense .
What a shame .

We all know what happens when government decides to interfere with free markets by subsidizing the production of something that is uneconomical with the subsidies: Taxpayers shoulder the costs and cronyism is the name of the game because subsidies go to the politically connected.
[An important economic: Please don’t call such pork-barrel politics is “crony capitalism.” “Crony capitalism is like liquid ice – an oxymoron. Under capitalism, consumers pick the economic winners and losers among competing businesses, and the state doesn’t interfere with the process. Under socialism, producers produce what the state mandates; thus, the government determines the economic winners and losers. Cronyism, by which the government favors certain producers by subsidizing them, is the first cousin of socialism and not at all capitalistic.]
When it comes to “green pork,” the stated purpose is to offset economic costs with environmental benefits. Unfortunately, in many cases the beleaguered American taxpayer ends up subsidizing production that results in environmental losses in addition to economic losses. This article doesn’t offer a comprehensive critique of green pork, but will focus on the negative environmental impacts of environmentalists’ decades-old hostility to petroleum.
In the late 1970s, President Jimmy Carter steered the government toward the production of synthetic fuels to compensate for the apparent oil shortage. The “apparent” oil shortage was artificial, caused by a combination of government-imposed price controls and the green movement’s opposition to petroleum extraction marring nature’s pristine beauty.
Interestingly, in the ‘70s, greens weren’t overly concerned about the CO2 content of oil, because many of them were worried about global cooling, not global warming. Thus, when Pres. Carter launched the “synfuels” program in 1980, the main focus was how to convert coal (which emits far more CO2 than oil) into a substitute for oil. But the greens should have been skeptical about synfuels because it was well known then that synfuels would “drain away needed water in the West.”
Because of the short life of the federal Synfuels Corporation (it dissolved in 1986, so you know a government program has to be unusually terrible to last only six years!) there was little permanent damage from synfuels production. However, the Synfuels Corporation did lay some groundwork for subsequent government subsidies of ethanol and solar energy.
Ethanol subsidies started in the last two years of the Carter presidency and accelerated during the Reagan years. These subsidies were most welcomed by struggling farmers who benefited from the resulting higher prices of the corn they grew. Enabling farmers to benefit from a green agenda was a shrewd moved. It has made it almost impossible to scrap ethanol subsidies and mandates, because Republicans need the farm vote and Democrats never met a green subsidy that they don’t like.
Unfortunately, though, corn-based ethanol is not environmentally benign. On the contrary (apart from the hotly debated question about whether ethanol production and use results in a net decrease of CO2 emissions, the extra corn that is grown to make ethanol taxes the environment in at least four ways: 1) accelerated depletion of water tables; 2) accelerated depletion of topsoil; 3) increased usage of nitrogen-based fertilizers that drain into waterways; 4) loss of millions of acres of wildlife habitat.
In regard to the first point, an analysis published by Muhlenkamp & Company, Inc., calculated that “shale gas is 14,000 times more water efficient in the production of energy than corn ethanol.” Ouch!
And in regard to the fourth point, some argue that the loss of undisturbed land is overstated, because American farmers are producing much more corn per acre than they were four decades ago. Specifically, the total land area planted in corn has risen from only about 82 million acres per year to about 90 million. What they neglect to say is that with ~40 percent of today’s corn crop being turned into fuel that we burn in our motor vehicles, without the ethanol subsidies and mandates, ~36 million acres would either lie fallow or could be used for other purposes.
Over the past couple of decades, massive subsidies have funded a massive increase in wind and solar energy alongside the ongoing ethanol binge. The environmental degradation caused by these examples of green pork has been is considerable. (Volumes could be written about the exorbitant land use, toxic mineral extraction, widespread destruction of birds and bats, etc., etc.)
The recent Michael Moore/Jeff Gibbs video “Planet of the Humans” shows what a farce greens have perpetrated with their renewable fuels fetish. American economic growth has been held back by the artificially high prices Americans have been paying for “renewable” energy for electricity. Lavish subsidies for uneconomical green energy boondoggles have proliferated (President Obama’s Solyndra being the poster child for such cronyism). And the environment has taken a taxpayer-subsidized beating.
Government pork always makes more political sense than economic sense, but the special tragedy of green pork is that it doesn’t even make environmental sense. What a shame.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-09-01--CFACT weighs in on species habitats

CFACT weighs in on species habitats

Green gadflies will seize upon any excuse to block economic activity .
The Endangered Species Act ( ESA ) is an important law they love to misuse .
Should a species actually have to live on your land for the government to assume the power to reach in and “ protect ” it ?
The U.S .
Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service are looking to swat the gadflies by for the first time defining the term “ habitat ” under the ESA .
This new push for reform mainly got its start from an issue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government not only designated unoccupied land in Louisiana as potential critical habitat for the dusky gopher frog .
It also acknowledged that the land in question would have to undergo significant ecological modification , including the planting of trees and other measures , before becoming suitable habitat for the frog .
The Supreme Court rejected this argument , providing the Trump administration an opportunity to write a regulatory definition of habitat… The danger of not setting such clearly defined boundaries is that FWS officials in the future could be sorely tempted to designate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or animal in question rather than focus on the important task of recovering the species in areas suitable for its survival .
As CFACT made clear in our official submission , clearly defined rules and smart regulation are essential to protect both .
Vaguely worded laws and regulations are an invitation to abuse .
Green radicals know this and exploit it .
Clearly defining key terms such as “ habitat ” is one way to block our laws from being misused .
CFACT official comment to theU.S .
Fish and Wildlife Service on @ @

Green gadflies will seize upon any excuse to block economic activity.
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is an important law they love to misuse.
Should a species actually have to live on your land for the government to assume the power to reach in and “protect” it?
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service are looking to swat the gadflies by for the first time defining the term “habitat” under the ESA.
This new push for reform mainly got its start from an issue involving a frog.
CFACT senior policy analyst Bonner Cohen explains in CFACT’s official regulatory submission:
In Weyerhaeuser v. FWS , the government not only designated unoccupied land in Louisiana as potential critical habitat for the dusky gopher frog. It also acknowledged that the land in question would have to undergo significant ecological modification, including the planting of trees and other measures, before becoming suitable habitat for the frog. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, providing the Trump administration an opportunity to write a regulatory definition of habitat…
The danger of not setting such clearly defined boundaries is that FWS officials in the future could be sorely tempted to designate an overly expansive habitat for the plant or animal in question rather than focus on the important task of recovering the species in areas suitable for its survival.
Property rights and conservation are important.
As CFACT made clear in our official submission, clearly defined rules and smart regulation are essential to protect both.
Vaguely worded laws and regulations are an invitation to abuse. Green radicals know this and exploit it.
Clearly defining key terms such as “habitat” is one way to block our laws from being misused.
CFACT official comment to theU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
on species habitats
By Bonner Cohen, Ph.D.
Read the full submission