committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-08-18--Chinese-owned wind farm in Devils River, Texas threatens power grid and more

The push for renewable energy through a mix of federal , state , and local subsidies and mandates is not only putting the U.S. at risk of becoming perilously dependent on intermittent wind and solar power for its electricity .
It is also providing a glide path for a hostile foreign power to mess with the nation ’ s power grid and damage our critical energy infrastructure .
Houston-based GH America Energy is a wholly owned subsidiary of Chinese Guanghui Industry Investment Group , which , since 2015 , has purchased about 140,000 acres in Val Verde County , Texas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ massive conglomerate with extensive holdings in real estate , liquified natural gas , transportation , and chemicals .
Guanghui ’ s billionaire founder , CEO , and Communist Party member , Sun Guangxin , wants to erect hundreds of wind turbines and perhaps several giant solar arrays on his West Texas acreage , a plan that is running into stiff resistance from residents and national security experts alike .
Located about 200 miles west of San Antonio , the Devils River area of Val Verde County would be site of Mr. Sun ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ populated area is home to a few Texas-size family ranches , lots of wildlife , and Laughlin Air Force Base in nearby Del Rio .
French and Middle Eastern companies already operate the sprawling Rocksprings Val Verde Wind Farm , a complex covering 15,000 acres within 15 miles of the Devils River .
The thought of having even more wind turbines , soaring hundreds of feet into the air , further disfiguring West Texas ’ s rugged but picturesque back country has long-time ranchers on edge .
“ It ’ s a total @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The turbines will affect the deer .
They will kill the birds .
And we ’ re on the flyway for the monarch butterflies , ” third-generation rancher Alice Ball Strunk , 63 , told the San Antonio Express-News ( Aug. 2 ) .
But there is more going on here than renewable energy ’ s inevitable environmental degradation and noise pollution caused by giant wind turbines ’ spinning rotors .
Daniel N. Hoffman , a retired clandestine services officer and former chief of station with the CIA , says Mr. Sun “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dispatched to exploit Texas ’ dearth of regulations and bureaucracy especially related to purchasing property.
” Writing in the Washington Times ( Aug. 14 ) , Hoffman points out that “ GH America would use the cover of a windmill farm renewable energy business venture to spy on behalf of China ’ s ruthless dictatorship.
” Hoffman is correct in noting that Texas ’ short-sighted embrace of renewable energy has been an open invitation to troublemakers .
Indeed , the proximity of the Devil ’ s River site to Laughlin Air Force Base @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wont to say , “ no coincidence.
” Officials at Laughlin are wary of having 700-foot Chinese-owned wind turbines sprouting up on hilltops overlooking the base , where 300 pilots are trained each year .
Pointing to the threat China ’ s wind power venture poses to Texas ’ critical infrastructure , Hoffman says the Chinese would have the capability to overload the electrical grid and cause power outages .
“ The enemy is not at the gates but has gained entry inside them , albeit through a Trojan horse real estate acquisition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he notes .
Texas is now saddled with a problem of its own making , and its consequences will reverberate far beyond the borders of the Lone Star State .
Politicians in Austin have been promoting renewable energy for two decades .
Texas is the nation ’ s leading producer of wind power , with some 15,000 turbines scattered among 160 wind projects , heavily concentrated in gusty West Texas .
And more are on the way .
County officials in Texas lack the authority to regulate , much less block , wind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nettleton believes the threat the Devils River project poses to Laughlin may ultimately be its undoing .
“ My position , and probably the county ’ s , is that if it at all affects Laughlin Air Force Base and hampers their ability to perform their mission , we are going to oppose it , ” he told the San Antonio Express-News ( Aug. 2 ) .
Right now , the only thing standing in front of Mr. Sun ’ s wind project , which may have little to do with wind , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ GH America Energy will have to reach an agreement with the military on a plan to mitigate interference with flights from the base .
But even if such a plan is agreed to , the risks posed by the Devils River project go far beyond interference with flights .
China is a party state .
Chinese companies , especially those with a presence in foreign countries , do not operate independently of the powers that be in Beijing .
Hoffman reminds us that China ’ s 2015 National Intelligence Law gave the Communist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chinese domestic and overseas companies : “ Any organization or citizen shall support , assist and cooperate with the State intelligence work in accordance with the law , and keep its secrets known to the public .
The State protects individuals and organizations that support , assist and cooperate with national intelligence work.
” DOD should pull the plug on the Devils River wind project now .

The push for renewable energy through a mix of federal, state, and local subsidies and mandates is not only putting the U.S. at risk of becoming perilously dependent on intermittent wind and solar power for its electricity. It is also providing a glide path for a hostile foreign power to mess with the nation’s power grid and damage our critical energy infrastructure.
Houston-based GH America Energy is a wholly owned subsidiary of Chinese Guanghui Industry Investment Group, which, since 2015, has purchased about 140,000 acres in Val Verde County, Texas. The Xinjiang-based parent company is a massive conglomerate with extensive holdings in real estate, liquified natural gas, transportation, and chemicals. Guanghui’s billionaire founder, CEO, and Communist Party member, Sun Guangxin, wants to erect hundreds of wind turbines and perhaps several giant solar arrays on his West Texas acreage, a plan that is running into stiff resistance from residents and national security experts alike.
Located about 200 miles west of San Antonio, the Devils River area of Val Verde County would be site of Mr. Sun’s renewable energy mega-project. The sparsely populated area is home to a few Texas-size family ranches, lots of wildlife, and Laughlin Air Force Base in nearby Del Rio. French and Middle Eastern companies already operate the sprawling Rocksprings Val Verde Wind Farm, a complex covering 15,000 acres within 15 miles of the Devils River. The thought of having even more wind turbines, soaring hundreds of feet into the air, further disfiguring West Texas’s rugged but picturesque back country has long-time ranchers on edge.
“It’s a total crisis. We depend on ecotourism. The turbines will affect the deer. They will kill the birds. And we’re on the flyway for the monarch butterflies,” third-generation rancher Alice Ball Strunk, 63, told the San Antonio Express-News (Aug. 2).
Stalking Horse
But there is more going on here than renewable energy’s inevitable environmental degradation and noise pollution caused by giant wind turbines’ spinning rotors. Daniel N. Hoffman, a retired clandestine services officer and former chief of station with the CIA, says Mr. Sun “is Xi Jinping’s stalking horse dispatched to exploit Texas’ dearth of regulations and bureaucracy especially related to purchasing property.”
Writing in the Washington Times (Aug. 14), Hoffman points out that “GH America would use the cover of a windmill farm renewable energy business venture to spy on behalf of China’s ruthless dictatorship.”
Hoffman is correct in noting that Texas’ short-sighted embrace of renewable energy has been an open invitation to troublemakers. Indeed, the proximity of the Devil’s River site to Laughlin Air Force Base is, as the old Bolsheviks were wont to say, “no coincidence.” Officials at Laughlin are wary of having 700-foot Chinese-owned wind turbines sprouting up on hilltops overlooking the base, where 300 pilots are trained each year. Pointing to the threat China’s wind power venture poses to Texas’ critical infrastructure, Hoffman says the Chinese would have the capability to overload the electrical grid and cause power outages.
“The enemy is not at the gates but has gained entry inside them, albeit through a Trojan horse real estate acquisition rather than a kinetic attack,” he notes.
Texas is now saddled with a problem of its own making, and its consequences will reverberate far beyond the borders of the Lone Star State. Politicians in Austin have been promoting renewable energy for two decades. Texas is the nation’s leading producer of wind power, with some 15,000 turbines scattered among 160 wind projects, heavily concentrated in gusty West Texas. And more are on the way.
County officials in Texas lack the authority to regulate, much less block, wind projects. Val Verde County Commissioner Beau Nettleton believes the threat the Devils River project poses to Laughlin may ultimately be its undoing.
“My position, and probably the county’s, is that if it at all affects Laughlin Air Force Base and hampers their ability to perform their mission, we are going to oppose it,” he told the San Antonio Express-News (Aug. 2).
Right now, the only thing standing in front of Mr. Sun’s wind project, which may have little to do with wind, is the U.S. Department of Defense. GH America Energy will have to reach an agreement with the military on a plan to mitigate interference with flights from the base. But even if such a plan is agreed to, the risks posed by the Devils River project go far beyond interference with flights.
Implications of China’s 2015 National Security Law
China is a party state. Chinese companies, especially those with a presence in foreign countries, do not operate independently of the powers that be in Beijing. Hoffman reminds us that China’s 2015 National Intelligence Law gave the Communist Party of China sweeping powers to exploit Chinese domestic and overseas companies: “Any organization or citizen shall support, assist and cooperate with the State intelligence work in accordance with the law, and keep its secrets known to the public. The State protects individuals and organizations that support, assist and cooperate with national intelligence work.”
DOD should pull the plug on the Devils River wind project now.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-08-19--AOC gets short shrift at Dem convention

AOC gets short shrift at Dem convention

John F. Kennedy , our nation ’ s 35th president and the youngest ever elected , said it well : “ Life isn ’ t fair.
” Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , the youngest female ever elected to the Congress of the United States , may be thinking the same thing right now , after last night getting just 60 seconds to make her speech at the Democratic National Convention .
The Democratic Party elders ’ who limited her time proved prescient : AOC snubbed the Party ’ s presidential nominee , Joe Biden , by ignoring him and seconding the nomination @ @ @ @ @ @ @ AOC had a lot to say , and she packed in much in her single minute .
Truth is , she hasn ’ t stopped talking since her stunning primary victory in 2018 by defeating a 20-year congressman who was fourth ranking in the House Democratic leadership .
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez has been one of the most impactful members of Congress in the last two years , and she ’ s only in her first term .
AOC is not merely a “ rising star.
” On both policy and politics , she is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ AOC is shifting the Democratic Party further to the political left , especially on climate issues , which have a widespread impact on the economy and society .
CFACT has been documenting and accurately criticizing her many inane assertions on climate change .
Her policies would cost trillions of dollars , would harm our economy and lead to millions of lost jobs – all for a purported problem with no guaranteed fix .
AOC ’ s presence was felt early on in Congress , as I wrote about ( here and here ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was her leadership in sponsoring the Green New Deal .
Nearly all of the two dozen candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination copy-catted the GND as part of their campaigns .
When former Vice President Joe Biden became the presumptive nominee for president , after prevailing over AOC ally , Sen. Sanders , Biden soon moved to assuage his rival and Ocasio-Cortez by naming her co-chair of his climate panel .
His since released , updated climate plan has their fingerprints all over it .
Bernie confirmed this in his own convention speech @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ many of the ideas …that were considered ‘ radical ’ just a few years ago are now mainstream.
” Early on , House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was dismissive of the plan and of Ocasio-Cortez , and Whoopi Goldberg advised her to “ sit still.
” That is due to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez becoming a political force , which matters more to most politicians than policy positions .
AOC has backed numerous Democratic candidates to challenge other Democratic officeholders in Party primaries – with mixed success .
For example , she backed several @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but helped to defeat veteran Congressman and fellow New Yorker , Eliot Engel , her biggest casualty .
He is likely the first of many former politicians who will be mounted on her proverbial game room wall .
Jamaal Bowman , a school principal and fellow traveler on far-left policy with Ocasio-Cortez , defeated this 30-year incumbent .
CFACT last June reported on his ascension .
That AOC would undertake such a political effort to challenge her Party ’ s incumbents is impressively brazen .
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez been criticized for backing challengers to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her role by saying primaries are the only way to give voters a choice in gerrymandered districts dominated by a single political party .
AOC ’ s influence also is remaking the New York State Legislature—the farm team for future members of Congress—into a more “ progressive ” body , with the help of the Democratic Socialists of America .
Last June , six incumbents in the state Assembly lost primaries to more leftist Democrats – unprecedented in a single state election cycle .
Such a changeover forces other more conventional Democrats to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which is occurring in the Legislature , and slowly but surely in the House of Representatives .
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez also easily dispatched with her own primary challenger by winning by a 3-to-1 margin .
AOC ’ s star power and political influence are likely to grow , especially as media sycophants continue to give her a pass on her many falsities about climate and other topics .
That bodes ill for the Democratic Party , and the country .
Perhaps it ’ s too much to focus on a single minute of convention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( though she dissed them back ) .
After all , how many first-term members of Congress get any role at a national convention ?
A month shy of her 31st birthday , Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will be speaking for a lot longer in prime time at many Party conventions for years to come .

John F. Kennedy, our nation’s 35th president and the youngest ever elected, said it well: “Life isn’t fair.”
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the youngest female ever elected to the Congress of the United States, may be thinking the same thing right now, after last night getting just 60 seconds to make her speech at the Democratic National Convention.
The Democratic Party elders’ who limited her time proved prescient: AOC snubbed the Party’s presidential nominee, Joe Biden, by ignoring him and seconding the nomination of Sen. Bernie Sanders for president.
AOC had a lot to say, and she packed in much in her single minute. Truth is, she hasn’t stopped talking since her stunning primary victory in 2018 by defeating a 20-year congressman who was fourth ranking in the House Democratic leadership.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez has been one of the most impactful members of Congress in the last two years, and she’s only in her first term. AOC is not merely a “rising star.” On both policy and politics, she is a burgeoning force.
Almost singlehandedly, AOC is shifting the Democratic Party further to the political left, especially on climate issues, which have a widespread impact on the economy and society. CFACT has been documenting and accurately criticizing her many inane assertions on climate change. Her policies would cost trillions of dollars, would harm our economy and lead to millions of lost jobs – all for a purported problem with no guaranteed fix.
AOC’s presence was felt early on in Congress, as I wrote about (here and here). One specific, well known example was her leadership in sponsoring the Green New Deal. Nearly all of the two dozen candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination copy-catted the GND as part of their campaigns. [Addendum: insightful analysis of AOC from last year I initially missed is here, by CFACT blog contributor, David Wojick.]
When former Vice President Joe Biden became the presumptive nominee for president, after prevailing over AOC ally, Sen. Sanders, Biden soon moved to assuage his rival and Ocasio-Cortez by naming her co-chair of his climate panel. His since released, updated climate plan has their fingerprints all over it. Bernie confirmed this in his own convention speech on Monday night, when he stated, “many of the ideas …that were considered ‘radical’ just a few years ago are now mainstream.”
Early on, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was dismissive of the plan and of Ocasio-Cortez, and Whoopi Goldberg advised her to “sit still.”
No longer.
That is due to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez becoming a political force, which matters more to most politicians than policy positions.
AOC has backed numerous Democratic candidates to challenge other Democratic officeholders in Party primaries – with mixed success. For example, she backed several losing candidates in Texas and California, but helped to defeat veteran Congressman and fellow New Yorker, Eliot Engel, her biggest casualty. He is likely the first of many former politicians who will be mounted on her proverbial game room wall. Jamaal Bowman, a school principal and fellow traveler on far-left policy with Ocasio-Cortez, defeated this 30-year incumbent. CFACT last June reported on his ascension.
That AOC would undertake such a political effort to challenge her Party’s incumbents is impressively audacious.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez has been criticized for backing challengers to her fellow Democrats. She properly justifies her role by saying primaries are the only way to give voters a choice in gerrymandered districts dominated by a single political party.
AOC’s influence also is remaking the New York State Legislature—the farm team for future members of Congress—into a more “progressive” body, with the help of the Democratic Socialists of America. Last June, six incumbents in the state Assembly lost primaries to more leftist Democrats – unprecedented in a single state election cycle. Such a changeover forces other more conventional Democrats to lurch leftward to preclude a primary, which is occurring in the Legislature, and slowly but surely in the House of Representatives.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez also easily dispatched with her own primary challenger by winning by a 3-to-1 margin.
AOC’s star power and political influence are likely to grow, especially as media sycophants continue to give her a pass on her recurring falsities about climate and other topics. That bodes ill for the Democratic Party, and the country.
Perhaps it’s too much to focus on a single minute of convention speaking time as a diss to AOC (though she dissed them back). After all, how many first-term members of Congress get any role at a national convention? A month shy of her 31st birthday, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will be speaking for a lot longer in prime time at many Party conventions for years to come.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-08-20--Energy independence boosted as ANWR cleared for clean, safe drilling

After 40 years of fierce debate over oil and gas development in Alaska ’ s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge ( ANWR ) , the Trump administration Aug. 17 cleared the way for the sale of drilling leases in the refuge – perhaps by as early as December of this year .
Hailed by Alaska ’ s governor and congressional delegation ( all Republicans ) , and condemned by environmentalists , the move underscores the White House ’ s commitment to to American global energy dominance .
CFACT Collegians were outspoken supporters of putting the area ’ s abundant energy resources @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s environment .
The two goals are by no means incompatible .
ANWR , which lies in northeastern Alaska and borders the Arctic Ocean , comprises some 19.3 million acres , of which the coastal plain – where drilling will be permitted – makes up 1.56 million acres , or 8.1 % of the refuge .
According to the Department of Interior , drilling pads , process facilities , and the roads needed for drilling will take up 0.01 % of the refuge ’ s area .
How much oil is there in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But estimates run between 4.3 billion and 11.8 billion barrels , though seismic surveys have not been conducted since the 1980s .
In any event , oil development in ANWR will pump billions of dollars into Alaska ’ s economy , and drilling could go on for 40 to 50 years .
Drilling in ANWR edged closer to reality with the passage of the 2017 tax cut which provided that the federal government must conduct two lease sales of 400,000 acres each in the refuge by December 2024 .
Interior Secretary David Bernhardt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ held as early as December 2020 , with actual drilling getting underway about eight years later .
The Alaska Oil and Gas Association is less optimistic about the timeline , estimating that it could take 10 to 15 years before production gets underway .
Financing the exploration and extraction in ANWR ’ s coastal plain could be a problem .
Several investment firms , including Goldman Sachs , Wells Fargo , Chase , and JP Morgan , have already announced they will not finance projects in ANWR , and other financial institutions are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suit .
The current global oil glut , along with tepid demand and low prices , could also curb enthusiasm for drilling in ANWR .
Environmentalists and their allies in Washington have successfully block oil development in ANWR for four decades and vow to continue the fight in court .
Former Obama EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy told the Washington Times ( Aug. 18 ) that the Gwich ’ in tribes oppose oil development in the refuge and that Trump ’ s move “ threatens the heart of the largest pristine wildland left in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ points out that the Inuit people , who , unlike the Gwich ’ in , live in the refuge , favor energy development in ANWR .
“ All permitted activities will incorporate required operating procedures and stipulated restrictions based on the best science and technology to ensure that energy development does not come at the expense of the environment , ” the Interior Department said in a statement .

After 40 years of fierce debate over oil and gas development in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), the Trump administration Aug. 17 cleared the way for the sale of drilling leases in the refuge – perhaps by as early as December of this year.
Hailed by Alaska’s governor and congressional delegation (all Republicans), and condemned by environmentalists, the move underscores the White House’s commitment to to American global energy dominance. CFACT Collegians were outspoken supporters of putting the area’s abundant energy resources to good use while safeguarding ANWR’s environment. The two goals are by no means incompatible.
ANWR, which lies in northeastern Alaska and borders the Arctic Ocean, comprises some 19.3 million acres, of which the coastal plain – where drilling will be permitted – makes up 1.56 million acres, or 8.1% of the refuge. According to the Department of Interior, drilling pads, process facilities, and the roads needed for drilling will take up 0.01% of the refuge’s area.
How much oil is there in ANWR? Nobody knows for sure. But estimates run between 4.3 billion and 11.8 billion barrels, though seismic surveys have not been conducted since the 1980s. In any event, oil development in ANWR will pump billions of dollars into Alaska’s economy, and drilling could go on for 40 to 50 years.
Drilling in ANWR edged closer to reality with the passage of the 2017 tax cut which provided that the federal government must conduct two lease sales of 400,000 acres each in the refuge by December 2024. Interior Secretary David Bernhardt says the first lease auction could be held as early as December 2020, with actual drilling getting underway about eight years later. The Alaska Oil and Gas Association is less optimistic about the timeline, estimating that it could take 10 to 15 years before production gets underway.
Financing the exploration and extraction in ANWR’s coastal plain could be a problem. Several investment firms, including Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, Chase, and JP Morgan, have already announced they will not finance projects in ANWR, and other financial institutions are under pressure from environmental groups to follow suit. The current global oil glut, along with tepid demand and low prices, could also curb enthusiasm for drilling in ANWR.
Environmentalists and their allies in Washington have successfully block oil development in ANWR for four decades and vow to continue the fight in court. Former Obama EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy told the Washington Times (Aug. 18) that the Gwich’in tribes oppose oil development in the refuge and that Trump’s move “threatens the heart of the largest pristine wildland left in America.” But Interior’s Bernhardt points out that the Inuit people, who, unlike the Gwich’in, live in the refuge, favor energy development in ANWR.
“All permitted activities will incorporate required operating procedures and stipulated restrictions based on the best science and technology to ensure that energy development does not come at the expense of the environment,” the Interior Department said in a statement.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-08-21--Blackouts: Green California has the nation’s worst power grid

More than a million Californians suffered power blackouts last Friday evening .
When high temperatures caused customer demand to exceed the power available , California electrical utilities used rotating outages to force a reduction in demand .
The California grid is the worst in the nation , with green energy policies pursued by the state likely furthering reduced grid reliability .
At 6:30 p.m. on Friday , Pacific Gas and Electric , California ’ s biggest utility , began shutting off power in rolling outages to force a reduction in demand .
Southern California Edison also denied power to homes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impacted a rotating group of up to 2 million customers until 11 p.m .
The California Independent System Operator declared a Stage Three Electrical Emergency , the first such emergency since 2001 .
Spot electricity prices soared to more than $ 1,000 per megawatt-hour , more than 10 times the usual price .
In 2018 , 19 % of California ’ s electricity came from rooftop and utility-scale solar installations , the highest percentage in the nation .
But by 6:30 p.m. each day , that solar output approaches zero .
The state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ run everyone ’ s air conditioner during hot summer evenings .
California has the least reliable electrical power system in the United States .
It isn ’ t even close .
According to data by Eaton Corporation , the Golden State leads the U.S. in power outages every year , with more than twice as many as any other state over the last decade .
The causes of power outages can be divided into four major groups .
In order of importance , these are weather or downed trees , faulty equipment or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accidents .
California suffered the largest number of outages in each category in each year for 2014 through 2017 .
For more than a decade , California has been closing coal and nuclear power plants .
Recently , the state also began closing natural gas-fired plants as part of a continuing effort to fight global warming .
In 2006 , Senate Bill 1368 established California ’ s Emissions Performance Standard , an effort to reduce state greenhouse gas emissions from power plants .
Since 2007 , 11 in-state , coal-fired plants have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ additional three converted to biomass fuel .
California also slashed imports of electricity generated from coal plants .
The Argus Cogen plant in Trona is the last remaining coal-fired plant .
California nuclear plants , though not emitters of greenhouse gases , are also being phased out .
The second and third units of the San Onofre nuclear generating plant near Los Angeles ceased operation in 2013 .
The Diablo Canyon plant , the last nuclear plant in California , is scheduled for closure in 2025 .
Driven by state efforts to reduce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also being shuttered .
Natural gas generating capacity has fallen by more than 10 % since 2013 , with additional reductions planned .
Following the blackouts last Friday night , blackouts resumed at 6:30 p.m. on Saturday .
Power officials blamed the loss of 1,000 megawatts of wind power on the wind subsiding and the unexpected shutdown of a 470-megawatt power plant .
It ’ s clear that the state does not have enough reliable baseload power as backup for intermittent wind and solar energy .
The problem of California ’ s poor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ On Sept. 10 , 2018 , then-Gov .
Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill 100 , committing California to obtain 100 % of its electricity from “ clean energy sources ” by 2045 .
Replacement of coal , nuclear , and natural gas generators with wind and solar will continue to erode grid reliability .
As part of global warming efforts , officials want all citizens to switch their natural gas stoves and furnaces to electric models .
More than 30 California cities have enacted bans on gas appliances , including the major cities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Almost 10 % of the state population now lives in an area covered by restrictions against gas appliances in new residential construction .
California also wants residents to transition from gasoline- and diesel-powered cars and trucks to plug-in electric models .
So , when those blackouts occur in the future , not only will your lights and air conditioners fail , but you won ’ t be able to cook your food or drive your car either .
California sacrificed reliable electrical power on the altar of the fight against global warming .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ will have the slightest effect on global temperatures , but they will be great for candle and flashlight sales .
This article originally appeared in the Washington Examiner

More than a million Californians suffered power blackouts last Friday evening. When high temperatures caused customer demand to exceed the power available, California electrical utilities used rotating outages to force a reduction in demand. The California grid is the worst in the nation, with green energy policies pursued by the state likely furthering reduced grid reliability.
At 6:30 p.m. on Friday, Pacific Gas and Electric, California’s biggest utility, began shutting off power in rolling outages to force a reduction in demand. Southern California Edison also denied power to homes, beginning just before 7 p.m. Shutoffs impacted a rotating group of up to 2 million customers until 11 p.m.
The California Independent System Operator declared a Stage Three Electrical Emergency, the first such emergency since 2001. Spot electricity prices soared to more than $1,000 per megawatt-hour, more than 10 times the usual price.
In 2018, 19% of California’s electricity came from rooftop and utility-scale solar installations, the highest percentage in the nation. But by 6:30 p.m. each day, that solar output approaches zero. The state lacks enough reliable electricity generation capacity to run everyone’s air conditioner during hot summer evenings.
California has the least reliable electrical power system in the United States. It isn’t even close. According to data by Eaton Corporation, the Golden State leads the U.S. in power outages every year, with more than twice as many as any other state over the last decade.
The causes of power outages can be divided into four major groups. In order of importance, these are weather or downed trees, faulty equipment or human errors, unknowns, and vehicle accidents. California suffered the largest number of outages in each category in each year for 2014 through 2017.
For more than a decade, California has been closing coal and nuclear power plants. Recently, the state also began closing natural gas-fired plants as part of a continuing effort to fight global warming.
In 2006, Senate Bill 1368 established California’s Emissions Performance Standard, an effort to reduce state greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. Since 2007, 11 in-state, coal-fired plants have been closed as a result, with an additional three converted to biomass fuel. California also slashed imports of electricity generated from coal plants. The Argus Cogen plant in Trona is the last remaining coal-fired plant.
California nuclear plants, though not emitters of greenhouse gases, are also being phased out. The second and third units of the San Onofre nuclear generating plant near Los Angeles ceased operation in 2013. The Diablo Canyon plant, the last nuclear plant in California, is scheduled for closure in 2025.
Driven by state efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, gas-fired plants are also being shuttered. Natural gas generating capacity has fallen by more than 10% since 2013, with additional reductions planned.
Following the blackouts last Friday night, blackouts resumed at 6:30 p.m. on Saturday. Power officials blamed the loss of 1,000 megawatts of wind power on the wind subsiding and the unexpected shutdown of a 470-megawatt power plant. It’s clear that the state does not have enough reliable baseload power as backup for intermittent wind and solar energy.
The problem of California’s poor electric reliability will likely get worse. On Sept. 10, 2018, then-Gov. Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill 100, committing California to obtain 100% of its electricity from “clean energy sources” by 2045. Replacement of coal, nuclear, and natural gas generators with wind and solar will continue to erode grid reliability.
As part of global warming efforts, officials want all citizens to switch their natural gas stoves and furnaces to electric models. More than 30 California cities have enacted bans on gas appliances, including the major cities of San Francisco and San Jose. Almost 10% of the state population now lives in an area covered by restrictions against gas appliances in new residential construction.
California also wants residents to transition from gasoline- and diesel-powered cars and trucks to plug-in electric models. So, when those blackouts occur in the future, not only will your lights and air conditioners fail, but you won’t be able to cook your food or drive your car either.
California sacrificed reliable electrical power on the altar of the fight against global warming. There is no evidence that state efforts will have the slightest effect on global temperatures, but they will be great for candle and flashlight sales.
This article originally appeared in the Washington Examiner


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-08-21--Green New Deal disruption and destruction

Kamala Harris co-sponsored the Senate resolution to support the Green New Deal .
Now Joe Biden has endorsed the plan .
Naturally , people want to know what the GND will cost – usually meaning in state and federal government spending .
But that is the wrong question .
The real question is , how much do Green New Dealers expect to get out of it , at what total cost ?
Mr. Biden says he wants the feds to spend nearly $ 7 trillion over the next decade on healthcare , energy and housing transformation , climate change and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is only part of the picture .
Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ( who has a degree in some socialist version of economics ) and the folks who helped her write Biden ’ s so-called Climate Plan have a clear idea of how much money they want , and pretty much know where they expect the money to come from .
Here it is in its clearest form , as stated by Rep. Ocasio-Cortez ’ s then chief of staff , Saikat Chakrabarti : World War II was a time of great sacrifice and hardship @ @ @ @ @ @ @ historic mobilization to win a horrific global war .
However , that hard reality doesn ’ t matter to these folks .
They say we are now waging a war to stop catastrophic climate change .
So money , sacrifice and disruption are irrelevant “ The resolution describes the 10-year plan to transform every sector of our economy to remove GHG [ greenhouse gases ] and pollution .
It says it does this through huge investments in renewables , at WW2 scales ( which was 40-60 % of America ’ s GDP ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Our nation ’ s GDP is around $ 20 trillion a year , or $ 200 trillion in ten years .
40-60 % of that is $ 80-120 trillion .
For simplicity , let ’ s call it an even $ 100 trillion to finance the Green New Deal utopian dream .
$ 100 trillion !
The ways and means of raising this stupendous sum are also clear in their minds .
It will be done the same way WW2 was financed , however that was .
To them , it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , because we did it before .
The specifics don ’ t matter .
Government elites will figure them out .
But even this arrogant , cavalier attitude is only part of the picture .
If you read what Green New Dealers say , confusion arises because people think the GND is an ordinary policy proposal : “ Here ’ s what we want done , and this what it should cost.
” It is nothing like that .
The Green New Deal is more along the lines of , “ Here ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to transform our entire economy , and this is what we should be able to do with that much money.
” People tend to interpret Green New Dealer talk of a WW2-like mobilization as a simple metaphor .
But these folks mean it as an actual measure of what they are determined to do .
So far they have glossed over and ignored the extreme hardships of mobilization .
Here ’ s just one example – not from front lines mayhem , but from the United States home front during World War II @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tightly rationed .
Most families were allocated three US gallons of gasoline a week , which sharply curtailed driving for any purpose .
Production of most durable goods , like cars , new housing , vacuum cleaners and kitchen appliances , was banned until the war ended .
In industrial areas housing was in short supply as people doubled up and lived in cramped quarters .
Prices and wages were controlled .
[ Harold Vatter , The US Economy in World War II ] No doubt the Green New Deal mobilization would impose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ oppressive .
You can ’ t commandeer half of the GDP without disrupting or even destroying people ’ s lives .
The argument is sound in its way , provided there is a need for all-out war – which there is not .
The minor to modest temperature , climate and extreme weather changes we ’ ve been seeing ( in the real world outside computer models ) explain why most Americans see no need for a painful war .
So does the fact that China , India and other emerging economies are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anytime soon .
In fact , polls show that roughly half of Americans do not even believe in the idea of human caused global warming , much less that it is an “ existential threat , ” as Senator Harris claims it is .
The latest Gallup poll found that only 1 % of US adults consider “ climate change/environment/pollution ” to be “ the most important problem facing this country today.
” That ’ s down from a meager 2 % in the May 28-June 4 poll .
Even more revealing , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % of adult Americans were unwilling to pay even an extra $ 10 on their monthly electricity bill to combat global warming .
Indeed , 57 % of them would not be willing to pay more than $ 1.00 in added electricity charges to fight climate change !
Just wait until they see what the Biden-Harris-AOC-Democrat Green New Deal would cost them .
And it ’ s not just that their costs would likely skyrocket from an average US 13.2¢ per kilowatt hour ( 11.4¢ or less in ten states ) to well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ families are already paying in California and New York , or the 30¢ that families are now paying in ultra-green Germany .
Or that factories , businesses , hospitals , schools and everyone else would also see their costs escalate – with blue collar families , the sick and elderly , poor and minority communities hammered hardest .
It ’ s that the GND would force every American to replace their gasoline and diesel cars and trucks with expensive short-haul electric vehicles ; their gas furnaces and stoves with electric systems ; their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transmission systems with expensive upgrades that can handle a totally electric economy .
They ’ ll see their landscapes , coastlines and wildlife habitats blanketed with wind turbines , solar panels , transmission lines and warehouses filled with thousands of half-ton batteries .
Virtually every component of this GND nation would be manufactured in China and other faraway places .
The cost of this massive , total transformation of our energy and economic system would easily reach $ 10 trillion : $ 30,000 per person or $ 120,000 per family – on top @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s just the intermittent , unreliable energy component of this all-encompassing Green New Deal .
These are stupendous , outrageous costs and personal sacrifices .
Every American , at every campaign event and town meeting , should ask Green New Deal supporters if they think America needs to – or can afford to – cough up $ 10 trillion or $ 100 trillion over the next ten years .
And not let them get away with glib , evasive answers , or attempts to laugh these questions off as meritless or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about to be mobilized into an all-out war against dubious climate change , with price tags like these coupled with repeated blackouts , huge personal sacrifices , and massive joblessness in every sector of the economy – except among enlightened government ruling classes .
They ’ ve already seen news stories about the latest rolling blackouts in California ( here , here , here and here ) – resulting from one-third of that state ’ s electricity coming from “ renewable ” sources , and with another third of the state ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get heat waves .
They should ponder what their lives , livelihoods and living standards would be under 100 % wind and solar power .
And yet , once again , even all this insanity is only a small part of the picture .
Remember , the Green New Deal is also about government run healthcare – and an economy and nation where “ progressive ” “ woke ” legislators , regulators , judges and activists tell companies what they can manufacture and sell … and tell us what we can buy , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much we can heat and cool our homes ; and what we can read , hear , think and say , as they “ transform ” our culture and traditions .
The GND is being promoted by politicians , news and social media , “ educators ” and “ reformers ” who also want to eliminate free enterprise capitalism ; have totally open borders , even for criminals and people who might have Covid and other diseases ; and want to defund the police , put anarchists , looters and terrorists back on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right and ability to defend ourselves , our homes and our families .
The time to think long and hard about all of this is NOW .
Not sometime after the November 3 elections .

Kamala Harris co-sponsored the Senate resolution to support the Green New Deal. Now Joe Biden has endorsed the plan. Naturally, people want to know what the GND will cost – usually meaning in state and federal government spending. But that is the wrong question.
The real question is, how much do Green New Dealers expect to get out of it, at what total cost? Mr. Biden says he wants the feds to spend nearly $7 trillion over the next decade on healthcare, energy and housing transformation, climate change and other GND agenda items. But that is only part of the picture.
Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (who has a degree in some socialist version of economics) and the folks who helped her write Biden’s so-called Climate Plan have a clear idea of how much money they want, and pretty much know where they expect the money to come from. Here it is in its clearest form, as stated by Rep. Ocasio-Cortez’s then chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti:
World War II was a time of great sacrifice and hardship, as part of a dramatic and historic mobilization to win a horrific global war. However, that hard reality doesn’t matter to these folks. They say we are now waging a war to stop catastrophic climate change. So money, sacrifice and disruption are irrelevant
“The resolution describes the 10-year plan to transform every sector of our economy to remove GHG [greenhouse gases] and pollution. It says it does this through huge investments in renewables, at WW2 scales (which was 40-60% of America’s GDP).” [emphasis added].
Our nation’s GDP is around $20 trillion a year, or $200 trillion in ten years. 40-60% of that is $80-120 trillion. For simplicity, let’s call it an even $100 trillion to finance the Green New Deal utopian dream.
$100 trillion! The ways and means of raising this stupendous sum are also clear in their minds. It will be done the same way WW2 was financed, however that was. To them, it’s obvious that we can simply do this, because we did it before. The specifics don’t matter. Government elites will figure them out.
But even this arrogant, cavalier attitude is only part of the picture.
If you read what Green New Dealers say, confusion arises because people think the GND is an ordinary policy proposal: “Here’s what we want done, and this what it should cost.” It is nothing like that. The Green New Deal is more along the lines of, “Here’s the level of effort we require to transform our entire economy, and this is what we should be able to do with that much money.”
People tend to interpret Green New Dealer talk of a WW2-like mobilization as a simple metaphor. But these folks mean it as an actual measure of what they are determined to do. So far they have glossed over and ignored the extreme hardships of mobilization. Here’s just one example – not from front lines mayhem, but from the United States home front during World War II.
Gasoline, meat and clothing were tightly rationed. Most families were allocated three US gallons of gasoline a week, which sharply curtailed driving for any purpose. Production of most durable goods, like cars, new housing, vacuum cleaners and kitchen appliances, was banned until the war ended. In industrial areas housing was in short supply as people doubled up and lived in cramped quarters. Prices and wages were controlled. [Harold Vatter, The US Economy in World War II]
No doubt the Green New Deal mobilization would impose different hardships. But all mobilizations are oppressive. You can’t commandeer half of the GDP without disrupting or even destroying people’s lives.
The argument is sound in its way, provided there is a need for all-out war – which there is not. The minor to modest temperature, climate and extreme weather changes we’ve been seeing (in the real world outside computer models) explain why most Americans see no need for a painful war. So does the fact that China, India and other emerging economies are not about to give up fossil fuels anytime soon.
In fact, polls show that roughly half of Americans do not even believe in the idea of human caused global warming, much less that it is an “existential threat,” as Senator Harris claims it is. The latest Gallup poll found that only 1% of US adults consider “climate change/environment/pollution” to be “the most important problem facing this country today.” That’s down from a meager 2% in the May 28-June 4 poll.
Even more revealing, a 2019 AP-NORC poll found that 68% of adult Americans were unwilling to pay even an extra $10 on their monthly electricity bill to combat global warming. Indeed, 57% of them would not be willing to pay more than $1.00 in added electricity charges to fight climate change!
Just wait until they see what the Biden-Harris-AOC-Democrat Green New Deal would cost them.
And it’s not just that their costs would likely skyrocket from an average US 13.2¢ per kilowatt hour (11.4¢ or less in ten states) to well beyond the nearly 20¢ per kWh that families are already paying in California and New York, or the 30¢ that families are now paying in ultra-green Germany. Or that factories, businesses, hospitals, schools and everyone else would also see their costs escalate – with blue collar families, the sick and elderly, poor and minority communities hammered hardest.
It’s that the GND would force every American to replace their gasoline and diesel cars and trucks with expensive short-haul electric vehicles; their gas furnaces and stoves with electric systems; their home, local and state electrical and transmission systems with expensive upgrades that can handle a totally electric economy. They’ll see their landscapes, coastlines and wildlife habitats blanketed with wind turbines, solar panels, transmission lines and warehouses filled with thousands of half-ton batteries. Virtually every component of this GND nation would be manufactured in China and other faraway places.
The cost of this massive, total transformation of our energy and economic system would easily reach $10 trillion: $30,000 per person or $120,000 per family – on top of those skyrocketing electricity prices. And that’s just the intermittent, unreliable energy component of this all-encompassing Green New Deal.
These are stupendous, outrageous costs and personal sacrifices. Every American, at every campaign event and town meeting, should ask Green New Deal supporters if they think America needs to – or can afford to – cough up $10 trillion or $100 trillion over the next ten years. And not let them get away with glib, evasive answers, or attempts to laugh these questions off as meritless or irrelevant.
The American people are not about to be mobilized into an all-out war against dubious climate change, with price tags like these coupled with repeated blackouts, huge personal sacrifices, and massive joblessness in every sector of the economy – except among enlightened government ruling classes.
They’ve already seen news stories about the latest rolling blackouts in California (here, here, here and here) – resulting from one-third of that state’s electricity coming from “renewable” sources, and with another third of the state’s electricity imported from other states that also get heat waves. They should ponder what their lives, livelihoods and living standards would be under 100% wind and solar power.
And yet, once again, even all this insanity is only a small part of the picture.
Remember, the Green New Deal is also about government run healthcare – and an economy and nation where “progressive” “woke” legislators, regulators, judges and activists tell companies what they can manufacture and sell … and tell us what we can buy, eat and drink; how and how much we can heat and cool our homes; and what we can read, hear, think and say, as they “transform” our culture and traditions.
The GND is being promoted by politicians, news and social media, “educators” and “reformers” who also want to eliminate free enterprise capitalism; have totally open borders, even for criminals and people who might have Covid and other diseases; and want to defund the police, put anarchists, looters and terrorists back on our streets, and take away our right and ability to defend ourselves, our homes and our families.
The time to think long and hard about all of this is NOW. Not sometime after the November 3 elections.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-08-21--CFACT leads the charge to challenge Virginia’s Green New Deal

Virginia is for lovers .
But nowadays it is also for Green extremists .
Leftists are abusing the levers of power to force a radical climate change agenda on their constituents .
Through a new law entitled the Virginia Clean Economy Act ( VCEA ) that was just signed by Governor Northam this week , the Left plans on mandating 100 % “ renewable ” electricity by 2040 – which will increase annual utility bills by at least $ 500 .
The VCEA is just the Green New Deal with a different name .
Collister Johnson , who sits on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been instrumental in orchestrating the ever-growing push back against this Green policy initiative .
Johnson has just been named as a senior adviser to The Northern Virginia Republican Business Forum ( NVRBF ) .
The NVRBF has now officially announced they are joining the effort to petition Virginia Governor Ralph Northam to rescind the VCEA .
In the NVRBF ’ s press release , CFACT ’ s article summarizing why the policies contained in the VCEA are such a bad deal for Virginia was prominently featured .
Here ’ s an excerpt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s energy companies to convert to ‘ net zero ’ carbon dioxide emissions .
In Dominion Energy ’ s recent plan submitted to the State Corporation Commission , to achieve this goal Dominion will raise each electricity user ’ s yearly bill by 40 % or $ 500 more per year than the average Virginian now pays and ruin the environment with the clear cutting of 490 square miles of Virginia forest land.
” The NVRBF goes on to explain that since the COVID crisis began , there are an estimated $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Virginians who can no longer pay to keep the lights on .
While a moratorium on disconnecting residents from power is in place , it will expire on August 31st .
Even if that deadline is extended , residents are still on the hook for the rate debts they have accumulated .
Virginia ’ s legislators have enacted a law that will make this mountain of electricity debt even more daunting for the Commonwealth ’ s poorest residents .
What ’ s worse , is that the VCEA will have zero benefit to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ VCEA has absolutely zero positive impact on climate , and a devastating negative impact on the environment .
Under the VCEA , Virginia will not have cleaner air , purer water , or a more beautiful countryside .
Fifteen years from now , not a single Virginian will be able to feel , touch , or smell any difference or improvement in the environment resulting from the VCEA .
But they will be able to see a landscape ruined by solar panel eyesores and ugly transmission towers.
” It ’ s all economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Virginia deserves better .

Virginia is for lovers. But nowadays it is also for Green extremists.
Leftists are abusing the levers of power to force a radical climate change agenda on their constituents.
Through a new law entitled the Virginia Clean Economy Act (VCEA) that was just signed by Governor Northam this week, the Left plans on mandating 100% “renewable” electricity by 2040 – which will increase annual utility bills by at least $500.
The VCEA is just the Green New Deal with a different name.
Collister Johnson, who sits on CFACT’s Board of Advisers, has been instrumental in orchestrating the ever-growing push back against this Green policy initiative.
Johnson has just been named as a senior adviser to The Northern Virginia Republican Business Forum (NVRBF). The NVRBF has now officially announced they are joining the effort to petition Virginia Governor Ralph Northam to rescind the VCEA.
In the NVRBF’s press release, CFACT’s article summarizing why the policies contained in the VCEA are such a bad deal for Virginia was prominently featured. Here’s an excerpt:
“This law requires the State’s energy companies to convert to ‘net zero’ carbon dioxide emissions. In Dominion Energy’s recent plan submitted to the State Corporation Commission, to achieve this goal Dominion will raise each electricity user’s yearly bill by 40% or $500 more per year than the average Virginian now pays and ruin the environment with the clear cutting of 490 square miles of Virginia forest land.”
The NVRBF goes on to explain that since the COVID crisis began, there are an estimated $184 million in unpaid electric bills from Virginians who can no longer pay to keep the lights on. While a moratorium on disconnecting residents from power is in place, it will expire on August 31st. Even if that deadline is extended, residents are still on the hook for the rate debts they have accumulated.
Virginia’s legislators have enacted a law that will make this mountain of electricity debt even more daunting for the Commonwealth’s poorest residents.
What’s worse, is that the VCEA will have zero benefit to Virginia’s environment.
CFACT’s Johnson explains further:
“The VCEA has absolutely zero positive impact on climate, and a devastating negative impact on the environment. Under the VCEA, Virginia will not have cleaner air, purer water, or a more beautiful countryside. Fifteen years from now, not a single Virginian will be able to feel, touch, or smell any difference or improvement in the environment resulting from the VCEA. But they will be able to see a landscape ruined by solar panel eyesores and ugly transmission towers.”
It’s all economic pain for no environmental gain. Clearly Virginia deserves better.


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-08-22--Time to end lockdowns from public school alternatives

Coronavirus public K-12 school safety lockdowns and reopening uncertainties have driven millions of American families to think very seriously about home-schooling , private schooling and charter school alternatives that are facing opposition from powerful teacher union lobbies and compliant Democratic advocates .
Many , perhaps millions , of other current home-schooling and alternative program families are realizing that in many cases they , or their hired teachers , are doing a better job of educating their children than they experience with accessible public offerings .
Some families with school-age children are wondering if or when their kids will be able @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” education experiences .
Uncertainty about public and private school re-openings has affected more than 13,000 school districts nationwide , with some already pushing back start dates , planning hybrid online- brief physical presence models , or entirely online classes .
There are nearly 60 million prekindergarten , elementary , middle and high school students in the U.S. For most of them , especially the younger children , virtual online instruction is very a poor substitute for “ really ” being with classmates and teachers who are totally present for them .
Most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ child care crisis that will make it difficult or even impossible for many parents to hold on to jobs in an already pandemic-ravaged labor economy .
In addition , many parents of children enrolled in hybrid teaching models will have multiple children on different face-to-face attendance schedules that won ’ t enable them to manage work arrangements around supervising at home or transporting them to classes .
Many parents aren ’ t able to work from home ; others lack computing or home-schooling skills .
On July 17 , California Gov .
Gavin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ schools may open in counties having rising COVID-19 caseloads and hospitalizations .
Ignoring the previous “ flatten the curve ” lockdown rationale which has already occurred , with current dropping caseloads , 80 % of California residents live in counties that won ’ t be allowed to open .
It ’ s entirely safe to imagine that public school-invested teachers unions won ’ t shed any tears if the pandemic puts competitive private tuition-dependent options out of business .
Public schools are dominant precisely because they don ’ t need to compete for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them whether or not teachers show up , with no rebates if they don ’ t .
On July 28 , the American Federation of Teachers , the second-largest education union , threatened “ safety strikes ” if reopening plans aren ’ t entirely to its liking .
Those conditions typically demand shortened hybrid daily teaching schedules .
Unions will lose competitive advantages as more efficient private schools afford superior-performance results teaching in person five days a week .
Many who don ’ t homeschool will push for an expansion of charter schools @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and can more easily fire poor teachers .
Taxpayers also gain an advantage since charter schools costs , on average , are thousands of dollars less than traditional public schools .
To be very clear , there are many excellent public schools , perhaps the great majority are , with enormously dedicated , caring and competent teachers .
Families with adequate financial means typically make it a priority to choose neighborhoods to raise children near them .
Sending a child to a relatively inexpensive private school that charges $ 8,000 in annual tuition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ values the private option by at least that amount .
And that ’ s a high hurdle for most parents .
Countless other parents lack that opportunity altogether , with low-income minority inner-city residents also disproportionately getting the brunt of the lowest-performing schools .
These most disadvantaged neighborhoods are encountering aggressive teacher union and allied Democrat push-backs blocking availability of much higher quality charter school options with limitations placed on how many can open and where they can be located .
Dr. Thomas Sowell ’ s new book “ Charter Schools and Their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 90th birthday points out that certain charter schools have had great achievement records in educating low-income minorities .
One of these , an all-Black Dunbar High School in Washington , D.C. in the early 1970s , had outperformed its local white counterparts and repeatedly exceeded national norms on standardized tests throughout the first half of the 20th century .
Over an 85-year span , from 1870 to 1955 , most of Dunbar ’ s graduates went to college , even though most Americans – white or Black – did not .
Dr. Sowell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there are no subpar charter schools – there are – but rather that school choice is a boon for groups that have long been poorly served by the public system .
The Success Academy charter schools in New York City , for example , have effectively closed the academic achievement gap between black and white students .
It ’ s also clear , Sowell emphasizes , that charter schools represent a threat to the current power balance that allows the vested interests of adults who run public education to trump what ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that “ schools exist for the education of children .
Schools do not exist to provide iron-clad jobs for teachers , billions of dollars in union dues for educational bureaucracies , a guaranteed market for teachers college degrees , or a captive audience for indoctrinators.
” Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden is being pressured by progressives , if elected , to continue to limit charter growth .
The road map laid out by his Biden-Sanders Unity Task Force proposes both to reinforce the public school status quo and to suppress its competition from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the opposite , President Trump strongly supports federal government reimbursable school choice options for all students , most particularly prioritized for low-income residents in poorly-performing public school districts .
In November , the public will not only choose which school course to charter , but also if a ship of educational opportunity will ever leave port carrying vital lifeboats for those in greatest peril of drowning .

Coronavirus public K-12 school safety lockdowns and reopening uncertainties have driven millions of American families to think very seriously about home-schooling, private schooling and charter school alternatives that are facing opposition from powerful teacher union lobbies and compliant Democratic advocates.
Many, perhaps millions, of other current home-schooling and alternative program families are realizing that in many cases they, or their hired teachers, are doing a better job of educating their children than they experience with accessible public offerings.
Some families with school-age children are wondering if or when their kids will be able to get any sort of “normal” education experiences. Uncertainty about public and private school re-openings has affected more than 13,000 school districts nationwide, with some already pushing back start dates, planning hybrid online- brief physical presence models, or entirely online classes.
There are nearly 60 million prekindergarten, elementary, middle and high school students in the U.S. For most of them, especially the younger children, virtual online instruction is very a poor substitute for “really” being with classmates and teachers who are totally present for them.
Most immediately, school closings are creating a child care crisis that will make it difficult or even impossible for many parents to hold on to jobs in an already pandemic-ravaged labor economy. In addition, many parents of children enrolled in hybrid teaching models will have multiple children on different face-to-face attendance schedules that won’t enable them to manage work arrangements around supervising at home or transporting them to classes.
Many parents aren’t able to work from home; others lack computing or home-schooling skills.
On July 17, California Gov. Gavin Newsom decreed that neither government-run nor private schools may open in counties having rising COVID-19 caseloads and hospitalizations. Ignoring the previous “flatten the curve” lockdown rationale which has already occurred, with current dropping caseloads, 80% of California residents live in counties that won’t be allowed to open.
It’s entirely safe to imagine that public school-invested teachers unions won’t shed any tears if the pandemic puts competitive private tuition-dependent options out of business. Public schools are dominant precisely because they don’t need to compete for funds. Taxpayers are forced to finance them whether or not teachers show up, with no rebates if they don’t.
On July 28, the American Federation of Teachers, the second-largest education union, threatened “safety strikes” if reopening plans aren’t entirely to its liking. Those conditions typically demand shortened hybrid daily teaching schedules. Unions will lose competitive advantages as more efficient private schools afford superior-performance results teaching in person five days a week.
Many who don’t homeschool will push for an expansion of charter schools which tend to be responsive to parents and can more easily fire poor teachers. Taxpayers also gain an advantage since charter schools costs, on average, are thousands of dollars less than traditional public schools.
To be very clear, there are many excellent public schools, perhaps the great majority are, with enormously dedicated, caring and competent teachers. Families with adequate financial means typically make it a priority to choose neighborhoods to raise children near them.
Sending a child to a relatively inexpensive private school that charges $8,000 in annual tuition only makes economic sense if the family values the private option by at least that amount. And that’s a high hurdle for most parents.
Countless other parents lack that opportunity altogether, with low-income minority inner-city residents also disproportionately getting the brunt of the lowest-performing schools. These most disadvantaged neighborhoods are encountering aggressive teacher union and allied Democrat push-backs blocking availability of much higher quality charter school options with limitations placed on how many can open and where they can be located.
Dr. Thomas Sowell’s new book “Charter Schools and Their Enemies” published last June on his 90th birthday points out that certain charter schools have had great achievement records in educating low-income minorities.
One of these, an all-Black Dunbar High School in Washington, D.C. in the early 1970s, had outperformed its local white counterparts and repeatedly exceeded national norms on standardized tests throughout the first half of the 20th century. Over an 85-year span, from 1870 to 1955, most of Dunbar’s graduates went to college, even though most Americans – white or Black – did not.
Dr. Sowell’s point isn’t that there are no subpar charter schools – there are – but rather that school choice is a boon for groups that have long been poorly served by the public system. The Success Academy charter schools in New York City, for example, have effectively closed the academic achievement gap between black and white students.
It’s also clear, Sowell emphasizes, that charter schools represent a threat to the current power balance that allows the vested interests of adults who run public education to trump what’s best for students. He reminds us that “schools exist for the education of children. Schools do not exist to provide iron-clad jobs for teachers, billions of dollars in union dues for educational bureaucracies, a guaranteed market for teachers college degrees, or a captive audience for indoctrinators.”
Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden is being pressured by progressives, if elected, to continue to limit charter growth. The road map laid out by his Biden-Sanders Unity Task Force proposes both to reinforce the public school status quo and to suppress its competition from charter and other private schools.
Quite the opposite, President Trump strongly supports federal government reimbursable school choice options for all students, most particularly prioritized for low-income residents in poorly-performing public school districts.
In November, the public will not only choose which school course to charter, but also if a ship of educational opportunity will ever leave port carrying vital lifeboats for those in greatest peril of drowning.
This article originally appeared at NewsMax


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-08-22--California’s dysfunctional electricity policies make more blackouts likely

Since intermittent electricity from wind and solar can not provide continuous uninterruptable electricity , the state continues to rely on the Southwest and Northwest states for its power , and continues to be proud of “ leaking ” emissions to other states electrical generation so California can claim in-state emission reductions to meet its insatiable electricity demands .
California is proud of being the only state in America that imports more electricity than any other state , now at 32 percent , and by having no plans for new in-state electrical generation to replace the capacity lost from three recent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it will need to increase its imports of high-priced electricity from the Northwest and Southwest to fill the void and let residents and businesses pay the premium .
This great plan is based on the hopes that other states will have that extra capacity to add to the grid !
The “ hope ” is that the Northwest and Southwest will be able to generate enough high-priced electricity out of state for California to meet the electricity demands of the state .
While California crusades toward 100 percent renewables by 2045 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enough of its own electricity in-state , elected leaders and special interest groups blatantly ignore the California climate policy that is supposed to account for and avoid GHG emission displacement , or “ leakage ” to other states .
In recent years , as the rest of the country , and other world powers , are rushing to build natural gas power plants , California continues to downsize its natural gas fleet .
At the same time , the states “ green ” religion remains adamantly against coal , natural gas , nuclear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appears to have been a big year for natural gas power plant retirements in California .
California saw three big plant retirements .
Natural gas power plant retirements in 2018 : The Redondo Beach natural gas power plant has been an important source of clean and reliable electricity , generating 1,310 MW , which is enough power to light more than one million California homes and businesses .
Redondo is just another gas plant shutdown in 2023 Another four upcoming shuttering of continuous and uninterruptable generated electricity are three gas plants and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ • PG & E ’ s Nuclear 2,160 megawatt Generating Plant at Diablo Canyon is to be shuttered in 2024 .
• • The 823 mw Natural Gas Power Plant at Scattergood in Playa Del Rey , to be shuttered in 2024 .
• • The 575 mw Natural Gas Power Plant at Haynes in Long Beach , to be shuttered in 2029 .
• • The 472 mw Natural Gas Power Plant at Wilmington , to be shuttered in 2029 .
Natural gas accounted for 31 % of the Los Angeles ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much of that generation coming from Scattergood , Haynes and Harbor .
In preparation for that next heat wave to hit California ’ s growing population , the California dysfunctional energy policies have seen three natural gas power plants close in 2018 , and four more to be shuttered , along with the last nuclear power plant at Diablo that have been providing continuous uninterruptable electricity to the grid .
California ’ s prioritization of climate change policies has led to the most expensive electricity and fuels in the country and laid bare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , economic , and environmental injustices that persist against the social and economic impacts of those that can least afford expensive energy .
If the state wants to do a better job at providing continuous uninterruptable power to its residents , they need to build power plants “ in ” California , which means natural gas , nuclear , or hydro , all of which are the exact power plants that California wants to be rid of .
Can you see the conundrum the state is in ?
That is why I constantly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as being dysfunctional !

Since intermittent electricity from wind and solar cannot provide continuous uninterruptable electricity, the state continues to rely on the Southwest and Northwest states for its power, and continues to be proud of “leaking” emissions to other states electrical generation so California can claim in-state emission reductions to meet its insatiable electricity demands.
California is proud of being the only state in America that imports more electricity than any other state, now at 32 percent, and by having no plans for new in-state electrical generation to replace the capacity lost from three recent and five forthcoming shuttering of power plants, it will need to increase its imports of high-priced electricity from the Northwest and Southwest to fill the void and let residents and businesses pay the premium.
This great plan is based on the hopes that other states will have that extra capacity to add to the grid! The “hope” is that the Northwest and Southwest will be able to generate enough high-priced electricity out of state for California to meet the electricity demands of the state.
While California crusades toward 100 percent renewables by 2045, it continues to be unable to generate enough of its own electricity in-state, elected leaders and special interest groups blatantly ignore the California climate policy that is supposed to account for and avoid GHG emission displacement, or “leakage” to other states.
In recent years, as the rest of the country, and other world powers, are rushing to build natural gas power plants, California continues to downsize its natural gas fleet. At the same time, the states “green” religion remains adamantly against coal, natural gas, nuclear, and hydro power plants.
2018 appears to have been a big year for natural gas power plant retirements in California. California saw three big plant retirements. Natural gas power plant retirements in 2018:
Encina at 854 MW
Mandalay at 560 MW
Etiwanda at 640 MW
The Redondo Beach natural gas power plant has been an important source of clean and reliable electricity, generating 1,310 MW, which is enough power to light more than one million California homes and businesses. Redondo is just another gas plant shutdown in 2023
Redondo Beach at 1,310 MW
Another four upcoming shuttering of continuous and uninterruptable generated electricity are three gas plants and the last nuclear plant in California:
PG&E’s Nuclear 2,160 megawatt Generating Plant at Diablo Canyon is to be shuttered in 2024.
The 823 mw Natural Gas Power Plant at Scattergood in Playa Del Rey, to be shuttered in 2024.
The 575 mw Natural Gas Power Plant at Haynes in Long Beach, to be shuttered in 2029.
The 472 mw Natural Gas Power Plant at Wilmington, to be shuttered in 2029.
Natural gas accounted for 31% of the Los Angeles’s power supply in 2017, with much of that generation coming from Scattergood, Haynes and Harbor.
In preparation for that next heat wave to hit California’s growing population, the California dysfunctional energy policies have seen three natural gas power plants close in 2018, and four more to be shuttered, along with the last nuclear power plant at Diablo that have been providing continuous uninterruptable electricity to the grid.
California’s prioritization of climate change policies has led to the most expensive electricity and fuels in the country and laid bare the realities of systemic racial, health, economic, and environmental injustices that persist against the social and economic impacts of those that can least afford expensive energy.
If the state wants to do a better job at providing continuous uninterruptable power to its residents, they need to build power plants “in” California, which means natural gas, nuclear, or hydro, all of which are the exact power plants that California wants to be rid of. Can you see the conundrum the state is in? That is why I constantly refer to the electricity policies in California as being dysfunctional!


committeeconstructivetomorrowcfactorg--2020-08-22--Democratic convention – it’s a wrap

Democratic convention – it’s a wrap

The Democratic National Convention concluded after four evenings and made history by nominating the oldest presidential candidate in the country ’ s history , Joe Biden , and the first woman of color for Vice President , Sen. Kamala Harris .
Congratulations to former Vice President Biden , who has sought the presidency for more than 30 years , having first run unsuccessfully in 1988 and again in 2008 .
The third time was a charm , at least as far as securing the nomination as the Democratic Party ’ s presidential candidate .
Mr. Biden will turn 78 in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , indeed , if a person that old gets elected president .
Night after night , speakers at the Party ’ s convention sought to convey moderation on policy , with heavy doses of identity politics and excoriation of President Donald Trump .
The exception to this pattern of moderation was Sen. Bernie Sanders and Cong .
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , both of whom spoke as proud socialists .
They are incapable of pretension .
The issue of “ climate change ” got plenty of cursory mention during the week , and only briefly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thursday evening .
In total , he said : We can and we will deal with climate change .
It ’ s not only a crisis , it ’ s an enormous opportunity , an opportunity for America to lead the world in clean energy and create millions of new good paying jobs in the process .
While Biden ’ s nomination acceptance speech was not primarily a policy speech , the passing mention of climate may have had the purpose of downplaying the harmful implications of his policies .
He called it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doomsday rhetoric of passing-the-point-of-no-return in 12 years .
There was no mention of the price tag of trillions of taxpayer dollars Biden would commit to mandate “ clean energy , ” nor did he explain how he would create “ millions of new good paying jobs.
” I ’ m not sure I ever saw the juxtaposition of dealing with climate change as “ an enormous opportunity.
” High profile political speeches are drafted with great care .
Every word is carefully chosen and many are focus group tested .
Everyone is in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opportunity .
However , dealing with climate change does neither ; rather , it would be extremely costly , economically detrimental and unnecessary .
Climate change policies actually proposed by the Biden-Harris campaign are not benign and moderate .
They are spelled out in the Biden-Sanders Unity Task Force Recommendations .
The Task Force climate panel was co-chaired by AOC .
Among the plans are to eliminate carbon “ pollution ” in power plants by 2035 and net greenhouse gases from the entire economy by 2050 .
This agenda will destroy jobs in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of energy with enormous negative ripple effects for the economy and Americans ’ standard of living .
So-called “ clean energy , ” as repeatedly documented by CFACT and far-left activist filmmaker , Michael Moore , is a cruel fallacy .
Wind turbines and solar panels are heavily reliant on fossil fuels for both their manufacture and operation .
Similarly , fossil fuel-powered equipment is necessary to wipe out forests to produce “ biomass ” energy .
In Kamala Harris ’ home state of California , during the very week of this convention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ green energy ” future for America , with rolling blackouts due to the banning of fossil fuel sources in favor of “ renewable ” energy .
Interestingly , Biden ’ s climate plans contradict the centrality of his plan to “ rebuild the economy , ” which got larger mention in the speech .
For example , there is no way to build “ modern roads , bridges , highways , broadband , ports and airports , ” and create 5 million new manufacturing jobs without lots and lots of traditional energy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ oil .
As in California right now , “ clean ” or “ renewable ” energy won ’ t cut it .
Assuming any of this Task Force climate agenda were possible , it will be extremely costly and dislocating .
Most of all , it will be ineffective .
The United States can not “ eliminate ” enough carbon emissions to affect the planet ’ s temperature , and politicians should stop pretending otherwise .
Joe Biden was careful to mention climate change in an abstract , sanguine way .
But the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are extreme and dubious with major downside ramifications for our economy and living standards .
That is why Bernie , normally a cantankerous personality , has been uncharacteristically smiling often recently , and why shouldn ’ t he ?
His and AOC ’ s climate plans for the country are one election from reality .
Should Biden win in November , it ’ s full speed ahead on their climate policies .

The Democratic National Convention concluded after four evenings and made history by nominating the oldest presidential candidate in the country’s history, Joe Biden, and the first woman of color for Vice President, Sen. Kamala Harris.
Congratulations to former Vice President Biden, who has sought the presidency for more than 30 years, having first run unsuccessfully in 1988 and again in 2008. The third time was a charm, at least as far as securing the nomination as the Democratic Party’s presidential candidate. Mr. Biden will turn 78 in late November. It will be historic, indeed, if a person that old gets elected president.
Night after night, speakers at the Party’s convention sought to convey moderation on policy, with heavy doses of identity politics and excoriation of President Donald Trump. The exception to this pattern of moderation was Sen. Bernie Sanders and Cong. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, both of whom spoke as proud socialists. They are incapable of pretension.
The issue of “climate change” got plenty of cursory mention during the week, and only briefly in Mr. Biden’s speech on Thursday evening. In total, he said:
We can and we will deal with climate change. It’s not only a crisis, it’s an enormous opportunity, an opportunity for America to lead the world in clean energy and create millions of new good paying jobs in the process.
While Biden’s nomination acceptance speech was not primarily a policy speech, the passing mention of climate may have had the purpose of downplaying the harmful implications of his policies. He called it a “crisis,” without the doomsday rhetoric of passing-the-point-of-no-return in 12 years. There was no mention of the price tag of trillions of taxpayer dollars Biden would commit to mandate “clean energy,” nor did he explain how he would create “millions of new good paying jobs.” I’m not sure I ever saw the juxtaposition of dealing with climate change as “an enormous opportunity.”
High profile political speeches are drafted with great care. Every word is carefully chosen and many are focus group tested. Everyone is in favor of creating jobs; everyone supports opportunity. However, dealing with climate change does neither; rather, it would be extremely costly, economically detrimental and unnecessary.
Climate change policies actually proposed by the Biden-Harris campaign are not benign and moderate. They are spelled out in the Biden-Sanders Unity Task Force Recommendations. The Task Force climate panel was co-chaired by AOC. Among the plans are to eliminate carbon “pollution” in power plants by 2035 and net greenhouse gases from the entire economy by 2050.
This agenda will destroy jobs in fossil fuel industries and raise the cost of energy with enormous negative ripple effects for the economy and Americans’ standard of living. So-called “clean energy,” as repeatedly documented by CFACT and far-left activist filmmaker, Michael Moore, is a cruel fallacy. Wind turbines and solar panels are heavily reliant on fossil fuels for both their manufacture and operation. Similarly, fossil fuel-powered equipment is necessary to wipe out forests to produce “biomass” energy.
In Kamala Harris’ home state of California, during the very week of this convention, we have a glimpse of this “green energy” future for America, with rolling blackouts due to the banning of fossil fuel sources in favor of “renewable” energy.
Interestingly, Biden’s climate plans contradict the centrality of his plan to “rebuild the economy,” which got larger mention in the speech. For example, there is no way to build “modern roads, bridges, highways, broadband, ports and airports,” and create 5 million new manufacturing jobs without lots and lots of traditional energy sources from natural gas, coal and oil. As in California right now, “clean” or “renewable” energy won’t cut it.
Assuming any of this Task Force climate agenda were possible, it will be extremely costly and dislocating. Most of all, it will be ineffective. The United States cannot “eliminate” enough carbon emissions to affect the planet’s temperature, and politicians should stop pretending otherwise.
Joe Biden was careful to mention climate change in an abstract, sanguine way. But the devil is in the details, which are extreme and dubious with major downside ramifications for our economy and living standards.
That is why Bernie, normally a cantankerous personality, has been uncharacteristically smiling often recently, and why shouldn’t he? His and AOC’s climate plans for the country are one election from reality. Should Biden win in November, it’s full speed ahead on their climate policies.


Green politics

You can debate the details , but for my generation ( the baby boomers who went to college in the late ‘ 60s and early ‘ 70s ) the modern environmental is a half-century old .
The movement was a twinkle in Rachel Carson ’ s eye when she published in Silent Spring 1962 .
Its embryonic stage included the dissemination of alarmist ( and spectacularly wrong ) predictions such as those in Paul Ehrlich ’ s The Population Bomb in 1968 .
These intellectual precursors – the DNA or ideological gene pool , so to speak – of today @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gave birth to a popular environmental movement on April 22 , 1970 , the first Earth Day .
From the start , environmentalism occupied a place on the left wing of the ideological spectrum .
As a young teacher in the ‘ 70s , I considered myself an environmentalist .
My income was modest , but I sent multiple $ 5 or $ 10 donations to a wide array of green groups , including the Sierra Club , Audubon Society , Cousteau Society , et al .
I stopped giving , though , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ green organization that I was donating to was supporting causes that had nothing to do with the environment .
Their advocacy ranged from pro-abortion to unilateral nuclear disarmament to pro-union policies .
That is when I learned that the environmental movement was not as dedicated to environmentally sound practices as it was to advancing a broad liberal agenda .
In retrospect , it ’ s easy to see why the movers and shakers of the green movement were groupies on the political left .
The giveaway was their adoption of the term “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Because it was a political ideology , pure and simple .
Environmentalism is simply another illiberal ideology in the vein of socialism , fascism or communism .
Am I being too harsh in my categorization ?
I think not .
All illiberal ideologies are infused with the same values .
Those values are contrary to traditional American values – respect and reverence for the rights of life , liberty , and property as the pillars for individual liberty .
Leftist ( illiberal ) ideologies despise and reject those rights .
And there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ society that the left detests and wars against : truth .
The Bible contains the wise saying , “ Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free ” ( John 8:32 ) .
Leftists , though , don ’ t want people to be free , and so one of their principal weapons is to lie and propagandize .
Where does environmentalism stand in regard to life , liberty , property , and truth ?
My previous article , “ Green paganism , ” showed the green hostility to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Green propaganda , ” showed their hostility to truth .
What about liberty – do environmentalists respect it ?
The monstrous proposal called “ the Green New Deal ” would radically suppress individual liberty .
It calls for Uncle Same to impose the most comprehensive central plan in history , dictating how Americans should live and what we must produce .
It would reduce us to worker bees taking orders in the service of the queen bee in Washington .
( The Green New Deal also shows that greens haven ’ t abandoned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , because in addition to allegedly saving the environment , the GND calls for free college , guaranteed jobs , universal health care , a guaranteed minimum income , etc . )
And what about property – where do greens stand on this fundamental right ?
They despise it .
Heed their own words : “ …climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world ’ s wealth ” ( an IPCC official ) ; advocates for a green economy explicitly call for a “ radical redistribution of the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Movement ) ; “ Our aim is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to change the global economic system ” ( the UN climate chief ) ; “ the Green New Deal wasn ’ t originally a climate thing at all… [ but ] a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy-thing ” ( AOC ’ s chief of staff ) .
Clearly , green politics is thoroughly socialist in its orientation and goals .
Environmentalism is nothing more than the same old oppressive , antihuman ideology of illiberalism decked out in a green veneer to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But that doesn ’ t change the essential historical facts : Wherever countries have been ruled by illiberals ( i.e.
, people who regard truth and the individual rights of life , liberty , and property as impediments to building a better world ) massive human misery has been the inevitable result .
But that isn ’ t all .
As I have been saying for years , and as the recent Michael Moore/Jeff Gibbs video “ Planet of the Humans ” demonstrated so vividly , the policies that environmentalists advocate are often @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shouldn ’ t be surprising for at least two reasons : 1 ) countries with illiberal governments – most notoriously the Soviet bloc and China today – have had worse pollution than freer , democratic countries ; 2 ) because the greens are so focused on imposing a central plan on everyone else , they are too distracted to forge a coherent , sensible environmental policy .
Any rational person understands the importance of preventing environmental degradation and ( where feasible and affordable ) paying for environmental remediation .
Caring for the environment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ important a task to entrust to environmentalists .
Those ideological zealots have a different agenda .
Beware , friends : Green politics is toxic .

You can debate the details, but for my generation (the baby boomers who went to college in the late ‘60s and early ‘70s) the modern environmental is a half-century old. The movement was a twinkle in Rachel Carson’s eye when she published in Silent Spring 1962. Its embryonic stage included the dissemination of alarmist (and spectacularly wrong) predictions such as those in Paul Ehrlich’s The Population Bomb in 1968. These intellectual precursors – the DNA or ideological gene pool, so to speak – of today’s greens achieved critical mass and gave birth to a popular environmental movement on April 22, 1970, the first Earth Day. From the start, environmentalism occupied a place on the left wing of the ideological spectrum.
As a young teacher in the ‘70s, I considered myself an environmentalist. My income was modest, but I sent multiple $5 or $10 donations to a wide array of green groups, including the Sierra Club, Audubon Society, Cousteau Society, et al. I stopped giving, though, when I found out that virtually every green organization that I was donating to was supporting causes that had nothing to do with the environment. Their advocacy ranged from pro-abortion to unilateral nuclear disarmament to pro-union policies. That is when I learned that the environmental movement was not as dedicated to environmentally sound practices as it was to advancing a broad liberal agenda.
In retrospect, it’s easy to see why the movers and shakers of the green movement were groupies on the political left. The giveaway was their adoption of the term “environmentalism.” Why an “-ism”? Because it was a political ideology, pure and simple. Environmentalism is simply another illiberal ideology in the vein of socialism, fascism or communism.
Am I being too harsh in my categorization? I think not. All illiberal ideologies are infused with the same values. Those values are contrary to traditional American values – respect and reverence for the rights of life, liberty, and property as the pillars for individual liberty. Leftist (illiberal) ideologies despise and reject those rights. And there is a fourth pillar of a free society that the left detests and wars against: truth. The Bible contains the wise saying, “Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32). Leftists, though, don’t want people to be free, and so one of their principal weapons is to lie and propagandize.
Where does environmentalism stand in regard to life, liberty, property, and truth? My previous article, “Green paganism,” showed the green hostility to life. An earlier article, “Green propaganda,” showed their hostility to truth.
What about liberty – do environmentalists respect it? The monstrous proposal called “the Green New Deal” would radically suppress individual liberty. It calls for Uncle Same to impose the most comprehensive central plan in history, dictating how Americans should live and what we must produce. It would reduce us to worker bees taking orders in the service of the queen bee in Washington. (The Green New Deal also shows that greens haven’t abandoned their 1970s tactic of supporting liberal/progressive/socialist policies, because in addition to allegedly saving the environment, the GND calls for free college, guaranteed jobs, universal health care, a guaranteed minimum income, etc.)
And what about property – where do greens stand on this fundamental right? They despise it. Heed their own words: “…climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth” (an IPCC official); advocates for a green economy explicitly call for a “radical redistribution of the world’s resources” (World Development Movement); “Our aim is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to change the global economic system” (the UN climate chief); “the Green New Deal wasn’t originally a climate thing at all…[but] a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy-thing” (AOC’s chief of staff).
Clearly, green politics is thoroughly socialist in its orientation and goals. Environmentalism is nothing more than the same old oppressive, antihuman ideology of illiberalism decked out in a green veneer to make it more palatable to Americans. But that doesn’t change the essential historical facts: Wherever countries have been ruled by illiberals (i.e., people who regard truth and the individual rights of life, liberty, and property as impediments to building a better world) massive human misery has been the inevitable result. But that isn’t all.
As I have been saying for years, and as the recent Michael Moore/Jeff Gibbs video “Planet of the Humans” demonstrated so vividly, the policies that environmentalists advocate are often not only anti-human but anti-environment. That shouldn’t be surprising for at least two reasons: 1) countries with illiberal governments – most notoriously the Soviet bloc and China today – have had worse pollution than freer, democratic countries; 2) because the greens are so focused on imposing a central plan on everyone else, they are too distracted to forge a coherent, sensible environmental policy.
Any rational person understands the importance of preventing environmental degradation and (where feasible and affordable) paying for environmental remediation. Caring for the environment in which we live is far too important a task to entrust to environmentalists. Those ideological zealots have a different agenda. Beware, friends: Green politics is toxic.