Why Florida Drivers Don’t Know They’re Breaking the Law – When I see a Florida tag, I stay away. I know they are a bad driver. I don’t know what it is about that state, the one I grew up in and learned drive in. It was way different, before Disney.
Fresh insights into the ecological devastation caused by onshore wind turbines around the world are contained in a shocking new paper published last month by a group of ecologists in Nature. The paper is paywalled and has attracted little mainstream media interest, but it highlights research that illustrates that the effect of utility-scale wind energy production “can be far reaching and sometimes have large and unexpected consequences for biodiversity”. An annual figure of around one million bats are killed in the countries with the highest number of turbines, but harmful effects are seen in many other parts of the ecosystem. The number of top predators such as jaguars, jungle cats and golden jackals can be changed by turbines in tropical forest gaps leading to the “possibility for cascading effects” along similar latitudinal levels.
In short, the science team notes that turbines can kill birds, bats and insects, change animal behaviour, physiology and demography and alter ecosystems. The installation of wind turbines invariably results in habitat degradation, but it is regions rich in biodiversity with minimal existing infrastructure that suffer the most. The authors state that wind facilities “are recognised as an important driver for losses and degradation of irreplaceable habitats that are important for conservation.” Such areas, of course, can be found in the windy highlands of Scotland. For City-dwelling eco zealots, it is a case of out of sight, out of mind. Net Zero is all about money and power – bats and eagles have neither.
The Nature paper is a wake-up call about the increasing damage that is being inflicted on natural habitats by wind turbines that are steadily increasing in size and destructive potential. It is a summary of the latest findings about the effect of turbines and it is not sanguine about the future. “Perhaps the greatest unknown in predicting future effects of wind power on biodiversity lies in the scope of the potential expansion of the technology and the cumulative consequences of this expansion for species and ecosystems”. A 2021 USA report on the potential pathways to Net Zero emissions is noted and this suggests using up to 13% of the land area for wind farms. The new Trump Administration is likely to put a stop to this madness which the scientists observe could have “dramatic consequences for biodiversity”.
The BP Deepwater Horizon accident is generally considered the worse US offshore oil spill. Estimates vary but it is thought to have led to the deaths of around 600,000 sea birds and the incident led to widespread condemnation by environmentalists that continues to this day. Slightly less publicity is given to the 500,000 bats killed onshore in the US by wind turbines every single year. In the UK, 30,000 is the estimated annual kill number, with Canada at 50,000 and 200,000 in Germany.
Many bird species are also at risk, with large raptors a conspicuous example. It is admitted that limited information is available on population-level consequences, but available evidence suggests the turbines could threaten certain species with local extinction, particularly those at risk with low reproduction rates. Possible population collapse has been predicted for cinereous and griffon vultures in Europe and the Eurasian skylark in Portugal. Other predictions suggest population declines for hoary bats in North America, lesser kestrel in France and black harriers in South Africa. Population declines have been reported in central Europe for animals with high-collision risk such as the noctule bat, while nearly 50% of bird species evaluated in one study in California were said to be subject to turbine-induced population decline. Meanwhile, the mortality of golden eagles at Altamont Pass Wind Resource in California is said to be so frequent that local populations are sustained by immigrants. Finally, the authors report that the globally endangered Egyptian vulture in Spain has a lower survival rate, population growth rate and size in the presence of wind facilities.
Who really cares? The UK Bat Conservation Trust states that climate change poses a “significant threat” to UK bat populations. “We need energy-efficient housing and renewable energy to help mitigate for climate change for the benefit of bats, people and the wider environment”, it adds. It is fair to say that similar understanding is not extended to developers encountering the presence of bats other than ‘Green’ entrepreneurs.
The giant turbines regularly sweep the countryside of insects, and the report notes that fatalities can be great enough to contribute substantially to the build-up of debris on blades. In fact, one of the report’s authors, Professor Christian Voigt, has stated in earlier work that it was necessary to evaluate if fatalities added to the decline of insect populations “and potentially the extinction of species”. In a 2022 paper, Voigt reported that turbines can change the nearby microclimate, while vibrational noise may reduce earthworm abundance with likely cascading effects on soil quality and vegetation.
Mass slaughter of bats and raptors is already known, but this new report casts fresh light on the cascading effects on the natural world of increasing numbers of giant wind turbines. That said, the report admits that biodiversity impacts have been documented for only a few small taxa, but the impacts are “not negligible”. Proponents of wind power often claim that wind energy’s impacts on biodiversity will be less than climate change, it is noted. The authors find this “plausible”, but the assumption is said to be “untested”.
Yet another untested assumption driving the destructive madness of Net Zero, others may conclude.
He turned out to be a troll in my timeline. The post was how the sea was rising and would swallow up miles of land around the world. The only thing that got swallowed were the global warming lies by the enviroweenies. My response was that history will prove that AGW and the Climate hoax they worship was wrong.
Here goes:
What the globalist corporate media once smeared as “conspiracy theory” and branded “misinformation” has turned out to be true: the climate crisis was merely an imaginary problem and an informational war on the minds of the taxpayer.
Why all the propaganda? Give Democrats cover for a massive heist of the U.S. Treasury, laundering taxpayer dollars through mysterious NGOs via the Green New Deal Inflation Reduction Act into radical leftist NGOs and politically connected green companies. It was never about saving the planet, as it turns out.
Between 2019, when socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez introduced the Green New Deal (which ultimately failed), and President Biden’s passage of the Inflation Reduction Act in August 2022, the globalists, their corporate media outlets, and dark-money-funded NGOs unleashed a propaganda blitz by flooding the airwaves with record levels of “climate crisis” stories and left millions of folks with climate anxieties.
As soon as the heist was over … those climate crisis headlines, according to Bloomberg data this month, quite literally evaporated.
n brief, the Trump administration is seeking to free the American people from the shackles of the cult of climate alarmism. Zeldin’s tactic is not to argue the science, which is unsettled, but to challenge the EPA’s authority to classify GHGs as “pollutants” and then, in turn, regulate them as such.
Is climate change primarily caused by mankind? According to much of the scientific establishment, the answer to that question is an unequivocal, yes. Indeed, this view that mankind is responsible for climate change, or as it was previously called, global warming, has become climate dogma.
But as much as politicians, activists, and others claim it is “settled science,” the fact is that it is anything but settled. There remain critical questions and unknowns regarding climate science, as evidenced by repeated instances of climate change projections being proven erroneous.
Climate change has been a constant reality on planet Earth since its beginning, and its causes are not fully known or understood, despite the hubris surrounding the issue. The Earth’s climate is a complex system that scientists are still trying to understand.
Therefore, when a substance such as carbon dioxide — a naturally occurring gas that is an essential component for life on this planet — is labeled a “pollutant,” it’s understandable that some would object.
Of course, the reason carbon dioxide has been classified as such is that the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have increased as a result of mankind’s burning of fossil fuels. Scientists link higher saturation levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere with greater heat-trapping effects, concluding that mankind is responsible for global warming, which they warn will have massive negative impacts on the planet should it continue unchecked. That, in a nutshell, is the “science” of anthropogenic climate change.
It is based upon this understanding, this doctrinaire belief, that lawmakers have established laws and regulations to limit fossil fuel-based carbon dioxide emissions. This has been expanded to other human activity that contributes to “greenhouse gases” (GHGs), which include methane gas (also a naturally occurring substance) and other gases.
In the 2007 case Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court considered the issue of whether the Environmental Protection Agency could regulate GHGs under the Clean Air Act. The Court ruled 5-4 that “greenhouse gases fit well within the Act’s capacious definition of ‘air pollutant,’” meaning the “EPA has statutory authority to regulate emission of such gases.” Tellingly, the Court noted that “policy judgments have nothing to do with whether greenhouse gas emissions contribute to climate change and do not amount to a reasoned justification for declining to form a scientific judgment.” Instead, the Court said that the EPA had the authority to determine whether GHGs “cause or contribute to air pollution which may be reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, or whether the science is too uncertain to make a reasoned decision.” This has been referred to as the EPA’s endangerment finding.
The focus in the case was the EPA’s authority to regulate vehicle emissions, but the ruling has been applied much more broadly to effectively encompass any industry that produces GHG emissions.
Of course, the auto industry has been most directly impacted by the Court’s ruling, as the EPA introduced a slew of regulations that have significantly increased the cost of cars. Furthermore, the Biden administration sought to use the EPA’s GHG regulatory power to effectively force automakers into adopting and scaling up production of electric vehicles with the eventual goal of eliminating gas-powered cars entirely. Included in Joe Biden’s erroneously named Inflation Reduction Act, which passed in 2022, was a clause that specifically classified carbon dioxide and other GHGs as “pollutants” regulated by the EPA.
Now, President Donald Trump is pursuing a pro-growth, pro-energy agenda, and his administration has been working to eliminate many of the hurdles to economic growth that the Democrat administrations of both Barack Obama and Biden put in place.
With Trump successfully securing favorable trade deals across the globe, one of the biggest industries that will benefit from these deals is the American auto industry. And the last thing the auto industry needs is GHG emission regulations that hamper growth.
Thus, in March, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin rolled out a deregulation agenda wherein he promised to drive “a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion to drive down cost of living for American families, unleash American energy, bring auto jobs back to the U.S. and more.”
Earlier this year, the usual suspects were putting out horror scenarios of a summer of heat and drought across Europe in 2025. The most extreme model runs, with temperatures soaring to 45°C, were presented as serious forecasts and as being worrying evidence of runaway climate change.
But now the opposite has occurred and the fear-mongers are now either quiet or simply distorting the facts.
Especially in Central Europe, like across Germany, the weather has turned cool and rainy.
Germany’s Das Wetter.com here recently has since warned of 30 com of snowfall in the Alps – in July!:
Anyone who thought the last few weeks had been cool and changeable should dress warmly. Because from Monday, temperatures across Germany will continue to plummet. This is due to a wave of cold Arctic air rushing in from the far north. Highs of under 20 degrees will then be the reality in many places – in July!”
Heavy snow in the Alps in July
In his article, meteorologist Johannes Habermehl then adds that the snow line in the Alps will be dropping “to just 2500 meters – in some places even lower”, with some forecasting “up to 30 centimetres of fresh snow” at higher altitudes.
Lowest Six-Month Human Death Toll From Bad Weather Since Records Began
Something rather odd is happening to the weather. Millions, nay billions, are on the move fleeing droughts, floods, wildfires, runaway temperatures, rising sea levels (see any mainstream media page climate page to fill in rest of sentence). Armageddon will only be put on pause when hard-Left elites take control of the climate and corral us all into their fantasy world of Net Zero. But hold on a minute – news just in. The first half of 2025 has seen the smallest number of deaths related to extreme weather since records began. And more weird weather news – despite boiling seas, all four northern hemisphere ocean basins in the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific are running below average on accumulated cyclone energy. The North Atlantic has seen very little activity with the ACE energy measurement from January 1st to July 21st running at only 41% of the 1991-2020 average.
The cyclone news is natural variation of course, but don’t let on to climate fanatics. The news on deaths from extreme weather is not. It is a long-term trend that has seen weather fatalities plunge by over 99% during the last 100 years. As hydrocarbon use pulls billions out of grinding poverty, so fortunate humans can use the extra wealth to protect themselves against all that Nature throws at life on Earth.
So for people I had to work with like Tom Raftery, Tim O’Reilly and James Governor, the gig is up and so are the lies, but go on believing your religion.
And this gem:
By the numbers the scam is almost comical: 384 individual charging ports, $7.5 billion burned, $19.5 million per plug. That’s enough to buy every Tesla owner in America a home charger—twice—yet all taxpayers got was a handful of glorified parking spots.
WHO POCKETED THE CASH? • EVgo, ChargePoint, and Electrify America—all heavy Democratic donors—walked away with the biggest CFI grants. • The Greenlining Institute, NAACP Climate Initiative, and West Harlem Environmental Action were hired as “equity consultants” at $1,200 an hour to ensure 40 % of funds flowed to “underserved communities” per Biden’s 2021 “Justice40” diktat. • BlueGreen Alliance (a coalition of the Sierra Club and the United Steelworkers) lobbied for set-asides that require every single station to use union-only labor—driving costs up another 30 %. • BlackRock’s Climate Finance Partnership skimmed management fees on green bonds floated to finance the program.
Using the 2022 “Inflation Reduction Act” as cover for the progressive “Green New Deal,” the Biden administration funded a plan that aimed to eliminate gasoline-powered delivery trucks and deploy tens of thousands of battery-electric mail trucks by 2028.
And, like so many initiatives linked to Biden, it ended in complete failure. Republicans in Congress are working to claw-back the remaining monies.
The nearly $10 billion project — which called for more than 35,000 battery-powered US Postal Service (USPS) vehicles to be completed by September 2028 — was funded in part by $3 billion in funding from former President Joe Biden’s 2022 Inflation Reduction Act.
As of this month, the project is well behind schedule despite taxpayers forking over $1.7 billion — prompting Capitol Hill Republicans to try to rescind the remaining nearly $1.3 billion earmarked from the IRA.
“Biden’s multi-billion-dollar EV fleet for the USPS is lost in the mail and more than $1 billion is postmarked to order more,” Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) told The Post.
“I am working to cancel the order and return the money to the sender, the American people. The rescissions package is a great start, but Congress must keep its foot on the pedal and make DOGE a lifestyle by stamping out waste like this on a regular basis.”
When kicking off the project that was supposed to generate a fleet of over 60,000 electric delivery trucks, one Biden climate advisor described it as “the Biden climate strategy on wheels.”
The post office said it is spending nearly $10 billion to electrify its aging fleet, including installing modern charging infrastructure at hundreds of postal facilities nationwide and purchasing at least 66,000 electric delivery trucks in the next five years. The spending includes $3 billion in funding approved under a landmark climate and health policy adopted by Congress last year.
I thought it was another kooky celebrity uninformed weather story. When thinking through it, though, no one wants to hear an 81 year old singer that was famous 40-50 years ago
Abracadabra! Just like that, the Steve Miller Band canceled its entire 2025 North American tour.
The band has canceled all 31 scheduled dates of its American tour, which was slated to begin Aug. 15 in Bethel, NY and traverse the entire country before concluding in Anaheim, Calif. on Nov. 8.
The band made the announcement in a straightforward tone familiar to fans of the 81-year-old veteran singer, songwriter and guitarist and Rock and Roll Hall of Fame member, whose career stretches back to the mid-1960s and has released such classic rock anthems as “The Joker,” “Fly Like an Eagle,” “Jet Airliner,” “Take the Money and Run” and many more.
Fans needn’t worry that the 81-year-old is suddenly facing health issues. He called off the tour due to the unacceptable risks to his audience, the band, and the crew, posed by climate change-induced extreme weather events. Here’s what Miller told fans in his announcement on X:
The combination of extreme heat, unpredictable flooding, tornadoes, hurricanes and massive forest fires make these risks for you our audience, the band and the crew unacceptable. So …
You can blame it on the weather… The tour is cancelled.
look at the X posts at the link below. It calls out the truth
The Trump administration just dealt another blow to the anti-energy, anti-prosperity agenda pursued by the Biden administration underpinned by the man-made “climate change” hypothesis. Under the proposed repeal of previous “climate” regulations on energy production announced this month, many of the power plants targeted for destruction could remain open, and CO2 would no longer be considered dangerous “pollution.” Naturally, that has the “climate” movement screaming bloody murder.
According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the effect of the so-called greenhouse gases coming from U.S. energy production using hydrocarbons (or “fossil fuels”) is so small as to be negligible. The agency also pointed out that the CO2 from power plants is not actually hurting people’s health, contrary to the demonstrably false claims of previous administrations. The latest announcement is part of a suite of two dozen “climate” decrees being eliminated by the administration.
Under the plan, coal and hydrocarbons could continue to provide power for U.S. consumers and businesses. “Rest assured President Trump is the biggest supporter of clean, beautiful coal,” EPA chief Lee Zeldin announced at the agency’s headquarters. “EPA is helping pave the way for American energy dominance because energy development underpins economic development, which in turn strengthens national security.”
The EPA regulatory changes, explained in a proposed rule released this month, would “repeal all greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions standards for fossil fuel-fired power plants,” the agency explained. “The EPA is further proposing to make a finding that GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants do not contribute significantly to dangerous air pollution.”
British solar farms have been paid to switch off for the first time as sunny days prompt a surge of clean power that could overwhelm the grid.
The National Energy System Operator (Neso), which manages the UK’s power grids and is overseen by Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary, has issued switch-off orders to solar facilities this year, new research reveals.
Operators are paid to switch off when these orders are issued, with the extra cost added to consumer and business energy bills.
The solar operators claiming compensation are understood to include some of the UK’s biggest energy suppliers, such as EDF Renewables and Octopus Energy.
Such “constraint payments” are already common with wind farms because so many have been built in areas such as northern Scotland or offshore, areas without grid capacity to carry the power they generate.
So far this year, constraint payments have cost consumers £650m, according to the Wasted Wind website. The cost is added to energy bills.
Overall “balancing payments” could hit £8bn a year by 2030 without massive grid upgrades, according to Neso estimates. Such upgrades would also be extremely costly, with consumers liable.
As I have previously reported, President Donald Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been busy reversing all the climate cultist policies that harm this nation’s ability to serve and support its citizens.
After six months of watching Trump and various members of his team suspend and terminate federal employees, end the progressive pork distribution agency formerly known as USAID, and otherwise upend the Deep State approach to ruling over American citizens, one might think that federal employees who valued regular paychecks and good benefits would realize “Resistance 2.0” would be a failure.
However, a group of EPA employees clearly weren’t paying attention. The agency has placed 144 staffers on paid leave and launched an inquiry into their participation in signing a letter that accused the Trump administration of politicizing the agency.
The agency said its actions were warranted because the employees had signed the letter using their official titles and because the letter had denigrated the agency’s leadership.
“The Environmental Protection Agency has a zero-tolerance policy for career bureaucrats unlawfully undermining, sabotaging and undercutting the administration’s agenda as voted for by the great people of this country last November,” the E.P.A. press secretary, Brigit Hirsch, wrote in an email.
The 144 employees received emails on Thursday saying they had been placed on leave for the next two weeks “pending an administrative investigation,” according to a copy of the email reviewed by The New York Times.
“You are required to provide a current email address and phone number so that we can contact you as part of our investigation,” the email said, adding that the staff members would continue to collect paychecks while on leave.
President Trump has vowed that there will be no more development of wind energy infrastructure under his administration, calling huge windmills blighting the landscape “garbage” and “bullshit.”
“We’re not going to let windmills get built because we’re not going to destroy our country any further than it’s already been destroyed,” Trump said.
He continued, “You go and look at these beautiful plains and valleys and they’re loaded up with this garbage that gets worse and worse looking with time…What bullshit this is.”
Millions of people worldwide are concerned about climate change and believe there is a climate emergency. For decades we have been told by the United Nations that Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from human activity are causing disastrous climate change. In 2018, a UN IPCC report even warned that ‘we have 12 years to save the Earth’, thus sending millions of people worldwide into a frenzy.
Thirty-five years ago, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the (World Meteorological Organization) WMO established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to provide scientific advice on the complex topic of climate change. The panel was asked to prepare, based on available scientific information, a report on all aspects relevant to climate change and its impacts and to formulate realistic response strategies. The first assessment report of the IPCC served as the basis for negotiating the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Governments worldwide have signed this convention, thereby, significantly impacting the lives of the people of the world.
As well it should. I don’t know if Covid and the jab or the Climate scam was the biggest hoax of our lifetime. Both will prove them to be Government lies to launder money (most likely).
From New York to California, state renewable electrical power dreams are collapsing. Power demands soar, while the federal government cuts funding and support for wind, solar, and grid batteries. Renewables cannot provide enough power to support the artificial intelligence revolution. The Net Zero electricity transition is failing in the United States.
For the last two decades, state governments have embraced policies aimed at replacing coal and natural gas power plants with renewable sources. Twenty-three states enacted laws or executive orders to move to 100% Net Zero electricity by 2050. Onshore and offshore wind, utility-scale and rooftop solar, and grid-scale batteries were heavily promoted by states and most federal administrations.
The New York State Climate Action Scoping Plan of 2022 called for 70% renewable electricity by 2030 and 100% by 2040. But 49.7% of the state’s electricity came from gas in 2024, up from 47.7% in 2023. A January executive order issued by President Trump halted federal leases for construction of offshore wind systems. New York, nine other east coast states, and California were counting on offshore wind in efforts to get to 100% renewable electricity, but new offshore wind projects are now halted.
A key plank of the globalist agenda is rooted in Malthusian climate alarmism. This pseudo-scientific hobgoblin has long served as a cudgel to demonise fossil fuels and impose a vision of ‘Net Zero’ that prioritises ideological certainty over pragmatic trade-offs in energy policy. The Trump administration’s aggressive actions against Harvard’s politicised administration include freezing $3 billion in federal grants, revoking Harvard’s ability to enrol international students and threatening its tax-exempt status.
This may, as a welcome collateral effect, disrupt the university’s key role in the Church of Climate, forcing it to align instead with the Trumpian vision of American energy dominance and a rejection of the constraints of the Paris Agreement. The Trump-Harvard standoff could mark a turning point in dismantling the climate-industrial complex’s grip on academia.
By granting intellectual heft to NGO activism, Harvard acts as the ‘Jesuit front’ to the Church of Climate. Like the Jesuits who furthered the Catholic Church’s cause in education and missionary work, Harvard’s professoriate leads the ‘climate crisis’, propagating the faith far and wide in the West and the developing world.
The minute I saw this, I said it’s just a bird killing project that will never pay for itself. Right on both points.
The Ivanpah solar power facility in California is shutting down next year.
The 2 BILLION dollar blight built on 3,500 pristine acres of Mojave desert has been responsible for incinerating more than 60,000 birds, created TWICE the pollution of a typical power plant, created 86… pic.twitter.com/1vdaDjp2yM
Life expectancy at birth measures the average number of years that a newborn could expect to live, if they were subject to the age-specific mortality rates of a given period.
ℹ️ This number visualized is an average between men and women. For extra context, women have higher life expectancies than men in nearly every country in the world.
Ranked: Countries Where People Live the Longest
The micronation of Monaco has the highest average life expectancy in the world. A baby born in the country in 2025 can expect to live to 87 years old.
Omar Sultan Haque, M.D., Ph.D., a Harvard researcher, penned a cri de cœur on his Substack arguing that Harvard has betrayed its very reason for being: the search for truth.
The historic levels of grade inflation on campus also match levels of denial, insularity, truth-inflation, and ideological capture. For instance, a shorter version of this heterodox essay you are reading at this moment was rejected by the Harvard Crimson. The well meaning editor told me they “didn’t feel this particular piece was a good fit at this particular time”. I wondered, when exactly would be a good time? Faculty job applicants already have to do diversity/DEI loyalty oaths, and students can’t speak their mind in an academic institution.
Openness to dissenting voices and free inquiry are as rare at Harvard as is spotting the mythical dodo bird of the Ivy League in Harvard Yard: a student who is working class, conservative, religious, rural in origin, heterosexual, and believes their gender matches their biological sex.
Harvard’s motto is, famously, Veritas–Latin for “Truth.” Just like Pravda, come to think of it, and the modern Harvard is as dedicated to truth and the search for truth as Pravda was during the Soviet years.
In contrast, a partisan think tank is explicitly factional and partial in its aims. There are many think-tanks in America that have explicitly partisan aims and practices, such as the Center for American Progress (liberal), Claremont Institute (conservative), Cato Institute (libertarian), Guttmacher Institute (pro-abortion). Though intellectually oriented and often producing robust scholarship, these are not universities. Consistent with their ideologies, these institutes tend to only ask a small range of all possible intellectual questions, and their answers are more predictable than not. The Guttmacher Institute, for instance, rarely does a study on post-traumatic stress disorder and moral injury after abortions, and the Cato Institute rarely writes reports documenting the needs of the most vulnerable in society and how social safety nets could help.
Harvard, by these standards, is much more like a left wing progressive Institute, than it is a university. In its most passionate moral exhortations, Harvard resembles a secular ideological church. There are some quantitative pockets of flourishing, non-partisan academic life, but in general, Harvard does not live up to the values of a university, and is more like a think tank.
The REF’s new report on green energy subsidies noted that renewables subsidies are now costing £25.8 bn per year – or over £900 per household annually – about one third of which, £280, will hit the average domestic electricity bill directly.
For a long time, part of the gaslighting around the cost of Net Zero has been focus people’s attention over the impact on their energy bills.
However, as John Constable pointed out, only about a third of the cost hits the public directly via their electricity bills, because only a third of electricity is consumed by domestic users.
The other two thirds is used by industry and commerce, transport and the public sector.
But that does not mean that the public at large don’t end up footing the entire bill one way or another.
Higher electricity costs for industry and commerce mean higher prices in the shops. And higher electricity costs in the public sector mean higher taxes or poorer public services.
At the worst, businesses may shut or move their production abroad, leaving us all worse off.
Miliband and co would love you to think you are only paying a hundred quid or so for Net Zero. People would be horrified to learn that the price is nearer a thousand quid a year.
And that cost is of course just for starters. When we all have to buy expensive EVs and heat pumps we don’t want, we will be much worse off.
The recent massive blackout across Spain, Portugal, France, and Belgium has sparked new debates about the state of Europe’s energy infrastructure, especially as these countries have moved toward renewable energy.
On Monday, Spain and Portugal experienced a massive power outage. Spain lost about 60 percent of its electricity within about five seconds. France and Belgium were also hit, and everybody experienced some level of disruption to their transportation, communication, and overall daily life.
At first, rumors spread that the blackout was caused by some “rare cosmic phenomenon.” But that was quickly ruled out.
The rare atmospheric phenomena causing power outages across Europe has a name
Investigations have also ruled out cyberattacks and weather-related events. The early findings suggest that a sudden loss in solar power in southwestern Spain is what triggered everything.
Watch:
MASSIVE BLACKOUT IN EUROPE ⚡
Major outages hit Spain, Portugal, France, and Belgium.
Airports, subways, and communication networks down.
Spain is one of Europe’s leaders in renewable energy, with over 75% of its electricity coming from renewable sources at the time of the outage.
Net Zero isn’t reality, but that’s exactly what Spain is pushing.
This is truly bananas: all of Europe appears to have been seconds away a continent-wide blackout.
The grid frequency across continental Europe plunged to 49.85 hertz — just a hair above the red-line collapse threshold.
The normal operating frequency for Europe’s power grid is 50.00 Hz, kept with an extremely tight margin of ±0.1 Hz. Anything outside ±0.2 Hz triggers major emergency actions.
If the frequency had fallen just another 0.3 Hz — below 49.5 Hz — Europe could have suffered a system-wide cascading blackout.
At that threshold, automatic protective relays disconnect major power plants, and collapse accelerates.
And it’s disturbingly easy to imagine multiple scenarios where that could have occurred…
Renewables don’t risk blackouts, said the media. But they did and they do. The physics are simple. And now, as blackouts in Spain strand people in elevators, jam traffic, and ground flights, it’s clear that too little “inertia” due to excess solar resulted in system collapse.
This video has been deleted all across the internet.
Gone from Twitter…
Gone from YouTube…
I’ve even heard of some being deleted off Bitchute.
But after hours of searching I was able to find it.
It’s the “super edit” of all things said by that creep Klaus Schwab.
Or as some of you have nicknamed him: “Anal Schwab”.
I like that one.
But this really is no laughing matter.
Complete with even the evil German accent, this guy is like someone wrote a super-villain for a Hollywood movie and he somehow got loose in the real world.
Who says these kinds of things?
If you have ever doubted that they want to create a mass genocide of the human population and “reduce the population to 500 million” (see Georgia Guidestones) look no further that what this guy is saying publicly.
He probably thought we’d never piece it all together.
They like to “hide in plain sight”.
Too bad we’re paying attention now and millions of people have now been Red Pilled.
Can’t hide in plain sight any longer.
Folks, let me say it plainly: all the events you see playing out right now on the world stage are not random chance.
They’re not just due to some “bad actors”.
They’re staged in advance, carefully crafted.
Listen to what he says in this video: the change is crafted!
He also admits how he controls cabinets and governments all over the world! Just like we’ve told you! All caught on video!
They plot all this evil, all the sickness, all the wars….all to bring about the “change” they want. The “chaos” they want. It’s all deliberate.
Notice I didn’t say climate because global warming is a lie, a money laundering tool that is losing steam (see what I did there?)
Anyway, from Watts Up With That, why warming up is better than cooling.
Here in England this spring, there was dry, sunny weather through most of March, followed by gentle showers in April. And here is the opening couplet of Geoffrey Chaucer’s Tales of Caunterbury, written more than six centuries ago in 1387:
From the medieval climate optimum to the modern climate optimum, the weather in these islands has changed scarcely at all. The drought of March, the sweet April showers, the birdsong day and night, the bursting forth of primroses, bluebells, daffodils and other spring flowers, all are today just as Chaucer described them in the Middle Ages.
The wine-dark sea
One can even go back to Homer, in the 8th Century BC, who talked of the Mediterranean as “the wine-dark sea”. And here am I, almost three millennia later, recently recovered from a long illness caused by defective medication with no active ingredient in it, having climbed to the 1230ft summit of the Akamas peninsula in Cyprus, doing a Canute and challenging the wine-dark sea not to rise. The sea was wine-dark in Homer’s time. It is still wine-dark today.
Where, then, are the drastic changes in climate and consequent catastrophes and cataclysms so luridly predicted by the climate Communists? Where are the mass extinctions? Why is the climate much as it was in the Middle Ages? Why are ten times as many dying of cold as of heat? Why are crop yields at record highs? Why is the planet greening so fast?
Cold, not heat, is the real killer
Silvio Canto Jr., at the splendid American Thinker blog, reminds us that “Earth Day” began on Lenin’s birthday, 22 April. He sets out some examples of the half-witted predictions made by the totalitarian far Left in the early 1970s, when the “green holy day” started:
Paul Ehrlich, in a 1969 essay entitled Eco-Catastrophe!, wrote: “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born. By [1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”
In April 1970 he wrote in Mademoiselle: “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years”.
In the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, he sketched out his most alarmist scenario, telling readers that between 1980 and 1989 some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in what he called the “Great Die-Off.”
In the May 1970 issue of Audubon, he wrote that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons “may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945.” He said that Americans born since 1946 now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and he predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980, when it might level out. According to the most recent CDC report, life expectancy in the US is 78.6 years.
That year he predicted that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone”. He predicted that 200,000 Americans would die by 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.
Five years later he predicted that “Since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the next 30 years or so [i.e., by 2005], it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it.”
Kenneth Watt, an ecologist, said: “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate … that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, ‘Fill ’er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, ‘I’m very sorry, there isn’t any.’” Global oil production in 2024, at about 95 million barrels per day, was double the global oil output of 48 million barrels per day at the time of the first Earth Day in 1970.
He gave a speech predicting a pending Ice Age: “The world has been chilling sharply for about 20 years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an Ice Age.”
He also told Time that “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”
Barry Commoner, a Washington University biologist, wrote in the Earth Day issue of Environment: “We are in an environmental crisis that threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.”
He also predicted that decaying organic pollutants would consume all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, suffocating freshwater fish.
George Wald, a Harvard biologist, estimated that “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years [by 1985 or 2000] unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
The New York Times, on its editorial page the day after the first Earth Day, wrote: “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”
Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, wrote in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness: “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.”
Peter Gunter, a professor at North Texas State University, wrote in 1970: “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China, the Near East and Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions… By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.” The prediction of famine in South America has come to pass only in Venezuela and only due to socialism, not due to environmental reasons.
Life Magazine reported in January 1970: “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution … by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching Earth by one half.”
Harrison Brown, a member of the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated that humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after 2000, while lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990.
Senator Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look: “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”
None of these lurid fantasies, mere pretexts for totalitarian control measures, has materialized.
While I have been ill, I have been quietly working on our team’s climatological research. For an update on our result, now published as an extended abstract after peer review, search YouTube for “Tom Nelson Monckton”.
I have also had long and detailed conversations with two Fellows of the Royal Society, who are justifiably concerned at the Society’s propensity to promulgate only the official narrative on questions such as global warming and are preparing to do something about it.
We have already notched up a useful initial victory. Several Communist Fellows had decided that now that Elon Musk is for some reason no longer a hero of the Left they should call a meeting of the Royal Society to strip him of his Fellowship.
Nuclear scientist Digby Macdonald said that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not the primary driver of global temperature changes.
In a recent episode of EpochTV’s Bay Area Innovators program, Macdonald said that temperature rises first, followed by CO2.
He pointed to the example of a carbonated drink and how a rise in temperature will cause the drink to release its CO2 faster, causing it to go flat.
“That’s the very reason why you put your beer in a refrigerator,” he said. “If you want the fizzy drink to be tangy … you put it in the refrigerator so the CO2 remains in the drink.”
Macdonald said one of the reasons for the change in climate is the Milankovitch cycle—the regular variations in the elliptical path the earth travels around the sun.
He said that cycle changes every 100,000 years and an ice age occurs when it’s the most elliptical because the earth is receiving a lot less solar radiation and heat.
This cycle, combined with the earth’s wobble and sunspot activity, are the drivers of climate, he said.
“There’s nothing that you and I can do about that,” Macdonald said. “That’s okay, because if we rely upon the historical record, we go through these maxima and minima.”
He said during the Roman period it was one of the maxima, in which temperatures were about two to four degrees higher than now, and there was a large advance in civilization.
If you listen to him talk, you can hear the SS in Germany in the 1940’s. They want to rule the world. These are the, you’ll own nothing and love it while we feed you bugs assholes.
Anyway, there is a chart below that names the Satan worshipers who run the WEF. I found Al Gore, but not John Kerry. The rest of the world they are trying to dominate is there.
Here goes:
On the same day Pope Francis—known for his inclusive beliefs—passed away, another globalist fell: Klaus Schwab, the architect of the World Economic Forum’s dystopian agenda, announced he was stepping down from the WEF board. It marks the end of an era for Schwab, who championed radical wokeness, bug eating, mass vaccination campaigns, population control, and climate de-growth policies through what often resembled digital communism—social credit scores, central bank digital currencies, and many more China-like policies. Meanwhile, cultural shifts across the Americas signal a rising movement toward traditional values, sending the WEF’s ideological woke grip on governments, non-government organizations, corporations, the church, and society into disarray.
“Following my recent announcement, and as I enter my 88th year, I have decided to step down from the position of Chair and as a member of the Board of Trustees, with immediate effect,” Schwab wrote in a statement.
Schwab stepped down as executive chairman one year ago (read: here), with former Norwegian Foreign Minister Borge Brende taking over daily operations. WEF said Vice Chairman Peter Brabeck-Letmathe was appointed board chairman in the interim and that a search committee for replacement had been appointed.
WEF stated:
“At a time when the world is undergoing rapid transformation, the need for inclusive dialogue to navigate complexity and shape the future has never been more critical. The Board of Trustees of the World Economic Forum underlines the importance of remaining steadfast in its mission and values as a facilitator of progress. Building on its trusted role, the Forum will continue to bring together leaders from all sectors and regions to exchange insights and foster collaboration.”
Might recognize some of the WEF’s board members…
Schwab’s resignation also comes three months after President Trump told globalist CEOs at the WEF’s 2025 Annual Meeting in Davos, Switzerland, “America is back.” It also follows Trump and Elon Musk’s DOGE initiative, which nuked USAID programs that funneled billions of taxpayer dollars into corrupt NGOs.
Listen to him talk. I was waiting for the word Fuhrer to come out.
Klaus Schwab now admits that we're seeing a political revolution against his Great Reset plans.
Whether you want to believe it or not, he's finished. He might still be standing, but he's done.
source Plus Trump telling him and the WEF to pound sand
The only thing I can’t figure out is where they stand with the CCP. For them to take over the world, they have to deal with the other Hell bound leaders, the Chinese Government. I wonder where the Muslim’s weigh in on this crap. They worship Satan also.
Here we go again, exposing the truth about one of the biggest scams the government has come up with to launder money since war.
(1) We are in a climate crisis
We may as well begin with the most controversial environmentalist claim, that our planet is at imminent risk of catastrophic climate change. The problem with this claim is two-fold. First, there remains vigorous—if suppressed—debate over whether the data actually supports this claim. There is ample evidence that average global temperatures are not rapidly increasing, if they are even increasing at all. There is also strong evidence that extreme weather events are not increasing but rather that our ability to detect them has improved and that population increases have led more people to live in places that are particularly vulnerable to extreme weather. Second, even if there is some truth to the claims of climate catastrophists, it is not possible to precipitously transform our entire energy infrastructure. The technology isn’t ready, the funding isn’t available, and most nations will not participate. Adaptation is our only rational course of action.
(2) There are too many people
Based on extrapolations back in 1970, this may have appeared to be the case because populations worldwide at that time were rapidly growing. But today, in almost every nation, the inverse is now true: birthrates are well below replacement levels. Even in those nations that continue to experience rapid population growth, the rate of growth is following the same pattern of decline. The United Nations now estimates the total global population to top out at around 10 billion people, after which it is projected to decline. This means the rapid population growth we’ve seen over the past two centuries, where the global population octupled from 1 billion in 1804 to over 8 billion by 2024, is over. There is not one trend anywhere on earth that contradicts this pattern. Humanity faces a future of too few people, not too many.
(3) We are running out of “fossil” fuel
While this is technically correct, the situation is nowhere close to what was famously predicted in 1956 by American geologist M. Hubbert, who claimed oil production in the U.S. would peak by 1970 and then slide into permanent decline. In the U.S. and around the world, new technologies and new discoveries have put total reserves of oil, along with natural gas and coal, at record highs despite increasing demand. According to the authoritative Statistical Review on Global Energy, based on current consumption, proven reserves could supply oil for 61 years, natural gas for 50, and coal for 208. This grossly understates the big picture, however, because proven and recoverable reserves are being expanded all the time. “Unproven” reserves, waiting to be discovered, will easily double the amount of time left. This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t continue to research new sources of energy. But we have a century or more to sort this out.
(4) Biofuel is renewable and sustainable
Nothing could be further from the truth. Biofuel will never supply more than a small fraction of our energy requirements, and attempts to scale it beyond a niche product have produced catastrophic results. Just to use California as an example, the current yield of ethanol from a corn crop stands at not quite 500 gallons per acre. Californians consumed 13.6 billion gallons of gasoline in 2023. Since ethanol has 33 percent less energy per gallon than conventional gasoline, that means replacing gasoline with carbon-neutral ethanol would require 20.3 billion gallons of ethanol production, which in turn would require 63,400 square miles of irrigated farmland and over 120 million acre-feet of water per crop. To put this in perspective, California’s entire expanse of irrigated farmland only totals around 14,000 square miles, and California’s entire agricultural sector only consumes around 30 million acre-feet of water per year. Worldwide, biofuel crops already consume an estimated 500,000 square miles while only offsetting 2 percent of the global consumption of transportation fuel.
(5) Offshore wind energy is renewable and sustainable
Absolutely not. Wind turbine blades, on land or offshore, routinely kill raptors, condors, and other magnificent endangered birds, along with bats and insects. Offshore, there are additional harmful impacts. Electromagnetic fields from undersea cables produce birth deformities in marine life and produce magnetic fields that disrupt the orientation abilities of some fish. Their low-frequency operational noise disrupts sounds made by fish for mating, spawning, and navigating. The turbines “increase sea surface temperatures and alter upper-ocean hydrodynamics in ways scientists do not yet understand” and “whip up sea sediment and generate highly turbid wakes that are 30-150 meters wide and several kilometers in length, having a major impact on primary production by phytoplankton, which are the base of marine food chains.” California’s official plan is to install 25,000 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity in floating wind farms 20 miles offshore. At 10 megawatts each, California’s treasured marine ecosystem will be disrupted by the presence of somewhere between 2,500 floating wind turbines, each one nearly 1,000 feet high. They will need 7,500 tethering cables descending 4,000 feet to the seafloor, along with 2,500 high-voltage cables. Expect ratepayers and taxpayers to subsidize a project that could cost $300 billion or more to build systems that may only have a lifespan of 10-20 years.
(6) Renewables are renewable
No. They’re not. Renewables most in favor with environmentalists are solar and wind farms with battery farms to store the intermittently generated electricity. Just the consumption of natural resources to build these renewables is hardly sustainable. For example, using data from the International Energy Agency, geopolitical writer Peter Ziehan calculated the mineral requirements for power generation, comparing renewables to natural gas in terms of kilograms of minerals per megawatt of capacity. Offshore wind: 16,000 kg/MW, onshore wind: 10,000 kg/MW, solar photovoltaic: 7,000 kg/MW, and natural gas: 2,000 kg/MW. Compounding this disparity is the fact that natural gas power plants can operate for 60 years or more, whereas solar installations are operable for 30 years at most, and wind turbines substantially less than that, depending on where they’re situated. As for EVs, Ziehan calculated kilograms of minerals per vehicle, with EVs requiring over 200 kg/vehicle, compared to conventional cars at only 35 kg/vehicle. It’s easy enough to see what this means. Replacing conventional energy with “renewables” has ignited an expansion of worldwide mining in nations with minimal environmental protections.
(7) Renewables can replace fossil fuels
Not anytime soon. Worldwide, in 2022, 82 percent of global energy was still derived from fossil fuels. For everyone on earth to consume half as much energy per capita as Americans, global energy production will have to double. Based on those two cold facts, fossil fuels are going to be around for a very long time. Even these statistics understate the challenge. In 2023, most of the non-fossil fuel energy produced was from either nuclear (4.0 percent) or hydroelectric (6.8 percent) sources, leaving only 7.5 percent from allegedly renewable sources. And of the remaining 7.5 percent “renewables,” two-thirds of it was biofuel production, which should not be considered renewable or, at the very least, must be considered already at maximum capacity. That leaves only about 2.5 percent of worldwide energy production coming from renewables, if you want to call them that, primarily wind, solar, and geothermal sources.
(8) New housing must be confined to the footprint of existing cities
This is not true for California, nor for the United States, and not even worldwide. Nonetheless, urban containment has been enforced in California ever since we stopped investing in expanding our energy, water, and transportation infrastructure, resulting in 94 percent of the population living on only 5 percent of the land. But urban containment isn’t necessary to ensure enough farm production. Even India, the most densely populated large nation on earth, where there are 2,700 people per square mile of farmland, is a net food exporter. In California, the alleged need for urban containment is truly ridiculous. Building new homes for ten million new California residents on quarter-acre lots, with four-person households, and allocating an equivalent amount for schools, parks, roads, and retail and commercial areas would only consume 1,953 square miles. This would only increase California’s urban footprint from 7,800 to 9,700 square miles, i.e., from 5.0 percent to 6.2 percent of all land in the state. The global trend is people voluntarily migrating to cities at the same time as the global population is expected to begin to decline within a few decades. There will be plenty of room for farms and wilderness even if cities are permitted to expand. Keeping cities bottled up is misanthropic and misguided, creating artificially high home prices and unwanted overcrowding.
(9) Mass transit is necessary to achieve sustainability
It’s hard to imagine a claim more at odds with reality. Mass transit works in extremely dense urban areas where most jobs are located in a central core. With rare exceptions, such as Manhattan, most metropolitan areas no longer have this hub-and-spoke model, which renders economically viable mass transit extremely difficult. Then there are the challenges introduced during the COVID pandemic, which drove millions of riders out of mass transit to either commute in private cars or work from home. Ridership never recovered. An additional barrier to the readoption of mass transit is the fact that most cities are unwilling to police and remove disruptive individuals from the buses and trains, rendering their systems too dangerous for potential passengers to consider. Finally, along with now-mature work-from-home technology that is only going to improve, we have innovations just around the corner that will enable smart cars to convoy at higher speeds, increasing the capacity of existing roads, as well as a revolution in passenger drones that will take additional pressure off roads. Why would someone ride mass transit when they can relax while their own smart vehicle drives them point-to-point with no interruptions? And why should taxpayers subsidize mass transit?
(10) Wilderness areas are sacred
This mantra has caused more harm than good to the wilderness. Litigation pursuant to the Endangered Species Act has severely restricted, if not put a complete stop to, logging on public land, although the current White House administration is trying to change that. Since then, over the past 40 years, because fires were suppressed and logging didn’t remove new growth, our forests have become overgrown, resulting in catastrophic fires. Similarly, ESA litigation and environmentalist-inspired regulations put a stop to dredging in California’s Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, which was the only way to maintain deep, cool channels favored by salmon ever since the construction of levees in the 1800s caused silt deposits to accumulate in what remained of their migration routes. It is important to protect truly endangered species, but environmentalists often create bigger problems. Poverty in Africa could be alleviated if environmental restrictions on energy development were lifted. But as it is, in desperate poverty, Africans are cutting down their forests for firewood, hunting wild game for food, and poaching dwindling herds of elephants, rhinos, lions, and other precious and endangered species for sale to international smugglers. How we manage our wilderness must be revisited with a reality-based emphasis on results, not ideology. Moreover, an encouraging fact is that while total forest cover in the world was in decline for many centuries, over the past 40 years, it has been increasing. This is the result of several factors: reforestation efforts, migration to urban areas, which depopulates forest regions; huge improvements in agricultural productivity, which takes farmland out of production, allowing for forests to reclaim the land; and maybe even slightly elevated atmospheric CO₂, which is plant food.
The ideals of environmentalism ought to inspire everyone, but the policies promulgated in the name of environmentalism are all too often actually hurting the environment. Examples are the mad rush to develop renewables and the power of the “climate crisis” narrative to deter rational cost/benefit analysis of environmentalist policies. The impact of misguided environmentalism is not merely the fate of wildlife and wilderness or the health of global ecosystems. It is also economic and, in practice, has led to profound transfers of wealth as entrenched special interests thrive on escalating regulations that only the biggest corporations and wealthiest individuals can navigate. Worldwide, entire industrial sectors are consolidated, costing nations the resilience and affordability that a diverse and competitive economy can deliver. Environmentalism, as it is practiced in the 21st century, is an arm of globalism, with shades of paternalism and colonialism that often overshadow its virtues.
I’d argue that the Covid jab is close, as was the Covid cover story, but nevertheless
I had to work in sustainability at IBM. I knew it was a load of shit from premise to people. It was a money laundering scheme from the getgo as well as a religion for those who don’t want to believe in God.
The Paris Climate Accord is not much of a deal anymore, in large part because it’s hard to fix the climate if nothing stops China. In other words, we finally came to terms with the reality that China and India are polluting the air a lot more than the Western countries who couldn’t wait to sign it.
The language has changed, too. You may remember when we called it global warming. Everything now is “climate change,” a convenient way of blaming everything on the climate.
Last, but not least, what killed the climate change cult is all of those predictions that turned out to be false. How many times can you get it wrong? I guess a million if you are making predictions about warming and cooling. Let’s remember some of the biggest hits:
1) In 1970, S. Dillon Ripley, a wildlife conservationist who served as secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, warned that 75 percent to 80 percent of species would be extinct by 1995. Wrong.
2) In 1970, Kenneth Watt, an ecologist and professor at the University of California, Davis, warned that “there won’t be any more crude oil,” that “none of our land will be usable” for agriculture, and the world would be 11 degrees colder by the year 2000. False.
3) In 1970, biologist Paul Ehrlich at Stanford University warned that by the end of the decade up to 200 million people would die each year from starvation due to overpopulation, life expectancy would plummet to 42 years, and all ocean life would perish. Extremely false.
4) In 1970, Peter Gunter, a professor at North Texas State University, predicted that “world population will outrun food supplies” and “the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine” by the year 2000. Didn’t happen.
5) In 1971, Dr. S. I. Rasool, an atmospheric scientist at NASA, predicted the coming of a “new ice age” within 50 years. Incorrect.
As I recall, the one about the coming ice age made the cover of Newsweek or Time. It had me wondering if they would have to cancel baseball or force every city to build a dome stadium.
Check out more hits:
6) In 1975, Ehrlich, the Stanford biologist, warned that 90 percent of tropical rainforests and 50 percent of species would disappear within 30 years. Erroneous.
7) In 1988, Hussein Shihab, environmental affairs director of the Maldives, warned that his island nation would be completely underwater within 30 years, which wouldn’t even matter because experts also predicted the Maldives would run out of drinking water by 1992. False.
8) In 2004, a Pentagon analysis warned of global anarchy due to climate change. Major European cities would be underwater by 2020, at which point Britain would suffer from a “Siberian” climate. Extremely false.
As it turned out, Britain never got a Siberian winter, but they do have a lot of immigrants who hate everything about the country. They didn’t run out of water in the Maldives, either, but a lot of people are going there for vacation. Maybe they drink bottled water in all of those fancy resorts.
And we round out the list with two more:
9) In 2008, Bob Woodruff of ABC News hosted a two-hour climate change special warning that New York City could be underwater by 2015, among other apocalyptic predictions. Didn’t happen.
10) In 2009, former vice president and climate activist Al Gore predicted the Arctic Ocean would have no ice by 2014, which is the same thing Greta Thunberg said would happen by 2022. Nope.
Well, New York City did not go underwater, but it’s a horrible place to live as more people bail out from high taxes. And V.P. Gore and Greta will likely not live to see the end of ice on the Arctic Ocean. We also have not yet lived to see a Gore presidency, which was the best part of the story.
So yes, there is something in the air, because climate talk is not what it used to be. I guess that’s what shutting down power plants and making bad predictions will do to a movement.
What looked like the Green Movement’s unstoppable momentum has stalled out recently, as Americans rethink the costs of some of the more draconian proposals to rid the world of industrial carbon dioxide. As skepticism grows, the movement to slash CO2 at all costs also may be nearing an end, the latest I&I/TIPP Poll shows.
Americans have become increasingly wary of the “net zero” and other modern-day green movements after so many of their doom-filled prophecies of imminent environmental disaster failed to come true.
In its national online poll taken Mar. 26-28, I&I/TIPP asked 1,452 poll respondents the following opening question: “Which of the following best describes your view of the current climate change movement?”
Those taking the poll, which has a +/-2.6 percentage point margin of error, were asked to choose from six possible answers:
The first answer was that the climate-change movement “is a necessary response to a serious global crisis.” It garnered 39% support, more than any other single response.
However, taken together, the remaining five responses portray a broad range of skepticism of the green movement among the rest of those who took the poll.
Within this group, 16% said “It has gone too far and is driven more by politics than science,” while 20% agreed: “I’m concerned about the environment but skeptical of climate alarmism.” Another 5% said “I used to support it but now question its motives and impact,” and 11% noted “I don’t believe climate change is a significant issue.” The remaining 9% said they were not sure.
Because the real polluters are on the other side of the world
95% of all plastic in the world’s seas and oceans comes from 10 rivers, 2 of which are in Africa and the rest are in Asia. The great lie of modern environmentalism is that anything we do in the West will make a difference as long as Asia and Africa continue to pollute like this. https://t.co/KZOlUMY60Hpic.twitter.com/nr966mEgla
China, India and Africa. They are causing the problem. Stop trashing the US as the only reason we have pollution. They just want to soak the US to pay.
One of the major issues I have had with “climate change” reporting is that articles portray carbon dioxide as “toxic”.
This assertion is a blatant lie, as I have often stated in discussing this issue at Legal Insurrection.
One of the biggest purveyors of this inanity was the Biden administration’s team at the Environmental Protection Agency. Team Biden used a report to justify its update to Obama’s Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) policy, which was aimed at justifying stricter regulations on greenhouse gas emissions.
Now a study recently published in Nature’s Scientific Reports challenges the Biden administration’s fivefold increase in its SCC estimate, which was partly based on projections of global crop yield declines. The research, conducted by economist Ross McKitrick, re-examines and extends the dataset used in previous studies that influenced the SCC estimate.
The title pretty much sums up the key point: Extended crop yield meta-analysis data do not support upward SCC revision. It reviews the 2014 database set that was used to justify the hefty increase in regulations are carbon dioxide.
The paper makes many key points, including that the original dataset was less than complete.
The original dataset used for the SCC update contained 1,722 records, but only 862 were usable due to missing variables. McKitrick recovered 360 additional records, increasing the sample size to 1,222.
Interestingly, reanalysis of the larger dataset yielded significantly different results from previous studies. While earlier analyses suggested yield declines for all crop types even at low levels of warming, the new and improved information suggests the potential positive global average crop yield changes, even with up to a 5°C temperature increase
The study found that adaptation efforts and CO2 fertilization have beneficial effects on crop yields, which I have noted before. It seems like a good time to share this video of Dr. William Happer, who offers a rational perspective on carbon dioxide.
Big companies and non-profit groups have begun purging or rewriting references to climate change on their websites, mirroring similar action by US government departments in response to the policies of Donald Trump.
Financial Times analysis shows that statements on climate change from leading corporations including Walmart and Kraft Heinz have been deleted or rewritten over the past year at the same time as a Republican backlash against green action has intensified and companies have begun rolling back their net zero targets.
…
Areeba Hamid, co-executive director of Greenpeace UK, warned companies were at risk of “committing brand self-sabotage by erasing and diluting references to climate on their websites”.
…
Charities also told the FT they were rejigging their websites, with one US non-profit group that operates internationally saying they had scrubbed whole pages about climate change online, partly in a bid to help shore up US grants.
The full article is worth reading, it contains a substantial list of companies and charities which have turned their backs on climate action.
Interestingly some of them apparently started purging online climate content before the November election, possibly in anticipation of a Trump victory.
Obviously if a radical climate activist is elected to the White House all the statements of climate commitment will be dusted off and restored. But in my opinion this shows how little corporations and charities genuinely care about climate change, and the fundamental weakness of the climate movement.
story
They’ve gone along with the crowd when they had to. Now, they don’t want to look stupid because the evidence screams that it is just money laundering and a bunch of lies, just like DEI
The latest deadline for countries to submit plans for slashing the greenhouse gas emissions fuelling climate change has passed. Only 15 countries met it – less than 8% of the 194 parties currently signed up to the Paris agreement, which obliges countries to submit new proposals for eliminating emissions every five years.
Known as nationally determined contributions, or NDCs, these plans outline how each country intends to help limit average global temperature rise to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, or at most 2°C. This might include cutting emissions by generating more energy from wind and solar, or adapting to a heating world by restoring wetlands as protection against more severe floods and wildfires.
Each new NDC should outline more stringent emissions cuts than the last. It should also show how each country seeks to mitigate climate change over the following ten years. This system is designed to progressively strengthen (or “ratchet up”) global efforts to combat climate change.
A North Dakota jury ruled Wednesday that Greenpeace is liable for hundreds of millions of dollars in damages for defaming an energy company and for its role in disruptive protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline project in 2016 and 2017, according to numerous reports.
Energy Transfer, the company developing the pipeline, sued Greenpeace USA, Greenpeace International and Greenpeace Fund in 2019 seeking $300 million in damages for the activist group’s alleged role in defaming the firm and promoting criminal acts targeting the pipeline by protestors opposed to the project, according to The Associated Press. Greenpeace has previously indicated that a $300 million judgement against it could destroy the group’s U.S. operations.
As things currently stand, Greenpeace will have to pay Energy transfer $667 million, according to The Washington Post.
Bulldozing the Amazon rainforest is a fitting way to mark 30 years of failure, of annual gabfests that have released colossal amounts of carbon dioxide from the mouths of the well-meaning, and burned tonnes of aviation fuel to get them there, while reducing greenhouse gas emissions not one bit.
…
Energy scientist, Vaclav Smil puts the total cost of achieving net zero by 2050 at $US444 trillion, or $US17 trillion a year for 25 years, “requiring affluent economies to spend 20 to 25 per cent of their annual GDP on the transition”.
…
So net zero by 2050 won’t happen and the increase in global temperature will not be limited to the 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels that was agreed as preferred at Paris in 2015 – nowhere near it.
It would be a waste of money for something that nobody really wanted, an idea that wouldn’t work, and something that is not necessary except to the globalist Marxists who are trying to run everybody’s business, but should fukc off.
If ever a story perfectly encapsulated the hypocrisy of elitists who want to enslave and impoverish the planet in the name of the global warming hoax, this is it:
A new four-lane highway cutting through tens of thousands of acres of protected Amazon rainforest is being built for the COP30 climate summit in the Brazilian city of Belém.
It aims to ease traffic to the city, which will host more than 50,000 people – including world leaders – at the conference in November.
Cutting down rainforest is particularly bad from the viewpoint of the climate ideology that will be espoused at the summit:
The Amazon plays a vital role in absorbing carbon for the world and providing biodiversity, and many say this deforestation contradicts the very purpose of a climate summit.
Not at all. The purpose of a climate summit is to engage in virtue signaling while angling to achieve more power over the Little People. John Kerry never misses one, thanks to private jets always being at hand for him.
What a bunch of hypocrites. I can’t believe they expect us to believe their climate scares to get more money. Go Elon and DOGE, cut their legs out from under them by eliminating their grifting.
Cutting greenhouse gas emissions was going to save the planet at no cost. Turns out it’s an economy wrecker, which is more feature than bug for many a climate alarmist.
Kallum Pickering, chief economist at Peel Hunt, a London-based investment bank, took on the claim of Labour Party British Chancellor Rachel Reeves, who said that pursuing net zero greenhouse gas emissions didn’t require a deceleration of economic growth. What he found was “sad to say,” but he stands by the facts.
“The result of the UK’s decarbonization efforts appears to be weak economic growth, stalling living standards, high energy prices and deindustrialization – without denting rising global emissions,” he wrote last week in the Telegraph.
“Net zero is strangling our economy,” says the headline over Pickering’s column, because “limiting available electricity has stifled productivity.”
On the Peel Hunt website, Pickering explained that data from 189 countries indicated there is “a strong positive correlation between living standards and energy consumption – showing a clear link between falling energy capacity and weak productivity in the UK.” He notes that “the decline in UK electricity supply, which started in 2006, coincided with the start of structural weakness in productivity growth.”
Bluntly put, without cheap and reliable energy, which is what we get from fossil fuels, an economy turns sclerotic. Which is why the political left works so feverishly to end gas and oil. As we have said so many times before, the agenda behind cutting greenhouse gases is in actuality an assault on capitalism, which, as the legendary Milton Friedman famously said, is the only economic system that has enabled the masses to escape from “grinding poverty.”
Evidence continues to grow that onshore wind turbines are causing heavy ecological carnage, with increasing concern focused on the removal of a vast tonnage of insect life. For obvious political, Net Zero reasons, insect decimation is not a well-funded research area, but work in Germany in 2016 put the loss across the country at 1,200 tonnes a year. Recently, the Heartland Institute extrapolated the individual annual insect loss worldwide at 13,640,000,000,000 (13.64 quadrillion) insects, and of course it can be noted that the figures are nearly a decade out of date. Other scientific work has reported that flying insects destroyed include bees, flying beetles and butterflies. Curiously, the many institutions apparently concerned with wildlife stay silent on the slaughter. For its part, the UK Natural History Museum (NHM) offers a Build Your Own Wind Turbine kit. Fun for all the family and if the kiddies are lucky they might get to whack a passing fly or a couple of moths.
The German work estimated insect losses at 40 million per turbine during the plant-growing season. Commenting on the findings, the mathematician and evolutionary ecologist Professor Christian Voigt felt it was necessary to evaluate if these fatalities added to the decline of insect populations, “and potentially the extinction of species”. In a 2022 paper, Voigt reported that turbines can change the nearby microclimate, while vibrational noise may reduce earthworm abundance with likely cascading effects on soil quality and vegetation. In addition, he noted findings that wind turbine facilities led to displacement of nesting and wintering birds.
Recent work from researchers at the University of Wyoming suggests that moths, butterflies, beetles, flies and true bugs may be the most vulnerable to the giant revolving blades. Wind turbines create vortices, sucking in wildlife and causing problems for both bats and large birds such as eagles. “The vast amount of avian and insect deaths at the hands of wind turbines is disastrous in and of itself, from a conservation and ecological standpoint,” states Heartland.
Insect loss and extinctions are of course very popular in the Net Zero fear-mongering business. In 2022, the NHM ran with an improbable tale that flying insects in the UK had declined by 60% in just 20 years. Too good of course for national treasure Sir David Attenborough to pass up and he repeated the scare during his BBC Wild Isles series, a green agitprop co-production with the World Wildlife Fund and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. The evidence proved to be anecdotal and mostly arose from ‘citizen scientists’ counting bugs on car number plates. Missing from the research was a note that vehicle registrations have tripled in the UK since 1970, while cars have largely changed shape from angular boxes to aerodynamic wedges that sweep insects out of the way.
Despite these obvious flaws in the story, the NHM claimed the astonishing loss was caused by rising temperatures and fragmented habitats. The tiny temperature rises over the last 20 years are hardly likely to affect insects that much, while slightly longer growing seasons in the northern hemisphere and a recent 14% ‘greening’ of the Earth due to higher levels of carbon dioxide are almost certain to have been extremely beneficial.
The Trump Administration not only cut “environmental justice” programs at the Environmental Protection Agency, they put nearly 200 staffers on leave.
According to reports, the staffers were called into a meeting on Thursday afternoon where they were informed that they were being placed on leave.
“Effective immediately, you are being placed on administrative leave with full pay and benefits. This administrative leave is not being done for any disciplinary purpose,” the email stated, according to Politico.
“Career staff made determinations on which Office of Environmental Justice employees had statutory duties or core mission functions,” EPA spokesperson Molly Vaseliou said in a statement. “As such, 168 staffers were placed on administrative leave as their function did not relate to the agency’s statutory duties or grant work. EPA is in the process of evaluating new structure and organization to ensure we are meeting our mission of protecting human health and the environment for all Americans.”
Solyndra Inc., a renewable energy firm that became a darling of the Obama Administration, shut the doors of its California headquarters Wednesday, raising fresh questions from critics about political favoritism and wasted money in the federal loan program.
The manufacturer of rooftop solar panels opened its doors in 2005, and in 2009 became the first recipient of an Obama administration energy loan guarantee – a $535 million federal commitment that helped minimize the risk to venture capital firms backing the solar start-up. Obama visited the factory last year to herald its future.
“The promise of clean energy isn’t just an article of faith — not anymore,” Obama told Solyndra workers then. “The future is here.”
The government loan guarantee was supposed to spur 1,000 fulltime jobs once Solyndra’s solar plant was fully operating. Instead, the company announced Wednesday it intends to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and that 1,100 full and part time employees had been laid off “effective immediately,” without severance. Some said they no longer have health insurance, either.
Now, the company’s collapse is sure to rekindle questions about how well the Energy Department vetted the deal before putting taxpayer dollars on the table – and about whether the public will have to pick up the $535 million tab. The full bill may not be clear until bankruptcy proceedings. How much taxpayers and other creditors recover could depend on the total value of the company’s assets.
Why are Democrat politicians much more prone than Republicans to policies that undermine the strength and integrity of the Republic, damage the safety and prosperity of American citizens, destroy essential infrastructure, and bring crime and suffering to the people they are supposed to serve?
Decades of progressive moral, ideological, and psychological corruption have destroyed the Democrat party and delivered its leaders to mental and emotional regression in which their public behaviors and statements resemble the pre-rationality, helplessness, narcissism, and prevarication typical of small children. Developmental psychology labels the cognitive processes of two- to seven-year-old children “preoperational.” Leading Democrats have regressed to preoperational infantilism and now resemble three-year-olds.
Across at least the last 70 years, the ideals and principles of Democrats have been burned away through three self-reinforcing forms of corruption. The first corruption is ancient and universal. It is corruption of greed and power-seeking. Greed and power-seeking energize all political corruption, but they have especially infected Democrats because their hold on God-given moral conviction and the rule of law has weakened more than Republicans’. The second corruption is the modern, ideological fraud of creeds of disloyalty that blame America first and justify elected officials undermining and trading away the safety and well-being of the citizens who elected them. This is the corruption of the big lie.
The Democrat fabrication that there was an armed insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on 01/06/21 is the most grievous political lie in U.S. history. End-stage corruption is postmodern, anti-rational subjectivism. It is indoctrination into cults of resentment and fear, with vague, propagandistic labels like climate change, LGBTQ, diversity, eco-justice. Decades of “blame America first” ideology and cults of fear and resentment created a vast playground for financial exploitation of public funds. Every single dollar spent on a non-problem such as DIE, climate change, or LGBTQ is a dollar of corruption.
It isn’t bad enough that they are pumping enough fentanyl into America to numb the population and support groups like BLM and liberals, now this. China pollutes more than the rest of the world combined (except India), yet scoffs at stupid human tricks like the Paris Climate Accord, meant to penalize the USA most of all.
American energy independence is under attack from a shadowy alliance that threatens the foundation of our national security and economic prosperity. On the surface, we see radical environmental activists interrupting corporate shareholder meetings,blocking traffic, and vandalizing artwork. But behind these increasingly aggressive protests lies a more insidious threat: the Chinese Communist Party, which quietly bankrolls these same activists through a complex web of foundations and activist networks. Through dark money, China exploits environmental activism to undermine America’s energy sector. This dangerous partnership between foreign adversaries and domestic extremists demands immediate Congressional action – including comprehensive investigations into Chinese funding of domestic American nonprofits and new laws protecting American energy infrastructure. The security of America’s energy future hangs in the balance, and we can no longer afford to ignore this coordinated assault on our nation’s vital interests.
The evidence of Beijing’s strategic manipulation of American environmental groups has been mounting for years, butrecent investigations have exposed the actual depth of these connections. Through a sophisticated network of foundations, consulting firms, and environmental organizations, the Chinese Communist Party has established multiple channels to funnel money and influence into groups working to obstruct American energy development. Beijing’s influence becomes clear when following the money. For example, Climate Defiance is one of the most aggressive new environmental groups making headlines nationwide.More than half of their 2023 funding flowed through theOil and Gas Action Network – an organization supported by the Energy Foundation, whose Chinese office maintains deep ties to the Chinese Communist nation and Chinese nationals with direct links to the regime. Similarly, investigations reveal several other prominent environmental groups receive substantial funding through organizations with documented connections to Beijing, including research institutes that coordinate with Chinese state entities and foundations that partner with CCP-controlled ecological agencies.
China’s financial support of American environmental groups raises a crucial question that cuts to the heart of Beijing’s strategy: Why would the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter and most prominent financier of fossil fuel projects globally invest in funding American environmental protesters? The answer reveals a calculated effort to weaken American energy independence: these radical groups are unknowingly doing China’s dirty work by targeting and disrupting America’s vital energy infrastructure projects.
These aren’t random acts of civil disobedience – they’re part of a coordinated strategy to weaken American energy infrastructure and drive-up consumer costs. The groups behind these actions openly admit their radical aims. The Climate Emergency Fund’s executive director recently told The New Republic that movements “need to have a radical flank that is disrupting normalcy.”
In 2006 the State of California passed the Global Warming Solutions Act mandating an unattainable and massive reduction of greenhouse gasses within the state by 2020. This bill, and mindless near-religious allegiance to the “green” movement, set in motion the recent catastrophic events in Los Angeles and previously throughout much of California, a state that for the past twenty-five years has been increasingly controlled by a Marxist-inspired Democrat Party.
It is not a coincidence that the current environmental or “green” movement is the driving philosophical force animating the Democrat Party not only in California but on national basis as this movement has its roots in Marxism.
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote The Communist Manifesto in 1848. The general consensus on the Left is that Marx and Engels were in fact very conscious of and promoted the concept of what is considered to be the modern environmental movement. The current “green” movement is in reality a major facet of Marxist philosophy.
Among those who champion Marx’s environmentalism is Professor John Bellamy Foster of the University of Oregon. In 1997 he published The Crisis of the Earth, Marx’s Theory of Ecological Sustainability as a Nature-Imposed Necessity for Human Production.
Foster wrote, “Marx’s analysis of the crisis of the earth in the mid-nineteenth century led him to a concept of sustainability that was central to his vision of a communist society. Because this concept of sustainability was rooted in both a critique of capitalism and a vision of a future society, it has a richness and complexity all its own. A close examination of Marx’s concept of sustainability therefore offers important insight into the possibilities for the creation of a more just and sustainable world order.”
Per Raju J. Das of York University, Toronto, “Sustainability (or a healthy environment)… has to be fought for as part of a larger fight against the logistics of capitalism, such as endless accumulation, and against the system as a whole. Therefore, ecological sustainability is fundamentally a class issue.”
During the 1980s the global Communist Movement, due to setbacks in Russia and elsewhere, began to exploit and take over the fledging Marxist environmental movements in Europe and the United States. They saw the potential of the movement as a weapon to foment “peaceful” revolutions in democratic western nations.
The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 was not the end of communism but a metamorphosis of the means of revolution as environmentalism became the socialists/communists’ primary weapon in undermining capitalism and Western societies.
This tactic was quickly recognized by those who had suffered under the oppression of communism for decades. In his book Blue Planet in Green Shackles, Vaclav Klaus, the first president of the Czech Republic after the end of nearly four decades of Soviet dictatorship, warned the nations of Europe and the United States, “As someone who lived under communism for most of my life, I feel obligated to say that the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy, and prosperity at the beginning of the 21st century, is not communism or its various softer versions. It was replaced by ambitious environmentalism.”
One of the great deceptions used by the Soviet Union was the incessant propagandizing of a fictitious hypothesis — that humans are responsible for any change in the climate and the only means of saving the earth is by adopting Marxian socialism. A scientifically-proven false premise but a tactic fully embraced and exploited by the current environmentalist movement.
This propaganda campaign has successfully convinced over 54% of the American citizenry to believe in human-driven climate change and the unquestioned need for drastic action to combat the impact of human activity on the environment.
Among the hallmarks of Marxism/Communism is universal disregard for human life as mankind is viewed as a mere cog in a wheel and therefore whatever so-called rights he or she may be granted is solely at the whim of the state. An omnipotent entity that supposedly looks out for the best interest of the people. Yet, as history has amply chronicled, the advocates of communism have had no problem eliminating millions of lives in order to achieve a Marxist utopia.
Which neatly dovetails with the primary tenet of the green movement. Human activity causes climate change; therefore, human overpopulation is the cause of virtually all environmental and economic catastrophe. Consequently, any means of reducing the population is therefore acceptable, whether it is a negligently uncontrolled wildfire in Los Angeles, a green-agenda- induced drought or famine, an untested vaccine forcefully administered to untold millions around the globe, or the cataclysmic collapse of societies by accelerating the elimination of fossil fuels.
more here, if you dare, but it has nothing to do with caring for the environment. It’s using that as a tool to control the masses, just like Marxism
And by not attending the Davos conference, Trump now leads other international leaders in “quiet quitting” globalist environmental rules that have only strangled their economies and hurt their peoples.
Even more tax dollars saved that don’t to the pockets of non-Americans
JERUSALEM – U.S. President Donald Trump kept his campaign promises in the first hours of his second term, signing dozens of executive orders to undo the damage of the previous four years of the Biden presidency.
One of those involved – with immediate effect – the defunding of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, as the Trump team has decided to suspend any foreign assistance for 90 days pending reviews.
UNRWA, which is the only U.N. agency that has responsibility for one people – namely the Palestinians – has been in Trump’s crosshairs before.
They hate the Jews worse than the Germans in the 30’s and don’t deserve our money.
Among the actions President Donald Trump took Monday to overturn much of the previous administration’s agenda, Trump signed an executive order requiring that the U.S. recognize only two genders.
“The erasure of sex in language and policy has a corrosive impact not just on women but on the validity of the entire American system,” the order states.
The order provides a definition of “woman” as being an adult human female, and “girls” as a juvenile human female. Likewise, under Trump’s order, “man” is defined as adult human males and “boy” as juvenile human males.
Again, just money sent into the pockets of non-Americans over a lie. No amount of money will move the thermometer tenths of a degree. All the while China and India are pumping tons of smog and carbon from their power generators fueled by coal. It’s discrimination against the US
There were reports that the Trump administration was mulling a ‘warrior panel’ to purge the military of the woke brass. The president signed a slate of executive orders to rid the government of federal DEI programs, secure the border, and get America back on track to greatness. We’re not even two days into the Trump presidency, and he’s already firing people.
Adm. Linda Lee Fagan, 61, has been terminated by the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Benjamine Huffman, the official said.
Fagan has demonstrated leadership deficiencies, operational failures and an inability to advance the strategic objectives of the Coast Guard.
These include the failure to address border security threats, insufficient leadership in recruitment and retention, mismanagement in acquiring key acquisitions such as icebreakers and helicopters, excessive focus on diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives and an “erosion of trust” over the mishandling and cover-up of Operation Fouled Anchor, which was the Coast Guard’s internal investigation into sexual assault cases at the Coast Guard Academy.
As if there weren’t enough outrages coming out of California to keep most keen observers livid, consider this: A fire prevention project at a state park currently in the midst of the Palisades blaze was stopped due to environmental concerns about a shrub.
According to reports from 2019 and 2020, not only was the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power precluded from undertaking a bulldozing project in Topanga State Park due to danger toward the Braunton’s milk vetch, but the city also had to pay nearly $2 million in fines for even starting the project.
In an August 2019 article, the Los Angeles Times reported that the LADWP had intended to bulldoze an area in the park and replace flammable wooden poles with steel ones.
Amazon closed out 2024 with more than 20,000 electric delivery vans manufactured by Rivian in its fleet nationwide. The e-commerce giant highlights on its website that the electric vans are part of its “urgent” climate change initiative to “remove carbon emissions from transportation systems.”
However, Amazon faces mounting criticism for gaslighting the public about its net zero goals and actual operational fleet practices.
Take, for instance, Amazon’s website. Within the Sustainability section, the company laid out its approach to fight so-called global warming: “To reach this target, we’re also expanding the use of zero-emission transportation such as electric delivery vans, cargo e-bikes, and on-foot deliveries, and we engage in industry initiatives to remove carbon emissions from transportation systems like ocean shipping, aviation, and trucking. We’re also using innovative construction techniques and building materials to make our fulfillment centers, data centers, offices, and physical retail locations more sustainable.”
And not much will happen. C02 isn’t the real reason behind the minor climate change that occurs just like it has throughout the history of the earth. It just goes to show you what a farce the media, Al Gore, Greta, John Kerry, the UN, the WEF, and the rest of the Woke climate disaster forces are lying about.
Climate change as they define it is claiming a disaster will come and we have to spend money now to change something no amount of money can affect. It just shifts the money into the pockets of the climate carnival barkers and allows them to control the narrative, in their favor.
A fire at the world’s largest battery storage plant in Northern California smoldered Friday after sending plumes of toxic smoke into the atmosphere, leading to the evacuation of up to 1,500 people. The blaze also shook up the young battery storage industry.
The fire at the Vistra Energy lithium battery plant in Moss Landing generated huge flames and significant amounts of smoke Thursday but had diminished significantly by Friday, Fire Chief Joel Mendoza of the North County Fire Protection District of Monterey County said. Vistra is based in Texas.
“There’s very little, if any, of a plume emitting from that building,” Mendoza said. Crews are not engaging with the fire and are waiting for it to burn out, he said. Letting lithium ion battery fires burn out is not unusual because they burn very hot and are hard to put out.
No injuries have been reported but residents raised concerns about hazardous gases being released into the air.
The state’s record-breaking 2020 fire season, which saw more than 4 million acres burn, spewed almost twice the tonnage of greenhouse gases as the total amount of carbon dioxide reductions made since 2003, according to a study published recently in the journal Environmental Pollution.
Researchers estimated that about 127 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent were released by the fires, compared with about 65 million metric tons of reductions achieved in the previous 18 years.
“When we look at the contribution of the 2020 wildfires, it becomes almost like a new sector of emissions in the economy,” said Michael Jerrett, a professor of environmental health sciences at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health and a lead author of the research. “Really, we’re about double the reductions.”
Los Angeles was forced to slash funding for the fire department after Mayor Karen Bass awarded gilded contracts to city workers, a review of public records shows.
The trouble began early last year after Bass settled contract negotiations with public sector unions. In dozens of agreements, the city’s civilian employees pocketed 20 to 25 percent wage hikes over five years and other goodies that cost the city $4.5 billion over the life of the contracts, according to an analysis by the city’s administrative officer, the City Journal reported.
A series of unintended payouts stemming from judgments against the city in personal injury lawsuits brought Los Angeles to the brink.
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and California Governor Gavin Newsom received a briefing about the area damaged by the Palisades wildfire, with others present in a parking lot.
This is the fish that California justified ruining the water supply for farmers and firefighters years ago.
The tiny Delta Smelt fish have not been seen in the wild in California in over a decade.
And yet, California Democrats flushed annual water flow into the ocean to save this little fish that they can’t even find in its natural habitat. Now several cities are burnt to the ground.
They sacrificed entire communities for a fish that doesn’t exist.
A 2021 report by Dan Bacher in the Sacramento News revealed that there have been NO DELTA SMELT seen in the wild since 2012. They’re extinct.
For the seventh September in a row, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife has caught zero Delta smelt during its Fall Midwater Trawl Survey of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.
The last time Delta smelt – an indicator species for the broader ecological health estuary – were found in CDFW’s September survey was in 2015. Only 5 were caught by state biologists at the time.
After that, the only year that Delta smelt were caught during the entire four-month survey was in 2016, when a total of 8 smelt were reported.
The final results of Fish and Wildlife’s four-month survey of pelagic (open water) fish species, conducted from September through mid-December, won’t be available until around the start of next year. The current September 2022 data is available here on the annual state surveys webpage.
They might as well have Dylan Mulvaney drinking a beer with this girl. Get this. I’ve never seen a bigger waste of $750 K in my life…. so far.
The firestorm is still in progress in Los Angeles, priorities first and foremost are saving of lives and property. The calamity in Los Angeles is still early in the situation, ongoing, and not yet under control, but some basic facts can be established at this point in time.
Janisse Quiñones was hired with a $750,000 Salary, nearly twice that of her predecessor.
LADWP operates ten major active reservoirs and over 107 smaller storage facilities, all of which create operational flexibility to balance water supplies and customer demands.
73% is purchased water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) which is both an aqueduct to State Water Projects in upper California and the Colorado River Aqueduct.
15% is water from the Los Angeles Aqueduct which is fed from water close to the Nevada Border.
10% is local groundwater.
2% is recycled water.
LADWP Strategic Initiatives reflect Religion of Woke-ism
Now that some of the basic facts are established, the reality is that one of the largest urban fires ever experienced in the U.S is in progress. It looks like World War II-era firebombing in progress. The severe water shortages, War on Dams, and ideological virtue signaling are well known in Governor Newsom’s California. But Water and Power are essentially apolitical and based on science, fact, and best practices of civil engineering, correct? A peek at the LADWP Strategic Initiatives refutes that luddite view. Here are the four, strategic imperatives for LADWP:
Leading with Equity
Clean Energy Future
Resiliency and Reliability
Our Sustainable Water Future
What do these pithy titles mean? They are abstract, street theater platitudes that disguise hard-core leftist retribution intended to collapse and destroy existing society. People are dead and dying, and large swaths of Los Angeles are being destroyed because of this Religion of Woke-ism. This Religion could not care less about facts, science, efficient delivery of public services, or reality. Earlier this year, Janisse appeared on a podcast with a title, “Why Equity is Key to Solving the Climate Emergency w/ DWP CEO & Chief Engineer Janisse Quinones.” DEI hires are not focused on efficient delivery of effective services to all the Citizens. Controlling these positions is another opportunity to weaponize government against the Citizen for angry retribution clothed in George Takai happy talk.
As Scott Adams has pointed out, “Having the wrong leaders with the wrong priorities gets you everything we are witnessing this week”.
Pervasive Public Service Corruption in Los Angeles and California
I’m all for highly paid Civil Servants. But, I believe in the Singapore Model, in which Civil Servants are highly paid, but in return are expected to perform with absolute fidelity, deliver outstanding results, and will be held to account for their performance.
And if they don’t meet these requirements, they get shown the door, or worse. Quiñones has had a meteoric rise. Now there is a Biblical level disaster under her watch. I’m not upset that Quiñones was able to negotiate such a healthy salary, but she should be held accountable, which also means a return of salary, fines, and possible prosecution.
If one has not been paying attention, the Los Angeles region, under a Blue monoculture, has been a cesspool of Public Sector Corruption for decades. Even the New York Times gets it right occasionally and says, “Prosecutors say that corruption is rising in California cities as one-party rule, inattentive voters and weakened news media have reduced the traditional checks on power”. Chinese malign influence has been front and center in the pervasive corruption of California:
“A Chinese real estate company was fined $4 million and placed on five years probation (sic) Friday for bribing former Los Angeles City Councilman José Huizar with more than $1.5 million in cash, gambling trips and escorts in exchange for the then-councilman’s support of a planned downtown hotel project.
Although he was also charged, Shen Zhen New World I’s billionaire owner Wei Huang fled to China after the charges were announced and has never appeared in a Los Angeles courtroom in connection with the case.”
The DEI Cult brings equal misery, death, and destruction for all
Woke-ism and DEI are not about reconciliation, they are about retribution and intentional collapse of society – Marxist and Maoist core tenets. Hosea 8:7 (KJV) is timeless in its guidance, “For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind”.
That’s exactly what is happening as Newsom was shifting into “Trump Proofing” California, whatever that meant. The results of years of Blue, One Party is coming together in a cataclysm. When everything is virtue signaling and the basics of math, planning, civil engineering, and agnostic, non-politicized science-based decision making is considered a manifestation of privileged culture, anything goes. And when anything goes, anything goes and society collapses.
If Janisse Quiñones was able to negotiate a $750,000 salary, good on her. But her focus has not been on the best delivery of services to the Citizens. With her own words, she is focused on the wrong things. Pay can be great for great leaders, but one has to take responsibility for the bad as well as the good. $750,000 a year brought mediocrity and failure, and Janisse was the one holding the bag when the lights came on and exposed the corrupt nature of the Religion of Wokeness. Time for her, and others in California, to pay up.
If there ever was a lesson for being energy independent and ditching the climate scam, read this.
The effect of the green agenda can be summed up as a long path to the gradual degradation of Europe’s energy security and a resulting path to de-industrialization. The Ukraine conflict only exacerbated it…
Germany’s once-envied efficient economy is in freefall, and the climate change cult and European Green Deal are directly to blame. State policies subsidizing EVs and other products, shutting down coal and nuclear plants, and mandating forced conversion to untested, unimplemented “renewables” resources for energy have decimated industrial efficiency. Industries and blue-collar jobs are fleeing Germany for polluting, profitable operations in China, India, and elsewhere abroad. Will the United States follow suit?
As natural gases skyrocket during a European cold snap, and Russian gas pipelines through Ukraine are shut down for the first time since 1991, Germany has transitioned from Europe’s economic darling to its leading economic anchor. Followed closely by France and the UK, similarly weighted by economically destructive climate fantasies that are crashing to Earth like ideological meteors, the latest blow to gas supplies compounds the crisis occasioned by the mysterious sabotage of Nord Stream 1 and 2.
The results of this disastrous state-controlled economic carbon dioxide experiment continue to be as evident as explosives in a controlled demolition. Germany terminated massive EV subsidies at the end of 2023; EV sales promptly fell 69%. Despite gushing economic promises of “high-paying jobs” in the renewables industry, Germany announces more layoffs almost daily. Chinese companies, unhindered by escalating energy and regulatory costs, are leading in EV and other manufacturing technologies while spewing more chemicals into the ecosystem than German manufacturing industries.
The climate cult is pushing jobs and pollution out of Europe, amplifying both for nations like India. German icon Volkswagen has threatened to close factories for the first time in its history, and recent layoffs of 35,000 (and wage reductions for 120,000) employees are harbingers of more to follow. Consumers are burdened by high energy prices for heat and travel. Fund managers and NGOs may be profiting from renewables manufacturing policies, but workers, consumers, and the ecosystem are all being systematically eviscerated in the boondoggle pursuit.
Will the U.S. continue to follow Germany’s demonstrable folly? If the legendary German industrial model is being crippled by destructive climate change policies, the anemic American one (with unpredictable tariffs looming) is similarly threatened.
However, there is hope stateside — the United States possesses precious natural gas supplies that Germany now lacks and has not shuttered its fossil fuel production. Renewables manufacturing, as well as the production of plastics, cement, steel, and fertilizers, all depend on high-temperature processes only available through fossil fuels or nuclear power. They cannot be replaced with solar, wind, or other energy sources, as Germany is proving despite big plans to convert its entire economy to renewables overnight. (Indeed, cutting traditional energy production in Germany fueled a vicious economic cycle by inflating natural gas prices.)
But 2025 will not be an easy year for dissenters and critics of the government, as this is increasingly being criminalized in Germany thanks to recently passed laws and acts that aim to suppress free speech.
The former head Germany’s Constitution Protection Authority (Bundesverfassungsschutz), Thomas Haldenwang (CDU Party), suggested last February when presenting measures to fight right-wing extremism, that human thoughts and speech patterns need to be under surveillance and become the business of the government: “It’s also about shifting verbal and mental boundaries. We have to be careful that thought and language patterns don’t become embedded in our language.”
In a nutshell, the German government aims to regulate human thoughts.
Millions of Americans dutifully fill their recycling bins each week, motivated by the knowledge that they’re doing something good for the environment. But the sad fact is that much of what is tossed in the recycling bin is eventually heaped into landfills.
While this bombshell might be jarring – especially if you’re someone who dutifully cleans their recyclables before caringly placing them in bins – Thomas Kinnaman, an environmental economist from Bucknell University, says it’s actually not as bad as you think.
As Kinnaman discovered in a 2014 study – a complete life cycle analysis of the recycling process – it doesn’t make much economic or environmental sense to recycle plastic and glass in much of the developed world. Despite claims that plastics are recyclable, really only PET and HDPE (types 1 and 2 in North America) can be readily reused. In total, only 9% of plastic is melted and reformed. The rest goes into landfills or the wider environment.
City Journal science journalist John Tierney pointed out in Stossel’s segment that the economics of recycling have only worsened over time. Both plastic and glass are fairly easy on the environment to produce, but are often very tricky, costly, and intense to recycle. When you factor in all of the water used to decontaminate plastic and glass, the immense distances traversed transporting them (usually by truck, train, or ship), and the mechanical and chemical processes utilized to transform them into new goods, it becomes clear that they are better off in a landfill.
source
there is more there to show why it is not the panacea it is made out to be, but the dirt worshipers won’t believe it so I don’t try anymore.
The facts are the fact at the end of the day. It is a socialist crowd conditioning exercise that leads to people being sheep to feel better about themselves. They will gladly take a vaccine that doesn’t work and did more damage than the actual disease (Covid-19).
Just for the record, the Green New Deal is a Communist inspired strategy to spend money we don’t have until banrupt. Reagan did this to bring down the USSR. Learn from history. They only thing it would have helped would have been the bank accounts of the people supporting it.
Coming with the new year is a new president with a very different vision on energy than President Joe Biden, who campaigned on a promise to “end fossil fuel.”
President-elect Donald Trump is dismissive of the immediate “climate crisis” narrative that drove much of Biden’s energy policies. He promises to establish American “energy dominance” and focus policy on bringing down the cost of energy.
While Trump can overturn Biden’s industry-punishing executive orders and create a friendlier regulatory environment for the oil, gas, coal and mining industries, experts say there are economic and technical limits to what the outcomes of his policies will be. Looking ahead to 2025 and beyond, here’s what we might expect for energy and industry in the second Trump administration.
Market forces
During a speech at the Economic Club of New York luncheon in September, Trump said he would end the Biden-Harris administration’s “anti-energy crusade and implement a policy of energy abundance, energy independence, and even energy dominance.” This would include, he said, getting the price of gasoline down below $2 per gallon, which would decrease the cost of all goods and services.
“may have several negative impacts on the local environment and economy”
See the post below about Germany being dumbasses about the same thing. Use gas. It’s cheap and it isn’t killing whales or the environment. Those are lies made up by hypocritical zealots whose religion is green (money, not sustainability like Al Gore and John Kerry).
Drill baby drill and bring down the cost of energy, bringing down the cost of everything else. For those who worship the planet, watch and see that it won’t harm a thing. It will actually be better for everything except their wallets
Everyone knows this has been a boondoggle, even the left, but they’re so committed to supposed ‘green’ energy that they can’t let go.
A government regulator recognizing offshore wind’s destructive environmental effects is as rare as a North Atlantic right whale. But a recent, 600-plus page report from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) admits that the offshore wind development planned for the New York Bight—the triangular area bordered by the New Jersey and Long Island coastlines—may irreversibly harm whales, commercial and recreational fisheries, and seabirds.
The BOEM report is the agency’s first to evaluate the cumulative impacts of offshore wind development. Its authors cite a wide range of potential effects, from negligible (or even beneficial) to major. Acknowledging potentially “major” harms is a radical departure from the agency’s previously accepted Environmental Impact Statements for offshore wind projects, which have always focused on the impacts of individual projects, rather than the cumulative impacts of multiple projects.
The report, which BOEM bills as a “programmatic environmental impact statement,” admits that the proposed offshore wind projects on the New York Bight may have several negative impacts on the local environment and economy. The authors note, for example, that the effect on the North Atlantic right whale could be “major,” defined as having “severe population-level effects” that would “compromise the viability of the species”—in other words, potential extinction. The report also concedes that the projects could have major effects (“substantial disruptions”) on commercial and recreational fishing, which contribute billions of dollars to the New Jersey and New York economies.
While the report discusses the consequences of these wind turbines on ocean views and even on local housing prices, it makes no mention of these projects’ adverse effects on electric ratepayers and economic growth. These effects are substantial, as New Jersey’s experience reveals. The state’s Board of Public Utilities estimated that its two approved offshore wind projects in 2024, with a total capacity of 2,400 MW, would raise the monthly electric bills of a typical residential customer by about $7, a commercial customer by about $59, and an industrial customer by over $500. Those estimated costs, which don’t include what those customers will pay for new transmission lines and the backup generation needed to offset wind’s inherent intermittency, cumulatively amount to more than a $750 million annual increase in electric bills for the state’s 8.5 million electric ratepayers. , based on the numbers of these customers. If the Garden State succeeds in its goal of developing 11,000 megawatts of offshore wind electricity, despite mounting costs and the cancellations of two major in-state projects, ratepayers alone will end up paying an additional $3 billion to $5 billion more each year for their electricity.
What is it with Europe right now. The UK has gone Bats**t crazy and is converting to Islam faster than Iran, not this.
Another wind drought has led to soaring electricity prices across Europe. Norway, which exports power to its European neighbors, has seen enough.
Europe’s electricity prices soared on Thursday amid a wind drought. Source: Alexander Stahel on X.
For the second time in a month, Germany’s electric grid has been hit by a wind drought, known in German as a Dunkelflaute. The lack of wind sent Europe’s electricity prices soaring to their highest levels since the end of 2022, when Europe was in the midst of an energy crisis due to concerns about supplies of Russian gas. That’s saying something since Europe — and Germany in particular — now appears to be amid a permanent energy crisis.
Yesterday, German consumers paid an average of $400 per megawatt-hour for electricity. During peak times, prices in Germany’s wholesale power market came close to $1,000 per MWh, the highest level in 18 years. Here’s how a reporter with Spain’s El Pais newspaper explained the situation:
Dunkelflaute is a cursed word in the German electricity sector. The combination, typical of cold anticyclones, of low temperatures (which increase demand) and the almost total absence of wind (which hinders wind generation) configures one of the worst possible scenarios for the price of electricity: it forces the burning of more gas in combined cycle plants, which are much more expensive, and that substantially increases the bill…The main factor behind this escalation is the lack of wind. While at this time of year Germany’s powerful wind power sector (onshore and offshore) usually averages almost 20 gigawatts (GW) of power, according to data from the specialist portal Montel, thus becoming the country’s main source of electricity, on Wednesday it will just exceed 3 GW. With the cloudy skies, solar photovoltaic power is also operating well below its potential and forces combined cycle plants — in which gas is burned to obtain electricity — to operate at a higher rate than usual, driving up prices.
The wind drought isn’t just hitting Germany. As shown in the graphic at the top of this article, electricity prices across Europe soared amid the wind drought. In response, Norwegian politicians are promising to dismantle the undersea power cables that connect Norway’s grid to mainland Europe to protect Norwegians from Europe’s tumultuous electricity market. Electricity prices in Norway, which gets 90% of its power from hydro, hit record prices this week despite having full hydro reservoirs.
According to the X account of Visegrád 24, a Norwegian news outlet, the two links that connect Norway to Europe will reach their technical lifetimes in 2026 and 2027. The two cables have 9 GW of exchange capacity, of which 5.1 GW connects to Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, and the UK.
“Electricity bills in New England are poised to experience a sharp increase driven by the clean energy mandates in five of the six states, which require duplicative, overbuilt renewable energy.”
Connecticut ratepayers suffered sticker shock this summer when they opened their July electric bills. While their energy consumption was relatively flat, the “public benefits” component doubled for some and tripled for others. The culprit was not hard to find given a legislative requirement for utilities to itemize the cost components of monthly bills.
“Public benefits” cover the cost of subsidies the state provides for low-income electricity customers and energy-efficiency programs. They also include solar, electric vehicle, and other renewable energy incentives.
The wide array of renewable energy subsidies and aid to low-income residents who cannot afford high-cost electricity, growing everywhere, is an increasing cost burden for power users in the Northeast.
Connecticut: Worst of the Worst
The Northeast has become the most expensive region in the continental United States for electricity. Connecticut has the most expensive electricity in the 50 states outside of Hawaii. Connecticut’s overall electricity price for this September, according to the Energy Information Administration, was 27.08 cents per kilowatt-hour (ȼ/kWh), compared to Hawaii’s 35.46 ȼ/kWh.
When I worked in sustainability at IBM (a joke in itself there), the Northeast was the most smug and misguided about the whole energy/carbon/climate issue. Never have I seen so many smart people (inside and analysts paid by IBM) get an issue so wrong because of ideology.
Well, take your smugness to the electric company and out of your bank account.
Gas is cheap and efficient. It’s not the bogeyman that you made it out to be. You picked your poison, now drink it.
We are told to fret that climate change is a threat not only to all life on Earth, but also to our mental health:
As temperatures rise, extreme weather events become more frequent, and natural disasters intensify, the psychological well-being of populations worldwide is increasingly at risk.
This mostly effects politically sacred “vulnerable populations” — for example, those who are already have mental issues and of course nonwhites:
For Indigenous communities, climate change-induced displacement from ancestral lands can cause profound psychological distress, as these communities often have deep cultural and spiritual connections to their environment.
Only “indigenous communities” are capable of appreciating God’s creation. That’s why you never see any garbage or pollution in Third World countries.
The global warming hoax really does damage not only the economy but also sanity:
[T]he Daily Telegraph reported on an epidemic of “eco-anxiety” among the children who are being treated for an overwhelming terror of “environmental doom” as climate alarmists spread fears of an impending climate disaster.
Creating hysteria as a means of manipulation is a deliberate tactic:
As Breitbart News has reported, activists have studied people’s emotional response to climate expressions and purposefully selected the terminology that elicits the strongest reaction.
The Guardian rejects “climate change” in favor of “climate emergency, crisis or breakdown.” Salon has explicitly proclaimed that we should “start panicking” because the weather continues to fluctuate like it always has. Every summer heatwave is portrayed as apocalyptic, with predictable effects on the mental health of the gullible. Alicia Finley calls it “climate hypochondria.”
Given that it helps to be a little nuts to buy into woke ideology in the first place, climate change has created a vicious cycle of insanity whereby the more moonbats believe liberal establishment lies about the weather, the crazier they become, the more likely they are to believe the lies.
Global warming lies are finally running out of steam. None of the crisis scares ever came true. The climate is fine, the seas didn’t rise, the ice sheets are just fine and the only thing that really happened is the theft and laundering of a lot of money.
The fun has started at COP29!
For years successive COPs have papered over the cracks, but the cracks have now become unbridgeable chasms.
The West wants the world to give up fossil fuels. The developing countries want money, lots of it that the West can’t afford.
Meanwhile, China and the rest of Asia want a free pass both from cutting emissions and paying money out. And the major oil producing countries have said “On your bike!”
So far at Baku, the West has promised to pony up $250bn a year by 2035 in climate aid. But when inflation is taken into account, this is barely more than the $100bn agreed at Copenhagen in 2008. The third world wanted $1.3 trillion.
China still refuses to pay a cent, and Azerbaijan has made it clear that it will not abandon its God-given gift of oil and gas.
As for cutting emissions, the whole idea has had to take a back seat to this unseemly scrabble for money.
Meanwhile everybody knows the whole thing is a charade, because Trump won’t merely pull out of the Paris Agreement next year, he will take his money with him.
The whole thing is, of course, hilarious. All we need now is for Ed Miliband to try eating a bacon buttie again!
A few days before last week’s election, Independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders issued a dire warning to voters. If Trump won, “the struggle against climate change will be over.”
He had that right.
Climate change fanaticism was effectively on the ballot last week. That green energy agenda was decisively defeated.
It turns out the tens of millions of middle-class Americans who voted for Trump weren’t much interested in the temperature of the planet 50 years from now. They were too busy trying to pay the bills.
The result shouldn’t be too surprising. Polls have shown climate change ranks near the bottom of voters’ concerns. Jobs, inflation and illegal immigration register much higher on the scale of concerns.
But if you asked the elite of America in the top one percent of income, climate change is seen as an immediate and existential threat to the planet. Our poll at Unleash Prosperity earlier this year found that the cultural elites were so hyper-obsessed with climate issues, they were in favor of banning air conditioning, nonessential air travel and many modern home appliances to stop global warming. Our study showed that not many of the other 99 percent agree.
Wake up, Bernie and Al Gore.
Climate change has become the ultimate luxury good: the richer you are, the more you fret about it.
It was always about the money. The Climate trope was just the cover.
It never had any science behind it, only scare tactics and predictions of doom if we don’t spend a lot of money. None of them ever came true, especially the lies of ‘AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH”
It’s no secret that the vast majority of the so-called elites are advocates of climate alarmism and are taken in by the Green New Scam.
Whether this preference is based on ignorance of the science, ideological zeal, a willful desire to hurt American growth or simple greed because of their investments in Green New Scam infrastructure varies case by case.
The typical upper-income supporter of the climate cult including academics, media figures and celebrities is probably ignorant of the fact that there is no evidence that CO2 emissions cause climate change and that the real causes are solar cycles, volcanoes, ocean currents and atmospheric moisture not caused by humans.
Climate Alarmists Have It Backward
The historical record actually demonstrates that warming periods produce higher CO2 levels — not the other way around. CO2 doesn’t cause warming. It’s caused by natural warming.
In other words, climate alarmists have causation completely backward.
Climate alarmism is based almost entirely on computer models, which depend on the inputs the modelers themselves build into them. A model is only as good as the inputs and assumptions programmed into it.
Virtually every one of these models has overestimated warming, sometimes by orders of magnitude, because it’s based on faulty assumptions that overestimate the impact of CO2 on climate.
In other words, it’s junk science. But they keep relying on these models because their political agenda requires it.
Climate: The New Communism
There’s no doubt that a fair number of neo-Marxists embrace the climate scam because they know it damages U.S. industry, raises costs to U.S. consumers and helps to undermine the U.S. economy.
Following the end of the Cold War and the collapse of communism, anti-capitalistic collectivists admitted that they needed to promote the climate agenda because the only way to combat global warming is through collective action. It requires a coordinated global effort that limits national sovereignty.
The neo-Marxists are impervious to evidence; they just want to hurt America and wasting money on windmills instead of building new refineries is a good way to do it. That leaves the greed crowd.
Here are 10 fundamental questions that climate alarmists never answer.
➊ You claim that the Earth is overheating. That it’s “too hot.” So, what is the correct global mean surface temperature (GMST) for life on Earth and why?
Please provide a numerical answer. Use units and round it to the nearest tenth of a degree Celsius. Then, explain why that value is ideal and cite evidence to justify your answer.
➋ What is the correct atmospheric CO₂ level for life on Earth?
What is best to optimize our agricultural productivity?
What CO₂ level will make da weatha less scary?
Give your answer as an exact value as a mole fraction or volume percentage, and then explain why that value is ideal.
➌ What exactly makes CO₂ “pollution”?
The EPA considers CO₂ to be a pollutant, legally speaking, under the Clean Air Act, and their scientific justification is simply that, it “…𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑢𝑡𝑒𝑠 𝑡𝑜 𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑛ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑒 𝑔𝑎𝑠 𝑝𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑠 𝑝𝑢𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑐 ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑙𝑡ℎ 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑓𝑎𝑟𝑒.”
Because by that measure, water vapor should also be classified as a “pollutant” because it’s also a “greenhouse gas” (GHG) — it’s also the most abundant and potent GHG; it absorbs a wider spectrum of IR wavelengths than CO₂.
So, what actually makes CO₂ pollution?
➍ Why are temperature departures from 1850-1900 climate conditions deemed as the human welfare control knob given that the overall human condition has never been better than it is today? How is was climate during the end of the Little Ice Age — the coldest period in the last 10,000-years — preferable to today’s? On what account was the weather more benign? By what measure? Be specific. Tell me how the climate was supposedly less dangerous in the 17-19th centuries.
➎ The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) that President Biden signed into law in 2022 was popularized as the “biggest climate bill in history,” but ever since the bill was signed, climate alarmists insist climate change has only gotten worse.
➏ If we spend $75 trillion to decarbonize the economy by 2050, by how much will it reduce the GMST by the end of the century? Please provide your answer to the nearest tenth of a degree Celsius and show your calculations.
What does the perfect climate look like? How will we know when we get there? By what measure?
➐ The estimated cost of net zero by the year 2050 in the U.S. is $75 trillion ($3 trillion per year), according to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen.
That’s a hefty price tag.
And with ~260 million adult taxpayers, it would cost each of us $288,461.54 to get to “net zero emissions” by the target date. That’s 3-6-years’ worth of peoples’ salaries.
Are you willing to shell out that money, or do you just expect that everyone else will foot the bill for you?
Secondly, if you don’t know the answer to question six, then are we supposed to just spend that $75 trillion and see what happens?
➑ If “combating climate change” is a global concerted effort, why do China and India get a free pass to continue emitting carbon dioxide without bound?
➒ Why are you so vehemently opposed to the deployment of nuclear power? It is the safest, most sustainable “carbon-free” energy technology and without the compliance regulations, isn’t expensive when compared to solar PV and wind, which are inefficient, intermittent, costly add-ons to existing electricity generation sources.
➓ If humans are a parasite to the Earth since we are destroying it, why then are you worried that climate change could wipe us all out? Wouldn’t that be better for Earth? Why don’t you be the change you want to see and “net zero” yourself?
They are killing whales. It’s not that hard to figure out. There are so many better ways to generate energy. Hell, AI has gone nuclear, which is as clean as you can get when done right.
In a surprising yet overdue move, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) has released its Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for the New York Bight. This document, despite its extensive layers of technical jargon and cautious language, marks a pivotal shift. It appears to be a rare admission from BOEM that offshore wind farms are indeed capable of causing harm—biologically, socioeconomically, physically, and culturally.
The PEIS covers six commercial wind energy leases off the shores of New Jersey and New York, totaling over 488,000 acres. While its primary focus is to outline measures to “avoid, minimize, mitigate, and monitor” impacts, the fact that BOEM is even considering these measures implies a long-overdue acknowledgment of offshore wind’s potential to harm marine ecosystems and coastal communities. The language in the document hints that these developments are not entirely benign, despite being repeatedly framed as environmentally friendly solutions to the climate crisis.
Impacts Revealed
While BOEM insists that the PEIS is “programmatic” and not the final say on the matter, the document does provide insight into some of the broader consequences of wind energy development. The PEIS details potential adverse impacts across various categories:
Biological Impacts: Marine mammals, sea turtles, birds, and fish could suffer due to noise, habitat displacement, and changes in migration patterns. Even bats, which are not typically associated with offshore environments, could be affected.
In early 2022, Porsche said electric vehicles would account for more than 80% of total annual sales by the decade’s end. That goal is still in place, although the company added an asterisk next to 2030, saying it will depend on how customers react to EVs. In a Q&A session with the press during the conference call pretraining to Q3 2024 sales, the German brand admitted things aren’t going as planned.
Chief Financial Officer Lutz Meschke said the situation in China is “challenging” for Porsche and all the European luxury brands. In the United States and Europe, Porsche sees a “slowdown in the BEV transition and the customer demand is not satisfying overall.” He mentioned that “a lot of customers in the premium/luxury segment are looking in the direction of combustion engine cars. There’s a clear trend in this direction.”
Also known as lying or bullshit. I worked in the industry and saw just how much it was just that.
“’I’m a businessman. I’ll take the [government green] money, that’s all I care about… I will move heaven and earth to get projects done over here’.” – James Quigley, quoted in Politico ‘s “Power Switch” (below)
Government is the great fiction through which everyone endeavors to live at the expense of everyone else. Every one is, more or less, for profiting by the labors of others. No one would dare to express such a sentiment; he even hides it from himself.
The Frenchman added:
When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.
Correct. Government does not create wealth; it redistributes it (after a large cut). Who wins and loses? The winners are government, the lobbyists, and the rent-seekers, with concentrated benefits to them and diffused costs for the rest of us. Plunder, Bastiat would say.
—————-
I was reminded of this by a news item reported in Politico‘s “Power Switch” newsletter (August 16, 2023).
“Not all Republicans want to repeal the climate law that turns 1 today,” reported Josh Siegel. “In fact, my colleague Kelsey Tamborrino and I spoke to dozens of people from all corners of the country and discovered that many GOP officials in rural areas are welcoming the billions of dollars in clean energy incentives coming from President Joe Biden’s signature legislation.”
So do you think they found Republicans that feared “climate change” and welcomed “green” energy as cheaper and better? No, the interviewed were financially captured rent-seekers, enjoying a wealth transfer from taxpayers (via Biden) to their pockets. Here is the rest of the story.
In Rogers County, Okla., Republican Commissioner Ron Burrows looks at the Inflation Reduction Act and sees jobs — 1,000 of them to be exact. At least once the Italian giant Enel opens its $1 billion solar manufacturing plant there in 2025.
Burrows is not alone. Other political and economic leaders in Oklahoma, including Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt, are glad to receive the major investments they say they’d never have attracted without the climate law.
“You can imagine being in a small rural community and trying to get economic development to come — it’s a challenge,” said Rosalie Griffith, a board member of the Rural Economic Development of Inola. “But unless you develop, you’re going to die.”
Burrows said Enel’s decision to locate in his tiny town east of Tulsa — population 1,500 — would not have happened without local buy-in. “I just don’t see a company making that sort of investment without some level of comfort that it’s not adversarial, it’s not split,” he said.
By contrast, his local member of Congress — GOP Rep. Josh Brecheen — views the Inflation Reduction Act through the prism of most national Republicans. Brecheen told me he opposes the use of “taxpayer subsidization” to bolster Democrats’ favored green industries and is seeking to repeal the law.
Kelsey and I found that same disconnect between state and local GOP officials in rural areas and their federal representatives across the country.
There’s even a similar, but less dramatic, dynamic unfolding in upstate New York. GOP Rep. Marc Molinaro voted to repeal the Inflation Reduction Act’s clean energy incentives, and that’s made him a top target of Democrats in the 2024 election. His district is one of 18 that voted for Biden but are held by Republicans.
Inflation Reduction Act money catalyzed Canadian company Zinc8 Energy Solutions’ decision to locate a planned battery factory in Molinaro’s purple district. The project is expected to bring up to 500 new jobs to a Hudson Valley region still suffering from the loss of its manufacturing base in the 1990s. That’s exciting James Quigley, a Republican who drives a Tesla and is the supervisor for the town of Ulster, where Zinc8 plans to locate.
“I’m a businessman. I’ll take the money, that’s all I care about,” Quigley said. “I will move heaven and earth to get projects done over here.”
Final Comment
Gosh Josh, what did you really find our here? Are you proud of this? Did you and Kelsey Tamborrino ask the same parties if they liked the federal deficit and inflation? The present level of taxation? The wisdom of the few over the energy verdicts of the masses?
Money for these subsidies has to come from somewhere, and that means the private economy in higher taxes and more government borrowing…. The IRA [Inflation Reduction Act] is the heart of Bidenomics, which is about creating a new political-subsidy economy. Perhaps all of this will effloresce into a brilliant green future. More likely hundreds of billions in misallocated investment will reduce future productivity gains and translate into slower economic and income growth. Let’s hope President Biden’s subsidies don’t boomerang like pandemic transfer payments, leaving all Americans poorer.
What a waste, what a shame. The next President needs to issue an emergency declaration that the U.S. is out of money and cease all subsidies of the Inflation Reduction Act in order to pause wind, solar, and battery subsidies. Ratepayers and taxpayers will be thankful.
Americans from Florida to North Carolina continue to deal with the devastating consequences of Hurricane Helene, now the deadliest hurricane to hit the US since Katrina. The stories emerging from the region are heart breaking. The economic damage to property and the infrastructure will take years to recover from. Large parts of the area will never return to what they were.
In 28 NC counties hit by #Helene, 37.75% of voters are GOP (Cook PVI R+13.52) vs. 24.23% Dem.
In 72 non-impacted counties, 34.48% are DEM vs. 28.1% GOP (R-6.37).
Might the 19.89 variance be the basis for the wholly inadequate response from the Biden-Harris regime? pic.twitter.com/4EKUD6miWZ
Many Americans may be unaware of the extent of the damage. Unlike Hurricane Katrina, which received non-stop coverage on cable news for weeks, with primetime anchors like Anderson Cooper visiting on location covering stories of human tragedy and government incompetence, Helene’s aftermath has received far less coverage. It is on social media platforms like X where folks will find horrifying stories of the stench of death still strong in difficult to reach areas, the lack of government assistance for those in need, and the courage of private efforts serving the area.
Some of this is explained by the time period we are living in. Escalation in the Middle East. A national election is on the horizon. A court decision releasing documents allows the salivating press to re-litigate the events of January 6th, 2020 yet again. What cannot be ignored, however, is the extent to which the open hostility the nation’s most powerful institutions have had to the sorts of people that are overwhelmingly impacted by this storm, predominantly white, working class, and politically conservative.
This horrific natural disaster is a reminder of the extent to which the regime hates the people who live there.
This was true prior to Helene, where Washington policies have impoverished these areas with policies ranging from the national impact of inflation and financialization to more specific regional impacts stemming from regulatory policy with specific impacts on the region impacted. The immediate aftermath, however, demonstrates the extent to which state reaction to a disaster impedes voluntary efforts to quickly mobilize and assist those in need.
A combination of heavy-handed federal and state action has attempted to undercut recovery efforts, from grounding private helicopters seeking to rescue stranded victims, to the demands of Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg to stop citizens from flying drones near impacted areas seeking to locate those in need of help. Given the logistical strains that even the best organized response to a severe crisis would create, the voluntary organization of local human resources on the ground is essential to a meaningful and quick recovery. Here, the priority of government actors has been to elevate their control over the situation at the expense of these efforts.
The allocation of emergency resources itself is deserving of extended scrutiny as well. The victims of this tragedy, like all Americans, have their wealth extracted by Washington to fill the coffers of large federal agencies like FEMA. This same agency, whose nominal priority is to assist Americans in the case of emergency, is already pleading poverty. Of course, these same agencies oversaw the redirection of over a billion dollars in recent years to subsidize migration into the country. The priorities are clear, emergency funds take a back seat to a regime that cares more about new arrivals than the families who lived in this country for generations.
This predatory relationship between the regime and its citizens is systemic. The priorities of Washington will always stand in conflict with the people of Appalachia. DC sees no problem with ordering the Tennessee National Guard to the Middle East at a time when their fellow Tennesseans are facing their own crisis. This relationship is also bipartisan in nature. Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell, who has become very rich off the backs of the people who elevated him to political power, ignoring the victims of Helene on social media, while very focused on Israel and Iran.
The regime will always prioritize its own interests, including the interests of what it has identified as their special privileged classes, over the interests of its people. Changing this parasitic relationship requires more than a change of political party in the White House, but a determined effort by those who seek to represent the interests of these people to strike at the root of this relationship.
Unfortunately, while elections alone are not adequate to address the victimization of Appalachia, it is reasonable to consider what impact the specter of politics is having on their current neglect. The counties most impacted by the storm disproportionately vote in ways the current regime does not like.
Would America’s federal government deliberately undermine recovery efforts to try to achieve its own desired political ends? Would the corporate press deliberately fail to cover the inadequacy of these efforts, hoping to prevent a candidate it fears doesn’t win?
Our prayers are with the victims of Hurricane Helene, that they receive the help they need as recovery efforts continue, that they have the ability to build back their communities strong, and that they will one day be free of a regime that cares so little for them.
It was a loser who tried to force a bad solution that didn’t work on people who didn’t want them. Good riddance.
The House passed a bill Friday that would overturn the Biden-Harris administration’s de facto electric vehicle mandate if it becomes law.
By a 215-191 vote, the House approved H.J. Res. 136, a bill that would vacate the Environmental Protection Agency’s tailpipe emissions standards for light-duty vehicles if it passes the Senate and is signed into law by President Joe Biden. Eight House Democrats crossed the aisle to side with Republicans in favoring the bill, while one GOP lawmaker—Pennsylvania Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick—voted against the legislation.
First, we have this: EV Dealers Are So Desperate to Offload Stock That They’re Offering Lease Deals For $20 a Month.
How soft is the new EV car market? Some EV vehicles have been on their lots for so long that they’re offering lease terms so generous, they may as well be giving them away.
A Kia dealer in Virginia only gets a couple of inquiries a month for EVs. The price tag of new vehicles scares them off, says Finance Director Ramon Nawabi. He’s got a few EV 6 SUVs that have been on the lot for six months that Kia is now offering discounted leases on top of the $7,500 EV tax credit “just to move the car,” he says. “In a sense, we’re giving them away.”
That $7500 tax credit helped dealers sell a million EVs in 2022. However, the misnamed Inflation Reduction Act severely limited how that $7500 tax credit could be applied. There are now price caps for EVs ($80,000 for SUVs and trucks; $55,000 for cars), and the batteries must be American-made. Also, the vehicles must be assembled in the U.S. There’s also a cap on the net income of the potential buyer.
“The EU is in a crisis caused by low consumer demand for EVs and unfair competition from third country EV manufacturers, meaning that the EU industry will not be able to meet these reduction targets. EU industry will have little choice but to significantly cut production, which threatens millions of jobs in the EU, harms consumers, and adversely impacts the EU’s competitiveness and economic security.”
The quote above is an excerpt from a draft European Automobile Manufacturer’s Association (EAMA) document made public this week in a story by Bloomberg. The report was prepared by EAMA in preparation for formally requesting a 2-year delay in EU emissions goals set to take effect in 2025. EU EV makers say they will not be able to meet the idiotic mandate set by the EU’s authoritarian central planners, citing low consumer desire to buy the damn things and “unfair” competition from China.
It’s a reality that should come as no real surprise to anyone, especially since critics of the EU’s central planning literally predicted this very outcome a thousand times.
It’s because people bought them because there was a subsidy. Then they found out that the current technology of an EV is flashy, but not good. It sucks in hot or cold weather and takes too long to charge.
It’s not the panacea that was promised, just another government program, nee mandate that is a failure.
There is not enough electricity nor the grid to support people driving EV’s. They are 3-5 iterations of technology away from being efficient and desirable. They are wealthy peoples salve at feeling good about themselves for the made-up environmental crisis going on.
Let’s also not ignore the fires that they cause and the inability to put them out. They just burn to the ground (or 57,000 gallons of water for the enviro-weenies trying to save the planet – irony and sarcasm there).
So unless they bribe the buyers to get a technology worse than a petroleum powered car, people don’t want them.
Let’s not ignore that the manufacturers lose 10’s of thousands on every car they build (to the tune of a billion and a half loss for Ford alone this year).
So other than to make someone feel good because they are a greentard, there is no reason to buy one, yet. There may be a better iteration in the future, but it isn’t now.
For the record, I drove last weekend for 4 hours in my diesel truck and got 36 MPG. I didn’t hurt a plant or a tree.
Economics and technology say it’s a loser. It’s just another idea by the Enviro-nuts to try and make us do something because they hate petroleum.
EU Mandate here:
The mandate is so utterly unattainable that EAMA makes this projection as part of its application for a delay:
EU rules targeting a CO2 fleet emission of about 95 grams of CO2 per kilometer per vehicle would require automakers to either halt production of about 2 million cars or be exposed to fines that could reach €13 billion ($14.3 billion) for passenger cars, according to estimates by the European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association contained in the draft and seen by Bloomberg.
Van manufacturers could also face paying an additional €3 billion for falling short of targets, said the group that’s currently headed by Renault SA Chief Executive Officer Luca de Meo.
“The EU is in a crisis caused by low consumer demand for EVs and unfair competition from third country EV manufacturers, meaning that the EU industry
Volvo has announced it will be getting rid of its plan to sell only fully electric cars by 2030.
The auto manufacturer announced on Wednesday, that it is now aiming for 90-100% of its global sales to be either pure electric or plug-in hybrid at that point.
The Swedish company said this will “allow for a limited number of mild hybrid models to be sold, if needed.”
The latest move by Volvo comes after Mercedes-Benz and Volkswagen have both previously announced a shift in their respective EV strategies.
“An electric car provides a superior driving experience and increases possibilities for using advanced technologies that improve the overall customer experience,” Jim Rowan, CEO of Volvo Cars, said on Wednesday in the written statement.
“However, it is clear that the transition to electrification will not be linear, and customers and markets are moving at different speeds of adoption,” he continued.
I post this as I listen to Ford losing $5.5 billion on EV’s as they transition to hybrid because no one wants them. They’d rather have a ground shaking V-8 with a straight exhaust in their truck or a real Mustang, but no. Ford Loses $44,000 On Every EV Sells As It Switches To Hybrids
Now this:
We are often told that wind and solar, if not cheaper, are at least cost competitive with fossil fuels. Dead wrong! Wind or solar costs around five times more per megawatt hour compared to, for example, natural gas.
We are told that wind and solar will save us from a climate catastrophe. If there is a looming climate catastrophe, the only thing that will save us is nuclear power. Wind and solar are incredibly expensive methods of reducing CO2 emissions. The more wind and solar you build, the cost of removing CO2 increases disproportionately.
The U.S. has wasted $1.5 trillion on wind and solar and for that money only a little more than 10% of our electricity comes from wind and solar.
Fossil fuels are not dirty. Modern natural gas or coal plants are environmentally pristine. CO2 is not a pollutant, but an aerial plant food that is greening the Earth. CO2 makes plants grow faster with less water.
Wind or solar electricity is not worth what it costs to create it. It is worth what someone is willing to pay for it. That is a generally accepted economic principle.
If the government requires a utility to purchase some amount of electricity at some price, that is not a free market. That is central planning. Central planning has a role, but it rarely works as well as the voluntary exchange of goods and services. Central planning creates unexpected twists and turns and often results in low productivity.
More on the lies they’ve been telling us about Green energy and the Green New Deal nonsense
More sheep have woken up I suppose. There is no good reason or argument for them in their current configuration. They are expensive, hard to charge (compared to an ICE), cost more to insure and are limited in range. I’m not going to get into the socialistic forks in the road like the government kill switch because it just isn’t a very good product yet. There isn’t enough electricity for what they have planned along with AI and all of the restrictions on energy sources
Most buyers thought they were helping the environment or being progressive or tech savvy. I’ve got news for you. This isn’t the answer you were looking for, just money thrown away to feel or look good.
So now we have buyers remorse.
My wife’s nephew in Europe is a big show off with these. For being an engineer, he hasn’t thought this one through, but I’ll always think of him as a jag off. It’s easy to be smart when the pool of people in your country is only 5 million, but then he didn’t think through that either.
Nearly half of American electric vehicle (EV) owners want to buy an internal combustion engine model the next time they buy a car, according to a new study from McKinsey and Company, a leading consulting firm.
Approximately 46% of Americans who own an EV want to go back to a standard vehicle for their next purchase, citing issues like inadequate charging infrastructure and affordability, according to McKinsey’s study, which was obtained and reviewed by the Daily Caller News Foundation. The study’s findings further suggest that the Biden administration’s EV push is struggling to land with American consumers, after 46% of respondents indicated that they are unlikely or very unlikely to purchase an EV in a June poll conducted by The Associated Press and the University of Chicago’s Energy Policy Institute.
Moreover, 58% of Americans are very likely to keep their current cars for longer, and 44% are likely to postpone a possible switch to EVs, McKinsey’s study found. Consumers’ concerns about EV charging infrastructure are notable given the slow rollout of the Biden administration’s $7.5 billion public EV charger program, which has so far led to the construction of only a handful of chargers in nearly three years.
The reason “the experts” are always “baffled” is because the narratives they are paid to push—from “Covid”, to “safe and effective”, to “anthropogenic climate change”—are not only wrong, but outright lies.
The reason "the experts" are always "baffled" is because the narratives they are paid to push—from "Covid", to "safe and effective", to "anthropogenic climate change"—are not only wrong, but outright lies. pic.twitter.com/prEpKcJEv5
— Wide Awake Media (@wideawake_media) May 21, 2024
Even before our first surface stations report in 2009, The Heartland Institute led the way in reporting on problems with the surface temperature record.
We have highlighted how the surface station record did not correspond to the temperatures recorded by global satellites and weather balloons, two alternative temperature data sources whose data sets closely track each other. Heartland has repeatedly exposed instances in both the United States and abroad where official agencies tamper with past temperature data at pristine stations, adjusting it to appear cooler than what was actually recorded, while adjusting recent temperatures upward. We were all over the adjustments made by corrupt NOAA scientists in 2015 before the Paris climate treaty negotiations—mixing data from unbiased ocean buoys with heat-biased temperature measurements taken from ships’ engine water intake inlets, which made it appear the ocean was suddenly warming faster than before.
Also, first, foremost, and most forcefully, we independently documented the serious problems with the official surface temperature record arising from the fact that the vast majority of temperature stations are poorly sited. Stations fail NOAA’s own standards for quality, unbiased stations in reporting temperatures skewed by the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect.
My colleague, award-winning meteorologist Anthony Watts, in 2009, and then again, as a follow-up, in 2022, detailed with station location data and photographic evidence the problematic surfaces stations. Stations providing official data that were sited in locations where surrounding surfaces, structures, and equipment radiated stored heat or emitted heat directly biasing or driving the recorded temperatures higher than were recorded at stations in the same region, uncompromised by the well-known UHI (that is widely ignored by alarmists and official government agencies).
Of the sampling of hundreds of stations across the country Watts and his volunteer team documented in 2009, Watts wrote:
We found stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering-hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat. We found 68 stations located at wastewater treatment plants, where the process of waste digestion causes temperatures to be higher than in surrounding areas.
In fact, we found that 89 percent of the stations—nearly 9 of every 10—fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own siting requirements …
If someone wished to destroy America, could he do anything more catastrophic than what we currently see and hear each day? What would an existential enemy do that we have not already done to ourselves?
Here are eleven now familiar steps to civilizational destruction:
1) Wipe out a 2,000 mile border. Allow 10-million foreign nationals to enter unlawfully. Have no audit of any; nullify all federal immigration laws. Let toxic drugs in that kill 100,000 Americans a year. Give free support for those millions who broke the law. Smear any objectors as racists and xenophobes.
2) Run up $35 trillion in national debt. Keep adding $1 trillion to it each 100 days. Defame anyone wishing to cut wild spending as cruel and inhumane.
AP Award-Winning Photograph of murdered rape victim beingtransported to Gaza for purposes of necrophilia.
3). Appease or subsidize enemies like Iran and China. Demonize allies like Israel. Allow terrorists to attack Americans without response. See Islam as either similar or superior to Christianity. Make amends to leftist governments for supposedly past toxic American international behavior. Follow the lead of international agencies like the UN, ICC, and WHO to atone forpast American neocolonial and imperialist behavior. Recede to second-tier international status, befitting American decline.
4) In a multiracial democracy, redefine identity only as one’s tribal affiliation. Ensure each identity group rivals the other for victimhood and the state spoils it confers. Redefine all political issues by race and sex oppressors and oppressed. Destroy all meritocratic standards of admission, retention, promotion, and commendation.
5) Redefine violent crime as understandable, cry-of-the-heart expressions of social justice. Ensure no bail and same-day release for arrested, repeat violent felons. Empathize with the violent killer and rapist; ignore their victims, especially if slain police-officers.
6). Emasculate the military by using non-meritocratic standards of race, gender, and sexual orientation to determine promotion and commendation. Deliberately smear as racists and insurrectionists the largest demographic in the military who in recent wars died at twice their numbers in the population—so that they leave or never join the military. Encourage retired high officers to slander their Commander-in-Chief. Cut the defense budget. Stop producing sufficient weapons, but leave billions of dollars’ worth of arms to terrorists.
7) Reinvent the justice system to indict, bankrupt, convict, jail and eliminate political opponents. Use ballot removal, impeachment, civil suits, and state and federal indictments rather than elections to defeat an opponent. Mob the homes of non-compliant Supreme Court Justices, attack them personally by name.
8) Encourage the fusion of the bureaucratic state with the electric media to form a powerful force for political audit, surveillance, censorship, and coercion. Marry the FBI to Silicon Valley and hire its contractors to warp the news and hound supposed enemies of the people.
9.) Make war on affordable gasoline and natural gas. Substitute inefficient, unreliable, and expensive wind and solar power, even as energy prices bankrupt the middle class.
10.) Marry late, but preferably not at all. Consider males toxic, especially boys. Have no children, or as few as possible. Otherwise, assure children they are entitled, and must be sheltered. Raise them to have grievances against past generations and current norms.
11.) Turn world-class universities into indoctrination centers. Suspend the Bill of Rights on campuses. Train youth to graduate despising their own culture and civilization. Recruit foreign students from hostile nations to subsidize campus commissarbloat. Replace the curriculum with therapeutic propaganda. Ban the SAT/ACT and do not evaluate high school GPAs. Ensure merit does not select the student body. Charge tuition higher than the rate of inflation. Bill the government when students default on their loans.
So why are those controlling Biden using him to advance much of such a destructive agenda that would end America as we know it?
1) They are delusional and think their socialist and globalist agendas are working and will save us.
2) They are raging nihilists who do not like the U.S. and deliberately want it destroyed as a service to the world. A ruined U.S. is preferable to a strong America.
3) They are Jacobin revolutionaries who are intentionally erasing the old United States as a prerequisite for creating an entirely new America that will arise from the ashes with no trace or even memory of its past.
4) They have no agenda. They are aimless fools, and utter incompetents. These bunglers just wing it day-to-day, in response to what their radical media, academic, and political masters dictate is necessary for them to retain power. They have no idea of the damage they are doing.
Renewables don’t risk blackouts, said the media. But they did and they do. The physics are simple. And now, as blackouts in Spain strand people in elevators, jam traffic, and ground flights, it’s clear that too little “inertia” due to excess solar resulted in system collapse.
During the 1980s the global Communist Movement, due to setbacks in Russia and elsewhere, began to exploit and take over the fledging Marxist environmental movements in Europe and the United States. They saw the potential of the movement as a weapon to foment “peaceful” revolutions in democratic western nations.
Delusions of Adequacy 
