“Going Green” good for the economy?

Massive increases in government spending, subsidies and further economic control with a blizzard of added regulations are the recipe for economic downturn. History shows this time and again. History also shows the opposite is true; restraining government spending growth and reducing regulations and taxes on the private sector spurs economic growth and job creation.

The “Green” agenda invariably comprises major new government mandates, subsidies and regulations that will harm the country’s economy and citizenry, whether one believes fully in human-caused climate change or not. The Green cure is worse than the purported illness, regardless of how many studies authored by climate alarmists claim otherwise.

There are plenty of studies (using that term loosely) that claim Green policies for energy transformation will “stimulate” the economy. But they always come back to massive new government spending, debt and private sector mandates to subsidize the efforts and label it economic stimulus.

Whichever multi-trillion dollar version of the Green New Deal is examined, including the recent unveiling by presidential candidate Joe Biden, the essence is the same: vast new government regulation and mandates over energy, construction, transportation and pretty much every other industry.

Energy is the lifeblood of our national and global economy.  Affecting its supply and price impacts far and wide. Abundant energy supplies enable the economy to grow.  Restricting energy—namely, fossil fuels and nuclear—in the hopes of forcing its replacement with “renewables” will lead to economic contraction.

Proponents of a Green New Deal would reorder of energy policy to phase our use of coal, natural gas and oil and nuclear to replace them with electricity and so-called “renewable” energy sources, wind and solar. While I am a strong believer in technological progress, no one can plausibly explain how renewable energy can replace fossil fuels in the coming decades, if ever.

Many states and cities already have passed energy plans that mandate greater use of renewable energy and less fossil fuel. If this piecemeal effort becomes widespread, America as a whole, like California, will soon suffer higher energy costs, power outages, deforestation, landscape blight, harm to wildlife, and more.  These outcomes are not the ingredients for economic growth.

Green New Deal advocates are defending the new costs and control in two primary ways. First, they believe the planet itself is at greater risk by doing nothing; and the jobs lost in the energy industry are promised to be replaced with “Green” jobs.

First, the planet is not “at risk” if the global average temperature increases by 1.5 degrees by 2050; though no one can claim with certainty that it will. Nor will reducing carbon emissions in the United States necessarily affect global average temperature since many additional factors influence climate. Other industrialized nations like China and Russia will avoid such masochistic economic policy while they happily watch their U.S. adversary relinquish its fossil fuel production and harm its economic and military capacity in the process.

Second, the promise of “Green Jobs” is as vacuous as any from politicians attempting to reassure the public.  Nonetheless, they are itching to undertake a borrowing a spending binge to “create” jobs to produce solar panels, batteries and other components to foist them on the public, regardless of lack of demand and gross inefficiency. That is why every Green New Deal is priced at trillions of taxpayer dollars and constitutes a wasteful “spoon-ready” approach to creating jobs, as the late economist Milton Friedman would sardonically describe.

The Obama administration’s boondoggle taxpayer guarantees for the Solyndra company to produce solar panels, which cost at least $500 million, is emblematic of the problem.  So also is the example of California’s mandate for solar panels on all new homes. More such Green economic policy would exponentially produce the same folly.

A further problem comes from the current federal spending spree on the coronavirus, with $2.5 trillion added to the national debt and another trillion dollars on deck. America is that much closer to economic risk, including runaway inflation from printing money electronically to finance this unprecedented spending.  From a financial standpoint, the Covid pandemic makes the unaffordable Green New Deal much more so.

Government has a role in spearheading research and development in many areas of the economy, including in energy. When practical and feasible, the private sector on its own will make the investment, assume the risk, and profit accordingly from Green energy. Done foolishly, as proposed by the climate alarmists pushing Green New Deals, trillions of dollars will be printed and wasted, and jobs and livelihoods will be squandered.

SOURCE 




Last Ice Age, Fires Raged As Summer Temps Were 3-4C Warmer

A new study finds that 26 to 19 thousand years ago, with CO2 concentrations as low as 180 ppm, fire activity was [10 times more common] than today near the southern tip of Africa – mostly because summer temperatures were 3-4°C warmer. We usually assume the last glacial maximum – the peak of the last ice age – was significantly colder than it is today.

But evidence has been uncovered that wild horses fed on exposed grass year-round in the Arctic, Alaska’s North Slope, about 20,000 to 17,000 years ago, when CO2 concentrations were at their lowest and yet “summer temperatures were higher here than they are today” (Kuzmina et al., 2019).

Horses had a “substantial dietary volume” of dried grasses year-round, even in winter at this time, but the Arctic is currently “no place for horses” because there is too little for them to eat, and the food there is “deeply buried by snow” (Guthrie and Stoker, 1990).

In a new study (Kraaij et al., 2020) find evidence that “the number of days per annum with high or higher fire danger scores was almost an order of magnitude larger during the LGM [last glacial maximum, 19-26 ka BP]  than under contemporary conditions” near Africa’s southernmost tip, and that “daily maximum temperatures were 3-4°C higher than present in summer (and 2-4°C lower than present in winter), which would have contributed to the high severity of fire weather during LGM summers.”

Neither conclusion – that surface temperatures would be warmer or that fires would be more common – would seem to be consistent with the position that CO2 variations drive climate or heavily contribute to fire patterns.

SOURCE 




Record Crop Yields Punk The Denver Channel’s Climate Alarmism

Among the top Google News results today for “climate change,” The Denver Channel published an article asserting climate change is devastating crop production. The Denver Channel is either inexcusably unaware of on-point United Nations crop data, or The Denver Channel is deliberately telling falsehoods. Objective data show consistent, steady growth in global crop yields, with new records set virtually every year. Tally The Denver Channel as yet another purveyor of fake climate news.

The Denver Channel article is titled, “Farmers across the world worried about climate change impacting their crops.” The theme of the article is summarized by a quote the article provides from a Syngenta spokesperson: “Climate change is impacting agriculture and farmers abilities. … It’s coming down to, especially in the United States, is the unpredictable weather patterns that are beginning to emerge.”

The article especially emphasizes drought as ruining American crop yields. “It’s drier than it used to be,” says a struggling farmer in the article.

Those are bold assertions about climate change, drought, and negative crop impacts. Let’s take a look at the objective data.

Global crop yields during the period of modest global average warming have boomed. As my colleague James Taylor, president of The Heartland Institute, recently noted in a Climate Realism article, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) reports global cereal production (the vitally important corn, wheat, and rice crops) set an all-time record in 2019. Moreover, FAO expects 2020 crop production to surpass the 2019 record.

The same game-changing growth in global production is occurring in the United States. Yields per acre in the United States are 50 percent higher than was the case just 20 years ago, and double what they were in 1980. New records are set virtually every year.

The good news about crop yields tell us that the Denver Channel’s claim about worsening drought is likely false. Here are some additional facts to support that:

As reported in, Climate at a Glance: Drought, the United States is undergoing its longest period in recorded history without at least 40 percent of the country experiencing “very dry” conditions. Peaks in drought intensity occurred around 1978, 1954, 1930, and 1900 – between 40 and 120 years of global warming ago. By contrast, in 2017 the United States set a record for its smallest percentage of land area experiencing drought in recorded history. Then, the United States broke that record again in 2019.

To be fair, many farmers around the world likely do fear the effects of climate change on their livelihoods. If they do, however, their fear is driven by media alarmism like the Denver Channel article rather than by nonexistent declines in real-world crop production.

SOURCE 





Comrade de Blasio Declares Isaias A ‘Result Of Global Warming’

This is a perfect illustration of what a moron sounds like when they are a.) feckless and b.) use fact-free talking points. Data shows we are not having more hurricanes, they are not more intense and have been around long before we settled North America. In fact, Isaias is only the fourth tropical storm to hit NYC since 1821 (when recordkeeping began). -CCD Editor

Do communists actually hear what comes out of their mouths? They can make a claim in one sentence and then contradict said claim a minute later.

Their level of confident ignorance can only be described as impressive because a lazy person wouldn’t put this much work into sounding so ridiculous on such a consistent basis.

New York City Mayor Comrade Bill de Blasio held a press conference on Tuesday to talk about and warn New Yorkers of the progression and arrival of Tropical Storm Isaias.

De Blasio took a decent portion of his time to point out specifically that storms like Isaias are the “result of global warming.”

“Let’s talk about the bigger reality,” de Blasio said in propagandistic fashion. “What we’re seeing here, and what we’ve been seeing now for years, is the result of global warming. We’ve been seeing more and more pressure on coastal areas all around the world.”

The mayor spoke about how big storms are more frequent in the age of increased global warming, but de Blasio kind of contradicted himself with the very first statement in this address that he made to the people of New York.

“I just want to emphasize, when we talk about a tornado warning, it’s such a rarity here in New York City. It may sound to some people like that’s not something to worry about.”

Of course, a tornado of any size is something for people to worry about. But, how can tornadoes be rare while global warming is making storms like what Isaias is bringing to the area more frequently?

I thought storms were supposed to be stronger and happen more often. That’s what they all want us to think, right? So which is it?

That first line contradicted most of what de Blasio said after it.

Oh, and just as a quick note, I thought it was “climate change?” It was originally “global cooling.” Then, it was “global warming.” What gives?

De Blasio also made the claim that after Hurricane Sandy in 2012, “there were no more climate change deniers in New York City.” That’s a bold claim.

Since 1821, New York City has seen the effects of 11 hurricanes and four tropical storms, including Isaias.

For those playing the home game, that makes for an average of one major storm about every 13 years. To be fair, weather technology has exponentially increased in the last 50 years.

The main gripe here is that de Blasio took time from legitimately informing people about the particulars of the storm to push a political talking point — which global warming is at this point.

No one gives a crap about that. That “information” helps no one at a time when people should be preparing for whatever storm might bring their way.

Just another instance of de Blasio on his soapbox.

SOURCE 

***************************************

For more postings from me, see  DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC and AUSTRALIAN POLITICS. Home Pages are   here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  

Preserving the graphics:  Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere.  But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases.  After that they no longer come up.  From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site.  See  here or here

*****************************************