‘Science’ Tells Us Energy and Cement Companies Cause Wildfires
The Union of Concerned Scientists is just a club of extreme Leftists
According to a new study from the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), we can now blame forest fires on energy corporations: “Coal, oil, and gas companies are now directly linked to worsening forest fires across the western United States.”
The study, titled “The Fossil Fuels Behind Forest Fires: Quantifying the Contribution of Major Carbon Producers to Increasing Wildfire Risk,” claims that nearly 20 million acres of burned forest “can be attributed to heat-trapping emissions traced to the world’s 88 largest fossil fuel producers and cement manufacturers.” The study “offers policymakers, elected officials, and legal experts a scientific basis for holding fossil fuel companies accountable for the impacts of their products and their decades-long deception efforts.”
The conclusion sounds similar: “While countries and consumers have some responsibility for climate change and its impacts, fossil fuel companies can and should be held accountable for climate harms.” For those who drive trucks and cars and work with cement, that may sound more like advocacy than science.
The UCS authors came to this conclusion by using computer climate models to make an estimate on assumptions about changes in vapor pressure deficits. In his review of the study, Edward Ring of the California Policy Center cites deficits in the UCS research. As he notes, the recent heat waves in western forests are not unique.
California’s hottest recorded temperature was 10 years ago in 2013, a full 134 degrees in Death Valley. During the 1930s, “temperatures rivaled ... those we experience today,” and the recent drought was reportedly the “worst in 1,200 years.” According to Ring, “this raises the obvious question ... about that even bigger drought that occurred 1,200 years ago,” long before those energy and cement companies geared up. Trees are another concern.
Ring explains that the number of “California’s mid-elevation Ponderosa pine and mixed conifer forests” has swelled from 60 trees per acre to 170 trees per acre. “Unlike the subjectively defined algorithms” of climate models, Ring writes, “excessive tree density is an objective fact.”
The density issue came up during the epidemic of California wildfires in 2020. President Donald Trump contended that “forest management” was key to combating wildfires. California Gov. Gavin Newsom argued that “climate change is real and that is exacerbating this.” Newsom’s natural resources secretary, Wade Crowfoot, talked up “the science” but did not spell it out in any detail.
As it turns out, Crowfoot’s degree from the University of Wisconsin is in political—not climate—science, and he once served as West Coast director for the Environmental Defense Fund. In similar style, the UCS study’s co-author Alicia Race holds degrees in political science from the University of Illinois and Northern Kentucky University. Before joining UCS, she worked with the San Diego Climate Action Campaign.
The UCS study is peer-reviewed, but the authors give no mention of replication. In this process, authors give their data to independent scientists to see if they arrive at the same conclusion. Without replication, and with reliance on climate models, Ring finds the authors guilty of “scientific malpractice.” Politicians and bureaucrats also share the blame for destructive wildfires that threaten life and property, especially in California.
“Cal Fire [The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection] and other state and federal agencies [are] at fault for allowing fuel conditions to persist that enabled so many wildfires to reach epic proportions,” contend the authors of “California Wildfires: Key Recommendations to Prevent Future Disasters.”
The study recommends “proactive forest management,” “forest restoration,” and “more prescribed or controlled burns.” Additionally, “private-property owners” must be allowed “to more easily remove trees ... through forest thinning and the creation of breaks [in vegetation], especially near communities.”
“Only you can prevent wildfires,” says Smokey Bear, who calls for campfire safety, proper maintenance of equipment, and home protection. Such practical advice is better than blowing smoke on climate change, blaming energy companies, and allowing politicians and bureaucrats to escape accountability.
https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=14536&omhide=true&trk=title
****************************************************Socialism vs. nature
"Greed of the fossil fuel industry" is "destroying our planet," says Sen. Bernie Sanders. Young people agree. Their solution? Socialism.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says socialism creates "an environment that provides for all people, not just the privileged few."
"Nonsense," says Tom Palmer of the Atlas Network in my new video. Palmer, unlike Ocasio-Cortez and most of us, spent lots of time in socialist countries. He once smuggled books into the Soviet Union.
What he's seen convinces him that environmental-movement socialists are wrong about what's "green."
"We tried socialism," says Palmer. "We ran the experiment. It was a catastrophe. Worst environmental record on the planet."
In China, when socialist leaders noticed that sparrows ate valuable grain, they encouraged people to kill sparrows.
"Billions of birds were killed," says Palmer.
Government officials shot birds. People without guns banged pans and blew horns, scaring sparrows into staying aloft for longer than they could tolerate.
"These poor exhausted birds fell from the skies," says Palmer. "It was insanity."
I pointed out that, watching video of people killing sparrows, it looked like they were happy to do it.
"If you failed to show enthusiasm for the socialist goals of the party," Palmer responds, "you were going to be in trouble."
The Party's campaign succeeded. They killed nearly every sparrow.
But "all it takes is two minutes of thinking to figure, 'Wait. Who's going to eat all the bugs?'" says Palmer.
Without sparrows, insects multiplied. Bugs destroyed more crops than the sparrows had.
"People starved as a consequence," says Palmer. "People confuse socialism with ... a 'nice government' or a 'government that's sweet' or 'made up of my friends.'"
Socialism means central planning. That ends badly.
"What AOC wants to do is basically give the Pentagon, or similar agencies, control over the entire society. She thinks that's going to turn out well," says Palmer. "It's a joke."
China's central planners keep making mistakes.
Many Chinese lakes and rivers are bright green. Fertilizer runoff created algae blooms that kill all fish. A Lancet study says Chinese air pollution kills a million people per year.
Wherever socialism is tried, it creates nasty pollution.
In the Soviet Union, Joseph Stalin wanted cotton for his army. His central planners decided it should be grown near the Aral Sea. They drained so much water that the sea, once the fourth biggest inland lake in the world, shrank to less than half its size.
"Soviet planners caused catastrophic environmental costs to the whole population," says Palmer.
I push back. "That was then. Now the rules would be different. Now the rule would be: 'green.'"
"All the time we hear socialists say, 'Next time, we'll get it right.' How many next times do you get?" asks Palmer.
Yet American media still sometimes say socialists protect the environment. A New York Times op-ed claims "Lenin's eco warriors" created "the world's largest system of most protected nature reserves."
"These are not nature preserves," Palmer responds. "They use it as a dumping ground for heavy metals, for radioactive waste — in what sense is it a nature preserve?"
Capitalists destroy nature, too. Free societies do need government rules to protect the environment.
But free markets with property rights often protect nature better than bureaucrats can.
Private farmers, explains Palmer, are "concerned about the ability of the farm to grow food next year, year after year, (even) after that farmer is gone. Why? Because the farm has a capital value. That's the 'capital' in capitalism. They want to maximize that."
Capitalism also protects the environment because it creates wealth. When people aren't worried about starving or freezing, they get interested in protecting nature. That's why capitalist countries have cleaner air.
Also, capitalists can afford to pay for wild animal preserves.
"When no one has property rights and people are poor, tigers and elephants are considered a burden ... They kill them," says Palmer. "When you're wealthier ... you care about the environment."
Socialists say they care, but the real world shows: to protect the environment, capitalism works better
https://patriotpost.us/opinion/97892-socialism-versus-nature-2023-06-07 ?
***************************************************
Biden Admin's New Regulations: A Threat to Consumer Freedom and Affordable Energy
The Biden administration is regulating natural gas in appliances a break-neck speed. First they went after gas stoves. Now they are set to impose stringent regulations on home gas-powered furnaces. This move has raised eyebrows and concerns over a potential narrowing of consumer options and an inevitable rise in expenses.
In a remarkable display of bureaucratic intervention, the Department of Energy (DOE), under the leadership of the Biden administration, proposed these restrictive regulations in June 2022.
They will adversely impact more than half of American households who rely on residential gas furnaces for their heating requirements. The regulations are imminent and will compromise affordability with meager impact on greenhouse gas emissions.
Ben Lieberman, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, shared his thoughts with Fox News Digital, “This is a classic example of one size not fitting all. Every home is different, every homeowner is different and people are best off having a wide range of choices. They can work with their contractor to make the best decision for their home and their circumstances.”
According to Lieberman, the “efficiency standard would effectively outlaw non-condensing furnaces and condensing alternatives would be the only ones available. Those are more efficient, but they cost more. And installation costs could be a big problem for some houses that are not compatible with condensing furnaces.”
If these proposed rules come into play, the DOE would demand furnaces to reach an annual fuel utilization efficiency (AFUE) of 95% by 2029. This condition means that manufacturers can only market furnaces that convert at least 95% of fuel into heat within the next six years, a considerable jump from the current market standard AFUE of 80% for a residential furnace.
As a result of this overreach, non-condensing gas furnaces, although less efficient but notably cheaper, would be virtually removed from the market.
This move creates a financial burden for consumers, who will have to bear hefty installation costs when replacing their non-condensing furnace with a condensing one post-implementation of the rule.
Richard Meyer, the vice president of energy markets, analysis, and standards at the American Gas Association (AGA), raised serious questions. “There are some really technical reasons why this is such a concerning rule. It has to do with the ability for consumers to be in compliance with this new efficiency standard.”
He noted that these proposed regulations would demand homeowners install new equipment to exhaust gas out of their homes, an expensive ordeal for many.
“These higher efficiency units, or so-called condensing units — a lot of consumers have them in their home, but a lot of consumers don’t. So, this rule would require additional retrofits for a lot of consumers,” he said. “And those retrofits can be extremely cost prohibitive.”
The AGA, providing natural gas to over 74 million customers nationwide, firmly opposed the furnace rules in comments submitted to the DOE. The group advocates for a free market approach to naturally increase product efficiency, a measure that would genuinely serve consumers’ interests.
The alarming reality is that between 40-60% of the existing residential furnaces on the market will face prohibition under these proposed regulations.
Meyer added, “What we’re seeing across the U.S. federal government and reflected, of course, in many states right now is an active policy push intended to address climate change. But the outcome is to restrict the options and availability of the direct use of natural gas for consumers.”
He further emphasized AGA’s primary concerns: “One, removing that option, that choice, from consumers. Two, in many cases, natural gas remains the lowest cost and even lowest-emissions resource for many consumers. A lot of the policies we’re seeing that are designed to restrict natural gas may end up having a counterproductive result and could increase costs to consumers and could increase the emissions associated with the energy use by those consumers.”
The DOE announced last year that the efficiency standards could potentially save the average family about $100 per annum. It also boasted that these rules would cut carbon emissions by 373 million metric tons and methane emissions by 5.1 million tons. But, one might wonder, at what cost to the individual consumer?
Francis Dietz, a spokesperson for the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute which represents heating equipment manufacturers, pointed out that his organization’s members seek regulations that are reasonable.
“Our main goal in this is to have a rule that is reasonable enough so that there are still higher efficiency choices for consumers,” he shared. “So, you know, you would have one at a level low enough where it would be more affordable for consumers and others who felt they needed even more efficiency would still have some choices there. That’s really our main goal.”
Sadly, these rules appear amidst a flood of DOE rulemaking that targets appliance efficiency standards. Recently, the DOE rolled out new standards for various appliances including gas stoves, ovens, clothes washers, refrigerators, air conditioners, and dishwashers.
In December, Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm proudly declared the administration had made 110 actions on energy efficiency standards in 2022 alone. She further lauded these regulations for boosting U.S. leadership in “the race towards a clean energy future.”
The current federal Unified Agenda reveals the Biden administration’s plan to advance rules impacting even more appliances, including pool pumps, battery chargers, ceiling fans, and dehumidifiers.
The DOE’s mission statement has energy efficiency and conservation as one of its five pillars. However, Democrats and environmentalists’ insistence that electrification, banning natural gas hookups, and implementing rigorous energy efficiency standards will expedite emissions reductions may not take into account the resulting burden on the average American.
The question remains: Do these regulations genuinely serve the people they purport to protect, or do they instead infringe upon their freedoms, choices, and financial stability? The true impact of such sweeping regulations on our day-to-day lives will be enormous and expensive.
********************************************
Our honeymoon with electric vehicles is over so, for now, my advice is to hang on to your old petrol motor
By ROWAN ATKINSON
Electric motoring is, in theory, a subject about which I should know something. My first university degree was in electrical and electronic engineering, with a subsequent master’s in control systems.
Combine this, perhaps surprising, academic pathway with a lifelong passion for the motorcar, and you can see why I was drawn into an early adoption of electric vehicles.
I bought my first electric hybrid 18 years ago and my first pure electric car nine years ago and (notwithstanding our poor electric charging infrastructure) have enjoyed my time with both very much.
Electric vehicles may be a bit soulless, but they’re wonderful mechanisms: fast, quiet and, until recently, very cheap to run. But increasingly, I feel a little duped. When you start to drill into the facts, electric motoring doesn’t seem to be quite the environmental panacea it is claimed to be.
As you may know, the Government has proposed a ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030. The problem with the initiative is that it seems to be largely based on conclusions drawn from only one part of a car’s operating life: what comes out of the exhaust pipe.
Electric cars, of course, have zero exhaust emissions, which is a welcome development, particularly in respect of the air quality in city centres. But if you zoom out a bit and look at a bigger picture that includes the car’s manufacture, the situation is very different.
In advance of the Cop26 climate conference in Glasgow in 2021, Volvo released figures claiming that greenhouse gas emissions during production of an electric car are nearly 70 per cent higher than when manufacturing a petrol one.
How so? The problem lies with the lithium-ion batteries fitted currently to nearly all electric vehicles: they’re absurdly heavy, huge amounts of energy are required to make them, and they are estimated to last only upwards of ten years.
It seems a perverse choice of hardware with which to lead the automobile’s fight against the climate crisis.
Unsurprisingly, a lot of effort is going into finding something better.
New, so-called solid-state batteries are being developed that should charge more quickly and could be about a third of the weight of the current ones — but they are years away from being on sale, by which time, of course, we will have made millions of overweight electric cars with rapidly obsolescing batteries.
Hydrogen is emerging as an interesting alternative fuel, even though we are slow in developing a truly ‘green’ way of manufacturing it. It can be used in one of two ways. It can power a hydrogen fuel cell (essentially, a kind of battery); the car manufacturer Toyota has poured a lot of money into the development of these.
Such a system weighs half of an equivalent lithium-ion battery and a car can be refuelled with hydrogen at a filling station as fast as with petrol.
If the lithium-ion battery is an imperfect device for electric cars, concerns have been raised over their use in heavy trucks for long distance haulage because of the weight; an alternative is to inject hydrogen into a new kind of piston engine.
JCB, the company that makes yellow diggers, has made huge strides with hydrogen engines and hopes to put them into production in the next couple of years.
If hydrogen wins the race to power trucks — and as a result every filling station stocks it — it could be a popular and accessible choice for cars.
But let’s zoom out even further and consider the whole life cycle of an automobile.
The biggest problem we need to address in society’s relationship with the car is the ‘fast fashion’ sales culture that has been the commercial template of the car industry for decades.
Currently, on average we keep our new cars for only three years before selling them on, driven mainly by the ubiquitous three-year leasing model.
This seems an outrageously profligate use of the world’s natural resources when you consider what great condition a three-year-old car is in.
When I was a child, any car that was five years old was a bucket of rust and halfway through the gate of the scrapyard. Not any longer. You can now make a car for £15,000 that, with tender loving care, will last for 30 years.
It’s sobering to think that if the first owners of new cars just kept them for five years, on average, instead of the current three, then car production and the CO2 emissions associated with it, would be vastly reduced.
Yet we’d be enjoying the same mobility, just driving slightly older cars.
We need also to acknowledge what a great asset we have in the cars that currently exist (there are nearly 1.5 billion of them worldwide).
In terms of manufacture, these cars have paid their environmental dues and, although it is sensible to reduce our reliance on them, it would seem right to look carefully at ways of retaining them while lowering their polluting effect. Fairly obviously, we could use them less.
As an environmentalist once said to me, if you really need a car, buy an old one and use it as little as possible.
A sensible thing to do would be to speed up the development of synthetic fuel, which is already being used in motor racing; it’s a product based on two simple notions: one, the environmental problem with a petrol engine is the petrol, not the engine and, two, there’s nothing in a barrel of oil that can’t be replicated by other means.
Formula One is going to use synthetic fuel from 2026. There are many interpretations of the idea but the German car company Porsche is developing a fuel in Chile using wind to power a process whose main ingredients are water and carbon dioxide.
Longevity
With more development, it should be usable in all petrol-engine cars, rendering their use virtually CO2-neutral.
Increasingly, I’m feeling that our honeymoon with electric cars is coming to an end, and that’s no bad thing: we’re realising that a wider range of options need to be explored if we’re going to properly address the very serious environmental problems that our use of the motor car has created.
We should keep developing hydrogen, as well as synthetic fuels to save the scrapping of older cars which still have so much to give, while simultaneously promoting a quite different business model for the car industry, in which we keep our new vehicles for longer, acknowledging their amazing but overlooked longevity.
Friends with an environmental conscience often ask me, as a car person, whether they should buy an electric car. I tend to say that if their car is an old diesel and they do a lot of city centre motoring, they should consider a change.
But otherwise, hold fire for now. Electric propulsion will be of real, global environmental benefit one day, but that day has yet to dawn.
***************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM )
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
*****************************************
Jim Hansen and his twin
No comments:
Post a Comment