Monday, May 20, 2019

Does what I eat have an effect on climate change?

The article below from the NYT is too silly for me to reproduce all of it.  It is a sort of hymn for the global warming religion.  You have to believe in "planet-warming greenhouse gases" to take any notice of it.

But note also below that the do-gooders never miss a chance to condemn "red meat and dairy".  That evil red meat will both ruin your health and destroy the planet.  There's actually nothing bad that red meat will not do. It's a sort of new Puritanism being preached below.  And, like the original Puritanism, its main aim is to stop pleasure and enforce suffering

Yes. The world’s food system is responsible for about one-quarter of the planet-warming greenhouse gases that humans generate each year. That includes raising and harvesting all the plants, animals and animal products we eat — beef, chicken, fish, milk, lentils, kale, corn and more — as well as processing, packaging and shipping food to markets all over the world. If you eat food, you’re part of this system.


Lots of ways. Here are four of the biggest: When forests are cleared to make room for farms and livestock — this happens on a daily basis in some parts of the world — large stores of carbon are released into the atmosphere, which heats up the planet.

When cows, sheep and goats digest their food, they burp up methane, another potent greenhouse gas contributing to climate change. Animal manure and rice paddies are also big methane sources. Finally, fossil fuels are used to operate farm machinery, make fertilizer and ship food around the globe, all of which generate emissions.


Meat and dairy, particularly from cows, have an outsize impact, with livestock accounting for around 14.5 percent of the world’s greenhouse gases each year. That’s roughly the same amount as the emissions from all the cars, trucks, airplanes and ships combined.

A major study published last year in the journal Science calculated the average greenhouse gas emissions associated with different foods: In general, beef and lamb have the biggest climate footprint per gram of protein, while plant-based foods tend to have the smallest impact. Pork and chicken are somewhere in the middle.

Now, these are only averages. Beef raised in the United States generally produces fewer emissions than beef raised in Brazil or Argentina. Certain cheeses can have a larger greenhouse gas impact than a lamb chop. And some experts think these numbers may actually underestimate the impact of deforestation associated with farming and ranching.

But most studies agree with this general hierarchy: Plant-based foods usually have a lower impact than meat, and beef and lamb tend to be the worst offenders by a considerable margin.


Consuming less red meat and dairy will typically have the biggest impact for most people in wealthy countries. That doesn’t necessarily mean going vegan. You might just eat less of the foods with the biggest climate footprints, like beef, lamb and cheese. If you’re looking for substitutes, pork, chicken, eggs and mollusks have a smaller footprint. But plant-based foods like beans, pulses, grains and soy tend to be the most climate-friendly options of all.


It varies from person to person. But a number of studies have concluded that people who eat a meat-heavy diet — including much of the population of the United States and Europe — could shrink their food-related footprint by one-third or more by moving to a vegetarian diet. Giving up dairy would reduce those emissions even further.

If you don’t want to go that far, there are still ways to shrink your individual footprint. Just eating less meat and dairy, and more plants, can reduce emissions. Cutting back on red meat in particular can make a surprisingly large difference: According to a World Resources Institute analysis, if the average American replaced a third of the beef he or she eats with pork, poultry or legumes, his or her food-related emissions would still fall by around 13 percent.

Keep in mind that food consumption is often only a small fraction of a person’s total carbon footprint: There’s also driving, flying and home energy use to consider. But dietary changes are often one of the quickest ways for many people to lighten their impact on the planet.


Joe Biden's Heresy
The left is starting to take aim at Democratic front-runner Joe Biden. At a conference this week, liberal activists repeatedly booed when told that Biden wanted to find “middle ground” on climate policy. When an audience member shouted “No middle ground!” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., replied, “No middle ground is right!” and declared “I will be damned if the same politicians who refused to act come back today and say we need a middle-of-the-road approach to save our lives.” Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., joined in her criticism, “There is no ‘middle ground’ when it comes to climate policy.”

The left’s issues with the former vice president go far beyond his position on climate policy. To the neo-socialists now driving the debate in the Democratic primary campaign, Biden’s entire approach to politics — reaching across the aisle and forging compromise built on consensus — is anathema.

Biden’s supposed heresy is that he believes in working with Republicans. He says on the stump that Trump is an “aberration” and predicts that if the president is defeated, Republicans will work toward bipartisan reform, which Biden insists is the only way to get anything worthwhile done. “This nation cannot function without generating consensus,” he said in New Hampshire this week.

Well, generating consensus is not what the left wants. It is not simply opposed to Trump. Many liberals believe, as Ocasio-Cortez has put it, that “capitalism is irredeemable.” So for many Democrats, the Obama-Biden approach to governing is now considered too moderate. On climate, they don’t want the government to simply invest in green energy, like President Barack Obama did. They want to spend tens of trillions of dollars to replace every vehicle that uses a combustion engine, bring high-speed rail to every corner of the country, upgrade or replace every building in the United States and eliminate all fossil-fuel energy.

On health care, they no longer make a pretense of promising voters that they can keep their health plans, like Obama did. They openly advocate abolishing private insurance altogether. Biden’s support for a “public option” that would give Americans a choice of buying into a Medicare-like health plan is seen on the left as capitulation. There will be no choices in the brave new world of democratic socialism. We will have government-run health care for all, whether we want it or not.

Of course, Biden is no moderate. He is an old-fashioned, liberal Democrat. But to the Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez wing of the party, that makes him too far to the right — and too willing to compromise with the far right. I saw Biden’s willingness to do so up close when I worked on the staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during the 1990s. As the ranking Democrat, Biden prided himself on his ability to compromise with committee chairman Jesse Helms, R-N.C., arguably the most uncompromising conservative in the Senate. Together, they passed legislation — the so-called Helms-Biden Act — to reform the United Nations and cut deals to restructure the State Department. “As chairman and ranking member, we passed some of the most significant legislation passed in the last 40 years,” Biden explained during a 2015 speech. He continues to tout his relationship with Helms (who died more than a decade ago) on the stump as an example of how he can work with die-hard conservatives to get things done.

Is this what Democratic primary voters want? Biden’s lead in the national polls suggests it may be. But it is early. After all, at this time in 2015, Scott Walker, the Wisconsin governor at the time, appeared to be the front-runner for the Republican nomination and no one was taking Donald Trump seriously. Biden may be ahead for now, but all the energy inside the Democratic Party seems to be with the uncompromising left. It sees Biden standing in the way of its takeover of the Democratic Party. So as his lead in the polls expands, their efforts to stop him — and his heretical calls for compromise — will escalate.

“We have to unify this country,” Biden said at a speech in Iowa earlier this month. “The other side is not my enemy, it’s my opposition.” How sad that has become a controversial statement.


JEREMY CLARKSON thinks the Greenies don't realize the pleasure that powerful cars can give

As I write, hundreds of men and women with unnecessary hair are blocking up London by staging Kumbaya singalongs and holistic wellness seminars at key intersections. It’s hard to understand what they want, exactly, as their keynote speaker is a girl of about eight who probably still believes in unicorns. But I think it has something to do with climate change and being bored.

Presumably they would very much enjoy the life I’ve been leading for the past couple of months. I lived on an island off the coast of Vietnam where there were no hire cars. So I used a bicycle, and each day would pedal through a jungle, in the sunshine, to the fabulous market where I would buy fresh fish and unusual vegetables.

I’m back in London now and it’s all a huge shock. First of all, you can hear birds singing, which, thanks to the constant horn-blowing, you cannot in Vietnam. And second, instead of a bicycle, I have been getting around in an Audi R8 Performance – the fastest road car to wear those four rings.

There have been beefed-up and hunkered-down versions of the R8 before, and it’s hard to see why the Performance is faster or better. It produces only a little more power than the old Plus. And yet it’s quicker from 0-200km/h than a Porsche 911 Turbo S. With a top speed of 330km/h, it’s faster flat out than a light aircraft.

But it’s not the speed that really matters in this car. It’s the feel of the thing. And that comes from the fact that it uses a V10 engine. Almost all cars these days are turbocharged, and that’s fine. Turbos produce the power and the torque while keeping the polar bears happy. However, comparing a turbocharged engine to a normally aspirated V10 is like comparing a piano to the organ in St Paul’s Cathedral. When you put your foot down in a V10-powered R8, and the double-clutch gearbox works its magic as you rocket down the road in a blizzard of G and thunder, it’s hard not to think, “This is what a supercar is meant to be like”.

I’ll be honest with you. After two months of driving nothing but a bicycle, and with news of those eco-halfwits filling the traffic reports, I did think for the first day or two that cars of this type were a bit stupid and unnecessary. It was hard to watch Sir Attenborough in that new Netflix series, gently castigating us all for messing up his film set, and then go to work in a car that sounds like a volcano.

After a few days, though, normal service was resumed. I began to realise a V10 is better than a bicycle and having fun at 280km/h is more important than having angst about plankton. I began to appreciate the engineering, too. This is a massively powerful car and it makes do with a gearbox that has only seven speeds. Which made me question why my gap-year bicycle needed 21.

And then there was the Audi’s ability to settle down when driving round town. It would glide over speed bumps without scuffing its nose, and would jiggle and wiggle over potholes without transmitting news of the shoddy workmanship to the seat of my pants.

There were one or two irritants, though. They probably thought they were being ever so clever moving the screen from the centre of the dash to the instrument binnacle. But when you turn the wheel to back into a parking space, you can’t see the reversing camera. And the bonnet catch was so stiff you had to take a running jump at the bonnet to get it to close properly. Oh, and an awful lot of stuff is an optional extra – the diamond stitching in the roof lining, for example, costs £2500 ($4700). And how small does your penis have to be before you think, “Yes. I need that in my life”?

The car itself is quite good value. I know this is not a view that would go down well at the holistic wellness seminar, but it is, actually. For a truly fast, viscerally exciting, all-wheel-drive, mid-engined supercar that you really could use every day. There’s just one problem. The whole point of a supercar is that you don’t use it every day. It’s meant to be special. Something you take out only at weekends. So, while I admire the Audi and I liked driving it, I’d always spend a bit more and go for its virtually identical twin sister – the even more viscerally exciting Lamborghini Huracan. Because if you’re going to buy a car that annoys Sir Attenborough, you may as well get one that really annoys him.


Congress Should Let Electric Vehicle Subsidies Die

With the $7,500 tax credit for electric car buyers already in the phase out period for the two biggest manufacturers – Tesla and GM – it's no surprise that many Democrats in Congress are clamoring to lift the cap and keep the subsidies flowing. Unfortunately, several Republicans are joining the effort, creating unfortunate bipartisan support for a piecemeal version of the crackpot Green New Deal they have been rightly mocking and ridiculing.

The so-called Drive America Forward Act would triple the existing cap on subsidies of 200,000 per manufacturer – massively expanding a program that was always supposed to be temporary and was originally premised on the national security rationale that it would lessen dependence on foreign oil – a now comically anachronistic concern when the United States has become a leading oil exporter.

Moreover, while the Green New Deal is a socialist income leveling exercise in the guise of environmental policy, electric vehicle subsidies use environmental delusion as a cover for a wealth transfer from poor and middle income Americans to the rich who buy electric hobby cars as their third or fourth vehicle.  Voters agree – with a recent poll showing 67 percent do not think their tax dollars should help pay for electric vehicle subsidies.

The Pacific Research Institute looked at IRS data and found that more than half of the electric car buyers claiming the credit make more than $200,000 per year and nearly 80 percent make more than $100,000. Just one percent make $50,000 or less.

There is also a geographic dimension to the wealth redistribution.  The most recent industry data shows that nearly half of all electric vehicles sold in the United States are sold in California, which has its own lavish subsidies at the state level.

A September 2018 NERA Economic Consulting study looked at the economic impact of eliminating the cap and found that the costs outweigh the benefits.  The study finds total household income falling as a consequence of lifting the cap by $7 billion in 2020 and $12 billion in 2035, which is about $50 to $70 per household in lost income every year.

That's a cost of over $50 every year to middle-income Americans to pay for subsidies for rich people in California.

Orrin Hatch, the original sponsor of the bill, explained the logic behind the cap in 2007:

"I want to emphasize that like the tax credits available under current law for hybrid electric vehicles, the tax incentives in the FREEDOM Act are temporary. They are needed in order to help these products over the initial stage of production, when they are quite a bit more expensive than older technology vehicles, to the mass production stage, where economies of scale will drive costs down and the credits will no longer be necessary."

At the time, big subsidies for electric vehicles were justified based on the theory that they were needed to lessen American dependence on foreign oil.  A decade later, America is the largest oil and gas producer in the world and electric vehicles are a mature enough technology that they should be left to succeed or fail on the preference of consumers, not politicians.

Ironically, it is now electric vehicles that are vulnerable to strategic supply disruptions because they require rare earth minerals for their motors and batteries –the production of which is overwhelmingly controlled by China.  Such resources also present moral issues, with the cobalt used for batteries sourced in part from Congo mines worked by children in hazardous conditions.

Meanwhile, gasoline vehicles have become vastly more environmentally friendly and fuel efficient.  In fact, a study last year from the Manhattan Institute found that widespread deployment of electric vehicles would only reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 1 percent – and would increase emissions of SO2, NOx, and particulate matter.

The bottom line: efforts to raise the cap are a cash grab that will force taxpayers to subsidize wealthy Californians for no presently valid reason.  Congress should let the subsidy phase out as scheduled.


Australian academic quits in disgust over university sacking of Peter Ridd, a critic of their Greenie policies

A James Cook University associate professor has resigned from her honorary position over the sacking of professor Peter Ridd, who was dismissed after he criticised the institution’s climate change science.

Sheilagh Cronin ­resigned from the unpaid role at the Townsville university in protest and said she was “ashamed” that she had not done so earlier.

A marine physicist who had worked at the university for 30 years, Professor Ridd was censured three times before being sacked last year. He challenged the dismissal in the Federal Court and on April 16 judge Salvatore Vasta found all 17 findings used by the university to justify the sacking were unlawful.

Dr Cronin, an adjunct associate professor with the university’s Mount Isa Centre of Rural and Remote Health and a former president of the Rural Doctors Association of Australia, sent a letter to vice-chancellor Sandra Harding last week outlining her reasons for resigning.

“I am coming to the end of my professional career but my main reason for resigning is my disquiet over the dismissal of the respected physics professor … Peter Ridd,” Dr Cronin wrote. “I believe his treatment by yourself and your board is completely contrary to the philosophy of open discussion and debate that should be at the heart of every university. It saddens me that the reputation of JCU is being damaged by the injustice of Professor Ridd’s case.”

JCU denounced the Federal Court’s decision and stood by its disciplinary processes, but has yet to decide if it will appeal. The university has since declined to comment on the case.

In 2016, Professor Ridd was censured after he emailed a journalist to allege that images of unhealthy coral given to the media by university colleagues were misleading and the photographs were being used to “spin a story” about the impact of climate change. He was censured again in 2017 when he repeated the claims on Sky News and said there was a lack of rigorous quality assurance in terms of the university’s climate change science.

After a third alleged violation of the code of conduct, including allegedly leaking confidential information about the disciplinary process, Professor Ridd was sacked in April last year.

“At the time, it made me feel quite uneasy that they’d sacked someone for questioning the methodology of the research into the Great Barrier Reef,” Dr Cronin said. “But nobody from JCU did anything to support him.”

Dr Cronin, who has never met or spoken to Professor Ridd, said she did not believe the university would take much notice of her resignation, given her association with the university was mostly a title.

“It’s a small protest in support of science and fairness and justice,” she said. “It does make me feel a bit sad because it was an honour to get that (title). “But, equally, people should stand up when they see something like that.”



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


Sunday, May 19, 2019

Satellite information reveals Antarctica ice thinning at ‘extraordinary rate’

This tired old con again.  A key Leftist modus operandi is to tell only half the story, leaving out the bits that contradict  Leftism. It is simple dishonesty designed to deceive people who are not well-informed on poliical issues.

What they ignore here is Zwally's finding that Antactic ice is ON THE WHOLE increasing and that the relatively small area they concentrates on -- West Antarctica -- has substantial sub-surface vulcanism that inevitably causes some melting.  You would melt too if you had a volcano under you

Antarctica is losing ice at a rapid rate, according to new satellite information.

Glaciers are now sliding into the sea because of the warming Southern Ocean as ice vanishes five times faster than it did in the 1990s.

The West Antarctic ice sheet used to be stable a few decades ago, but new evidence shows that up to a quarter of it is now thinning.

In the worst-hit locations, more than 100 metres of ice thickness has been lost.

Completely losing the West Antarctic ice sheet would result in global sea levels rising by about five metres.

This amount of sea level rise would drown coastal cities around the world.

Scientists think sea levels are now rising at the extreme end of what was predicted to happen gradually just a few years ago, and current losses of ice are said to be doubling every decade.

This research has been published in the journal of Geophysical Research Letters.

It describes how scientists used satellites images to compare the sizes of ice sheets from 1992 to 2017 with weather information.

Professor Andy Shepherd, who led the study, said: “From a standing start in the 1990s, thinning has spread inland progressively over the past 25 years — that is rapid in glaciological terms.

“The speed of drawing down ice from an ice sheet used to be spoken of in geological timescales, but that has now been replaced by people’s lifetimes.”

Prof Shepherd also stressed some glaciers, such as the Pine Island and Thwaites glacier basins, are past the halfway point of melting.

This new work should help researchers to more accurately pinpoint where sea levels will rise so appropriate preparations can be made to try and save affected areas.

The underside of glaciers are thought to be melting because the sea is too hot, and not even snowfall can counteract the damage.

Prof Shepherd added: “In parts of Antarctica, the ice sheet has thinned by extraordinary amounts.”

He now thinks West Antarctica melting has caused 5mm of sea level rise since 1992.

He concluded: “Before we had useful satellite measurements from space, most glaciologists thought the polar ice sheets were pretty isolated from climate change and didn’t change rapidly at all. “Now we know that is not true.”


Democrats back bill to ban the sale of gas-powered cars by 2040

Democrats will introduce legislation to mandate zero-emissions vehicles make up all new car sales by 2040. The bill is co-sponsored by three Democrats running for president in 2020 who support the Green New Deal.

“When I take a lungful of air in this moment, it has 30 percent more carbon in it than when I was born,” Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley, the bill’s main sponsor told The Huffington Post on Wednesday. “That is a change that has never happened in a single generation of humankind on this planet.”

The bill is co-sponsored by Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, Brian Schatz of Hawaii, Kamala Harris of California, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Bernie Sanders of Vermont. California Rep. Mike Levin will introduce a House version of the bill, HuffPo reported.

Harris, Gillibrand and Sanders are running for president in 2020, and all of them co-sponsored the Green New Deal resolution. However, no Democrat voted for the Green New Deal in March when it came up for a vote in the Senate.

Merkley, who also supports the Green New Deal, sees this bill as part of that broad vision of completely greening the U.S. economy. The Green New Deal calls for achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions within 10 years and dramatically expanding the welfare state.

“This is just one small contributor to that vision,” Merkley told HuffPo. “But we need to develop the details around many ideas so those ideas are ready to be combined into a larger package.”

“If we can’t get a larger package, but we can get individual pieces like electric cars, buses, better insulation, then we should do that, too,” Merkley said. “We need to push at every level.”

Merkley’s bill would mandate 50 percent of new vehicle sales be zero-emissions vehicles by 2030. Companies can comply with the law by buying credits, which is similar to California’s zero-emission vehicle program that largely benefits electric car makers, like Tesla.

The internal combustion engine has long been a target for environmentalists. Vehicle emissions are a large source of greenhouse gases and pollution, and some countries have already pushed forward with plans to get rid of gas engines.

France and the U.K., for example, plan on banning gas and diesel vehicles by 2040. On a more local level Paris wants to ban gas-and-diesel-powered cars by 2030 and some German cities have also contemplated bans on diesel cars.

Merkley plans to introduce the bill Wednesday, and it’s nearly identical to electric vehicle legislation he introduced last year. The bill is unlikely to pass a Republican-controlled Senate and White House.

HuffPo speculated that gas-powered cars could be taken completely off the road by 2050 based on current vehicle turnover rates.

There are, however, legitimate questions over the feasibility of drastically ramping up electric vehicle sales. Part of the problem is building out all the charging stations needed to keep electric cars moving.

Zero-emission vehicles made up just 1.9 percent of U.S. car sales nationwide, according to the Auto Alliance.

The environmental benefits of electric vehicles also depend on what energy sources are used to generate power and make batteries. Recent studies have found electric cars may not have much of an impact on greenhouse gas emissions.


Illinois Democrats are staking their claim on green issues

Rep. Sean Casten is laser-focused on carbon emissions. Sen. Tammy Duckworth announced a new push for environmental justice. Sen. Dick Durbin embraced the Paris climate accord at a student climate change rally in Federal Plaza. Rep. Jan Schakowsky joined others at a recent Loop rally criticizing the Trump administration’s plan to slash the Environmental Protection Agency budget. Even Rep. Dan Lipinski, considered one of the most centrist Democrats in the House, is working on a bill that would impose a fee on the carbon content of fuels.

Three months after the Green New Deal was greeted with a mix of shrugs and cheers, laughs and resolve, Illinois Democrats are hasteningto stake their claim on environmental issues. As climate change becomes more important to voters as a campaign issue, it’s clear Illinois politicians are paying attention, trying to find their climate niche and put their stamp on a proposal that blue state voters will support. A recent report from the Pew Research Center noted that 83% of Democrats (compared with 27% of Republicans) view climate change as a major threat to the country.

The Green New Deal has been lambasted by critics as an unrealistic example of liberal pie-in-the-sky dreams. But students at a climate change march last week embraced the proposal, with someone shouting “Green New Deal!” in the middle of Durbin’s short speech to attendees.

Durbin acknowledged that climate change issues have becoming increasingly important at the national, regional and state levels, whether it is funding for Great Lakes restoration or carbon policy. And Illinois’ senior senator pointed out that in key Midwestern swing states, such as Wisconsin and Michigan, residents care about and are paying attention to issues with environmental ramifications. A look at the electoral map for presidential elections shows that means candidates’ policies on climate may play a prominent role in the 2020 race for the White House.

“If you look at the Illinois delegation, and all of the representatives in the Midwest, especially the new members, there is strong support for climate change solutions,” said Howard Learner, executive director of the Environmental Law & Policy Center. “And in particular, the new members are energized and trying to get something done. They want to show that it’s not business as usual.”

For Casten, the freshman representative from Downers Grove who rode criticism of President Donald Trump and his background as a clean-energy business owner to victory in the suburban swing 6th District in the midterms, placing climate issues front and center is of the utmost importance. While he thinks many elements of the Green New Deal oversimplify or do not adequately address critical scientific elements, Casten said it is a good way to jump-start the discussion about climate change.

“We have got to recognize that this problem is way more urgent than we have treated it to this point. And we are darned near out of time to deal with it, and our institutions are moving far too slow given that reality. The Green New Deal, to its great credit, has gotten people to understand that, or at least gotten closer to understanding that point,” Casten said.

The Green New Deal is a set of proposals designed to combat climate change. It aims to set the country on a course to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions, foster policies that lead to clean air and water for residents and invest in clean, renewable technologies, businesses and energy sources.

The package, introduced by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York in the House and Sen. Edward Markey of Massachusetts in the Senate, is a nonbinding resolution, meaning that even if Congress approves it, nothing becomes law. Reps. Jesus “Chuy” Garcia, Danny Davis, Mike Quigley and Schakowsky are the only Democrats in Illinois to sign on as co-sponsors in the House

The concept of environmental justice is also in the spotlight at the state level. Activists last month held a small rally along the Chicago River downtown to criticize proposed legislation at the state level they say unfairly targets residents who demonstrate against polluters or the companies that may be planning the expansion of pipelines or projects that will negatively impact a neighborhood’s environment. The activists underscored the need to move toward clean energy sources, protect funding for the EPA at the federal and state levels and resist lobbying forces that are pushing lawmakers in Springfield to make it easier for corporations to expand infrastructure rooted in industries such as coal-fired power plants that contribute to climate change.

Chris Shuttlesworth, who lives in the Auburn Gresham neighborhood, was one of the members of The People’s Lobby group speaking out against the inequities that people in less affluent, minority neighborhoods face. Shuttlesworth said he and his neighbors live with the constant foul smell from nearby landfills. He worries about contaminated groundwater and polluted air because of all the industry, large and small, in his community.

“We need more awareness,” Shuttlesworth said, “and less silence.”

Celeste Flores, with the Lake County branch of the Faith in Place group, also attended the rally to highlight how majority Latino communities in and near Waukegan experience increased levels of childhood asthma and polluted area than their counterparts in other parts of the county.

“It’s not criminal,” Flores said, “to fight for the right to breathe clean air and drink clean water.”


"Green" de Blasio Humiliated At Trump Tower

It was pure poetic justice that the weather ruined Mayor de Blasio’s latest stunt — turning his plans to preen about his Green New Deal efforts outside Trump Tower into a humiliating debacle inside the building.

Forced indoors by rain, the mayor found his remarks drowned out by lobby music and protesters, some of whom ruined every picture by holding up “Trump 2020” and “Worst Mayor Ever” signs.

It’s justice because de Blasio’s approach is so cynical. The stunt targeted Trump buildings for their greenhouse-gas emissions even though several other edifices — Mount Sinai Medical Center, the Time Warner Center, the MetLife building — have bigger problems by the same standard.

And the standard itself is junk: It only threatens fines in 2030 — 11 years in the future, if buildings don’t refit to cut their emissions. Plus, more than half the city is exempted. Indeed, the scheme effectively targets industries that use a lot of energy, such as tech, media and life sciences — sectors that provide good jobs.

Anyway, the initiative for the law came from the City Council; de Blasio just rushed to take the credit and then to pretend that Trump buildings are particular trouble.

Yet the mayor’s green hypocrisy doesn’t end there. He has also come out against the proposed Williams pipeline, a billion-dollar project to bring natural gas to Brooklyn, Queens and Long Island. Without it, National Grid warns it will immediately have to start refusing new gas customers. And the mayor’s own aides warned last month that nixing the pipeline would increase the city’s reliance on higher-carbon oil — for a net loss in fighting climate change.

De Blasio is claiming that his Green New Deal will somehow make up the difference, but its promised payoffs are years in the future, and he’ll be long gone from office when those promises prove false.

The mayor, in short, is doing nothing about the real issues facing the city, just trying to polish his own image. He totally earned those “Worst Mayor Ever” signs.


Blowhard Democrats Are Green Phonies

Listening to politicians expound on the imminent dangers of that neologism "climate change" you wonder if any of these people could even pass a high school physics test. Maybe Rand Paul — he's an ophthalmologist. He had to take some chemistry. But most of them?

Nevertheless, the Democratic Party at the moment seems to be in a knockdown, drag-out fight for who can be the greenest of the green and push us forward to a brave new world propelled exclusively by solar and wind energy. Only the strongest (i. e. most slavishly devoted to renewable energy at all costs) will survive.

Bernie and AOC are currently beating Joe Biden over the head about this. Poor Joe is frantically shoring up his "environmental" credentials.

If you don't have a dog in this fight, it's kind of funny, but the least these scientific illiterates might do is read a recent Forbes article (it doesn't take a Ph.D.): "The Reason Renewables Can't Power Modern Civilization Is Because They Were Never Meant To." (I know, many of them don't care about "modern civilization," at least until they have to catch a plane. But hear me out.) Michael Shellenberger writes:

Over the last decade, journalists have held up Germany’s renewables energy transition, the Energiewende, as an environmental model for the world.

“Many poor countries, once intent on building coal-fired power plants to bring electricity to their people, are discussing whether they might leapfrog the fossil age and build clean grids from the outset,” thanks to the Energiewende, wrote a New York Times reporter in 2014.

With Germany as inspiration, the United Nations and World Bank poured billions into renewables like wind, solar, and hydro in developing nations like Kenya.

But then, last year, Germany was forced to acknowledge that it had to delay its phase-out of coal, and would not meet its 2020 greenhouse gas reduction commitments. It announced plans to bulldoze an ancient church and forest in order to get at the coal underneath it.

Oops. What the Germans discovered is that this stuff (renewable energy) doesn't actually work to anywhere near the extent necessary. They tried it. I doubt this would mean much to true believers like Bernie and AOC, but the rest of us might pay attention. In fact, it's worse:

Now comes a major article in the country’s largest newsweekly magazine, Der Spiegel, titled, “A Botched Job in Germany” (" Murks in Germany"). The magazine’s cover shows broken wind turbines and incomplete electrical transmission towers against a dark silhouette of Berlin.

Over the past five years alone, the Energiewende has cost Germany €32 billion ($36 billion) annually, and opposition to renewables is growing in the German countryside.

Germany is one of the most technologically advanced countries, but despite their failure, this is where the Democrats want to lead us. It's an act of faith, not science. They are effectively being anti-science, preaching their brand of environmentalism as a religion.

This has been evident for some time, but it is reaching a level that is actually deleterious to what they claim to desire. Intelligent, less apocalyptic, evaluations of climate, like that of Denmark's Bjorn Lomborg, are snuffed out or ignored by a Democratic Party that seems to be engaged in a modern form of know-nothingism. Suffering most in this are our young people, who are discouraged from thinking for themselves (the actual scientific method).

But all is not lost. Guess who is leading the world in the direction of creating a healthy environment? (Again, don't tell Bernie and AOC.)

According to Environmental Protection Agency data, greenhouse-gas emissions in the United States are dropping. Despite having a so-called climate-change denier in the White House along with a complicit Congress, the United States is leading the way in cutting greenhouse gases, which the bureaucrats at the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) say cause global warming.
How did this happen? (Forget for a moment whether greenhouse gases actually are that bad.) The free market, largely. Private companies figuring out how to make life better for us while — gasp! —making a profit. Doing something for themselves and us all at once, sort of like Thomas Alva Edison and Alexander Graham Bell.

People of that sort — not bloviating politicians — will be the ones who invent the energy sources of the future.

And meanwhile, not to worry, despite what the Democratic Party and the enviro profiteers at the UN tell us, we have plenty of time. Back in 1982, the United Nations' environment program's executive director Mustafa Tolba warned: “ the turn of the century, an environmental catastrophe which will witness devastation as complete, as irreversible as any nuclear holocaust.”

Nostradamus, they're not



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


Friday, May 17, 2019

Carbon Dioxide Soars to Record-Breaking Levels Not Seen in at Least 800,000 Years

So what?  There is no correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature. Temperatures are down a bit at the moment, actually.  Good news for gardeners and farmers, though

There is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than there has been for 800,000 years — since before our species evolved.

On Saturday (May 11), the levels of the greenhouse gas reached 415 parts per million (ppm), as measured by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. Scientists at the observatory have been measuring atmospheric carbon dioxide levels since 1958. But because of other kinds of analysis, such as those done on ancient air bubbles trapped in ice cores, they have data on levels reaching back 800,000 years. [8 Ways Global Warming Is Already Changing the World]

During the ice ages, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere were around 200 ppm. And during the interglacial periods — the planet is currently in an interglacial period — levels were around 280 ppm, according to NASA.

But every story has its villains: Humans are burning fossil fuels, causing the release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, which are adding an extra blanket on an already feverish planet. So far, global temperatures have risen by about 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit (1 degree Celsius) since the 19th century or pre-industrial times, according to a special report released last year by the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Every year, the Earth sees about 3 ppm more carbon dioxide in the air, said Michael Mann, a distinguished professor of meteorology at Penn State University. "If you do the math, well, it's pretty sobering," he said. "We'll cross 450 ppm in just over a decade."

The subsequent warming is already causing changes to the planet — shrinking glaciers, bleaching coral reefs and intensifying heat waves and storms, among other impacts. And carbon dioxide levels higher than 450 ppm "are likely to lock in dangerous and irreversible changes in our climate," Mann told Live Science.

"CO2 levels will continue to increase for at least the next decade and likely much longer, because not enough is being done worldwide," said Donald Wuebbles, a professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. "The long-term increase is due to human-related emissions, especially the emissions of our burning of fossil fuels."

However, he noted that the annual peak in carbon dioxide, which fluctuates throughout the year as plants change their breathing rhythms, occurs right now. The annual average value will be more like 410 to 412 ppm, he said. Which … is still very high.

"We keep breaking records, but what makes the current levels of CO2 in the atmosphere most troubling is that we are now well into the 'danger zone' where large tipping points in the Earth’s climate could be crossed," said Jonathan Overpeck, the dean of the School for Environment and Sustainability at the University of Michigan. "This is particularly true when you factor in the additional warming potential of the other greenhouse gases, including methane, that are now in the atmosphere."

The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were this high, way before Homo sapiens walked the planet, the Antarctic Ice Sheet was much smaller and sea levels were up to 65 feet (20 meters) higher than they are today, Overpeck told Live Science.

"Thus, we could soon be at the point where comparable reductions in ice sheet size, and corresponding increases in sea level, are both inevitable and irreversible over the next few centuries," he said. Smaller ice sheets, in turn, might reduce the reflectivity of the planet and potentially accelerate the warming even more, he added.

"It's like we're playing with a loaded gun and don't know how it works."


Federal Bureaucrats Keep Placing Green Energy Bets on the Wrong Horses

Many people lost a lot of money betting on Maximum Security to win the 2019 Kentucky Derby last weekend. The horse had been the favorite to win the 145th running of the Derby before the race, but was disqualified by track officials following its first-place finish, which vaulted the long shot Country Home into the winner’s circle in its place.

True, nobody could have predicted this particular outcome for the race and the circumstances under which it happened with any degree of confidence before it started, but for those who gambled on the horses running in the race, there was one certainty: the most they could lose by betting on the wrong horse to win was the amount of money they chose to bet. With that kind of certainty, most of the people who bet on the race gambled only money they could afford to lose if the outcome didn’t go their way.

Just ahead of the 2019 Derby weekend, news broke about the outcome of a very different kind of horse race, one where the people who did the gambling were not betting their own money, whose lawyers are now opening an investigation into why they lost millions. Megan Geuss of Ars Technica reports on a new investigation announced by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) into green energy bets placed by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and how it lost the money it bet:

Earlier this week, the Department of Justice (DOJ) notified Southern Company that it is opening an investigation “related to the Kemper County energy facility,” according to Southern’s most recent financial statement (PDF).

The Mississippi-based facility had received $387 million in federal grants to build a state-of-the-art coal gasification and carbon-capture power plant (otherwise known as an Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle, or IGCC, plant). But in 2017, Southern’s subsidiary, Mississippi Power, decided to scrap the cutting-edge tech and only use the power plant to burn cheaper natural gas, in a major blow to the proponents of carbon capture.

Kemper was a complicated project. It was located near a lignite coal mine, which was intended to serve Kemper exclusively. Lignite is a low-grade coal compared to the anthracite and bituminous coal that’s found in Wyoming and Montana, so Kemper planned to synthetically transform the plentiful local coal to gas. The plant would then burn the syngas in a turbine, strip the carbon dioxide (CO2) from the power plant’s flue, and send that CO2 through a pipeline to an oilfield where it would be used for enhanced oil recovery. (That is, CO2 is forced down into an oil well to increase the pressure of the well so more oil can be recovered.)

In theory, Kemper’s complicated process was supposed to help it compete with other nearby coal plants because it could use lower-grade local coal, and the captured carbon would be used to increase oil field returns.

But in practice, Kemper proved to be an expensive boondoggle. It came online just as natural gas prices were falling to a point when burning natural gas was simply cheaper than relying on any type of coal, local or not. The plant ran more than $4 billion over budget before the Mississippi Public Service Commission made clear to the company that Kemper would need to pursue a more affordable solution for Mississippi customers.

Gavin Bade of Utility Dive explains what that “more affordable solution” was back when it happened in 2017:

In response, Mississippi regulators last week directed Southern to work up a plan that would allow Kemper to run solely on natural gas. An analysis of the project’s economics by the Mississippi PSC indicated the project would only be economic if natural gas prices rose considerably.

That regulatory directive prompted Southern to throw in the towel, company officials said in a statement.

In effect, the DOE bet $387 million from 2010 through 2016 on what proved to be the wrong green energy horse. Had Mississippi state regulators not disqualified the subsidized carbon capture and sequestration technology, it is unlikely that the DOJ would now be involved trying to recover a portion of the millions of taxpayer dollars the DOE’s bureaucrats had gambled on it. An effort that itself will almost certainly cost millions of taxpayer dollars.

The DOE has a long history of making disastrously bad bets, particularly in recent years as so-called “green energy” initiatives have become popular among political leaders.

These costly failures keep happening because the bureaucrats are not betting their own money, and thus, they do not feel the pain of losing. I wonder if the cost to taxpayers of losing from their gambling would be as large if they were required to put their government pensions on the line when placing their bets in the first place.


UN Biodiversity Report Confirms the Sky Is Not Falling

There’s no better way to start a week than perusing through the pages of a massive, alarmist report that predicts the demise of everything held dear. But, the United Nations’ (UN) gargantuan new report on biodiversity around the globe (see summary here) is actually a hidden reality check. The authors warn that nearly 10 percent of all terrestrial species are facing habitat loss, and as a result, around 1 million species face extinction in the coming decade.

That sounds alarming, especially after reading tidbits like, “The global rate of species extinction is already at least tens to hundreds of times higher than the average rate over the past 10 million years and is accelerating.” But as crazy as it seems, the UN report is actually a rebuke to the most alarmist extinction predictions, and details progress by developed, capitalist countries to protect the environment. The sky is not falling.

Most environmental researchers will profess to something truly mind-boggling: we don’t know about most of the species that go extinct. Global extinction figures are the result of scientific modeling, instead of meticulously counting species that we already know about which have gone extinct. Less than one thousand species have actually been documented as lost over the past four hundred years, and scientists must attempt to extrapolate to come up with realistic planet-wide estimates.

In 2011, however, scientists from the University of California, Los Angeles and Sun Yat-sen University in Guangzhou, China found that, using available methods, scientists were way overestimating extinction rates. Scientists typically use something called the “species area relationship” to estimate extinctions. This is where they study an area of land and measure the area they have had to comb through before encountering the first member of the species in question. They then assume in their calculations that, if this area was destroyed, the entire species would be wiped out. This of course makes little sense, and the researchers demonstrated via computer simulations that scientists’ preferred type of modeling made extinction rates look 83 to 165 percent higher than reality.

These wildly off-the-mark estimates lead to crazy claims about ecosystem destruction. One commonly-quoted stat estimates that we’re losing “one species per minute” because mankind is a pesky, destructive lot. That implies that, over the next ten years, 5 million species will go the way of the dodo instead of the 1 million species figure used by the UN (over multiple decades). Fortunately, the UN uses a better methodology that takes some of these flaws into account. Even if the UN’s method of species counting isn’t the worst out there, their more conservative figures could still use some context.

As science writer and journalist Fred Pearce notes, “the majority of documented extinctions have been on small islands, where species with small gene pools have usually succumbed to human hunters.” Not only are those species unrepresentative of more tenacious species on larger land-masses, but isolated species also have fewer chain-effects on the wider world. In other words, more extinct and endangered species are like the dodo than the allegedly imperiled honey bee (which is doing just fine).

But inevitably, media outlets seize upon a large, scary-looking figure without any sort of context, and suggest that the need for radical “green” change is now. Never mind that large-scale extinctions are also happening in Western Europe, where countries such as Germany and Switzerland implement costly, far-reaching policies that set aside vast tracts of land for preservation if there is even a small risk of a species going extinct. But there does seem to be good news outlined in the UN report: more economic development appears to increase ecological conservation.

Developed countries lead the way in protection of biodiversity, pollution reduction, and minimizing needless biomass extraction.  This trend dovetails more closely with economic growth than government regulation, and in fact, air pollution reduction preceded expansive federal action. Additionally, researchers at the University of Illinois and the Nature Conservancy found that funding and manpower for conservation organizations are strongly tied to stock market performance. A richer society is able to set aside more funds for preservation and conservation.

The UN report (subtly) admits what many in the press won’t: indicators aren’t so bad, and capitalism can help save the environment. People may pluck whatever predetermined conclusion they have out of this massive report, but there’s no denying that things aren’t as dire as the headlines suggest.


The climate-fearing, capitalism-loathing Left cannot abide questions or differing opinions

Paul Driessen

Throughout history despots had effective ways of reducing dissension in the ranks. Inquisitors burned heretics. Nazi’s burned books – before taking far more extreme measures. Soviets employed famines, gulags, salt mines and executions. ChiComs and other tyrants starved, jailed and murdered millions.

Today’s Green New Dealers and their allies have mapped out their own totalitarian strategies.

They proclaim themselves socialists, but their economic policies and tolerance for other viewpoints reflect a different form of government – fascism: A political system in which authoritarian government does not own businesses and industries, but strictly regulates and controls their actions, output and rights – while constraining and suppressing citizens and their thought, speech and access to information.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) has “no problem” with the fact that implementing her Green New Deal would require “massive government intervention,” wealth redistribution on an unprecedented scale, and many trillions of dollars in new debt. GNDealers want to totally eliminate fossil fuel production and use, and control how much we can drive and fly, heat and cool our homes, eat meat, and live our lives.

If retrofitting 29 million British homes to make them climate-friendly would cost $5.6 trillion – remaking America’s 125 million generally larger private homes would easily cost $25 trillion! Putting just five million electric cars on California roads would require 5 billion pounds of lithium-ion batteries.

Replacing fossil fuels that provide 82% of our energy and 100% of countless plastic and other products would require biofuels grown on tens of millions of acres. Replacing coal and gas-generated electricity with wind and solar would require millions of turbines and panels, on tens of millions more acres, billions of tons of rare earth and other metals, and hundreds of billions of pounds of lithium-ion batteries.

China controls all those rare earth metals and most of the lithium, cadmium and cobalt needed for all that pseudo-renewable, pretend-sustainable energy. They are produced in China and Africa, often with child labor and near-slave labor, and with virtually no health, safety or environmental safeguards.

Meanwhile, Asian, African and EU nations are building or planning over 2,000 coal and gas-fired power plants. So even US elimination of fossil fuels would do absolutely nothing to reduce global CO2 levels. Moreover, citizens are likely to rise up in loud opposition to having millions of wind turbines, solar panels, batteries and biofuel plantations in their backyards and across scenic vistas and wildlife habitats.

GNDealers don’t want to talk about any of those ethical, social justice or environmental issues – or about the GIGO computer models and bald assertions of Climate Armageddon that have no basis in real-world evidence. They don’t want anyone else talking about it, either. They want to control what we say and think, even what ideas and information we can find online and in print, television, radio and social media.

They loath and fear ideas, facts and questions that challenge their views and political power. Free speech and access to other people’s free speech is a clear and present danger to their perceived and asserted wisdom on fossil fuels, capitalism, manmade climate chaos, Western culture, and who should make policy decisions on energy, economics, jobs, living standards, religion, civil rights and other matters.

Their version of “free speech” thus includes – and demands – that their critics have no free speech. On college campuses, in “mainstream” and social media, on search engines, in online information libraries, even in the arts, bakeries and K-12 education, thought control and electronic book burning are essential. Despite having a 12 to 1 ratio of liberal to conservative professors, leftist college faculty, administrators and students still ban, disinvite, disrupt and physically attack conservative speakers and their hosts.

They harass Trump administration officials in restaurants – and “dox” political opponents, revealing their names and home addresses, so that other radicals can harass, intimidate and attack them … thereby “persuading” others to stay silent. They assaulted North Korean escapees for wearing MAGA hats.

The Big Tech monopoly routinely implements electronic book-burning tactics. Google and other internet search engines systematically employ liberal biases and secret algorithms to send climate realism articles to intellectual Siberia and censor conservative thinking and discussion. Google YouTube blocks access to Prager University ( videos that its censors decree offer “objectionable content” on current events, history, constitutional principles, environmental policies and other topics.

Google helps the Chinese government deny its citizens access to “dangerous ideas” – and says nothing when China sends a million Uighur Muslims to “reeducation camps.” Its hard-left employees ostracize any conservatives they still find in their ranks … and claim helping the US Defense Department with Cloud computing or artificial intelligence surveillance would “violate their principles.”

Facebook “shadow banned” an ad promoting a Heartland Institute video that called on millennials to reject socialism and embrace capitalism. Facebook censors told Heartland they “don’t support ads for your business model” (capitalism) and would not reveal “red flags” and trade-secret algorithms they use to “identify violations” of their policies and “help preserve the integrity of our internal processes.” Google suppressed Claremont Institute ads for a talk on multiculturalism and political speech restrictions.

Twitter routinely engages in similar cold, calculated censorship of views it opposes.

Wikipedia posts distorted or false bios for climate realist experts and organizations – labeling me an anti-environment lobbyist – and then pops up ads soliciting money for its biased “educational” material. Securing corrections is a long, often fruitless process. Even more totalitarian, the Southern Poverty Law Center uses phony “hate speech” claims to defund and “deplatform” conservative groups like David Horowitz’s Freedom Center, by pressuring credit card companies to close off donations to them.

State attorneys general and members of Congress want to prosecute and jail people for “denying the reality” of “manmade climate cataclysms.” Worst of all, the callous organizations and policies that Big Tech supports cause millions of deaths every year, by denying impoverished nations and families access to the modern energy, insect control and agricultural technologies that its vocal, racist elements loathe.

Creating conservative competitors or finding ways around these social media and fake info behemoths is vital, but would be stymied by their sheer size, wealth and dominance. Trust busting by the FTC, other federal agencies, Congress and the courts, á la Standard Oil Company, should certainly be considered.

These cyber-giant social media and information platforms may be private companies, but they wield massive power, especially with younger generations that get almost all their information online. They are entirely dependent on the internet – which was created by US government agencies and taxpayers. (“You didn’t build that,” President Obama might tell Google.) They have become essential, dominant public forums for discussing and evaluating public policies that increasingly affect our lives.

A federal judge has ruled that President Trump may not block hate-filled criticism from his Twitter account. Because it is a public forum, akin to a park or town square, for discussing important policy and personnel matters, it is protected by the First Amendment. Blocking unwanted tweets is therefore viewpoint discrimination, and Twitter is not beyond the reach of First Amendment public forum rules, she held. Her reasoning should not apply only to the President and his most obnoxious critics.

The right of free speech and free assembly – to participate fully in debates over important political and public policy matters – is the foundation for the other rights and freedoms that enable our vibrant nation to function. Banning, censoring and deliberately falsifying certain viewpoints deprive major segments of our population and electorate of the right to speak, be heard, become informed, examine all sides of an issue, and live in harmony, peace and prosperity.

Viewpoint censorship, bullying and silencing violates the basic rights of speakers, students, professors, voters and all people whose views an elite, intolerant, power-hungry few have deemed “inappropriate” or “hurtful” to the sensitivities of climate alarmist, pro-abortion, atheist and other liberal factions.

It’s time to take action, demand investigations, and rein in the monopolistic cyber censors.

Via email


Three current articles below

Australian Greens hate Israel

With all the excitement about Australia being in the Eurovision grand final, it’s worth recalling that last May Lee Rhiannon, a Greens senator at the time, pressured then SBS managing director Michael Ebeid to drop its broadcast because it would be held in Tel Aviv and therefore “could impact on Palestinians”.

Rhiannon, who was sitting on the Senate Standing Committee on Environment and Communications, melodramatically told the committee it “could actually impact on who lives and who dies”.

The Greens’ candidate for the eastern Sydney seat of Kingsford Smith, James Cruz, has tweeted his own call to boycott Eurovision in Israel.

Rhiannon’s replacement in the Senate, Mehreen Faruqi, has spent her first few months in federal parliament appearing at events hosted by Palestine Action Group Sydney, an organiser of the Eurovision boycott.

Ebeid dismissed Rhiannon’s calls for a boycott: “The whole point of Eurovision is to forget politics, forget all of that and unite communities and countries together in the spirit of song.” But for so many Greens, when it comes to Israel and the Palestinians, nothing is beyond politics.

Moreover, with recent reports of Greens candidates outed as supporters of boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel — despite it not being official Greens policy — we are entitled to ask whether the Greens are a party that cynically says one thing but does another.

Many Greens politicians and activists openly support BDS. This disingenuous shell game has allowed the Greens to portray themselves as environmentalists and social justice crusaders while providing a safe space for obsessive Israel-haters.

In the eyes of your local Greens candidate, support for Israel could lead to your complete political disenfranchisement. In the previous election, Greens candidate for Melbourne Ports Steph Hodgins-May buckled to political pressure from far-left sources and withdrew from a candidates’ debate for the Jewish community because Zionism Victoria co-sponsored the event. Yet she had no such qualms attending an election forum by the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network. Can such a candidate claim to be prepared to represent an entire electorate?

In 2015 Greens leader Richard Di Natale recognised Israel as a Jewish state, only to walk back that recognition shortly afterwards, and tactlessly used a condolence motion in the Senate to bash former Israeli president and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Shimon Peres.

In 2017, Di Natale called for a debate in Australia about “appropriate” economic sanctions against Israel, adding that all military trade between Australia and Israel “has to stop”.

Also that year, the federal Greens refused to condemn the NSW Young Greens after they announced their official policy to boycott Jewish students.

Last year, the acting deputy leader of the Australian Greens, Adam Bandt, removed from his social media a caricature of a banker that mirrored Nazi caricatures of hook-nosed Jews. His spokesman meekly apologised for “any offence caused”.

The record has shown that virulent animus towards Israel — venturing far beyond the confines of official party policy — is not something limited to a single politician, candidate or state branch. It is pervasive among Greens because activists know the party will not censure them.

We all lose from such political game-playing. BDS undermines Australian interests, not only in seeking peace for the region but also in our trade with Israel, our democratic ally and among the world’s foremost hubs for technological innovation.

The Greens party propagates on its website the views of Hiba El-Farra, whose articles speak not of an occupation that began in 1967 but in 1948. Indeed, Israel’s entire existence since its establishment is portrayed as continuous “occupation”.

El-Farra’s vision of peace unequivocally demands a Palestinian “right of return” to Israel and not a separate Palestinian state, and does not allow for the existence of Israel as the Jewish national home.

Such are the views marketed on the Greens’ website, and it matters little that the post is tagged as “opinion” that is “not official policy of Greens WA”. The fact is the website does not publish views that deviate far from the maximalist Palestinian narrative that is antithetical to peace.

Yet not only is the Greens’ one-sided policy against Israel out of step with Australian interests, it contradicts the party’s platform when it comes to the environment, LGBTQ and gender equality issues, anti-Islamophobia, religious tolerance, democratic freedom and indigenous rights.

On these and other progressive issues, especially compared with its regional neighbours, Israel stands alone as a beacon of liberal values the Greens claim to hold so dear.

A political party that aspires to compete on centre stage with the Coalition and ALP, the Greens must avoid reducing this complex issue to black and white absolutes, and ensure it practises what it preaches regarding two states for two peoples.


Basic facts taught at school undermine the Warmist gospel

Bill Shorten and his allies, the Greens economic vandals, believe climate change is a moral issue. So is telling the truth.

With his elite private school education, the Oppo­s­i­tion Leader would have learned about the Roman Warming, the Dark Ages, the Medieval Warming and the Little Ice Age. These took place before industrialisation and were all driven by changes in the sun. He would have learned that ­natural warm times, like now, bring great prosperity, increased longevity and less disease, whereas Jack Frost brings death, depopulation and economic stresses.

In biology, the Labor leader would have learned of Darwinism and environmental adapta­tion of species. Humans live on ice and in the hills, valleys, tropics and des­erts, at altitude and on coastal plains. Like countless other organ­isms, we move and adapt when the environment changes. Species thrive when it is warm.

From his education at a relig­ious school, he would have learned about the apostle Thomas. One of the strengths of our Western civilisation is doubt and scepticism. Surely Shorten does not believe the catastrophism promoted by green activists and self-interested alleged experts at the expense of the nation. If he does, he is unelectable.

If he is knowingly promoting a falsehood, he is unelectable. Critical thinking was fundamental to our culture and should be embraced in policy formulation. In school science, Shorten would have learned carbon dioxide is the food of life and without this natural gas, which occurs in space and all planets, there would be no life.

He also would understand from his maths lessons that when 3 per cent of total annual global emissions of carbon dioxide are from humans and Australia prod­uces 1.3 per cent of this 3 per cent, then no amount of emissions reductio­n here will have any effect on global climate.

A quick search would show him that whenever in the past there was an explosion of plant life, the carbon dioxide content was far higher than at present. If we halve the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere, all life dies.

Shorten should know that for thousands of millions of years the Earth has been changing, with cycles­ and one-off events such as an asteroid impact, super-volcano or a supernova explosion.

He should know that climate always changes and that the planet would be in serious trouble if it did not. There are cycles of air, water, rocks and continents. There are measurable cycles with the sun, Earth’s orbit, oceans and moon that drive climate change, especially if cycles coincide. It has yet to be demonstrated that the climate change today is any different from those of the past.

Despite hundreds of billions of dollars of expenditure during the past few decades, it still has not been shown that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive ­global warming. Yet wind and solar industrial complexes pepper the landscape allegedly to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

They run on subsidies, not the wind or the sun. Wind and solar are transfering money from the poor to the rich, not saving the environment. These subsidies, paid by the long-suffering consumer and employer, add to emissions because coal-fired elec­tricity needs to be on standby for when there is no wind or sunshine.

The amount of energy used to construct solar and wind facilities is greater than they produce in their working lives. The amount of carbon dioxide released during construction and maintenance is far more than is saved. Renew­ables such as wind turbines are environmentally disastrous because they pollute a huge land area, slice and dice birds and bats, kill insects that are bird food, create health problems for humans who live within kilometres of them, leave toxins around the turbine site and despoil the landscape.

Union superannuation funds have invested massively in renewable energy. Labor’s promise of 50 per cent renewables will cost electricity consumers hundreds of billions but will benefit the unions.

As soon as renewables were introduced into the grid, electric­ity prices increased and delivery became unreliable. Increased elec­tric­ity costs have created unemployment, and many pensioners and the poor cannot afford electricity. An increase in renewables will make matters worse.

Does Shorten’s energy policy consider those who lose jobs and have the power cut off in his race to achieve 50 per cent renewables to fill the pockets of Labor union mates? And what about the scams siphoning off tens of billions that slosh around the world as carbon credits, carbon trading and renewable energy certificates? Rather than take this money from the poor via higher electricity prices, it would be better spent at home.

To smugly claim that valid questions about energy costs are dumb or deceitful is a loud warning bell. Shorten refuses to tell us how he will spend our money or to give any detail on energy ­systems that are proven failures. It is our money and, if he will not give us the financial details, we should be very scared of his shiftiness. I have never written a blank cheque for a used car. Why should I now?

Emeritus professor Ian Plimer’s latest book, The Climate Change Delusion and the Great Electricity Ripoff, is published by Connor Court.


Greens plan is an arrow to the heart of free speech and the welfare of the poor

If you have lots of money stashed away, go your hardest. Vote 1 Greens. But don’t expect to get richer under Green policies. Your kids won’t enjoy the same cashed-up lifestyle as you either. And as for the poor, they simply cannot afford to vote Green.

Who votes for the Greens matters because Green votes in the Senate will determine policies in a Shorten government. The Greens are beholden to a voting base that is, historically, far more demographically and ideologically ­defined than the earlier balance-of-power party, the Australian Democrats, or today’s minor parties, be it Pauline Hanson’s One Nation or Clive Palmer’s United Australia Party.

Roy Morgan’s latest State of the Nation report for Saturday’s election details the depth of self-indulgence behind the Greens’ voting base.

The Greens attract voters from the highest socio-economic quintiles: 31 per cent of people in the AB quintile and 24 per cent in the C quintile, meaning people with the fattest incomes, the best jobs and the highest level of education.

Forget the baloney about the Liberals representing the top end of town.

Fully one-third of Australians in the cushiest socio-economic groups vote Greens. These smartypants voters with univer­sity educations imagine they are helping the poor by voting Greens. But their paternalism is not simply empty virtue-signalling. Worse than parading their faux morality, those who vote Greens are wrecking the chances of the poor to get rich. So, strike out every mention of “aspirational”, “a decent life,” “economic injustice”, “being a good economic manager”, “a fairer society” from the Greens’ campaign statements. These claims are monumental frauds.

The poor, those who do not vote for the Greens, know something many rich people do not. Those with less education understand that the Greens’ plan to ban thermal coal by 2030 and phase out coking coal too is economic suicide. In 2018, coal was our highest export earner, $66 billion last financial year, and $35.7bn coming from Queensland. Where will the Greens find an additional $66bn each year to provide education, health and support to the neediest Australians? Their policy of a “super profits” tax on mining companies won’t raise money when exports are shut down and company profits dry up. You don’t need an arts degree or even a PhD to work out that equation.

With pretensions to government, the Greens have not come up with an alternative to the coking coal needed to make steel, along with iron ore. And yet apparently highly educated Australians will vote for the economic nonsense of a green ban on coal on Saturday. The Adani coalmine, a creator of jobs in far north Queensland but bitterly opposed by inner-city Greens voters with nice jobs, is the defining parable about the fraud of voting Greens.

Poorer Australians understand that higher taxes, even on the rich, will not help the poor get rich. That’s why a fraction of the bottom quintile of Australian voters vote Greens, their group the only one not to rise on 2010 numbers.

And, in a sign perhaps those well-heeled doctors’ wives are on the march, women are more easily duped by promises of nirvana than men; the Greens attract 59 per cent of their support from women, up from 54 per cent since the 2010 election.

Support from men has dropped off, according to Roy Morgan polling, down to 41 per cent from 46 per cent when the Greens joined with Julia Gillard’s Labor minority government.

The disconnect of Greens voters has grown worse in the past eight years. Seventy-two per cent of Greens supporters, up from 65 per cent in 2010, live in capital cities where they will rarely face the reality of sprawling immigration, unemployment in the regions or missing infrastructure links. The Greens are not just reckless economy wreckers. They have their sights on killing our culture too. In video of a speech delivered in Melbourne in March, Greens leader Richard Di Natale said he wants new laws that make it a crime to engage in hate speech, taking specific aim at those who analyse Greens policies the most.

“We’re going to make sure that we’ve got laws that regulate our media so that people like Andrew Bolt and Alan Jones and Chris Kenny … if they want to use hate speech to divide the community then they’re going to be held to account,” Di Natale said.

Di Natale’s plan will kill a free and independent media in Australia. Hate speech will become the new thoughtcrimes of Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, a highly subjective, legal weapon to be aimed at those who say things you hate.

And don’t imagine he won’t find support from the party that comes to power with Greens preferences. The Gillard Labor government tried to regulate the free press in Australia in 2013, bolstered by then Greens leader Christine Milne who wanted a “fit and proper” test giving government more power to control the media. Stephen Conroy wanted the package pushed through before the 2013 election.

While the policy was ditched that year, the entrenchment of “hate speech” as an acceptable limit on freedom means the task of fighting for freedom of expression will be harder today than it was six years ago.

Don’t take my word for it. Last week, Di Natale was interviewed on the ABC on two occasions, first by Sabra Lane on AM, the ABC’s premier radio analysis program. Di Natale repeated his radical plan to regulate the media in his quest to “hold to account” journalists at News Corp. Lane’s uninterested response was: “You’ve made the point. We need to move on.”

Move on? What, nothing to see here? Leigh Sales had interviewed Di Natale the previous night on 7.30 and failed to question Di Natale about his radical policy to alter our liberal freedoms.

When the ABC’s premier political analysts don’t bother to analyse a policy that would control media output, it’s worth asking why. Critiquing Di Natale’s plan is not about defending News Corp. It is about defending freedom of the press, a core value in a liberal democracy.

The ABC does that a lot when unloading on US President Donald Trump for his attacks on the media. Why is the public broadcaster silent about a far more radical policy on the home front to shut down voices in the Australian media? Could it be that the ABC hosts are more likely to vote Greens? They certainly fit the demographic pattern of Greens voters, namely rich and well-educated city slickers.



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


Thursday, May 16, 2019

Bill Nye In F Bomb Rant: ‘the Planet Is on F*cking Fire!’

I have just looked out my front door and cannot see anything on fire, not even fucking fire.  The man is deranged. The use of profanity is the sign of a weak mind trying to express itself forcibly

Appearing Sunday on HBO’s Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, Bill Nye launched into an profanity-laden and hyperbolic rant about climate change, exclaiming “the planet’s on fucking fire!”

“By the end of this century, if emissions keep rising, the average temperature on Earth could go up another four to eight degrees,” Nye said while discussing the Green New Deal, the far-left proposed stimulus package that aims to address global warming and economic inequality. “What I’m saying is the planet’s on fucking fire. There are a lot of things we could do to put it out — are any of them free? No, of course not. Nothing’s free, you idiots. Grow the fuck up. You’re not children anymore. I didn’t mind explaining photosynthesis to you when you were 12. But you’re adults now, and this is an actually crisis, got it?

Safety glasses off, motherfuckers,” he added.

Nye remarks come after the Senate voted down the Green New Deal package by a vote of 57-0. Notably, 43 Democrats voted “present” for it. The measure was co-sponsored by Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) and freshman congresswoman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY). The concept has since been endorsed by numerous 2020 Democrat White House hopefuls like Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and Cory Booker (D-NJ).

In a rant of his own, Oliver defended the proposal against those who dismissed the Green New Deal as a pie-in-the-sky proposal.

“It is a non-binding resolution that very briefly sets out some extremely aggressive goals, including achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions, meeting 100% of the country’s power demand through clean, renewable and zero-emission energy sources and creating millions of good, high-wage jobs in the United States,” he said. “The whole Green New Deal is just 14 pages long. That is seven pages shorter than the menu for the Cheesecake Factory.”


Leaked German govt report: emissions target will be missed despite on-target renewables

A leaked draft of Germany’s Energiewende Progress Report 2019, due to be released by the economy ministry in May or June, predicts the country will miss its targets for reducing energy use and greenhouse gas emissions by wide margins. This is despite the inevitable emissions reductions due to the 2009 recession and being on track for renewables. If no other measures are taken Germany will reduce emissions by 33% by 2020, falling short of the national target of 40%. The 2030 target is 55%, but the predicted drop is only 42%. Julian Wettengel of Clean Energy Wire picks out the report’s highlights, which also warns that transport and buildings are what’s holding the country back the most.

The transportation and building sectors continue to be the problem children of Germany’s energy transition. “Enormous efforts” are needed to reduce energy consumption in both sectors to ensure Germany reaches its climate targets, according to a leaked draft of the economy ministry’s (BMWi) upcoming Energiewende Progress Report 2019.

The 300-page document, seen by Clean Energy Wire, concludes that Germany is on track to achieve — and surpass —the aimed share of renewables in electricity and final energy consumption next year. But the country is not reducing its overall energy use fast enough.

In fact, the amount of energy used in transportation in 2020 and 2030 is even projected to exceed the levels of the baseline year, 2005.

Germany is bidding farewell to nuclear energy, expanding renewable energy production and aiming to make its economy largely climate-neutral by mid-century. Europe’s most populous country initiated the decades-long overhaul of its economy — the Energiewende — with broad public backing and cross-party support. To monitor the progress of this endeavour in all economic sectors, the economy ministry publishes an annual Energiewende Monitoring Report.

Every three years, the ministry releases a Progress Report instead. It provides broader context and more in-depth analysis with a longer-term time horizon. The version seen by Clean Energy Wire – a draft primarily analysing 2017 data and warning in many places that updated data still has to be added – will now be reviewed by other ministries.  The final report is expected in May or June 2019. The draft also did not include an opinion by the independent expert commission on Energiewende monitoring, which accompanies every report and contains recommendations for future policy decisions.

Germany’s greenhouse gas emissions saw their largest drop since the 2009 recession last year, but the country is still on track to miss its goals by a wide margin, according to data from an unpublished emissions projection from the environment ministry included in the draft.

“A wide gap can be assumed for the years 2020 and 2030, with the measures implemented so far. The target path represents an enormous challenge,” says the draft.

The projections take into account all climate measures decided by summer 2018. Therefore, it does not take into account a commission proposal to gradually phase out coal by 2038 at the very latest. If no other measures are taken, Germany will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 33 percent by 2020, falling short of the national target of 40 percent, according to the report. Ten years later, international and European agreements require the government to bring down emissions by at least 55 percent below 1990 levels. But the data indicates Germany is on track to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by only 42 percent.

To bridge the gap between climate targets and current emission trends, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has introduced a “climate cabinet” to ensure more progress on emissions reduction. The group of ministers with key responsibilities related to climate issues are supposed to come up with a package of legislation to ensure Germany reaches 2030 climate targets, to be introduced by the end of the year.

Additional climate measures in transport and buildings sectors urgently needed to avoid penalty payments
Germany’s government is under pressure to complete the package of measures and legislation to avoid falling short of its targets, which would require the country to make costly payments to purchase emission allocations under the European Union’s effort-sharing regulation. Under that framework, Germany must reduce overall emissions from sectors not covered by the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), such as transport, buildings and agriculture, by 14 percent by 2020, compared to 2005 levels.

The leaked draft does not include details on the emissions projections in those sectors. However, the draft states: “Ambitious national measures are urgently needed to reach [the 2020 effort-sharing] goal.”


Electric Vehicles Ecologically Worse than Diesel Motors

A study directed by Christopher Buchal of the University of Cologne, recently published by Cesifo Institute in Munich, concludes that electric vehicles (EV) have “significantly higher CO2 emissions than diesel cars.” That is due to the large amount of energy used in the mining and processing of lithium, cobalt, and manganese, which are critical raw materials for the production of electric car batteries.

So, electric vehicles will not help cut CO2 emissions over the coming years, as the introduction of electric vehicles does not, in fact, lead to a reduction in CO2 -emissions from road traffic. Natural gas combustion engines are the ideal technology to exploit for the transition to vehicles which in the future, may be powered by hydrogen, “green” methane, or perhaps even alternative forms of suppressed, wireless free energy technology.

A battery pack for the Tesla Model 3, pollutes the climate with 11 to 15 tonnes of CO2. Each battery pack has a lifespan of approximately ten years, or total mileage of 94,000. That works out to emit 73 to 98 grams of CO2 per kilometre, or 116 to 156 grams of CO2 per mile, Buchal said. Add to this the CO2 emissions of the electricity from power plants that power such vehicles and the actual Tesla emissions could be between 156 to 180 grams of CO2 per kilometre, or 249 and 289 grams of CO2 per mile.

A battery pack costs the EV-owner over € 10.000, excluding the expenses for the recycling of the old pack. The  pollution caused by these batteries is overwhelming. Think about how you are not even permitted to put tiny Li batteries in the garbage because of the extremely high toxicity. Where will all the defunct batteries go, added to the fact that they only last 10 years. Subsequently, one has to fork out $12,000 to buy a replacement, and how much does it cost you to dispose of the battery? EV is a giant con operation, just another Ponzi scheme for more debt-creation. As the banks decided to issue debt to fund this whole scheme!

In their study, the authors criticise the fact that EU legislation allows electric vehicles to be included in calculations for fleet emissions with a value of “zero” CO2 emissions. This suggests that electric vehicles do not generate any such emissions. The reality is that, in addition to the CO2 emissions generated in the production of electric vehicles, almost all EU countries generate significant CO2 emissions from charging the vehicles’ batteries using their national energy production mixes.

The authors also made a critical analysis of the discussion about electric cars in Germany, which centres around battery-operated vehicles, while other technologies also offer great potential: hydrogen-powered electric vehicles or vehicles with combustion engines powered by green methane, for instance. “Methane technology is ideal for the transition from natural gas vehicles with conventional engines to engines that will one day run on methane from CO2-free energy sources. This being the case, the German federal government should treat all technologies equally and promote hydrogen and methane solutions as well,” emphasises Professor Sinn.

For true emission reductions, researchers concluded the study by saying that methane-powered gasoline engines or hydrogen motors could cut CO2 emissions by a third and possibly eliminate the need for diesel motors altogether.

Global warming has been the biggest scam ever. Particularly when taking into account all the money that has been wasted on research at universities; wasted on corporate “green” incentives. Useless windmills that cost more to take down after they prematurely wear out, than it costs to put up in the first place, etc. What an utter shame with the paltry power supplied, the noise pollution and wasted landscapes.

Nowadays there is more Arctic/Antarctic ice than ever, more polar bears than ever, no ocean-level rise whatsoever.  Nothing predicted 20-25 years ago has come true. Nothing. Conclusion; the plan to save the world with electric cars is the biggest scam of our lifetime. The scam is intricately entwined with the Greater Agenda 2030 of the elites to slowly rob us of our freedoms, including the freedom to move around as we choose. Electric cars are only the beginning of their sinister plan. What will surely follow in the future will be freshly obtained “scientific data,” proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that we must give up our rights to vehicles completely, in order to save the planet.

The real Motivation is the goal of Government to control Everyone

The sinister catch to this scam is that Self-driving, electrically-powered cars must always be connected to a network. Tesla’s EVs connect to a network over the 4G Grid today, which will become 5G wireless networks later this year. And remember: 5G is a microwave radiation technology being deployed as depopulation warfare, full spectrum dominance and absolute human control.

The government will know the location of every self-driving car at all times. And with the right authority, a self-driving car could be rerouted to a government’s location of choice at any time. For example, what if someone suspected of a crime was trying to “drive” out of state? The local government could simply reroute the car to the nearest police station.

And there’s something else very sinister behind all this: Consider Waymo, a self-driving technology development company, that belongs to Google’s parent company. Google’s motivation is simple: It wants to collect as much data as possible about consumers and sell that data to whomever will pay for it.

Google is spending much time and money on research and development on autonomous driving technology, so that it can license that technology to car manufacturers. In exchange, it will be able to retain and sell the data that it collects. Think about it before getting into an EV, it comes straight out the Orwellian caboose.

The Electric Shock

The laws of thermodynamics say: Energy cannot be created or destroyed; it simply changes form. The electricity  used to power a car has to come from somewhere, at present, in the majority of cases, it still comes from coal-fired power plants.

Every time energy changes its form, as in the case of battery power, energy is lost due to inefficiencies of the system by friction, heat loss, drag, etc.  Simply put, not all of the available energy stored in a battery, will be available for its intended purpose; Some, if not most, is lost to these inefficiencies.

The real, -non-political- solution for greener cars is readily available: For transportation only high quantities of energy accumulated per unit, end up being economically and practically acceptable for use in vehicles.

As laid out above, energy from electricity does not meet these conditions. Wind-power, solar etc. are not practical. Ethanol has a lower energy output per unit and requires a special, more expensive adaption to engines. The only energy source that meets the above criteria, is the internal combustion diesel engine that gets about 30% more mileage out of every litre than gasoline, and those savings are prevalent in all the different kinds of driving conditions, with a refuel range of over 1’000KM or 600 miles. What’s more, people who worry about global warming, prefer diesel, because it emits up to 20% less carbon dioxide (CO2) than other kinds of fuel.

Diesel engines emit 20% less CO2

This has been common knowledge to insiders for a long time. Diesel engines are not harmful to the environment! They don’t shorten the lifespan of people; it even extends the lifespan of citizens living in so-called seriously affected cities. Electric cars are more harmful. Just another grandiose lie that will meet the truth.

The tale of Media Fear-Mongering: The global warming story is a cautionary tale of how media-concocted fears have become the defining ideas of an entire generation. The whole global warming saga has become a religion and  people who disagree are called lunatics.

It is said that Global warming could come from a gas called nitrous oxide (N2O):

Additionally, the International Council for Science (ICSU) in Paris, a federation of scientific associations from around the world, has issued a report concluding that most analyses made, have underestimated the substantial effects to global warming of a gas called nitrous oxide (N2O) by a factor of between three and five.

Although N2O is not common in the Earth’s atmosphere, it is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 and it hangs around much longer. But now it appears that this conclusion may be premature. For a rather long time, people living in the two cities on the planet with the highest NO2 concentration, namely Stuttgart and München live longer. Research has shown that in Stuttgart, the NO2 leader in 2018, residents can look forward to almost one and a half year longer lifespan than other people in Germany. The people living in Munich, blessed with the top NO2 value in 2017, even live a good two years longer than the German average.

There is apparently a clear link between NO2 exposure and public health and research has shown that the more and the denser the car traffic, the longer people seem to live. In short: nitrogen oxides are extending lives.

Whether the EU will introduce a long-overdue diesel duty, or at least a nitric oxide quota in the near future, based on these ground-breaking findings, cannot be predicted. However, we have a pretty good idea of how eco-activists will react if the NO2 limits are finally revealed as being purely fictional numbers.

Conclusion; EV’s are politicised and not Green

Electric cars are too expensive and bad, if not far worse for the environment than is purported by mainstream science. The electric green car is being politicised, presented and pushed as being a viable alternative to our present forms of transport. But it is also being politicised by idealists who do not know anything about the technical background on this subject. They are running with un-researched talking points and do not understand the faulty science.



Four current reports below

Antisemitism rife in Australian Greens

In keeping with their far-Left stance

Jewish leaders have urged Richard Di Natale to call out anti-Semitism within the Greens, after anti-Israel social media comments emerged from three Greens candidates in NSW federal seats.

The comments described Israel as an “apartheid” regime, accused members of the Israeli government of “openly advocating genocide”, denied the crimes of listed terrorist organisation Hamas, and criticised Senator Di Natale for failing to support the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions movement.

In a Facebook comment on an Australian Jewish News article about the Executive Council of Australian Jewry congratulating Senator Di Natale on his election as Greens leader, Greens candidate for Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s seat of Cook, Jonathan Doig, said he was “surprised the Greens don’t support BDS on Israel.” “Time to reconsider surely,” Mr Doig wrote.

The party’s candidate for the western Sydney seat of Watson, Emmett de Bhaldraithe, commented on Facebook that people in the current Israeli government “quite openly advocate genocide”.

“What has Hamas actually done that would suggest they wish to follow through on (genocide)/can?” Mr Bhaldraithe wrote.

Greens candidate for the eastern Sydney seat of Kingsford Smith, James Cruz, had a dig at his party’s Queensland Senator Larissa Waters, tweeting a picture of Senator Waters with Australian Eurovision contestant Kate Miller-Heidke, saying it was “disappointing to see Larissa Waters endorsing Eurovision held in apartheid Israel.”

“People of concious (sic) should #BoycottEurovision2019 in solidarity with Palestinians fighting for their land and lives,” Mr Cruz tweeted.

Executive Council of Australian Jewry CEO Alex Ryvchin said it was easy to dismiss the statements as “online ramblings of the far-left”. “But when such statements come from candidates for public office, who have been elevated to national prominence by their party, it is a matter of deep concern,” Mr Ryvchin said.

“To accuse Israel of apartheid and genocide, to whitewash the crimes of Hamas, a designated terrorist organisation committed to the destruction of a sovereign state and Jewish people worldwide, is a means of inciting hatred against Israelis. “It also endangers the overwhelming majority of Australian Jews who have deep personal and historic links to Israel.

“These are reckless, harmful comments. They should be condemned by Senator Di Natale without equivocation, and rooted out of the culture of the Greens, instead of being allowed to flourish.”

A spokesman for the Greens said BDS was not Australian Greens policy, “and we understand the concern among the Jewish community around the language used.” However, the spokesman said the Greens “reject charges of anti-Semitism.”

“It is legitimate to criticise the Netanyahu government’s actions in obstructing peace and Palestinian sovereignty,” he said.

“Now more than ever, with a rising tide of white supremacism and anti-Semitic attacks, the Greens stand in support of the Jewish community, all faith groups and a strong, diverse multicultural Australia.”

Anti-Defamation Commission chair Dvir Abramovich said the three Greens candidates should not get a “free pass” for their “contemptible and malicious” comments which reveal “unabashed venom towards Israel”.

“Richard Di Natale should not give sanction to such divisive rhetoric, and should urge these individuals to not only apologise for their rabid anti-Israel statements, but to renounce these incendiary positions,” Dr Abramovich said.


Koalas are 'functionally extinct' with just 80,000 left in the wild meaning they 'can't produce a new generation'

What rubbish. Koalas are in plague proportions in some places -- e.g. Kangaroo Island

Koala numbers have fallen so low across Australia that the species is now 'functionally extinct', animal campaigners believe.

The Australian Koala Foundation said there may be as few as 80,000 of the animals left in the wild, meaning they are unlikely to produce a new generation.

'Functionally extinct' describes an animal population which is either so small it has ceased to affect its environment, has no breeding pairs left, or is still breeding but from such a small number of individuals that it succumbs to genetic disease.

The foundation says that, since 2010, it has monitored 128 Federal electorates that fall within known koala environments, and in 41 there are no koalas left.

While researchers admit that the koala's tendency to move around and its patchwork habitat make it difficult to track, they say numbers are in steep decline.

Between 1890 and 1927, more than 8million of the animals were shipped to London after being shot for fur.

Research conducted in 2016 showed there were around 330,000 of the animals left in Australia, though this number could be as low as 144,000 and as high as 600,000.

The biggest threats to koalas are habitat loss and heatwaves caused by climate change, such as the one last year that saw thousands of animals die from dehydration, studies have shown.

Since May 2012, koalas have been officially listed as vulnerable in Queensland, New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory. This means their populations are in steep decline or at risk from entering a decline.

While the animals are not listed as vulnerable in Victoria or South Australia, local populations are known to have gone extinct - though the species is relatively abundant elsewhere.

Koala Foundation chairman Deborah Tabart said: 'I am calling on the new Prime Minister after the May election to enact the Koala Protection Act (KPA) which has been written and ready to go since 2016. 'The plight of the Koala now falls on his shoulders.'


Queer Greek Greenie abuses Christians

The Greenies attract some odd types

Damning footage of Greens candidate for the inner-west Sydney seat of Barton, Connor Parissis, has emerged showing the “left wing” and “mental health” activist trying to shout down Christians giving out free food at Sydney University.

Mr Parissis is shown screaming “your beliefs are a joke” at the Christians who were hosting a free food stall during the gay marriage debate.

A mob of angry protesters descended on the 25 Christian students trying to give away food.

“Shut the f..k up,” Mr Parissis yelled, “Go back to church … You know who’s a joke? Your f..king beliefs..” “Go wank yourself at home, you and your f..king Jesus picture,” Mr Parrisis yelled over the crowd, “I wish I could kick your face in.”

Mr Parissis, 21, advertises himself as a candidate who will fight for youth mental health, refugees and indigenous rights. On his candidate website he boasts being “University of Sydney Queer Officer, at the forefront of the Safe Schools Campaign and the YES campaign for marriage equality”.

According to The Daily Telegraph, Mr Parissis has been using a twitter handle called “@TheElginMarbles” to post offensive images and boast about stealing a plant from Kmart.

During Greek Easter celebrations, Mr Parissis posted an image showing Jesus performing a sexual act, with the caption “I love easter traditions”.

Last week, Mr Parissis apologised for his earlier posts.


Labor should beware a revolt against renewables

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has told the world that the political will to fight climate change has faded and that many countries are not living up to their commitments under the 2016 Paris agreement.

There are few people in the world better able to assess the mood of the international community than Guterres.

In Australia, if the opinion polls are right, Bill Shorten will be prime minister after Saturday’s election and one of the driving forces behind that victory—particularly among younger voters -- will be his plan to accelerate carbon reduction in Australia by investing in renewables.

So, we are moving in a direction that is different to large parts of the international community.

That raises clear trade warning bells but, for the moment, let’s leave that aside. Around 2016 the rest of the world was like Australia today, with large segments of the population driving for lower carbon emissions via renewables.

Australia and a Shorten government needs to take note of the Guterres warning and learn from the mistakes countries have made which have turned big segments of their populations against renewables-driven carbon reduction, despite the climate warnings.

In summary the populations were told renewables would reduce prices. That’s simply wrong unless you plan the introduction with great care, rather than plonking windmills or solar panels around the land with no co-ordination with existing installations and networks.

The first thing that does is to put pressure of the power grid and I described the problem last month.

But it’s an area where international global power experts can inadvertently mislead and in that commentary I described how problems in the grid can affect the charging of electric car batteries (in this case Tesla) in Australia. I later discovered the expert was talking about the US. I apologise for that mistake, but the message is the same--- whatever changes you make in power generation or usage, make sure the grid in all areas can handle it. If you don’t then the unreliability created will turn the community against carbon reduction and may lead to bizarre outcomes.

In Europe, power utilities can receive carbon credits by switching from coal to wood and belching out far more carbon than modern coal burning.

It’s an obscene racket and I have discovered there are a vast variety of estimates as to how big it is.

But there is also good news on the carbon front. Back in 2016 the only way to adjust the grid for renewables and other changes was to spend large sums on new wires. Now there are low-cost technologies to stabilise the grid and expand its capacity, which is fantastic news for electric cars.

I described the Faraday Grid system last month and an early step of an ALP government should be to assess the rollout of the Faraday system in London and Tokyo and check whether there are any rival systems. That way we can avoid at least one of the traps that changed the renewable views of other countries.

We should also be aware that, in Europe at least, economic difficulties can play a role in changing views.

We have not encountered anything like the problems of many European countries but as I explained yesterday, a prolonged US-China trade war at the same time as an Australian credit squeeze, a retirement and pensioners tax, and negative gearing clamps, will create a severe downturn which may cause Australia to embrace the same renewable energy views as many other countries.

We have already seen how tough times in northern Queensland have made parts of the local population strongly in favour of coal mining.

Some years ago, Germans were enthusiastic about their “Energiewende” energy transition project that involved the erection of vast numbers of windmills and solar panels. But it turned into an extremely costly debacle causing higher power prices, blackouts and load sharing. And it also changed the idyllic rural landscapes. ‘Energiewende’ is now winding back and is an excellent example of the new community attitudes described by the UN Secretary-General.

In the UK the renewables have forced gas-fired power stations to suddenly boost their output and then reduce it in order to balance the grid and prevent blackouts.

In addition, few are investing in efficient modern gas-fired plant while renewables are subsidised. The result is that the gas-fired fleet is much less efficient than it should be and price rises will continue for the foreseeable future.

That’s what will happen in Australia if we don’t integrate renewables with the existing systems.

Just as new technologies solved the grid problems, the world is working on much better non-carbon energy production other than wind (including more efficient solar) and is developing better batteries to change the economics of wind.

We are in danger rushing into technologies that will be obsolete while Europe and other areas fudge their figures by burning wood.



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