Leftist hypocrisy:  It never stops

Democrat Socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has said a lot of things about “climate change” while promoting her “Green New Deal.” For example, via Federalist Papers:

“We’re like, ‘The world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change,’” Cortez said in January, The Post reported.

“And, like, this is the war; this is our World War II,” she said, talking more like a teenager than a Congresswoman.

“It is basically a scientific consensus that the lives of our children are going to be very difficult” she said last week.

“And it does lead young people to have a legitimate question: is it OK to still have children?” she said.

Enter the “New York Post,” which establishes that AOC is a hypocrite and a fraud…

Freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wants to save the planet with her Green New Deal, but she keeps tripping over her own giant carbon footprint.

But the woman who boasts of a “razor-sharp BS detector” seems to have trouble sniffing out her own.

Since declaring her candidacy in May 2017, Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign heavily relied on those combustible-engine cars — even though a subway station was just 138 feet from her Elmhurst campaign office.

She listed 1,049 transactions for Uber, Lyft, Juno and other car services, federal filings show. The campaign had 505 Uber expenses alone.

In all, Ocasio-Cortez spent $29,365.70 on those emissions-spewing vehicles, along with car and van rentals — even though her Queens HQ was a one-minute walk to the 7 train.

The campaign shelled out only $8,335.41 on 52 MetroCard transactions.

SOURCE 





Greenpeace Co-Founder: AOC Is a ‘Pompous Little Twit,’ Green New Deal Would Be ‘Worse Than WWII’

Patrick Moore, who said he left Greenpeace 33 years ago “because they were hijacked by eco-fascists,” tweeted Saturday, “@AOC Pompous little twit. You don’t have a plan to grow food for 8 billion people without fossil fuels, or get food into the cities. Horses? If fossil fuels were banned every tree in the world would be cut down for fuel for cooking and heating. You would bring about mass death.”

Furthermore, he blasted Ocasio-Cortez for calling climate change “our World War II,” saying instead the Green New Deal would be “worse than WWII.”

“Isn't @AOC a bit young to talk about WW2? It was Hell & more than 60 million died. It's her @GND that would be worse than WW2. Imagine no fuel for cars, trucks, tractors, combines, harvesters, power-plants, ships, aircraft, etc. Transport of people & goods would grind to a halt,” Moore tweeted Sunday.

"I suspect @AOC is a flash in the pan. Her @GND is so completely crazy it is bound to be rejected in the end. But she does have wind in her sales due to the political situation. 2020 will be even more interesting now,” he tweeted.

Moore also criticized Ocasio-Cortez’s use of ride-sharing apps Uber and Lyft while campaigning, instead of using the subway near her campaign office.

The "world as it is" has the option of taking the subway rather than a taxi. option of Amtrak rather than plane, option of opening windows rather than A/C. You're just a garden-variety hypocrite like the others. And you have ZERO expertise at any of the things you pretend to know,” Moore said.

SOURCE 





Socialist Green New Deal Rejects Nuclear Energy

The goal isn't "saving the planet." It's more power for government brokers.

The Left’s obsession with environmentalism and more specifically climate change has little to do with protecting the environment. Instead, as we have repeatedly noted, the real motive behind the Left’s “green” agenda is red socialism — increasing government control over the economy.

This reality was made patently clear with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal (GND). Using apocalyptic warnings of the world ending in 12 years should the country not embrace her radical and absurd agenda — which would effectively destroy America’s entire economic system as we know it — AOC and her fellow travelers claim their cause to be a just one because they are simply trying to save the planet. But, as National Review’s David French astutely points out, “When you read the [GND] you quickly realize that progressivism is the priority, not the environment. In other words, environmentalism and progressivism are wrongly treated as fundamentally inseparable.”

As for supposedly working to “save” the environment, the GND offers no practical real-world solutions. Where this may be most glaringly evident is in the GND’s rejection of nuclear energy. The resolution proposes that “100 percent of the power demand in the United States” would be met “through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources.” But these energy sources “would not include creating new nuclear plants” and, in fact, “the plan is to transition off of nuclear and all fossil fuels as soon as possible.”

Yet, as Time magazine “Hero of the Environment” Michael Shellenberger argues, the only truly “green energy” is nuclear power. “When it comes to generating power for billions of people, it turns out that producing solar and wind collectors, and spreading them over large areas, has vastly worse impacts on humans and wildlife alike,” he says. “I think it’s natural that those of us who became active on climate change gravitated toward renewables. They seemed like a way to harmonize human society with the natural world. Collectively, we have been suffering from an appeal-to-nature fallacy no different from the one that leads us to buy products at the supermarket labeled ‘all natural.’ But it’s high time that those of us who appointed ourselves Earth’s guardians should take a second look at the science, and start questioning the impacts of our actions.”

So why the Left’s aversion to nuclear energy? Maybe because it’s a proven, reliable, and cost-effective source of green energy that doesn’t necessitate a socialist takeover of the American economy. The fact is, nuclear power offers a more realistic means of meeting the Left’s loudly proclaimed environmental goals, but it does so via capitalism — and there’s the rub.

SOURCE 




New EPA Chief Implementing Trump’s Energy-Dominant, Environmentally Friendly Agenda

Andrew Wheeler was confirmed by the Senate last week as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Wheeler previously served as deputy administrator before stepping into the role of acting administrator in July 2018. He visited the Conservative Political Action Conference last week and spoke to The Daily Signal. A lightly edited transcript is below.

Rob Bluey: Although you were just confirmed by the Senate, you’ve been in the job as acting EPA administrator for several months. Can you share what it’s been like to have that experience to work in the Trump administration?

Andrew Wheeler: It’s been great. You know, I started my career as an employee at EPA in 1991 during the first Bush administration. It’s great to be back. When President Trump called me and asked me to take over at EPA, he said, “Continue to clean up the air. Continue to clean up the water, and continue to deregulate in order to create more jobs for the American public.” We can do all three. The president knows we can do all three, and I think we’re proving it.

Bluey: You’ve had success in all three of those areas. What would you say over the past several months stands out in your mind as one of your biggest accomplishments?

Wheeler: We just released our new Waters of the United States regulations with the Federal Register. This is something that the administration has been going back and forth with. There have been three Supreme Court cases. The Obama regulation was stayed by a number of different courts.

We did this with a very unique approach: One, we put it out there, and we said we’re distinguishing between what is a federal waterway and what is a state waterway. Second, and this is the overarching theme of the whole regulation, is that a property owner should be able to stand on his or her property and be able to tell for themselves whether or not they have federal waters without having to hire an outside attorney or a consultant. That’s really important to provide that certainty to the American public.

Bluey: Can you explain what exactly a water of the United States is, because as you just described, in many cases, it’s unclear for property owners.

Wheeler: The Clean Water Act, back in the 1970s, defined it as navigable waters, but it’s been expanded over the years by regulation and then by also some Supreme Court decisions. There have been three Supreme Court decisions in the last 12 years. And so it goes a little beyond navigable. We include wetlands that are adjacent to those waterways.

We have a whole list. For the first time, we are defining what is a water, and we’re also defining, just as important, what is not a waterway. For example, if something retains water just because of rain, that’s not a water of the United States anymore.

Farm ditches will no longer be considered a water of the U.S. That might surprise people, but both of those have been declared wetlands or waterways in the past. So we are defining what is in, and also, just as importantly, what’s out.

Bluey: As you craft the rules and regulations at your agency, one of the important things is getting feedback from the American people. I know it’s been a priority under the Trump administration to get out of Washington and hear from Americans. Tell us about the experiences that you’ve had and some of the places you’ve been able to go.

Wheeler: It’s been great. When we announced the Waters of the U.S., we did have an announcement in Washington, D.C., but the very next day I got on a plane with Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue and we went to Tennessee. We had a meeting with farmers from three different states. And to hear the feedback from those farmers was very important.

When I went to California, I met with a lot of farmers there. When I went to Pennsylvania, I sat down with some state environmental organizations. Those are the environmental organizations that are really trying to clean up the environment. I heard what their problems were in trying to clean up some of the old abandoned mines in the state of Pennsylvania.

I go out and I try to meet with local people who live around the Superfund sites. When I was in Montana at a Superfund site, I sat down with the Moms for Clean Air, who actually opposed me. But I sat down with them in Montana to hear what their concerns were about living around the Superfund site. And that was the Anaconda and the Butte, Montana, Superfund sites.

It’s important for me to hear what people think about what we’re doing and what their problems are, so we can better respond and be more responsive to the American public.

Bluey: One of the things that Vice President Mike Pence touted at CPAC is the success that the Trump administration has had when it comes to regulations and reducing the red tape. What does that mean in terms of the constituencies you deal with?

Wheeler: One of the things that I’m trying to talk about more is energy production. President Trump wants us to be energy dominant. And we are. We are energy dominant. But along with that, we produce our fossil fuels here in the United States in a much more environmentally conscious manner than fossil fuels produced anywhere else in the world.

If you’re Europe, and you want to buy natural gas, you can buy it from Russia or you can buy it from the United States. Our natural gas is more environmentally conscious, more environmentally friendly the way we produce it because of our regulations here. Same with our coal. Same with our oil. That’s really important for the American public to understand as well.

We have a lot of politicians and people here in the United States saying we shouldn’t have any fossil fuels in the United States. Well, that means that the rest of the world will be buying much more environmentally damaging fossil fuels that are produced in a much more damaging fashion than we produce them here.

Bluey: EPA adopted a lean management approach that has been important in terms of improving the time that it takes to get permits done and some of the day-to-day functions at the agency. How’s it going under your watch?

Wheeler: It’s going really well. The lean management’s also known as the Toyota system. We’re using it to address our longstanding systems in the EPA. For example, how long it takes us to process a permit. When we came in, President Trump said, “I want to do all federal permits within two years.” And we took a look at the EPA, and we said, “How long is it taking you to process permits?” And they weren’t tracking it.

It’s impossible to improve a system if you aren’t tracking how long it takes. So the first thing we did was start tracking how long it takes. And we have a goal of trying to get all of our permits done within six months.

Bluey: Looking ahead, what are some of the things that you hope to accomplish over the next several months?

Wheeler: We certainly want to move forward and finalize some of the regulations we have out there. The Waters of the U.S. [rule] that I mentioned, we put it out for public comment. I encourage people to please comment on it. You can find it in the Federal Register. Take a look at it. Let us know whether you like it or don’t like it, what room for improvement.

We want to hear back from people. I know we’re going to hear back from a lot of people who don’t like what we’re doing. And if you like what we’re doing, tell us. We want to hear from everyone, and we want to have input from everybody about what we’re doing.

Bluey: Administrator Wheeler, thanks for joining The Daily Signal.

Wheeler: Thank you very much.

SOURCE 





Bill Gates, defying the Climate Barons, tells the ugly truth about renewables

A remarkable change has come over the view of the left in recent decades. With the collapse of socialism (in fact, if not in theory), big business was no longer an automatic enemy. Indeed it was to be co-opted as a partner in “social responsibility” and “sustainable development.” Some of the world’s wealthiest business people eagerly sought to start knitting the rope of Global Salvationism.

The bizarro modern counterparts of the Robber Barons might be called the Climate Barons, those billionaires and capitalist foundations that seek to kill the fossil-fuelled industrial age in order to save mankind from manmade environmental catastrophe.

While America’s Koch brothers are ritually condemned as funding “denialism,” a far more substantial group is supporting NGO thuggery and misinformation, promoting lawsuits and other pressure tactics to euthanize fossil fuels. They also seek to hide the huge economic and social costs of the allegedly essential “transition to a low-carbon economy.”

This group includes U.S. billionaires Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg and the British hedge-fund billionaires Jeremy Grantham and Chris Hohn. It includes a raft of multi-billion-dollar foundations bearing names such as Rockefeller, Hewlett and Packard.

The Climate Barons present themselves as promoters of “Climate Philanthropy,” but insofar as their promised low-carbon transition involves forcing the adoption of expensive and unreliable energy, they are both responsible for destroying jobs (Alberta being perhaps the most prominent victim), and exacerbating poverty in poor countries. Their activities might more accurately be described as Climate Malanthropy.

Here’s the good news: Bill Gates, the world’s most prominent philanthropist, has broken ranks. Although the Microsoft co-founder still outsources his thinking on catastrophist science, he has acknowledged that intermittent renewables are the last thing to be forced on poor countries. He has also castigated the Climate Barons’ strategy of killing fossil fuels via financial pressure.

During a recent onstage Q&A at Stanford University, when interviewer Arun Majumdar, a “Google Scholar,” suggested breezily that people were “optimistic” that the costs of renewables and battery storage were coming down, Gates got visibly agitated. “That is so disappointing,” he said, tearing into the misplaced priorities of such feeble optimism. While he supported nuclear, he said battery technology was woefully deficient and renewables needed “a miracle.” They certainly weren’t the solution for India or Africa right now.

Gates revealed that he had recently been at a New York conference of financiers backing the fashionable demand of “climate disclosure,” whereby corporations are required to offer up highly unlikely climate-risk scenarios so as to unnecessarily worry investors and increase their cost of capital. Gates claimed that the idea that finance or investor pressure could provide a solution was “madness.” So was, he said, the demonization of electrical utilities. And in this low-carbon transition, he asked, where would steel and plastic come from? What would power the airplanes? Most dramatically, he claimed that those who suggested that the climate problem was easy to solve were a bigger problem than the climate deniers are.

It is intriguing to compare the Gates interview with another video, made around the same time, in which Majumdar also appears. It was touted as a “Giving Pledge Learning Session” designed to boost “Climate Philanthropy.” One especially intriguing aspect was that Gates and his wife founded the Giving Pledge, in the vain hope of convincing people billionaires aren’t evil. This video suggests that some just might be.

The video features hedge-fund billionaire Jeremy Grantham, who has established several climate foundations that spread alarmism and seek to silence deniers. The chair of Grantham’s main climate foundation is Lord Nicholas Stern, author of 2006’s outrageously perverted Stern Review (officially titled: The Economics of Climate Change). Grantham also employs Bob Ward, perhaps the U.K.’s main attack dog when it comes to trying to silence media skepticism. “Everybody needs to be in on this (transition)” said Grantham. Meaning everyone needs to agree with him.

Another Climate Baron making an appearance was Julie Packard, vice-chairman of the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, which has committed US$1 billion to climate over the past 10 years. And there was Larry Kramer, head of the Hewlett Foundation, which has also devoted massive amounts to the climate-alarm crusade.

Chris Hohn, another British hedge-fund billionaire, asserts in the video that “solar and wind are cheaper than coal.” He might try running that past Gates. Hohn also claimed that there was need for a “massive step up” in climate philanthropy — but we might note that spending is pretty stepped up already. Hohn funds a charity called the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation, CIFF. CIFF oversees a portfolio of multi-year grant commitments worth more than US$800 million. Of that total, almost US$300 million is dedicated to climate change, more than 10 times the amount committed to “child protection.” CIFF is also a big supporter of “carbon disclosure.” It’s hard to see what that has to do with children who are suffering poverty, malnutrition or abuse right now.

CIFF’s website maintains that “A low carbon world will help secure a healthy and prosperous future for children.” Again, Bill Gates — or indeed any objective observer — would mostly disagree.

Now that Bill has seen the light on the “transition,” maybe there’s hope he’ll turn his analytical mind to just how “settled” climate science really is.

SOURCE 

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

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

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

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

Rounding up Roundup:  The racket

Matt Ridley is always alert to corrupt "Science" and his latest blog post is a mine of valuable information on several current or recent frauds.  Below is just that part of his post dealing with glyphosate -- one of the safest chemical there are but which has a huge money turnover.  So it has become a glittering prize -- $$$$$ -- for people trying to find something wrong with it and get some of that money

This is the claim that exposure to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup weedkiller, increases the incidence of a particular, very rare cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). ‘Exposure to weed-killing products increases risk of cancer by 41 per cent,’ said the Guardian’s headline.

Once again, this paper is not a new study, but a desktop survey of other studies and its claim collapses under proper scrutiny. According to the epidemiologist Geoffrey Kabat, the paper combined one high-quality study with five poor-quality studies and chose the highest of five risk estimates reported in one of the latter to ensure it would reach statistical significance. The authors highlighted the dubious 41 per cent result, ‘which they almost certainly realised would grab headlines and inspire fear’.

The background is important here. Vast sums of money are at stake. ‘Predatort’ lawyers have been chasing glyphosate in the hope of tobacco-style payouts. Unluckily for them, however, study after study keeps finding that glyphosate does not cause cancer. The US Environmental Protection Agency, the European Food Safety Authority, the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation working with the World Health Organisation, the European Chemicals Agency, Health Canada and the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment have all tried and failed to find any cancer risk in glyphosate.

The only exception is the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a rogue United Nations agency that has been taken over by environmental activists, which claimed that neat glyphosate was capable of causing cancer in animals if ingested. By the same criteria, IARC admits, coffee, tea and wine (which are indeed ingested) and working as a hairdresser are also carcinogenic; in fact, out of 1,000 substances and other risks tested, IARC has found only one to be non-carcinogenic. The IARC study also did the usual pseudo-science thing of citing some results but was reported by Reuters to have discounted contradictory results from the same studies.

This is what Reuters reported:

The edits identified by Reuters occurred in the chapter of IARC’s review focusing on animal studies. This chapter was important in IARC’s assessment of glyphosate, since it was in animal studies that IARC decided there was “sufficient” evidence of carcinogenicity.

One effect of the changes to the draft, reviewed by Reuters in a comparison with the published report, was the removal of multiple scientists' conclusions that their studies had found no link between glyphosate and cancer in laboratory animals.

Following that claim, another study by the Agricultural Health Survey of 45,000 people actually exposed to glyphosate again found no association between glyphosate and any cancer, including NHL. Nobody outside the predatort industry takes the IARC finding seriously.

Nonetheless, the study had a beneficial effect for lawyers. Last year, citing the IARC study but not its debunking, a jury in California awarded a $289 million jackpot to the family of a school groundskeeper who died of NHL. Meanwhile, an investigation by Reuters found that the conclusion of the IARC study had been altered shortly before the report’s release and that the specialist consulted, Christopher Portier, started working with law firms suing Monsanto soon afterwards. Another case is due to start shortly, this time in federal court. More than 9,300 people with various cancers have filed similar cases.

Reuters again:

Documents seen by Reuters show how a draft of a key section of the International Agency for Research on Cancer's (IARC) assessment of glyphosate - a report that has prompted international disputes and multi-million-dollar lawsuits - underwent significant changes and deletions before the report was finalised and made public.

One effect of the changes to the draft, reviewed by Reuters in a comparison with the published report, was the removal of multiple scientists' conclusions that their studies had found no link between glyphosate and cancer in laboratory animals.

In one instance, a fresh statistical analysis was inserted - effectively reversing the original finding of a study being reviewed by IARC.

In another, a sentence in the draft referenced a pathology report ordered by experts at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. It noted the report “firmly” and “unanimously” agreed that the “compound” – glyphosate – had not caused abnormal growths in the mice being studied. In the final published IARC monograph, this sentence had been deleted.

Kabat had this to say:

In view of the new revelations, it appears that, rather than being the objective scientist he has portrayed himself to be, he may have had a preconceived plan to use the IARC ruling, which he played a major role in shaping, to cash in on the ensuing litigation campaign.

See also David Zaruk:

During the same week that IARC had published its opinion on glyphosate’s carcinogenicity, Christopher Portier signed a lucrative contract to be a litigation consultant for two law firms preparing to sue Monsanto on behalf of glyphosate cancer victims.

This contract has remunerated Portier for at least 160,000 USD (until June, 2017) for initial preparatory work as a litigation consultant (plus travel).

This contract contained a confidentiality clause restricting Portier from transparently declaring this employment to others he comes in contact with. Further to that, Portier has even stated that he has not been paid a cent for work he’s done on glyphosate.

It became clear, in emails provided in the deposition, that Portier’s role in the ban-glyphosate movement was crucial. He promised in an email to IARC that he would protect their reputation, the monograph conclusion and handle the BfR and EFSA rejections of IARC’s findings.

Portier admitted in the deposition that prior to the IARC glyphosate meetings, where he served as the only external expert adviser, he had never worked and had no experience with glyphosate.

SOURCE 





Green New Deal Dodge: Schumer Asks Dems To Vote “Present”

Senate Democratic leaders are grappling over how to vote on a controversial climate change proposal that is being championed by progressives and mocked by conservatives. …

Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer (N.Y.) has floated a plan with his caucus to vote "present" on the ambitious legislation. It remains to be seen if Senate Democrats will embrace Schumer’s strategy.

That’s not flying with at least one member of Schumer’s caucus. Joe Manchin (D-WV) told The Hill that he’s a “no” on the GND, and a hard “no” on present votes:

“I got to work with reality. I got to make sure we have the benefit of affordable energy,” Manchin said.

Asked about his colleague’s plan to vote present on the Green New Deal, Manchin responded, “They can do what they want to do. I’m not a present-type guy.”

The real sham is the Green New Deal itself, which Schumer’s attempting to distance from his caucus. So is this “present” vote, which directly contradicts Schumer’s attack on Mitch McConnell for calling the vote. In his two-minute speech on the Senate floor, Schumer demanded that McConnell take a stand on climate change and the need for congressional action:

If Republicans need to do all that, why doesn’t Schumer feel the need to make his colleagues take a stand on their own bill? These demands are a lame attempt to shift attention away from a ridiculous proposal that has much more to do with imposing government control on American lives than it does about the climate.

Besides, McConnell’s hardly the only one “knocking the Green New Deal,” as Schumer complained yesterday. Even Nancy Pelosi’s able to discuss it honestly in Rolling Stone magazine, for pity’s sake. Why not just admit it’s a mistake rather than vote “present”?

Now, in terms of the Green New Deal [as conceived], that goes beyond what our charge is. Our charge is about saving the planet. They have in there things like single-payer and . . .  what is it? Guaranteed income?

Pelosi Deputy Chief of Staff Drew Hammill: Guaranteed income, and then a jobs guarantee.

Pelosi: And then they have, I don’t know if it’s single-payer or Medicare for All. . . . It’s kind of, like, a broader agenda. All good values, but nonetheless, not what we hope to achieve with this focused, determined, decision-making.

The answer to the previous question is obvious — Pelosi’s not going to make her caucus take an embarrassing vote on the GND that will paint her members into tight corners no matter what they choose. If they vote no, progressive groups like the Justice Democrats will come after them in the primaries. If they vote yes, independent and moderate voters will abandon them in the general election.

Under the circumstances, “present” may be the best strategy possible. It’s craven and hypocritical, but with his party careening towards socialism, that’s all Schumer has left.

SOURCE 






Green New Deal Hits A Road Block: Largest California County Bans Large Solar And Wind Projects

California’s largest county has banned the construction of large solar and wind farms on more than 1 million acres of private land, bending to the will of residents who say they don’t want renewable energy projects industrializing their rural desert communities northeast of Los Angeles.

L A Times reports:

Thursday’s 4-1 vote by San Bernardino County’s Board of Supervisors highlighted a challenge California could face as it seeks to eliminate the burning of planet-warming fossil fuels.

State lawmakers passed a bill last year requiring utility companies to get 60% of their electricity from renewable sources by 2030, and 100% from climate-friendly sources by 2045. But achieving those goals will require cooperation from local governments — and big solar and wind farms, like many infrastructure projects, are often unpopular at the local level.

Representatives of national solar developers including First Solar and Clearway Energy urged the supervisors to consider the economic benefits of solar projects, including jobs and tax revenues. They were joined by union members, who told the supervisors that solar farms create hundreds of high-paying construction jobs.

“They’re temporary construction jobs, but that’s what we make our livelihood off of. And to put language in there that strictly prohibits these projects from going forward would be irresponsible,” said Justin Lanford, president of the San Bernardino County chapter of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.

Dozens of local residents spoke in support of the proposed ban, known as Renewable Energy Policy 4.10. They came from high desert communities such as Daggett, Joshua Tree and Lucerne Valley, where existing solar projects are seen by many as eyesores that destroy desert ecosystems and fuel larger dust storms.

Sara Fairchild, a resident of Pioneertown, said she’s been working with a group trying to get California Highway 247, which runs from Yucca Valley to Barstow, designated as a state scenic highway. Supporters say the designation would draw tourists and boost local economies. But Fairchild is worried that several solar projects proposed along or near the highway would ruin the pristine desert landscapes that make the area so attractive.

“These vast open areas are precious for their natural, historical and recreational qualities. But they are fragile, and no amount of mitigation can counter the damage that industrial-scale renewable energy projects would cause,” Fairchild told the supervisors. “Once destroyed, these landscapes can never be brought back.”

The policy approved by the supervisors prohibits utility-oriented renewable energy projects — defined as projects that would mostly serve out-of-town utility customers, rather than local power needs — within the boundaries of Community Plans that have been adopted by more than a dozen unincorporated towns. Construction of utility-oriented solar and wind farms would also be banned in so-called Rural Living zones. Solar projects that are already going through the permitting process would still be allowed to proceed.

Supervisor Robert Lovingood said residents “spoke clearly about what they want to see.”

“If we don’t adopt this, that’s just spitting in their face,” he said, adding that the county has already designated several smaller areas where renewable energy projects could be approved.

Curt Hagman was the only supervisor to vote against the restrictions. He said he doesn’t want to preclude new renewable energy technologies that might have less of an impact on rural areas, while still bringing economic benefits to the county. And he said the supervisors already have the ability to reject bad projects.

V. John White, a Sacramento lobbyist who leads the Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies, said before Thursday’s vote that there’s still a lot of land where solar and wind projects can be built in California, including retired farmland in the Central Valley and Imperial County. But the backlash against big solar projects in San Bernardino County, he said, shows that state officials “will have to involve local governments more directly than what we’ve done up through now” as they work to achieve higher renewable energy targets.

SOURCE 






Mass. running out of gas as pipeline opposition builds up

The municipal utilities that serve Holyoke and Middleborough just imposed separate moratoriums on new natural gas hookups, citing supply constraints. Is your community close behind?

Probably not. The two biggest gas providers in Massachusetts, National Grid and Eversource, say their supplies are adequate for now.

But some in the industry speculate that we’re approaching a major inflection point, as the region’s strained pipeline system shows signs of failing to keep up with demand. Pipeline expansions get more difficult to build politically every year. To the anti-gas forces in the environmental community, the moratoriums reaffirm their arguments about the need to wean Massachusetts off the fossil fuel.

That won’t be easy. Natural gas remains a dominant fuel source for New England’s power plants. It also remains the preferred heat source for any new developments — except in the growing list of communities with moratoriums in place.

These bans on new hookups started popping up in Western Massachusetts about four years ago. Berkshire Gas imposed moratoriums in an eight-town region stretching from Greenfield to Amherst; Columbia Gas did the same next door, in Easthampton and Northampton.

Northeast Energy Direct, the controversial Kinder Morgan pipeline proposal, could have helped ease the pain there. But resistance was too strong, and Kinder Morgan nixed it. Berkshire informed its waiting list of 300-plus potential new customers last fall that no help would be coming soon.

The capacity issues in that area eventually caught up with Holyoke Gas & Electric, which imposed its own moratorium on new service on Jan. 28. Columbia Gas is pursuing projects to increase circulation in the Springfield area. But those, too, face formidable opposition.

The Middleborough Gas and Electric Department moratorium this month was more of a surprise, the first true supply-related ban in the eastern part of the state. General manager Jackie Crowley told utility commissioners that a lateral pipeline that feeds Southeastern Massachusetts has been at capacity for some time. The utility’s system load has continued to grow, but there are no new projects on the horizon to address its need for more gas. Crowley says she wanted to get the word out before the spring construction season starts, so builders could seek alternatives.

As a small utility, it’s difficult financially for Middleborough to build liquefied gas storage tanks, to sock away gas for cold days when it’s in short supply. Crowley says she is talking to Algonquin pipeline owner Enbridge about increasing capacity, but a long-term solution could be years away.

Several Cape Cod towns already face similar bans on hookups, but a National Grid spokeswoman says those were imposed a few years ago to ensure system reliability while the company upgraded a mid-Cape pipeline. They are on track to be lifted this spring. But she also concedes the company could face challenges serving new natural gas customers given how hard it is to get a pipeline expansion approved.

Tamara Small, chief executive of developer group NAIOP Massachusetts, can’t help but feel the chill. NAOIP members already suffered through a lockout by National Grid of union workers and a state-imposed, safety-related moratorium last year. Those are over, but the backlog is considerable. The emergence of new moratoriums, she says, sends the wrong message to businesses looking to expand here.

The natural gas industry’s foes see these moratoriums as a sort of vindication. Environmental advocates say it’s time to get more serious about other, greener options: rolling out heat pumps for warmth, and turning to cleaner sources of electricity such as Canadian hydropower and offshore wind.

Maybe the industry is indeed reaching an important tipping point. But which way it will tip depends on who you ask.

SOURCE 





Australian conservatives claim household energy bills could soar by HUNDREDS of dollars under the Left's plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions

Households would be forced to fork out hundreds of dollars more on their energy bills under Labor's commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, according to recent modelling.

A comparison of the two major parties revealed Labor's plan to cut down on emissions by 45 per cent by 2030 would cost households in NSW an additional $600 on average on their power bill.

By the time the policy is fully implemented, power bills could cost an extra $480 per household on average in Victoria.

The analysis was brought to light by Coalition-associated Menzies and Page Research Centres who claim power bills would soar between six and 30 per cent by 2030 under a Labor government, News Corp reported.

By comparison, the Coalition policy would see a 40 per cent decline in the average household power bill by the same year.

The Coalition is planning to reduce emissions by 26 per cent, almost half of Labor's commitment, by 2030.

An average annual power bill in Victoria in 2017-18 is about $1208 a year but is expected to drop to $796 by 2030 amid the Coalition's proposed plans to reduce emissions.

Under the Coalition in NSW, the average annual bill would drop from about $1368 to $804.

By comparison, the annual household power bill in Victoria under Labor is forecast to jump six per cent to $1276.

Labor has committed to cutting down on emissions by 45 per cent by 2030. The Coalition is planning to reduce emissions by 26 per cent by 2030.

Power bills would soar between six and 30 per cent by 2030 under a Labor government - while the Coalition would see a 40 per cent decline, according to the findings.

According to the economic modelling, it would rise three per cent in NSW to $1404 a year by 2030.

Small and medium businesses with annual consumption of 16,000 kWh should expect the same electricity prices under Labor, the report found.

An Australia-wide drop of an average of $1,500 in electricity prices for small and medium businesses is anticipated under the Coalition.

Under the more conservative emissions policy employed by the government small and medium sized businesses would be $2164 better off a year in NSW and $1892 in Victoria.

With polling day three months around the corner, the cost of household power bills is expected to be draw-card for voters who could be willing to swing.

Labor's energy spokesman Mark Butler would not guarantee whether energy bills under his party would drop when asked last week. 

Nick Cater the Executive director of the Menzies Research Centre said the research proved that Labor's commitment to renewable energy would not necessarily bring down the costs. 'The inconvenient truth is that there are huge costs to reducing emissions from energy production, and these are paid for by all of us, either as consumers or taxpayers,' he said.

SOURCE 

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

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

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

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

CPAC Crowd Cheers When Trump Mocks AOC’s Green New Deal

President Trump brought down the house at the annual CPAC convention when he delivered a rousing speech that delighted the crowd of patriotic conservatives who seemed to sense that their values are under assault as never before.

On the same day that socialist Bernie Sanders was rousing the rabble in Brooklyn with his trademark bitter tirades against capitalism and appeals to radically transform the United States into something unthinkable, the president hit all the right notes and showed that he will be a formidable force in the coming battle against radicalized Democrats.

Bernie and his fellow travelers have been pitching the Green New Deal, a Trojan horse for the socialism that has inspired millennials whose enthusiasm vastly exceeds their knowledge of history and the bitter fate of the countries that have taken the leap of faith.

While the Green New Deal is already akin to a religion with the political left, it isn’t going to sell in Middle America and the Rust Belt which is where national elections are won and lost. In a preview of his upcoming campaign, Trump delighted in his mockery of a plan that would bankrupt the nation and would take a totalitarian government to bring about which is exactly what the Democrats are planning.

The crowd went absolutely wild when the leader of the free world all but ripped the beating hearts of the left out of their chest and waved it in their smug faces.

“The Green New Deal, I encourage it,” Trump continued sarcastically after boos from the audience. “I think it’s really something that they should promote.”

“They should work hard on,” he continued. “It is something our country needs. Desperately, they have to go out and get it, but I’ll take the other side of that argument, only because I am mandated to. But they should stay with that argument and never change. No planes. No energy. When the wind stops blowing, that is the end of your electric.”

To the audience’s delight, Trump pretended to be someone’s spouse just hoping the wind blows so they can watch a little television.

“Darling, is the wind blowing today? I would like to watch television, darling.”

“It’s true,” Trump said after the crowd burst into laughter.

SOURCE





House Dems scheduled an ‘important’ hearing on climate change – barely any of them showed up, so GOP killed it in 4 mins

By now, you know the truth. Climate change is the single greatest calamity facing mankind. Because there’s a Republican in the White House, Democrats have ramped-up the scare tactics to a fever pitch, and they can’t seem to get through a single presser without mention the fact that we’re all doomed.  The oceans are going to rise, super-storms are going to decimate the coasts and, in the words of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, we’re all going to be dead in 12 years.

So… you would think that Democrats would be eager to attend a House subcommittee hearing on the subject.  After all, if they don’t do something, Guam is going to tip over and Al Gore’s $9 million ocean view mansion is going to wash away.

So why, if this is such a grave threat, did only two Dems bother to show up to their own hearing?

Via the Politico:

House Republicans managed to quash Democrats’ hearing on climate change on Tuesday by outvoting the majority party at the poorly attended event, forcing it to adjourn only minutes after it began.

The hearing of the House Natural Resources panel was to be the latest to dive into climate change since Democrats took control of the House last month, bringing new attention to the issue they complained Republicans had ignored during their eight years leading the chamber. The hearing was designed to probe the “denial playbook” that Democrats say fossil fuel backers have copied from cigarette companies — the same tactics used by opioid makers and the National Football League to dispute strong scientific evidence.

Apparently, a meeting designed to forestall the end of the world wasn’t important enough for Democrats to attend. With only 2 Democrats appearing, Louie Gohmert and three other Republicans killed it in just a few minutes.

SOURCE





Green New Nightmare: City’s Attempt To Go ‘100% Renewable’ Brings Massive Costs

As Congress debates the Green New Deal resolution to transition the U.S. economy to “net-zero” greenhouse gas emissions, a Texas town struggles under the growing financial burden of going green.

Georgetown has spent $30 million since it began its transition to 100 percent renewable energy in 2016, and now city officials are lashing out at local reporters and a conservative think tank for scrutinizing the cost to taxpayers.

“The entire 100 percent renewable claim is misleading,” Bill Peacock, vice president of research conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

TPPF has been holding public hearings with angry Georgetown residents since last fall. The group also called out the city’s renewable energy claim that it runs solely on renewable power.

Peacock said the city’s “dogged, almost bling pursuit of renewables” has cost residents $30 million, maybe more, in additional electricity costs because of how it structured its contracts. Georgetown is reportedly the largest U.S. city to claim to run on 100 percent renewable electricity.

“Nobody enters into contracts for twice as much electricity as they need,” Peacock said. “The only way it makes sense is if you’re trying to make the point that you’re 100 percent renewable.” “Nobody else made this mistake that we’re aware of,” Peacock said.

Now the city is scrambling to get out of its long-term, fixed-price energy contracts. But what’s more remarkable is the city also distanced itself from its claim to fame — running on 100 percent solar and wind power.

“The City has never claimed that the electrons produced by its energy contracts are the same electrons consumed in Georgetown,” city spokesman Jackson Daly said in an emailed statement.

Except, that’s the opposite of what city officials sold to the media over the past few years. In fact, “100%” is emblazoned on the city utility’s logo. The city says it can claim this because it purchases more wind and solar power than it actually needs, even though it doesn’t directly get all that power.

Georgetown also produced videos on its solar and wind contracts, framing them as the “first step in Georgetown’s 100 percent renewable plan.” Those videos also suggest Georgetown is directly receiving all that green power, which isn’t the case.

There was likely no bigger proponent of going all in on renewables than Mayor Dale Ross, a Republican called the “unlikeliest hero of the green revolution” by Smithsonian. Ross even gained international attention. The BBC recently called him “an unlikely climate change hero.”

Since joining the green revolution, Ross has been featured in films, including a cameo in former Vice President Al Gore’s 2017 film “An Inconvenient Sequel.” Gore even called Georgetown a “trailblazer” for being the biggest U.S. city to go 100 percent renewable.

Georgetown’s actions inspire other cities, including Washington, D.C., to follow suit and pledged to go 100 percent renewable. The news outlet CityLab compared what Georgetown was doing to the Green New Deal that’s touted by Democratic 2020 presidential hopefuls.

But now Ross seems to be buckling under the public backlash. He reportedly threatened Lorraine Brady, the editor of the local newspaper, for reporting on the city’s green energy woes.

“I was stunned and felt threatened,” Brady wrote in early February, detailing how Ross said he would use his influence as mayor to hurt The Williamson County Sun’s finances. “This apparent effort to silence the press suggests a disregard for the people and their right to know.”

Three weeks earlier, The Williamson County published an article showing Georgetown had lost roughly $30 million since it began purchasing wind energy in 2016. Losses amplified in the last year after it began buying solar power in 2017.

Ross declined to speak to TheDCNF, instead referring questions to Daly, who criticized TPPF and local reporters scrutinizing the city’s decisions.

“Reports by a local newspaper and an anti-renewable energy advocacy organization have attempted to question Georgetown’s status as an electric utility that uses 100 percent renewable energy,” Daly said.

Green Raw Deal?

Georgetown started its move toward renewables in 2012 when the city paid the Lower Colorado River Authority $4.1 million to end its contract. Officials then began looking for other power providers, eventually signing long-term contracts with a solar and wind farm.

Ross called the decision a “no-brainer” that was based on dollars and cents, not global warming activism. The idea was to set electricity rates for the next 20 to 25 years, which he said natural gas providers wouldn’t do.

“This is a long-term pocketbook issue,” Ross said in August. “It’s a win for economics and a win for the environment.”

Georgetown’s utility signed up for wind and solar at fixed prices until 2035 and 2043, respectively, contracting to buy about twice as much power as it actually needs — the excess of which would be sold on the grid.

John Hesser, who joined the Georgetown city council in 2013, said he was the only council member to oppose the long-term green energy contracts, which the city signed in 2014 for wind and 2015 for solar.

“Renewable energy has its limits,” Hesser told TheDCNF. “I was the only one who objected to the contract.”

After a career in finance, Hesser said he saw the risk in betting everything that electricity prices would go up, especially from natural gas and coal plants.

“What I saw was the financial contract looked like a futures contract,” Hesser said. “You do not take a fixed rate contract in a variable rate market. It’s like a mortal sin in finance.”

Energy prices plummeted, particularly natural gas prices, meaning the city lost money selling power back to the market. City figures show it exceeded its electricity budget for 2018 by $10.5 million.

City officials are looking for ways to make up the shortfall, including raising electricity rates. Recent rate hikes raised the average resident’s bill about $13 a month to recover losses selling power on Texas’s electricity market.

The city is also trying to renegotiate its power contracts, and Hesser said “some good things” were happening on that front but did not go into detail.

SOURCE





California Recycling Program Costs Residents $308 Million in 2018

California consumers lost out on at least $308 million in nickel deposits on cans and bottles in 2018, largely because it’s increasingly difficult to find a place to recycle them, according to a new report made public Thursday.

In the last five years, about 40 percent of California’s recycling centers have closed, with more than 100 closing in Los Angeles County alone. The state says 1,600 centers remain open statewide, but advocacy group Consumer Watchdog said there are still barriers to Californians finding a place to recycle and that many grocery stores won’t take back the empties.

The group’s report suggests several reforms to California’s 33-year-old recycling program, which has struggled to be profitable. Democratic state Sen. Henry Stern has also proposed changes to the program.

“Californians plunk down a nickel for their cans … but increasingly they’re only getting half that nickel back on average,” said Consumer Watchdog president Jamie Court. “Consumers are losing, the environment is losing.”

The organization faults state regulators for lax oversight, saying they should more aggressively fine major retailers that won’t redeem containers or undercount the number of deposits they collect. It says the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, known as CalRecycle, should spend more money to promote recycling centers and punish companies that hoard deposits.

“Overall, the program has been highly successful, but recent years have brought challenges,” CalRecycle spokesman Mark Oldfield responded, citing broader market conditions.

He said the agency is looking for ways to help increase buy-back locations but put the monetary value of unredeemed deposits at $272 million, which the consumer group says omits administrative fees required by law that brings the total to $308 million.

The consumer group provided an advanced copy of its report to The Associated Press.

It recommends doubling the amount for deposits to a dime for each glass or plastic bottle or aluminum can to encourage more consumers to recycle, similar to the deposits required in Oregon and Michigan.

Consumers there recycle at least nine of every 10 containers. About three in four containers are recycled in California, but that includes those redeemed by bulk haulers as well as individual consumers. California currently charges 5 cents for containers under 24 ounces and 10 cents for larger containers.

Beyond the $308 million in unclaimed deposits, the group alleges consumers are missing out on hundreds of millions of dollars more, including $200 million in deposits that go to commercial trash haulers and bulk collectors. It also cites a 2014 report from the Container Recycling Institute that shows an undercount in bottle deposits paid by consumers, though Oldfield said that number has never been substantiated.

On the legislative side, Stern’s bill would restrict which retailers must accept containers and allow about $3 million in annual incentives to low-volume recycling centers to try to keep them open. A similar bill passed last year but former Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed it.

Stern said he is trying to help smaller “mom and pop” grocery stores while restoring some incentives for recyclers.

“A lot more work has to be done in this area and I’m hoping to work with consumer advocates to make sure people are getting a fair shake here,” Stern said.

Court said he hopes Stern’s bill is a starting point for negotiations. “It’s not an overhaul of the system, it in fact creates more exemptions for the grocery stores, which is bad,” Court said. “It does a couple things, but it doesn’t go far enough.”

Stern said the system needs improvements before consumers are asked to make larger deposits. Although Democrats control two-thirds majorities in both legislative chambers, Stern said they are cautious about raising fees even though, in theory, consumers would get their higher deposits back when they recycle. “But if we can make a case that there’s a good market rational, I’m open,” he said.

SOURCE





 Australia: BoM is still deceiving

The BoM are always saying that somewhere in some period Australian weather is "hottest".  They no longer are brazen enough to say that the heat is the work of global warming but they clearly aim to create the impression that global warming is ongoing. As with all Green/Left talk, however, they always tell just the bit that suits them.  We read:


Australia just sweltered through its hottest summer on record

Australia suffered its hottest summer on record from December through February and forecasts show the southern autumn will continue to be drier and warmer than average, the government said Thursday.

"After a record hot December and January, it won't come as a surprise that this summer will be our warmest on record," said Andrew Watkins, manager of long-range forecasting at the Bureau of Meteorology.

Although the final figures won't be available until Friday, the bureau said it was already clear the average maximum and mean temperature for the three months of summer would for the first time be more than two degrees Celsius higher than long-term averages.

SOURCE 


Now read just one thing elsewhere that they "overlook:


January–February 2019 North American cold wave

In late January 2019, a severe cold wave caused by a weakened jet stream around the Arctic polar vortex[3] hit the Midwestern United States and Eastern Canada, killing at least 22 people. It came after a winter storm brought up to 13 inches (33 cm) of snow in some regions from January 27–29. On February 2, the polar vortex moved west, and later affected Western Canada and the Western United States.

SOURCE 

So which is it?  Is the earth cooling or warming?  The clear answer is neither. There are just different random fluctuations in different locations that tend to cancel one another out

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

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

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

Even the Washington Post rips green new deal: ‘we can’t afford bad ideas’

The Washington Post editorial board came out against the Green New Deal resolution championed by Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her allies.

“Good intentions aren’t enough. We can’t afford bad ideas,” the editorial board wrote in its Green New Deal takedown posted Sunday.

While the editorial board agreed with the broad energy goals of the Green New Deal, the Post leveled criticism against the resolution’s 10-year timeline and inclusion of totally unrelated welfare demands.

“They should not muddle this aspiration with other social policy, such as creating a federal jobs guarantee, no matter how desirable that policy might be,” the editorial board wrote. (RELATED: Is Ocasio-Cortez Serious? Asks If We Can Still Have Children Because Of Climate Change)

The Post also called the Green New Deal’s goal of reaching “net-zero” greenhouse gas emissions within 10 years “impossible” and criticized the resolution’s “promise to invest in known fiascos such as high-speed rail.”

Ocasio-Cortez joined with Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey to introduce Green New Deal resolutions in early February, which not only included aggressive energy goals, but also a slew of welfare and “social justice” goals.

“These expensive aspirations, no matter how laudable, would do nothing to arrest greenhouse-gas emissions,” the editorial board wrote. “As ostensible parts of a Green New Deal, they divert money and attention from the primary mission: rapidly eliminating emissions between now and midcentury.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez looks on during a march organised by the Women's March Alliance in the Manhattan borough of New York City
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) looks on during a march organised by the Women’s March Alliance in the Manhattan borough of New York City, U.S., January 19, 2019. REUTERS/Caitlin Ochs.

Republicans oppose the Green New Deal, which is to be expected, but Democrats are divided on the bill as well.

A video posted online by pro-Green New Deal environmentalists showed Democratic California Sen. Dianne Feinstein criticizing Ocasio-Cortez’s resolution as unrealistic and unable to pass the Senate.

The Post put forward its own Green New Deal proposal — the paper called for putting a price on carbon dioxide emissions and using government to “fill in the gaps” with additional climate policies.

“Pricing greenhouse-gas emissions with a carbon tax or cap-and-trade program, the economy-wide option, is bigger than the more spectacular-sounding but piecemeal subsidy and mandate programs some environmentalists prefer,” the editorial board wrote.

“But even carbon pricing would not be quite enough,” the Post’s editorial board added. “There are places where the price signal would not come through or be effective. In those circumstances, the government would have to do more.”

The Post also called for the U.S. to remain in the Paris climate accord, which President Donald Trump plans to withdraw from, and ratify the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, which would regulate hydrofluorocarbons.

Of course, the Post’s version of the Green New Deal has about as much of a chance of being enacted as Ocasio-Cortez’s bill — almost none.

SOURCE 





Western Caucus Addresses Green New Deal

Today, members of the Western Caucus and subject matter experts released statements attacking the Green New Deal after the Western Caucus' forum and press conference on Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's legislation:

Chairman Paul Gosar (AZ-04): "The Green New Deal would drive energy production and jobs to countries like China and India that have much worse environmental standards. Global greenhouse gas emissions will increase as a result, in direct contradiction to the main talking point for the Green New Deal. The socialist Green New Deal attempts to provide education, health care and housing to all. The Mercatus Center estimates that the costs of the single-payer health care provision alone would cost $32 trillion in the first 10 years. The Green New Deal is an alarmist pipe dream that seeks to fundamentally “transform America” without a blueprint. This socialist manifesto changes by the day and important details on how a transition of the Green New Deal’s magnitude will occur are missing, including how we will pay for this pie in the sky aspiration."

Vice-Chairman for Indian Affairs and Oceans Don Young (AK-At Large): "The Green New Deal is a PR stunt that will never become law. I’ve fought to secure the rights of Alaskans to develop energy on their lands, and this proposal would turn the clock back on the progress we’ve made. The Green New Deal is a bad deal for Alaska, and I’ll keep fighting this massive government overreach."

Chief Rules Officer Dan Newhouse (WA-04): "The Democrats’ Green New Deal is a bad deal for the American People and ignores sound science. It calls for cutting greenhouse-gas emissions to net zero in just ten years—which could cost Americans $93 trillion. The drafters of this plan set a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero emissions, in ten years because they ‘aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast.’ Government intervention and control of Americans’ lives at this enormous scale is no laughing matter. It dictates that in ten years every existing building in this country must be upgraded and retrofitted for ‘comfort.’ The drafters also want to subsidize those who are ‘unwilling to work.’ It defies sound science by ignoring clean sources of energy like those that power my home state of Washington. Washington relies on clean, renewable, and affordable hydroelectric dams for 70 percent of our power, but the Green New Deal ignores hydropower completely. It would even phase out the clean and reliable baseload energy provided by nuclear power. This Green New Deal would be catastrophic for the American economy and way of life. We must respect our environment, ensure clean air and water for our citizens, and encourage innovative way to produce energy through a variety of reliable, renewable, traditional, and alternative sources."

Michael Zehr, Consumer Energy Alliance: "American consumers need practical energy solutions that come from our nation’s existing mix of affordable energy resources. As it stands, the Green New Deal does not offer cost-efficient or sustainable solutions for hardworking families and businesses across our country." Mr. Zehr also testified that the Green New Deal is estimated to cost hard-working Americans $155.5 billion to replace furnaces, $50 billion to replace water heaters, $11.9 billion to replace gas dryers and $26 billion to replace stoves. "

Myron Ebell, Competitive Enterprise Institute: "The Green New Deal is neither green, nor particularly new, and is about as bad a deal as can be imagined. Its name hearkens back to the romantic memories many Americans have of the New Deal. The New Deal of the 1930s was a series of relatively modest ad hoc programs intended to put people back to work and lift the economy out of the Depression. But the Green New Deal is much more ambitious than the New Deal."

Katie Tubb, The Heritage Foundation: "The ‘Green New Deal’ resolution is filled with lessons. It is exactly how not to successfully enact desperately needed infrastructure investment. It is exactly how not to enact a progressive agenda to address our nation’s dangerous income inequality. And it is exactly how not to win support for critical measures to curb climate change… According to the resolution, a ‘Green New Deal’ would require every car to be electric-powered and ban all fossil fuels, among other proposals. It is difficult to take this unrealistic manifesto seriously, but the economic and social devastation it would cause if it moves forward is serious and real."

Rick Manning, Americans For Limited Government: “Socialism is always a failure. It deprives people of freedom, choice, property and opportunity. The Green New Deal is nothing more or less than a new rationale for a failed government system that has always resulted in enslavement and deprivation of the people — and it must be rejected.”

Marc Morano, Director of Communication, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow: "The environmental Left has been using green scares to push for the same solutions we see today — wealth redistribution, central planning, sovereignty limiting treaties — since the overpopulation scars of the 1960s and 1970s."

SOURCE 





Earth is greener today than it was 20 years ago thanks to 'human activity,' NASA study shows

Rising CO2 helps with that

New findings from NASA revealed that the planet has seen an overall increase in greening over the last 20 years.

A new findings from NASA revealed that the planet has seen an overall increase in greening over the last 20 years, due mainly in part to “ambitious tree planting programs.”

The research published on Feb. 11 found that the greening of earth over the course of the last two decades has shown an overall increase by 5 percent, equal to more than two million square miles of extra green leaf area per year compared to the early 2000s.

The data, which compared satellite images from the mid-1990s taken by Boston University and those collected from two NASA satellites orbiting the earth for 20 years, showed that both China and India are leading the way in the greening of the globe.

Chi Chen of the Department of Earth and Environment at Boston University, lead author of the study, said that the two countries “account for one-third of the greening, but contain only 9 percent of the planet’s land area covered in vegetation.”

Initially, researchers attributed the change to warmer weather, wetter climate and the fertilization from added carbon dioxide, but Rama Nemani, a research scientist at NASA’s Ames Research Center, said that the new data showed that “humans are also contributing.”

Nemani pointed to China’s programs to conserve and expand forests and India’s cultivation of food crops.

“Now that we know direct human influence is a key driver of the greening Earth, we need to factor this into our climate models,” she continued. “This will help scientists make better predictions about the behavior of different Earth systems, which will help countries make better decisions about how and when to take action.”

SOURCE 





Climate alarmists should cool off about Britain's warm weather spell

There’s a difference between weather and climate, as they never tire of telling us.

It goes without saying that the normal reaction to unseasonably warm weather is to leg it to the nearest beer garden and have a pint. But while us reasonable folk in Britain have been busy enjoying the warm spell, the climate alarmists have all gone into meltdown.

Green Party MP Caroline Lucas has already used the weather as an excuse to wheel out the old clichés about global warming being the greatest threat to our species. ‘We shouldn’t be enjoying a heatwave in February’, reads the breathless headline on her article for the Independent. ‘This is what climate breakdown feels like’, she says. In the Guardian, journalist Jonn Elledge asks: ‘Am I the only one who’s terrified about the warm weather?’

It is true that it was a first when temperatures topped 20 degrees centigrade this week. We’ve now had the warmest February day on record. But that is only alarming until you consider that the previous hottest February day came in 1998 – over 21 years ago.

The inconvenient truth for the green lobby is that the current unseasonal spell of warm weather is just that: weather. The Met Office has already said the cause of the current hot spell is a high-pressure front dragging warm air over from Africa, not global warming. And yet the same alarmists who claim that unseasonal cold spells can’t be taken as proof that global warming isn’t real are now asserting that the current warm spell proves beyond all doubt that we’re heading for the end of the world.

The Earth’s temperature does seem to be increasing, and there’s no use denying that. However, the current rise is likely to just be part of the uncontrollable natural cycle of heating and cooling which the planet has always endured. It is also true that a small amount of this temperature increase is likely to be caused by human activities, although the extent to which global warming is man-made remains disputed.

What’s missing in our discussion of climate change and environmental issues is an acknowledgement of the trade-off between human progress and environmental damage. Millions of people in the global South have been lifted out of poverty in the past few decades largely because of cheap and readily available fossil fuels – the same fossil fuels the green lobby would gladly see banned. With 10 per cent of human beings still living in extreme poverty, more fossil fuels will need to burn before everyone can enjoy the living standards and modern comforts we in the West have grown so accustomed to.

So when eco-warriors talk about clamping down on cheap fossil fuels, or reducing global greenhouse gas emissions, they know this will also mean clamping down on development. It is clear that to many of the staunchest environmentalists, economic growth is not something to be celebrated, but something to be managed, and where possible restricted, because of the environmental repercussions it can have. This is why environmentalism is so trendy among the anti-capitalist movement that is currently flourishing on Twitter and within the Labour Party. Never mind that many of the solutions to today’s environmental problems are likely to be technological anyway – meaning that more economic growth, not less, is our best bet for a cleaner and greener future.

Either way, this week’s lovely weather is not worth worrying about. The bottom line is that one February hot spell does not mean the world is dying, and climate alarmists would be better off if they dropped the doom-mongering and just enjoyed the sun like the rest of us. This is Britain, after all, and the rain is guaranteed to be back in no time.

SOURCE 





Beware green technocrats

The UK Committee on Climate Change has nothing but contempt for the public.

Ask people what the UK’s biggest housing problems are, and most will tell you, rightly, that there aren’t enough homes, and that prices and rents are far too high. But UK policymakers are preoccupied by something else and have been for a long time: that our homes contribute to, and are at risk from, global warming.

So it was that a non-departmental public body, the Committee on Climate Change (CCC), announced last week that ‘UK homes are not fit for the future’, and that tough new building standards and enforcement will be necessary. Most shocking of all, the CCC said ‘no new homes should be connected to the gas grid’, and that gas central heating and plumbing should therefore be phased out.

Saving the planet, and homes, from the ravages of climate change is a good idea. But the CCC’s claims are questionable. As I reported here during last Summer’s heatwave, the CCC, like many climate alarmists, has a tendency to exaggerate risk and lose historical perspective. In truth, homes are actually better protected from the slightly warmer, slightly wetter and slightly windier weather that scientists predict might be our future than they were even a generation ago.

The CCC argues that UK emissions-reduction targets cannot be met ‘without near complete decarbonisation of the housing stock’. Gas boilers should therefore be banned in new (and then older) homes, because ‘energy use in homes accounts for about 14 per cent of UK greenhouse gas emissions’. In their place will be more energy-efficient systems, such as ground- and air-source heat pumps, and greater levels of insulation.

The problem with this is that if economic alternatives to gas-fired central heating and hot water existed, there would be no need for standards and their enforcement. But they don’t exist. Zero-carbon homes are the stuff of Grand Designs – a nice idea, but more a fashion accessory for the wealthy than a design principle that will improve lives. Lower-cost experiments with low-carbon construction have resulted in complaints of homes becoming too hot in the summer; having poor ventilation and, therefore, damp and mould; and of requiring their inhabitants to sacrifice comfort. Most notably, and most tragically, the incautious application of energy-efficiency standards as dictated by remote technocrats – rather than consumers, according to their own needs – contributed to the Grenfell disaster.

All of which should provoke debate about the UK’s climate-change policy. UK political parties all make the same bland promises to ‘tackle climate change’, but the devil is in the platitudes. That is to say, they rarely explain costs or consequences. It seems clear that climate-change and energy policies have not been constructed in the voter’s interest, and certainly without his or her consent. And the climate establishment’s contempt runs deep. Ten years ago, I interviewed CCC member Julia King (aka Baroness Brown of Cambridge), after a public talk on UK climate policy. She told me that the problem for politicians is that the population is ‘extremely selfish’, and the main objective of the CCC was ‘behaviour change’. There has been no public debate about the principles underpinning the shift to a lower carbon economy – including banning gas boilers – because members of the climate-change establishment do not believe they are answerable to the public.

The CCC was established by the Climate Change Act (2008) to give ‘independent advice’ to parliament on what its climate targets should be and how they can be achieved. But this act was passed at one of the lowest points in UK democracy, in which a cross-party consensus on climate change, and the endless spawning of quangos, epitomised the lack of political diversity and accountability in Westminster. Accordingly, far from being ‘independent’, the CCC was populated by crony capitalists and green zealots. The result has been a single-minded body that has ignored criticism and dodged debate because, like all unaccountable, undemocratic technocracies, it can.

For people with the means to afford ever-increasing energy bills and higher-cost transport, the CCC’s latest wheeze may seem trivial. But a proposed ban on gas boilers is merely one part of a broader technocratic project that further disempowers the public. So, regardless of whether you think climate change is the huge problem the CCC claims it is, the solution to it cannot be technocracy.

SOURCE 

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

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

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

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

Hormesis: How a scientist's disputed views about pollution may change EPA

The amusing part below is why Leftist scientists (such as Thomas Burke, professor and director of the Risk Sciences and Public Policy Institute at Johns Hopkins' Bloomberg School of Public Health) oppose the recognition of hormesis.

They say you can allow for it in clinical settings but in everyday setting you must not use it because you cannot control the dosage.

The slipperiness there is that the safe use of hormesis is NOT limited to clinical settings.  There are already many instances where hormetic effects emerged safely in everyday settings.  The dosage range for hormetic effects is in fact quite large so it could be safely allowed for in many regulatory settings

Hormesis has in fact emerged in what would conventionally be regarded as a "medium" exposure to ionizing radiation.  But radioactivity is a great bugaboo to the Left so they desperately need to deny that


Ed Calabrese's theory that low doses of toxic chemicals are good for people could soon become U.S. policy.

In early 2018, a deputy assistant administrator in the EPA, Clint Woods, reached out to a Massachusetts toxicologist best known for pushing a public health standard suggesting that low levels of toxic chemicals and radiation are good for people.

"I wanted to check to see if you might have some time in the next couple of days for a quick call to discuss a couple items," Woods wrote to Ed Calabrese.

Less than two weeks later, Calabrese's suggestions on how the Environmental Protection Agency should assess toxic chemicals and radiation were introduced, nearly word for word, in the U.S. government's official journal, the Federal Register.

"This is a major big time victory," Calabrese wrote in an email to Steve Milloy, a former coal and tobacco lobbyist who runs a website, junkscience.com, that seeks to discredit mainstream climate science.

"Yes. It is YUGE!" wrote Milloy, in response.

It was a glorious moment for Calabrese, who had been snubbed for decades by mainstream public health scientists because of his controversial research and theories.

It also signified the major shift the EPA has taken under the Trump administration.More than any before it, this White House has actively sought out advice from industry lobbyists and the scientists they commission in setting pollution rules.

Denouncing the Obama-era EPA as an agency beholden to environmental extremists, the administration has not only dismissed mainstream science but embraced widely discredited alternatives that critics say are not consistent with the agency's focus on improving public and environmental health.

Calabrese's role illustrates a different side of this shift: the potential removal of long-standing public health practices and the incorporation of industry-backed and disputed science into federal environmental policy.

Calabrese spent decades advancing his ideas, facing skepticism and criticism from peers in the toxicology community while winning funding from companies whose bottom lines conformed to his views.

He says most of the pushback he receives comes from left-of-center toxicologists who see him as "the devil incarnate" for accepting industry funding and challenging their ideology. He maintains his science is solid and will be vindicated in time.

"These environmental regulatory people are very closed-minded," he said. They won't reconsider their standards, and see that some of the agents they call harmful "actually can induce adaptive responses," Calabrese said.

This view - that pollution and radiation can be beneficial - has many experts worried. The fact that such a position might become EPA policy, they say, portends a future in which corporate desires outweigh public and environmental health.

"Industry has been pushing for this for a long time," said David Michaels, former assistant secretary of labor for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration who's a professor of environmental and occupational health at George Washington University. "Not just the chemical industry, but the radiation and tobacco industries too."

If the EPA ultimately adopts Calabrese's proposed new regulations, researchers say it could change decades of standards and guidelines on clean air, water and toxic waste. It could also fundamentally alter the way the government assesses new chemicals and pesticides entering the marketplace.

"This is industry's holy grail," Michaels said.

For decades, federal agencies charged with investigating and regulating carcinogens, toxic chemicals and radiation have been guided by the assumption that if a substance is dangerous at some level, it is harmful at any level. The higher the exposure, the more harm done. The lower the dose, the less. And the risk doesn't entirely disappear until the substance is removed.

This is known as the linear no-threshold model, and industry dislikes it because it generally assumes that there is no level, or threshold, of exposure that can be considered totally safe.

But research done on low exposures to toxins has been less than definitive. Experiments designed to test carcinogens and radiation at low levels often produce conflicting results - with, for example, some studies of a chemical showing harm, other studies showing no effect, and a few suggesting a net benefit. In other cases, there is no information at all to guide regulators.

In the face of such uncertainty, the EPA and other agencies have taken a cautious approach by relying on the linear no-threshold model. Where data are absent or uncertain, they assume some level of risk.

It is an imperfect but protective approach, many public health specialists say. They argue that in a human population that varies widely in age, health and levels of chemical exposures, it is imperative that the agency cast a wide, conservative and protective net.

For decades, national and international scientific bodies have upheld this approach. It has been reviewed and re-reviewed dozens of times, including most recently by the congressionally chartered National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine and the EPA.

At the same time, industry has funded scientists to conduct and promote research designed to poke holes in the linear no-threshold model.

And that is where Calabrese comes in. He has long argued that regulators "erred on the side of being protective" at the cost of billions of dollars a year to industry.

Calabrese is a proselytizer of hormesis, the idea that dangerous chemicals and radiation are beneficial at low doses. He says they have a stimulating effect.

Polluting industries have promoted hormesis as an alternative to linear no-threshold for decades, but they had gotten little traction until the EPA embraced it in April.

"It's clearly not mainstream," said Thomas Burke, professor and director of the Risk Sciences and Public Policy Institute at Johns Hopkins' Bloomberg School of Public Health.

Burke and other experts say there are clearly scenarios in which toxic chemicals can have beneficial effects in clinical and pharmacological settings, such as in the case of tamoxifen, which at low doses is effective at preventing and treating breast cancer but at higher doses can lead to blood clots, stroke and uterine cancer.

But, they say, what happens in a clinical setting can't and shouldn't be immediately applied to a regulatory, public health setting.

In the clinical case, "you have a doctor controlling and administering the medication to an individual," said David Jacobs, a professor of public health at the University of Minnesota, who has published studies showing hormetic effects in some industrial pollutants. "The doctor can pull the medication at any time.

"There is no way to control the dose a person gets from an industrial or agricultural chemical," he said. "It's not being doled out in pills and monitored by a physician who can lower it if the patient isn't responding well."

Therefore, Jacobs said, it would be dangerous to use hormesis as a framework for protecting public and environmental health.

SOURCE





California introduces bill banning paper receipts

Based on the usual defective science that ignores the dictum that the toxicity is in the dose

First there was the plastic bag ban, and then the straw ban. And now, the Golden State is coming after paper. California may become the first state to require businesses to offer electronic receipts unless customers specifically ask for paper copies.

On Tuesday, Democratic Assemblyman Phil Ting of San Francisco, with the help of a very tall paper receipt, proposed legislation that would force businesses to offer customers e-receipts.

Many businesses in the Golden State and around the country are already turning toward electronic receipts, but Ting's bill would require it as the standard.

According to Ting, the law is needed because paper receipts pose a health risk many consumers are unaware of - chemicals Bisphenol-A (BPA) and Bisphenol-S (BPS), already prohibited in baby bottles, which cannot be recycled and with which most paper receipts are coated.

The bill would require all businesses to provide proof of purchase receipts electronically starting in 2022 unless a customer asks for a printed copy.

The penalties in Ting's bill are modeled on the state's straw bill, said Nick Lapis, of Californians Against Waste. It calls for written warnings for the first two violations and a fine of $25 a day for subsequent infractions, with an annual $300 cap.

But not everyone is on board with the paper receipt ban.

Republican Assemblyman Brian Dahle of Bieber said he's concerned the receipt proposal could be burdensome for small businesses, won't save that much paper and may not be practical in rural areas without Internet connection.

In addition, "then they have your email, then they'll be marketing to you or selling your information or it can get into privacy issues," he said.

Ting said consumers can still request paper receipts if they are worried about giving out their email addresses.

Many larger stores already offer the choice of paper or electronic receipts but it is unclear if a mandate would cause a hardship for small and medium-size stores, said California Retailers Association spokeswoman Pamela Williams. Her association and other business groups have not taken a stance on the bill.

Ting said businesses can save money by moving away from printed receipts.

The advocacy group Green America, which is pushing a "skip the slip" campaign, estimated that millions of trees and billions of gallons of water are used annually to produce paper receipts in the United States.

Ting cited studies by the Environmental Working Group and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that retail workers have higher concentrations of BPA or BPS than those who do not have regular contact with receipts.

Ting, with use of his living prop - a man wearing a very long paper receipt - demonstrated how large, and wasteful, paper receipts can be.

And he's not the first to point out how comically long receipts can get.

CVS has consistently been the butt of paper receipt jokes with people using them as rulers, costumes and even as cheap fixes for house projects.

SOURCE






AOC's Green New Deal To Cost $93 Trillion; That's $600,000 PER HOUSEHOLD

According to a new study, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's `Green New Deal' would cost up to $93 trillion dollars, or $600,000 per American household.

The study was conducted by the American Action Forum which was lead be Douglas Holtz-Eakin who was in charge of the non-partisan CBO from 2003 to 2005.

This is what the group had to say.

"The Green New Deal is clearly very expensive," the group said in its analysis. "It's further expansion of the federal government's role in some of the most basic decisions of daily life, however, would likely have a more lasting and damaging impact than its enormous price tag."

The Green New Deal called for an end to all gas cars, planes, promised jobs for those who are "unwilling to work" and even called for an end to farting cows.

The American Action Forum even calculated the yearly price of guaranteed green housing, universal health care, and food security which was outlined by the deal, and they found that the cost for each household in America would be $36,100 to $65,300 every year. That would equate to over $600,000 over 10 years.

I don't know about you, but there is no way I could afford that price tag every year.

This plan is not only idiotic, but completely unattainable.

Read what The Washington Free Beacon reported:

"The American Action Forum's analysis shows that the Green New Deal would bankrupt the nation," said Sen. John Barrasso (R., Wyo.), chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

"On the upper end, every American household would have to pay $65,000 per year to foot the bill," he said. "The total price tag would be $93 trillion over 10 years. That is roughly four times the value of all Fortune 500 companies combined. That's no deal."

Barrasso said the focus should be on innovation, rather than costly federal programs.

"Instead, we should promote innovation to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Promising new technologies like advanced nuclear power, carbon capture, and carbon utilization hold the key to significant emissions reductions," he said. "We can lower our emissions without crashing our economy."

The United States is already leading the world in the reduction of carbon emissions.

In Trump's first year in office, emissions were down by 2.7%. The only purpose of the Green New Deal is to grab attention for AOC and her far Left followers.

Check out what the American Action Forum concluded via The Washington Free Beacon:

"The Green New Deal is clearly very expensive," the American Action Forum said. "Its further expansion of the federal government's role in some of the most basic decisions of daily life, however, would likely have a more lasting and damaging impact than its enormous price tag."

In all, the plan would cost between $52.6 trillion and $94.4 trillion, over 10 years. The burden to the taxpayer would amount to between $361,010 and $653,010 for each household over 10 years.

Electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket under such a plan. Barrasso's office previously calculated the Green New Deal would increase electric bills by up to $3,800 per year.

Taking the lead of Ocasio-Cortez, who recently suggested people should stop reproducing because climate change will end the world in 12 years, Democratic 2020 hopefuls have lined up to endorse the Green New Deal.

It's shocking how Democrats aren't condemning Cortez and are actually endorsing her radical ideas.

The facts speak for themselves. The Green New Deal would bankrupt our country and would have lasting negative effects on our nation.

SOURCE





Under Trump's Tariffs, The US Lost 20,000 Solar Energy Jobs

Great!

2016 was the best year on record for solar energy in the United States. A report from the U.S. Department of Energy at the time showed that solar energy was responsible for a much larger share of employment in the electric power sector (43%) than the whole of the fossil fuel industry combined (22%). With such robust numbers, it seemed as though solar energy, and renewables more broadly, were about to revolutionize the energy sector in the United States and lead the push towards cleaner energy and lower carbon emissions.

However, solar energy jobs have stagnated and dipped for two consecutive years since the Department of Energy's initial report, with a loss of 10,000 jobs in 2017 followed by a further 8,000 in 2018. Although some job losses were foreseen as a result of project finalizations in several states, the biggest contributing factor was President Trump's tariffs on solar panels . The first shot fired in what would become a wide-ranging trade war with China in 2018, the U.S.' decision to add a 30% tariff on foreign-produced solar panels had a negative effect on its domestic solar industry, which heavily relies on cheap imports.

The Solar Foundation's latest report has called the last two years "challenging". Since that record year, the solar sector has lost close to 18,000 jobs, but the Foundation is confident that 2019 will be the year they bounce back, as it explains: "Based on the Census survey, the solar industry expects a jobs turnaround with 7% growth in 2019." That being said, the Foundation also acknowledges that its predictions could be wrong, as it was when it projected a 5.2% job growth in the sector for 2018.

SOURCE





`Climate Security' Panel May Give White House Skeptics New Voice

The White House is considering establishing a presidential committee to assess the consensus of scientists and the Pentagon that climate change poses a national security threat, according to a person familiar with the plan.

The move, being spearheaded by William Happer, a physicist and National Security Council senior director who has touted the benefits of carbon dioxide emissions, could give climate skeptics a platform to push back against conclusions reached by Pentagon and other agencies within Trump's own administration that climate change is a major national security threat.

The proposed Presidential Committee on Climate Security has yet to receive sign off by the White House and the panel will be the subject of a deputy-level meeting on Friday, according to the person who requested anonymity to discuss non-public deliberations.

Representatives of the National Security Council did not immediately comment.

The idea drew swift condemnation from climate activists.

"The science and facts on climate change are well-established and do not need a administration-influenced review by an NSC headed panel," said Ron Keys, a retired U.S. Air Force general and senior member of the advisory board at the Center for Climate and Security, a nonpartisan Washington think tank. "What we do need are practical and pragmatic policy choices today to fix the problem."

According to a National Security Council discussion paper obtained by the Washington Post, which reported earlier on the proposed committee, the panel would "advise the president on scientific understanding of today's climate, how the climate might change in the future under natural and human influences, and how a changing climate could affect the security of the United States."

"It's a great idea, spearheaded by a great guy," said Steve Milloy, a policy adviser for the Heartland Institute, a group critical of climate science. "Sounds like the dishonest/know-nothing climate bedwetters in the national security apparatus - as well as those across the federal government - are about to get schooled in CO2 reality."

The effort to upend the military approach to climate change comes as some conservatives grow disappointed the Trump administration is not moving more aggressively to eliminate or undercut a swath of domestic climate policies enacted under former President Barack Obama.

Conservative Concerns

Still the possible new initiative illustrates the seriousness of the Trump administration's commitment to undermining a scientific and government consensus about the national security threat posed by climate change, as rising seas, more intense storms and deeper droughts threaten to uproot communities, destroy property and create new geopolitical tensions around the globe.

Last month the Pentagon issued a report warning of the dire risk of climate change to the military's bases and troops and a worldwide threat assessment of the U.S. intelligence community by the Office of the Director for National Intelligence recognized climate change as a threat. A report issued late last year by several federal agencies said climate change posed a serious threat to the U.S., and one that is quickly getting worse.

SOURCE

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

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

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

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