I’m a climate scientist. Here’s how I’m handling climate grief

How amusing. It seems that at least one group of climate "scientists" is seriousy deranged. How can anyone in good mental health seriously convince themselves that just one degree of warming over the last century or more is worth concern? I liked Roy Spencer's comment: "Everyone knows warming causes snowflakes to melt"

Last September, before the rains came, my field team learnt that it was probably too late for half the blue oaks affected by California’s drought in the region in which we were working. Because of years of ongoing drought, many of the trees would not recover from the long-term water loss and would die. The next morning, I sat outside our science team meeting and cried.

A friend sat with me and explained that she had just recovered from an episode of extreme climate grief brought about by studying rapidly changing terrestrial ecosystems. She had started taking weekends off (many of us work seven days a week) and encouraged me to do so, as well. After we talked, I walked around the parking area for a while, listening to the birds and watching the midday light filter through the diverse trees in downtown Santa Barbara. I breathed the ocean air and grounded myself in the present, where the air was cool and the birds were singing.

Soon after that, I started taking weekends off to kayak near my home in Southern California and hike on the trails above Pasadena, and built a small bird garden on the porch of my apartment. I also started talking frankly to my colleagues about the emotional turmoil that is often sparked by working as a climate scientist today, and many others had similar stories. I am in my mid-thirties, working at NASA as a scientist, and I already have five scientist friends with severe, emergent health challenges. They are all affected by overwork, exhaustion and extreme stress. The only other thing they all have in common is that they study climate change.

Climate scientists have advocated for recognition of the destabilization of Earth’s ecosystems for four decades. Even within my lifetime, the climate system has changed noticeably, with hotter summers, longer dry periods and more frequent and severe storms. Some climate scientists have left the field, some have died and some have retired, but even more are just starting their careers. Early-career climate scientists across a range of fields are faced with comprehensive, esoteric challenges as ecosystems begin to cross tipping points. Knowing how to look at these huge changes and still be able to relax at the end of the day can be an ongoing problem.

Even for the most experienced and well-trained field scientists, changing dynamics can introduce sudden risks to health and safety. Whether in the shape of increased glacier flow rates, rainstorms that become atmospheric rivers, or abrupt permafrost thawing that disrupts sections of highway, these unforeseen risks are emerging increasingly. Scientists with decades of experience in one field location might find themselves confronted with a new atmospheric or hydrologic circulation pattern, an unseasonal storm or freeze, or literally shaky ground. Although we have a responsibility to track how certain sites are changing in a climate that’s getting hotter and more extreme, that can put scientists at considerable risk.

Recently, I spoke to Dave Schimel, one of the scientists who led the work for which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was awarded a Nobel prize in 2007, about how we can address climate grief. After decades of working to convince the public that climate change is real, he said that we need to work on solutions. He thinks that the current generation of climate scientists needs to move on from education and advocacy to providing solutions for mitigation, adaptation and resilience. The best treatment for climate grief, he says, is knowing you’ve made a contribution to reducing emissions or building resilience.

For me, healing comes in the form of spending my time outside work enjoying the world around me, rewilding hard-to-access land, writing letters to congresspeople and protecting migrating birds. I’ve spoken to many others who have planted gardens for native pollinators, eaten from local farms and advocated for change with local policymakers. Although small actions might not solve the climate crisis, they remind us that we are intrinsic parts of the world and its ecosystems.

In California, rainstorms started in December and lasted until May. Reservoirs were refilled, and many oaks were saved. The hills glowed with yellow and orange wildflowers, and leaves exploded from branches in rapid growth, a benefit of the winter of moisture. For just this one year, the blossoming hills gave me a breath of relief amid the ongoing struggle, and I rededicated myself to continuing to fight for everything we can still save.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02619-0

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

Sweden to lift parliamentary ban on uranium mining

The Swedish Parliament has shown majority support for a lift on the ban, according to Pourmokhtari.

The government plans to build at least ten large reactors in the next 20 years to meet the demand for low-carbon energy. Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson told reporters in January that the government is “changing the legislation”, which will increase nuclear investment in the country.

Swedish ministers decided to phase out nuclear generation in 1980 and have historically taken an anti-nuclear stance. However, this policy was repealed in June 2010. Pourmokhtari is a public advocate of nuclear generation and says it should form a part of Sweden’s future energy mix.

“The government is aiming at doubling electricity production in 20 years,” Pourmokhtari told The Times this weekend.

“For our clean power system to function, a large part of this has to be dispatchable where nuclear power is the only non-fossil option. Nuclear power also has a reduced environmental footprint and requires limited resources in comparison with most energy sources.”

Uranium mining has become a point of concern for Europe’s nuclear industry as Russia dominates the processing of the fuel. Following the country’s invasion of Ukraine last year, the EU has sought to reduce its energy dependence on Moscow.

Kazakhstan, however, is by far the largest uranium miner. According to the World Nuclear Association, the country produced the largest share of mined uranium (43% of the global supply) in 2022, followed by Canada (15%) and Namibia (11%).

The European Parliament has been the site of heated debate over the role of nuclear generation in a net-zero future. France, which generates around 70% of its energy from nuclear sources, has been vocally pro-nuclear. Meanwhile, Germany, which has shut down its final three nuclear power stations this year, says that the fuel is not renewable.

Sweden accounts for 80% of the EU’s uranium deposits and already extracts uranium as a waste product when mining for other metals.

Several companies, including Australia’s Aura Energy and Canada’s District Metals, have already expressed interest in developing uranium sites in Sweden.

https://www.mining-technology.com/news/sweden-lift-uranium-mining-ban/?cf-view

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

California's solar mess

In the land of palm trees and sunny skies, the saga of California’s energy industry unfolds, and its latest chapters paint a distressing picture. In a state known for its commitment to renewable energy, residents interested in harnessing rooftop solar face a surprising hurdle in the form of government regulation. As the state struggles to grapple with a power grid afflicted with numerous issues stemming from surging demand, the burden of rooftop solar falls disproportionately on the shoulders of individuals and businesses alike, while highlighting the flaws of an adulterated energy market.

The State of California could be “exhibit A” of what utility regulator Travis Kavulla was picturing when he wrote:

Understanding the [energy] sector is not just important because electricity is important; the market for electricity is really a window into the workings of the modern administrative state. The economic regulation of the sector often blurs the line between government and business, turning each into the other’s client. Even in places where competitive features exist, the marketplace is still designed by government and warped by subsidies. Today there is no genuinely free market for electricity. Ironically, many of the ideologically driven, market-oriented reforms of recent decades have precipitated a retrenchment of the monopoly problem they intended to solve.

California’s history with rooftop solar systems dates back to 1996, when the state introduced the Net Energy Metering (NEM) program. This innovative billing system allowed owners of electricity generation systems, such as rooftop solar installations, to sell surplus electricity back to the grid at retail rates. This incentive proved enticing to consumers, making alternative power generation more appealing as it helped defray the substantial cost of solar systems over their lifespan. Consequently, it fostered a diverse energy resource mix and facilitated private investments in renewable energy.

The initial iteration of NEM, aptly named NEM 1.0, achieved resounding success for California and its residents in terms of increasing solar uptake. Solar system installations surged to record highs, costs of solar systems decreased annually, and the share of energy generated from individual systems kept climbing, meeting all expectations set forth by regulators.

However, after two decades of relative stability under NEM 1.0, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) approved NEM 2.0 as its successor. While NEM 2.0 maintained some benefits of its predecessor, such as full retail rates for excess power generation and exemptions from standby and fixed charges, it introduced a one-time interconnection fee of $75-$150 and a charge of approximately $0.02/kWh on the total electricity consumed by the grid from new NEM customers.

In less than three years after the launch of NEM 2.0, the CPUC embarked on a reform journey that would change the foundations of this once-celebrated program. Collaborating with Investor-Owned Utility companies (IOUs), the CPUC conducted extensive studies, focus groups, and hearings from August 2020 to August 2021, aiming to evaluate the impacts of net metering on the grid and consumers. A chief concern with NEM 1.0 and NEM 2.0 is that the program was not cost-effective for utilities and non-participating customers. The outcome was a proposed NEM 3.0, released in November 2022, which received unanimous approval from the CPUC in December of the same year and was scheduled to take effect in April 2023 as a net billing tariff.

Under NEM 3.0, consumers could expect to receive a mere 25% of the credit they enjoyed under NEM 1.0 or 2.0 during the summer months. Regrettably, this new policy painted a bleak picture for individuals, schools, and small businesses that were considering future renewable generation. Pre-existing system users could be grandfathered into their current NEM rate by way of an application. However, no such luck for those who were stuck in the process or slow to complete their system installation.

One of the primary goals behind NEM 3.0 was to nudge consumers into adopting storage systems alongside their solar installations. During the previous iterations of NEM, the percentage of NEM systems that had storage was lackluster, with less than 6 percent of systems including storage by 2019. With NEM 3.0, individuals can expect, on average, to pay an additional $8,000–$16,000 to have a storage system installed alongside their solar. While a 26% federal tax credit for qualifying storage installations provides some relief, it exemplifies a pattern of shifting the cost burden onto the consumers, even customers without solar. According to Severin Borenstein, Meredith Fowlie, and James Sallee at Haas School of Business at the University of California, Berkeley, “Utility customers who install solar save 20 to 30 cents for every kilowatt-hour their system produces, but the utility’s costs go down by only 7 to 9 cents. That leaves 10 to 20 cents in costs that still must be covered, so electricity rates go up, which hits people without solar panels.” Their working paper can be found here.

The dilemma of rooftop solar does not solely extend from statewide regulations either. Certain municipalities have also enacted restrictive regulations that make it difficult for homeowners to adopt solar energy solutions. These ordinances often impose stringent permitting processes, cumbersome paperwork, and excessive fees, dissuading residents from pursuing rooftop solar installations. Varying and inconsistent permitting requirements across jurisdictions create confusion and prolong the approval process for solar projects, leading to frustration among potential adopters.

Moreover, solar energy systems face a fundamental challenge—their peak generation occurs during the middle of the day when the demand for power is relatively low. In contrast, the highest demand for energy occurs in the evenings, when people return from work, plug-in electric vehicles, and use air conditioning. While large-scale storage systems could potentially offset this disparity, they are costly and rarely built at the scale required to power entire cities. Unfortunately, the CPUC’s decision seemed to favor the interests of massive IOUs over individual customers.

Adding to this predicament, California enacted a law in 2020 that required all new residential single-family homes, condominiums, and apartment buildings three stories or lower to install solar systems. Although the state aspires to lead in renewable energy production, this rule adds to the housing cost burden, further exacerbating the state’s existing housing and homelessness crisis. As Lawrence J. McQuillan notes in How to Restore the California Dream: Removing Obstacles to Fast and Affordable Housing Development this building requirement can add between “$10,000 to $30,000 to the cost of a new home.” The group Solar Rights Alliance purports that in California, a typical rooftop solar installation costs over $25,000, more than the rest of the United States (~$22,000), and far more than other countries like Japan ($13,200) or Germany ($9,600). Adding additional costs for home buyers while simultaneously reducing the ability to effectively pay off those accrued costs is a surefire way to compound the problem that is already prevalent.

If the concern is that NEM adds costs to other grid customers, who are not using solar, then all the more reason to have freer markets in electricity. Embracing a more market-driven approach could help alleviate the issues faced by California’s energy industry. By allowing supply and demand dynamics to dictate pricing, consumers who generate excess solar power could negotiate fair compensation directly with those who require it, promoting a more efficient allocation of resources. With a transparent and competitive market, innovative solutions such as peer-to-peer energy trading platforms could emerge, where individuals with excess solar power could sell it directly to others, bypassing the need for complex regulatory frameworks like NEM. This would not only empower consumers but also encourage investments in energy storage technologies that could bridge the gap between solar generation and peak demand periods, benefiting both solar owners and other grid customers. Ultimately, a freer electricity market could pave the way for a more resilient, cost-effective, and sustainable energy future.

Until then, California’s ambitious journey towards renewable energy and climate resilience is therefore marred by this series of policy choices. IOUs have been either direct beneficiaries, or have been slated to receive billions of dollars in order to develop and maintain infrastructure that is efficient, reliable, and safe. But the results are underwhelming. Planned outages across the state for load management at the hottest points of summer leave people vulnerable to heat-related illness. Their lack of powerline maintenance is a constant cause of fires that have led to tragedies that have burned hundreds of thousands of acres, tens of thousands of homes and businesses, and over 100 deaths.

https://catalyst.independent.org/2023/08/22/californias-solar-dilemma/

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

Seaweed farming

It was September 2017, and Elsom attended a lecture by renowned environmentalist Tim Flannery. In his speech, Flannery discussed the potential of seaweed to store quantities of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. It instantly inspired Elsom. He would farm seaweed and help save the planet.

But there was another twist. Elsom’s commitment coincided with recent research out of the CSIRO and James Cook University in Townsville, north Queensland – that some compounds in seaweed had the ability to dramatically reduce methane production in cows and sheep. They would discover that two species of a particular Australian red seaweed – the Asparagopsis taxiformis (found in warm Queensland waters), and the Asparagopsis armata – (common in the cooler waters of Tasmania) – reduced livestock methane production by up to 90 per cent if added to the animals’ diet.

Given that 11 per cent of Australia’s total greenhouse gas emissions came from ruminants (cattle, sheep, goats), Elsom saw an opportunity. He would grow commercial quantities of Asparagopsis and take a significant chunk out of the world’s, greenhouse gas emissions. (The planet’s 1.5 billion cows and 1.1 billion sheep contribute roughly 6 per cent to all global emissions.)

Elsom’s Tasmanian-based company Sea Forest was born. The challenge was to grow enough seaweed to actually make a lasting difference.

By 2021, Sea Forest had attracted more than $40m in investment funds, and it continues to expand. By late last year it was producing 7000 tonnes of Asparagopsis per year, or enough to feed 300,000 cattle.

Sea Forest is not alone in the seaweed farming industry, which is rapidly developing into a multibillion-dollar global industry. In August 2021, an Australian Seaweed Institute report predicted the domestic industry could potentially generate $1.5bn annually by 2040, while reducing greenhouse emissions by 10 per cent. And that’s all thanks to a native Australian red seaweed, and visionaries like Sea Forest chief executive Elsom. He told The Australian last year: “Australia is one of the most biodiverse places on the planet and there’s a tremendous opportunity to better understand the life of seaweed and its many uses.”

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/weekend-australian-magazine/australians-changing-the-world-in-the-fields-of-sustainability-food-technology-and-dining/news-story/bd2a02193a4bf867d3275ad82c96c146Email&utm_campaign=Editorial&utm_content=TA_DAILY_PM-CUR_01

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

My other blogs. Main ones below

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM )

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

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

Joe Biden Enjoys His 1967 Corvette While Forcing You to Go Electric

While President Joe Biden enjoys his beautiful gas-guzzling 1967 Corvette Stingray, he wants to dictate what kind of car you get to own. Auto companies will be forced to produce more EVs, even if Americans don’t want to buy them.

The Biden administration ought to be looking at lowering barriers it has imposed on oil drilling, reducing gas prices, and scaling down burdensome regulations.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed de facto electric vehicle mandate would force auto manufacturers to make nearly 70% of their new automobiles electric by 2032. Now, Biden’s Department of Transportation is following up with a second punch. On the Friday before Congress’s August recess, when members were leaving town, DOT released a new, expensive, and likely unattainable fuel economy standards proposal requiring passenger cars to meet a standard of 66 miles per gallon and light trucks to reach 54 miles per gallon by 2032.

This new burden being foisted on the auto industry, working-class Americans, and small businesses is being perpetrated in the name of stopping climate change, a top priority of the Biden administration that is being zealously pursued regardless of how it will hurt Americans and how little of an impact their extreme proposals will have on the climate.

According to The Heritage Foundation’s chief statistician, Kevin Dayaratna, if the United States were to eliminate not some, not most, but all of its conventional fuel use, we could expect a less than 0.2-degree Celsius reduction in global temperature by the year 2100. Thus, despite claims that the global environment will collapse within the next decade, leading to a possible “human extinction event” unless the most drastic measures are taken, this onerous regulation will have no environmental benefit and wreak plenty of economic havoc across the nation.

Just as with the Biden regime’s proposed efficiency standards on dishwashers, gas stoves, and water heaters, DOT makes the argument that such restrictive fuel economy standards will save Americans money even though it openly admits “consumers would pay more for new vehicles upfront.” It claims the difference can be made up over time through savings at the gas pump. But the more likely result, when Biden’s overall climate agenda is factored in, is higher auto and gas prices, less consumer choice, and reduced road safety.

As DOT argues, at face value, a higher miles per gallon standard does mean fuel can be stretched further. But when Biden says, “I guarantee you, we’re going to end fossil fuel,” add that to shutting down oil pipelines while draining the nation’s strategic petroleum reserves, and investors become reluctant to spend, energy supply contracts, and fuel prices rise. Thus, while the fuel in these new cars’ tanks might go further, if it costs more, then it cancels out the efficiency savings.

As with the EPA’s proposed tailpipe emissions rule intended to convert much of America over to EVs, the new DOT fuel economy standards mean less consumer choice. Such high fuel standards are extremely difficult to achieve and are unlikely to be attained, meaning that if this rule were to be finalized as is, auto manufacturers will be constrained in what types of vehicles they can build.

Auto companies will be forced to produce more EVs, even if Americans don’t want to buy them. These cars will be more expensive, take longer to recharge than a simple gas fill-up, and will not work as well in very cold or very hot climates. They likely will have reduced functional versatility, such as not possessing any real towing capacity, meaning consumers will be paying more for cars that do less.

Lastly, these fuel economy standards will reduce passenger safety. Per DOT’s own admission noted above, the expected increase in auto prices would make purchasing a new car prohibitively expensive for many Americans.

With unaffordable newer models, consumers lose access to the latest advancements in safety technology. As Americans work to keep their old cars on the road longer and odometers tick up, the law of averages dictates that parts will fail, which not only results in costly repairs, but sadly, can lead to serious car accidents, as older models are shown to be less safe in accidents relative to new vehicles.

The DOT’s latest fuel economy standards, especially when considered in conjunction with the EPA’s tailpipe rule, should be rejected. Of equal importance, it is long past due for the central planners in Washington, D.C., to leave drivers alone.

https://www.heritage.org/energy/commentary/joe-biden-enjoys-his-1967-corvette-while-forcing-you-go-electric ?

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

Weird California Transportation Policy

Not only does California want to require that all new vehicles sold in the Golden State are electric by 2035, it also wants all light-duty vehicles and school buses sold there to have “bidirectional charging” by model year 2030. Bidirectional charging means that while your electric vehicle is plugged in to charge, if California needs it, it can take the energy stored in your battery and return it to the electrical grid.

Imagine the surprise when you go to bed thinking your electric pick-up truck will be fully charged for a long-haul business trip the next day, only to find when you wake up that the government has taken your electricity back. When I told this to Daniel in Midland, he said, “That’s crazy!”

Some people think that California’s blackout problems mean that it should not require EVs, as they just drain more power from an already overtaxed grid. But State Sen. Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, is sponsoring a bidirectional charging mandate bill because she believes that energy stored in Californians’ batteries will solve the state’s energy shortage.

Skinner said, “The battery capacity in today’s electric vehicles give them the potential to be mini power plants on wheels. That’s crucial as California continues to face unprecedented impacts from climate change, including record heatwaves, wildfires, and destructive storms that can lead to power outages.”

Some vehicles, including the Nissan Leaf, the Hyundai Ioniq 5, and the Ford F-150 Lightning, already have such bidirectional charging systems.

Skinner’s bill has passed the Senate and three committees in the State Assembly. If it passes the State Assembly, Gov. Gavin Newsom will likely sign it into law. Last September, he called the technology a “game changer” and said that “this is the future.”

The bill also includes the ability for the state to require other types of vehicles to have bidirectional charging systems at the discretion of the California Air Resources Board without the passage of a new law. It the state’s power problems are not solved with electricity from cars and school buses, it can draw down electricity from tractors, public transit buses, and trucks.

Carbuzz has calculated that “a 60 kWh EV battery [a typical electric vehicle battery] can provide backup power to the average US household for two to three days.” But that doesn’t absolve the state’s largest power company, Pacific Gas and Electric, of the responsibility to provide power to homes. People should not have to choose between transportation needs, such as going to work or taking someone to the doctor, and keeping their refrigerators and home heating operating.

Bidirectional charging changes the concept of the right to personal mobility and property rights. If EV owners in California must return the electricity in their car batteries to the grid during power shortages, they don’t truly own the energy in their EVs. In essence, the state has the power to tell them when to travel. It also has the power to tell them where to travel, because the state is setting up the network of electric charging stations.

This vast attempt at industrial regulation is meant to reduce global temperatures. But even getting rid of all American fossil fuel emissions would only reduce global temperatures by 0.2 degrees Celsius by 2100, according to government models, because increases in emissions are coming from China, Russia, India, Africa, and Latin America.

Industrial energy policy is not the only reason for the migration from California to Texas. California’s high taxes and high cost of housing are also factors. But the contrast between attitudes about transportation, looked at as a right and a key to the American dream, is stunning and a lesson to other states.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/08/17/dont-bring-california-transportation-policies-texas

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

Why the Montana climate change lawsuit ruling is total bunk

A Montana district court under Judge Kathy Seeley has ruled in favor of a group of green Zoomers, backed by fearmongering legal outfit Our Children’s Trust, who sued the state over its regulatory policy of not using carbon emissions as a standard when permitting new fossil fuel projects.

In other words, the war on domestic energy continues apace, with judges now getting in on the action.

It will do nothing to slow warming, as the world’s leading polluters (like China) will be utterly unaffected by it.

It will do massive economic harm to average Americans, by driving up energy prices.

President Biden’s federal war on production proves that: Energy prices have skyrocketed under him, and his fossil-fuel clampdown is a huge contributor.

Plus, beyond the practical considerations here, it’s absurd for a judge to find a state-constitutional right to be protected from the warming that results from global carbon emissions.

Yes, carbon output contributes to warming.

But warming is a slow-motion risk, whereas carbon drives currently everything in the modern economy: refrigeration, clean water, farming.

No one needs to be protected from emissions.

They will, however, need lots of protection if green nuts succeed in their decarbonization schemes and all the goods and services we count on go dark one by one.

The Montana attorney general’s office was dead right to call the judgment a “taxpayer-funded publicity stunt” — and to plan an appeal.

Indeed, the judge herself is a true believer, apparently citing pie-in-the-sky claims that Montana can go 80% renewable in seven years as a factor in her judgment.

Luckily, the decision is a low-level state one, limited in scope and nearly certain to be reversed.

https://nypost.com/2023/08/15/why-the-montana-climate-change-lawsuit-ruling-is-total-bunk/

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

Susan Crockford: Climate activists are silent on polar bears because their doom-mongering blew up in their faces

A Grist article last week pandered to activist polar bear specialists over their failed climate change agenda as it tried to minimize why the climate movement doesn’t talk about polar bears anymore. Apparently, the Arctic icon has “largely fallen out of fashion” through “overexposure” resulting in polar bear images invoking “cynicism and fatigue.” But that isn’t really true, is it?

While there is an admission that the over-hyped lies about starving bears promoted by National Geographic in 2017 and 2018 were a factor, there is no mention in the article of the well-known, documented evidence of scientists’ own failed assumptions that polar bears require summer sea ice for survival have had any impact on public opinion (Amstrup et al. 2007; Crockford 2015, 2019, 2022, 2023; Lippold et al. 2019; Rode et al. 2021).

Thriving populations in the Chukchi Sea and elsewhere amid low summer ice levels have busted the myth that polar bears need ice year-round.

https://polarbearscience.com/2023/08/08/climate-activists-are-silent-on-polar-bears-because-their-doom-mongering-blew-up-in-their-faces/

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

My other blogs. Main ones below

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM )

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

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

Sorry Mainstream Media, Climate Change Has Not Caused 2023’s Heatwaves

Yeah, it’s summer and summer is typically hot, but it has been hotter than usual this summer across much of the globe.

Hundreds, if not thousands, of local daily temperature records around the world have been set during the present heatwave, which, in some locations, has persisted for an extended period of time. The heatwaves are real. I say heatwaves because it is not a single global heatwave but a series of regional ones.

For progressive bloviating politicians and alarmed reporters in mainstream media the cause of the present hot weather is simple: climate change. As H. L. Mencken once said, “[f]or every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.”

Climate change is a long-term phenomenon, driven by a combination of numerous factors at different locations during different eras. A single year’s spike in heatwaves is not evidence of long-term climate change; a steadily increasing trend in heatwaves would be, but that’s not what the evidence shows. Instead, data show that the warming of the past 150 to 170 years has not produced a trend of increasing heatwaves. As a result, the modest recent rise in global temperatures serves as a backdrop or baseline for the recent heatwave; it is not its cause.

It turns out a confluence of overlapping weather and meteorological events account for the pattern of persistent heatwaves in many locations.

One event contributing to a global rise in temperatures this year is the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Haʻapai volcanic eruption. Water vapor makes up 98 percent or more of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and the subsea Hunga Tonga-Hunga Haʻapai eruption added an additional 10 to 13 percent to atmospheric water vapor. Scientists from NASA and the European Space Agency agree that this huge addition to the dominant atmospheric greenhouse gas is contributing significantly to this years’ temperatures.

In addition, El Niño is back, and it’s a strong one. Before the summer heatwave struck and the mainstream media focused on climate change as the reason behind it to the exclusion of almost every other factor, the media was warning that with the shift from La Niña to El Niño, hotter temperatures would result.

"Essentially, the atmosphere borrows heat out of the Pacific, and global temperatures increase slightly. This happened in 2016, the time of the last strong El Niño," commentary from The Conversation noted. "Global temperatures increased by about 0.25 F (0.14 C) on average, making 2016 the warmest year on record. A weak El Niño also occurred in 2019-2020, contributing to 2020 becoming the world’s second-warmest year."

The Heartland Institute and other groups held a press briefing in early July when the El Niño was officially declared, warning that as summer heated up, the mainstream media would largely begin to ignore El Niño’s role in present temperatures, focusing instead on climate change. Our concerns proved prescient. As heatwaves began setting local records, discussions of El Niño’s role disappeared.

One little discussed factor affecting this summer’s temperatures is the increasingly active sun. After a period of relative quiescence with little solar activity, the sun has become active again. An active sun has a direct, if modest, effect on the Earth’s temperatures.

Regionally, a variety of entirely natural weather patterns have also contributed to warming.

Across parts of the western and southeastern United States, and in southern and central Europe, heat domes or “blocking patterns” formed and persisted. As CNN described the situation, “an enormous, relentless stubborn ridge of high pressure has trapped air inside in a ‘heat dome’ resulting in extreme temperatures as the dome parks itself over areas.”

The blocking patterns in Europe trapped a heat dome there as it did in the western United States. In addition, in early July, the jet stream shifted. These two meteorological events combined to deliver colder than average, even fall like temperatures, in northern Europe and across the United Kingdom in July and into August, while locking-in, for an extended period of time, extreme summer temperatures in a large swath of southern European nations abutting or near the Mediterranean Sea.

Another factor contributing to hotter than average temperatures this summer is changes in the ocean circulation patterns in the North Atlantic. As Judith Curry, Ph.D., and Jim Johnstone note, it seems that sea surface temperatures in the North Atlantic are unusually high this summer, due to significant changes in the North Atlantic Oscillation and weak surface winds. The resulting increase in Atlantic Ocean temperatures has been hyped in the media, but wrongly attributed to long-term climate change rather than localized, natural weather anomalies.

Fossil fuel use does not cause volcanic eruptions, oceanic and wind current shifts, or changes in solar activity, thus their use can’t be blamed for this summer’s heatwaves.

https://townhall.com/columnists/hsterlingburnett/2023/08/15/sorry-mainstream-media-climate-change-has-not-caused-2023s-heatwaves-n2626888

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

Anatomy of the climate change hoax

Judith Sloan has decided to name Australia's Minister for Climate Change and Energy, ‘B1’. I prefer to think of Chris Bowen as a joker, because if he is not a joker, he is delusional. And that would make Senator McKim doubly delusional considering the outbursts we witnessed from him last week.

My belief in their delusion has been confirmed in my mind by reading Steven E Koonin’s book Unsettled: what the climate science tells us, what it doesn’t, and why it matters. The book is replete with case studies about how science is being used and dramatically misused. It is the latter that has formed a pattern in our current public debate on climate.

Koonin explains the process that normally happens between when the science is being done and when we get to hear about it. He describes it as the ‘long game of telephone that starts with the research literature and runs through the assessment reports to the summaries of the assessment reports and on to the media coverage’.

Koonin realised this when he was asked to ‘stress test’ the literature about climate change. He was ‘not only surprised, but ‘shaken’ by what he found. At each point along the telephone game, there was dilution, obfuscation, or denial of what the science did and did not know. That means, as far as I can tell, that by the time the media got hold of the reports about the assessment of the science based on the actual scientific literature, it was a mess – but it was a targeted mess designed to fit the alarmist narrative.

Here are some results he found that contradict the meta-story in the media:

Humans have a growing but small warming influence.

The multitude of climate models disagree with or even contradict each other.

Government and UN press reports do not accurately reflect the reports themselves.

One of the founders of Green Peace, Patrick Moore, has catalogued other ‘fake, invisible catastrophes and threats of doom’ in his book (of that name). He also gives detailed descriptions of the fuller science on topics such as the Great Barrier Reef (and why Dr Peter Ridd was correct), why the CO2 alarmists are wrong, the polar bear fear of extinction, and many other fearful environmental stories that have become disconnected from reality. As an example of the dangers of computer modelling as tools for predicting the future, he notes: ‘The authors of this paper [about polar bears] are once more using a computer model as if it can actually predict the future. It’s time to call the alarmists out on this.’

Does our Minister for Climate Change and Energy read this stuff? If not, do his advisors? Worse still, on what grounds does the Labor government condemn so many Australians to hardship from his unrealistic energy agenda? Why does this federal leadership on energy make life harder for the most vulnerable of society? Why does this government prattle on about aged care while taking healthy options (like heating) from them? Are the Labor Party and its nest of advisors unaware of the basic science that deaths due to increased cold are much more frequent for the vulnerable than warmer climes? Do they understand that during the last warming period the Earth flourished in the Northern Hemisphere? Has it escaped them that the greening of the planet is doing better with whatever mild warming is occurring?

How does the Minister avoid the logic of Ian Plimer, Bjorn Lomberg, or Michael Shellenberger? Where are the public, informed debates about these very public contradictions within the science? Why haven’t journalists, or the Opposition, peppered him with this alternative assessment by Koonin?

…the science is insufficient to make useful projections about how the climate will change over the coming decades, much less what effect our actions will have on it.

I really like how Claire Lehmann summarised this in her recent articles in The Australian. She outlined exactly how the telephone game happened. She notes, ‘GenCost’s modelling applies to hypothetical power prices from 2030 onwards – assuming all the infrastructure the Albanese government is currently investing in need not be accounted for. Is Chris Bowen aware of this? Has anybody told him?’

Lehmann proceeded to list questions that Bowen should be asked about his sources on which to make his claims about ‘the cheapest source of energy’.

But Bowen will not answer these questions. On that I am certain. Why? Because this scenario is the same as one through which we have just recently lived – Covid. Were we allowed to openly pursue the uncertainties in the science then? No. Were we allowed to talk publicly about our concerns? Not really, if we wanted to keep our jobs or social media accounts. Was our freedom about how to live, including how to earn our income and how we could spend our money, curtailed? Yes. Was the future generation being penalised for the acrimonious actions of fear-mongering and controlling elites? Yes. Were any of those elites making millions, if not billions of dollars from the misfortune of others? Yes.

And that is exactly what we are experiencing now in Australia, again. Senator Matt Canavan is correct in calling for a Royal Commission into how we managed Covid.

I claim that we need a Royal Commission into our response to climate science, now, while our economy and freedoms still have some semblance of democratic civility left in them. Without such a strong corrective, environmental alarmism continues to be a platform from the sneering elites in politics, business, and education to cancel the thoughts and freedoms of others.

Will we get such a review at this time? No – the B1 Joker appears to lack the capacity to understand these life-changing dynamics of his portfolio. And if the capacity is not there, he cannot have any will to change his approach even in the face of overwhelming public frustration.

Will anyone else?

https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/08/from-unsettled-to-unhinged

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

Is it time to ban electric vehicles?

The New York Fire Department recently reported that so far this year there have been 108 lithium-ion battery fires in New York City, which have injured 66 people and killed 13. According to FDNY Commissioner Laura Kavanagh, “There is not a small amount of fire, it (the vehicle) literally explodes.” The resulting fire is “very difficult to extinguish and so it is particularly dangerous.”

Last year there were more than 200 fires from batteries from e-bikes, EVs and other devices.

A fire ignited at an e-bike shop and killed four people near midnight on the morning of June 20. Two individuals were left in critical condition. The fire commissioner has warned New Yorkers that such devices could be very dangerous and typically explode in such a way that renders escape impossible.

FDNY also reports that in just three years, lithium-ion battery fires have surpassed those started by cooking and smoking as the most common causes of fatal fires in New York City. It’s happening all over the country as these blazes have become commonplace. Cars and e-bikes are randomly blowing up in driveways and garages.

Now let’s be honest: 13 deaths in a city the size of New York with some 8 million people is hardly an epidemic. Regulations should always be based on a cost versus benefit calculation, or there would be no cars at all.

And yet the same scaremongers on the left who have zero tolerance and want bans for small risks when it comes to everything from swimming pool diving boards, gas stoves, plastic straws, vaping, fireworks and so on, have a surprisingly high pain threshold when it comes to people dying or suffering critical injured from “green” electric battery fires.

Or consider this: In 1965, Ralph Nader almost single-handedly helped ban the popular Chevrolet Corvair — famous for its engine placed in the back trunk of the car. Nader’s bestselling shock book “Unsafe at Any Speed” declared the car was deadly. But there was no real evidence of that claim, and to this day there are no reliable statistics on how many passengers — if any — died in Corvairs from rear-end accidents.

What is indisputable is that EVs will cause far more deaths than Corvairs ever did.

One other example: There have been more fatalities in just one city in a single year from lithium-ion batteries in cars than all the people who died from the 1979 Three Mile Island nuclear plant accident — which was zero.

Yet, after the accident, thanks to the environmentalists’ fear campaign (with the help of the blockbuster anti-nuke movie “The China Syndrome”), no domestic nuclear plants were built for three decades. That is despite the fact that nuclear plants emit no greenhouse gases.

But with EVs, the greens are pushing aside any concerns about the collateral damage of deaths and injuries. Biden wants to mandate that nearly ALL new cars sold in the U.S. be EVs by 2032. If that happens, many thousands of Americans may die or will be inured from electric vehicle fires.

All this is especially hypocritical because once upon a time the left’s mantra was “no trading blood for oil.” Now they are willing to trade blood in exchange for getting Americans to stop using oil. An irony of all this is that because of all the energy needed to produce windmills, solar panels and electric batteries, new studies are showing that the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions to this “net zero” transition is close to zero. It turns out, green energy causes some pollution, too.

For the record, I’m not in favor of the government banning EVs or e-bikes or just about anything. I just believe that we should make policy decisions based on real and factual risk assessments, not false scares and sensationalism.

As for the future of EVs, maybe it’s time for Ralph Nader to write a sequel to “Unsafe at Any Speed.”

https://www.bizpacreview.com/2023/08/15/stephen-moore-is-it-time-to-ban-electric-vehicles-1386863/

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

Gas bans ignite culture war, battery bonus is better, says Australian Liberal Party senator

Bans on household gas use risk opening up a fresh culture war over climate policy, moderate Coalition senator Andrew Bragg has warned, adding that the derailing of households’ use of electrical appliances could stop Australia reaching its climate targets.

Bragg said the federal government should instead offer tax breaks for household batteries, which he said would drive the uptake of systems that will be crucial to harnessing Australia’s vast supply of rooftop solar energy to continue cutting the nation’s carbon footprint.

“If we lose electrification to a culture war, we may never get to net zero,” Bragg will say in a speech to the Coalition for Conservation group on Friday.

The Victorian state government announced in July that gas connections to all new homes would be banned at the start of next year.

Bragg told this masthead that moves to remove the right to choose energy sources had sparked a damaging backlash in the US and said he believed it would likewise harm public support for climate action in Australia.

“During debates in the US Congress, the following is standard fare: ‘If the maniacs in the White House come for my stove, they can pry it from my cold dead hands’,” Bragg will say.

“Australia can do a lot better than that. If we lose electrification to a culture war, we may never get to net zero.”

Household emissions including electricity use and personal vehicles account for more than 40 per cent of Australia’s annual emissions. However, there are fewer than 50,000 household batteries installed across the country.

Installing electrical appliances backed with household batteries to lower gas use, such as induction cooktops, water heaters and reverse cycle air conditioners, is widely viewed as a crucial way to cut emissions and reduce power bills.

Bragg asked the Parliamentary Budget Office to model a tax deduction for home batteries.

It found a tax deduction of 50 per cent, capped at $3500, on the installation of a new home battery would deliver a 10 per cent increase in uptake by the middle of 2033. This scheme would cost the budget $375 million over the next 10 years.

The Parliamentary Budget Office also modelled a tax deduction of up to 75 per cent, capped at $5250, which it found would result in a 15 per cent increase in uptake by mid-2033 and cost the budget $584 million.

However, some experts say a ban on gas, coupled with subsidised loans for new appliances, is the best policy to drive household emissions reduction.

The Grattan Institute’s Getting Off Gas report urged governments to impose bans on new household gas connections and said low-interest loans to home owners were also needed to spur the uptake of appliances.

Grattan found that by switching from gas to electric appliances, an average household in Melbourne could save between $12,000 and $14,000 over 10 years based on their energy consumption, while an average household in Sydney could save between $2000 and $7000.

Bragg told this masthead that experts had failed to factor in the community division that would be caused by banning new households from gas connections.

“Household electrification is an absolute no-brainer and I don’t want to see it lost in a political bun fight,” he said.

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/gas-bans-ignite-culture-war-battery-bonus-is-better-says-liberal-senator-20230817-p5dxbe.html

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

My other blogs. Main ones below

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM )

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

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

The old air pollution boogeyman rides again

For many years now, I have been reviewing studies of air pollution. Both Greenies and health advocates abhor it. But the research results are always disappointing. The ideal research result would be a demostration that motor vehicle emissions give you cancer but there is no solid proof of that. Pollution repeatedly turns out to be peskily harmless. But no-one believes that. So they keep on doing studies to prove their point. One such is below. They hypothesize that air pollution sends you gaga.

Does it? It's another geography study. It tests your health according to where you live. It does NOT detect your personal exposure to air pollution. So that is a major flaw. But its conclusions are still amusing. They found no effect from most sources of pollution -- with one exception: Dust that farmers kick up when plowing etc. Avoid farms or lose your marbles!

As I said, the results are shaky anyway -- with their lack of personal data -- so I would not start demonizing farmers yet. The global warming folk demonize them enough already. And farm populations may be more prone to dementia anyway

I probably should note again why I think air pollution is so harmless: It is because human beings have been sitting around smoky campfires for about a million years. Over that time they have adapted to all the resultant pollution they inhale. Basically, they just cough it up. Looking at the big picture does help, doesn't it?


Comparison of Particulate Air Pollution From Different Emission Sources and Incident Dementia in the US

Boya Zhang et al

Question Are long-term exposures to particulate air pollution from different emission sources associated with incident dementia?

Findings In this nationally representative cohort study in the US, higher residential levels of fine particulate matter were associated with greater rates of incident dementia, especially for fine particulate matter generated by agriculture and wildfires.

Meaning These findings support the hypothesis that airborne particulate matter pollution is associated with the likelihood of developing dementia and suggest that selective interventions to reduce pollution exposure may decrease the life-long risk of dementia; however, more research is needed to confirm these relationships.

Abstract
Importance Emerging evidence indicates that exposure to fine particulate matter (PM2.5) air pollution may increase dementia risk in older adults. Although this evidence suggests opportunities for intervention, little is known about the relative importance of PM2.5 from different emission sources.

Objective To examine associations of long-term exposure of total and source-specific PM2.5 with incident dementia in older adults.

Design, Setting, and Participants The Environmental Predictors of Cognitive Health and Aging study used biennial survey data from January 1, 1998, to December 31, 2016, for participants in the Health and Retirement Study, which is a nationally representative, population-based cohort study in the US. The present cohort study included all participants older than 50 years who were without dementia at baseline and had available exposure, outcome, and demographic data between 1998 and 2016 (N = 27 857). Analyses were performed from January 31 to May 1, 2022.

Exposures The 10-year mean total PM2.5 and PM2.5 from 9 emission sources at participant residences for each month during follow-up using spatiotemporal and chemical transport models.

Main Outcomes and Measures The main outcome was incident dementia as classified by a validated algorithm incorporating respondent-based cognitive testing and proxy respondent reports. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated for incident dementia per IQR of residential PM2.5 concentrations using time-varying, weighted Cox proportional hazards regression models with adjustment for the individual- and area-level risk factors.

Results Among 27 857 participants (mean [SD] age, 61 [10] years; 15 747 [56.5%] female), 4105 (15%) developed dementia during a mean (SD) follow-up of 10.2 [5.6] years. Higher concentrations of total PM2.5 were associated with greater rates of incident dementia (HR, 1.08 per IQR; 95% CI, 1.01-1.17). In single pollutant models, PM2.5 from all sources, except dust, were associated with increased rates of dementia, with the strongest associations for agriculture, traffic, coal combustion, and wildfires. After control for PM2.5 from all other sources and copollutants, only PM2.5 from agriculture (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.01-1.27) and wildfires (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02-1.08) were robustly associated with greater rates of dementia.

Conclusion and Relevance In this cohort study, higher residential PM2.5 levels, especially from agriculture and wildfires, were associated with higher rates of incident dementia, providing further evidence supporting PM2.5 reduction as a population-based approach to promote healthy cognitive aging. These findings also indicate that intervening on key emission sources might have value, although more research is needed to confirm these findings.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2808088

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

The Maui wildfires are proof that carbon zealotry can kill

Ask the grieving families of Maui, the Hawaiian island ravaged by wildfires last week.

As the fires raged, liberal media blamed the devastation on climate change. “How Climate Change Turned Lush Hawaii into a Tinderbox,” announced The New York Times.

Sorry, the evidence is piling up that the opposite is true.

Zero carbon extremism diverted the island’s main electrical producer, Hawaiian Electric, from insulating wires, clearing areas around vulnerable transmission sites and taking other precautions to prevent wildfires it knew were likely to occur.

It dithered on prevention, while pouring funds and manpower into meeting the Hawaiian government’s mandate that all electricity must be produced from renewables by 2045.

The death toll from Lahaina Fire has reached 111, but will go higher, because much of the island hasn’t been searched.

The fire’s already the deadliest in US history. But wildfires ignited by inadequately maintained electrical transmission systems — uninsulated wires, flimsy poles, out-of-control plant growth — have also devastated Texas, Colorado and California.

Six out of 20 recent wildfires in California, including the 2018 Camp Fire, which killed 85, the Kinkade fire in Sonoma in 2019 and the Dixie Fire in 2022, were caused by sparks due to aging transmission equipment and poor maintenance.

California’s Pacific Electric & Gas boasts that it’s “helping to heal the planet” and is determined to achieve a “net zero energy system in 2040 — five years ahead of California’s current carbon neutrality goal.”

What about healing the families who needlessly lost loved ones in these fires? Pursuing zero carbon by sacrificing safety and the production of a reliable electricity supply is crazy. We all want to protect the planet, but at a reasonable pace.

As the grisly facts come out about Maui, that lesson is clearer than ever.

Though an official report on the fires’ causes will take months, photos and evidence from grid monitors point to a string of fires ignited as power lines hit trees, other lines or the ground because of wind.

“This is strong confirmation — based on real data — that utility grid faults were likely the ignition source for multiple wild fires on Maui,” says Bob Marshall, CEO of Whisker Labs, which monitors electric grids across the US, including in Maui.

Four years ago, in the aftermath of a damaging 2019 wildfire season, Hawaiian Electric concluded that power lines emitting sparks were a serious threat, and the company prepared a plan for fire retardant poles, monitoring technology and insulation.

Then it dithered, spending less than $245,000 on wildfire prevention, while it went whole hog launching big projects in renewable energy.

https://nypost.com/2023/08/18/the-maui-wildfires-are-proof-that-carbon-zealotry-can-kill/

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

The EPA Defies the Supreme Court

In politics, inadvertently telling the truth is called a “gaffe.” Last year Michael Regan, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, made a remark in passing that gave away the Biden administration’s plans for enforcing its climate agenda through a “suite of rules” imposed under programs lacking any credible connection to climate. A few months later, a Supreme Court opinion transformed Mr. Regan’s indiscretion into justification for wholesale judicial repudiation of the Biden administration’s climate regulatory blitz.

Mr. Regan’s comment came on March 10, 2022, when he addressed the press following his keynote address to CERAWeek, a climate conference in Houston. A reporter asked about vulnerabilities of the EPA’s approach to installing climate regulation through the Obama-Biden Clean Power Plan, which was then awaiting judgment by the court. Mr. Regan replied that the agency had abandoned the idea of relying on any specific grant of regulatory authority. Instead it was in the process of tightening rules under numerous and varied regulatory programs all at once, pressuring disfavored operations to close and compelling investment consistent with the EPA’s desires.

Mr. Regan went on to cite rules to tighten regulation of mercury, ozone, soot, hazardous air pollutants, water effluent and coal ash under acknowledged congressional grants of authority. But he also called the “expedited retirement” of power plants “the best tool for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions” and opined that the “industry gets to take a look at this suite of rules all at once and say, ‘Is it worth doubling down on investments in this current facility or operation, or should we look at the cost and say no, it’s time to pivot and invest in a clean-energy future?’ ”

This already reflected something of a scofflaw position. Congress never approved what Mr. Regan described. It became a serious problem when the justices struck down the Clean Power Plan in June. West Virginia v. EPA held that the agency didn’t have the authority it claimed to force power-plant closures by setting unmeetable emission standards and thus dictate, as the court had put it, “how Americans get their energy.”

Chief Justice John Roberts noted for the 6-3 majority that after Congress had repeatedly considered and rejected providing the agency authority to regulate power-sector greenhouse gases, the EPA claimed “to discover an unheralded power” that represented a “transformative expansion in [its] regulatory authority” to force “generation shifting.”

The court invoked the major-questions doctrine—a principle grounded in the separation of powers—which states that when a regulatory agency seeks to impose burdens of “economic and political significance,” there is “reason to hesitate.” If an agency can’t point to “clear congressional authorization,” the authority doesn’t exist.

Many climate activists took the lesson that they should stop bragging about clever regulatory approaches. Two weeks after West Virginia v. EPA came out, the Environmental Law Institute hosted a funereal webinar in which panelists warned about candid outbursts turning up in Supreme Court reversals, mentioning such statements as President Obama’s “if Congress won’t act soon . . . I will,” and Mr. Biden’s then-chief of staff Ron Klain’s tweeting about “the ultimate work-around” of constitutional limits to impose Covid vaccine mandates. Several panelists urged activists to be careful in their press releases and to not let appointees’ cheerleading “get out in front of the lawyers.”

That’s good advice, but the administration appears undeterred. Records obtained by policy groups I represent in Freedom of Information Act litigation show Mr. Biden’s EPA team came in with this plan to hit fossil generation with a barrage of disparate regulations as a climate strategy. One impressively prescient email sent the day after Mr. Biden’s election by law professor and soon-to-be Biden climate advisor Ann Carlson laid out the approach, even using the phrase “suite of climate policies.”

Two weeks into Mr. Biden’s term, a PowerPoint slide show—given by a lawyer named Joe Goffman, who is hailed in media profiles as the administration’s “law whisperer” because “his specialty is teaching old laws to do new tricks”—detailed a plan of tightening regulation on power plants by using solid waste, water and even visibility standards. The audience for his plan to blitz fossil power generation with these non-climate programs? The White House Climate Office. FOIA records also include activist correspondence to Mr. Goffman specifically urging the EPA to tighten “haze” rules as a back door for the climate agenda, which EPA appears to be doing.

Long-held plans are hard to let go. Despite the court’s rejection of each authority the administration has claimed so far to regulate greenhouse gases from power plants, one email written during the immediate post-West Virginia scramble refers to “EPA’s CAA toolbox” for “Power Sector GHG Reductions.” (The abbreviations stand for Clean Air Act and greenhouse gas.)

West Virginia v. EPA addressed power the agency claimed under a specific rule, but the opinion’s scope extends far beyond that rule. The justices flatly stated that trying to force the plant-closure agenda Mr. Regan described, for which the EPA can cite no statutory mandate, presents a “major question” requiring a clear congressional statement of authority.

Academics now call on Mr. Biden to ignore the Supreme Court. His EPA is doing so, while also ignoring Congress. It seems inevitable the court will confront this latest gambit to evade constitutional limits. As always, the question will be how much lasting harm the EPA can inflict before the courts act to stop it.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/epa-environmental-protection-supreme-court-regulation-unconstitutional-climate-change-administrative-state-biden-42f31ce3

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

Reality deserves a look in when teaching children the science of global warming

I have pondered this more than usual lately given on-air discussions and media reporting about rising levels of anxiety and depression in our children. A recent Sydney Morning Herald report focused on record levels of mental health disorders, with many children refusing to go to school.

We unnecessarily frightened our kids for three years over Covid-19, keeping them from school for extended periods. Now we wonder why they are too anxious or despondent to return. Half their parents have not returned to the workplace either, so they are not getting an ideal lead.

Then there is climate change. For years the climate alarmists have been instilling the fear of Gaia into our children, from pre-school to the classroom, from the nightly news to the kids ­programming.

The ABC’s flagship kids television current affairs program, Behind the News, kicked off an episode this month by declaring: “scientists say that last month was officially the hottest month Earth has ever recorded. And the UN says we’re no longer facing global warming, but something worse.”

And on they went with vision of extreme weather events and UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres telling us global warming was over and “the era of global boiling has arrived”.

The reporter then said: “Global boiling, it sounds pretty intense, but the UN says the threat the world’s facing is intense.” Neither the UN nor the media are interested in context or reassurance; their currency is hysteria.

Guterres is a former Portuguese Socialist Party prime minister – a green-left politician, no more and no less – and scaring people into realigning the global economic order is his life’s work.

But our children, do we really want to be doing this to our children? After reading about the record anxiety and mental health problems for our young people in the SMH, it occurred to me that they might be part of the problem. When you click through to their climate-change coverage, there is plenty of climate fear porn to be found.

“Global boiling, Sydney hasn’t done enough to prepare for lethal heat,” screams one headline. “Record July heat prompts dire warning; Act now or we all scorch and fry,” shouts another. “Crucial global climatic system could face tipping point in two years,” we read, surely not another tipping point? Then: “The hottest July in 120,000 years. What’s in store for Australia this summer?”

Not a hint of context, subtlety, or scepticism. Imagine the absurdity of claiming a day or month is the hottest in 120,000 years.

The more you research these matters, the more you doubt even records claimed over the past century, given so many early readings have been revised downwards.

The Bureau of Meteorology claimed Adelaide recorded the hottest ever maximum for a capital city on January 24, 2019, when the temperature hit 46.6C. Yet the record it broke from 1939 was actually recorded as the equivalent of 47.6C before, in recent years, it was “homogenised” downwards. There are endless other examples.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/reality-deserves-a-look-in-when-teaching-children-the-science-of-global-warming/news-story/dee93856e50745fc0a99691ccbc04b36

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

My other blogs. Main ones below

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM )

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

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

Major Credit Rating Agency Drops ESG Scores Amid Backlash to Corporate Wokeism

Rating agency S&P Global has dropped its use of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) scores to assess corporate borrowers amid questions over the usefulness of such metrics and amid broader backlash to “woke” agendas being pushed in board rooms across the United States.

Since 2021, the credit rating agency has rated companies on a scale from 1 (best) to 5 (worst) in each of the three components of ESG. But now, S&P Global’s ESG scoring system is being dropped in the rating agency’s credit quality assessments of publicly rated firms.

“Effective immediately, we are no longer publishing new ESG credit indicators in our reports or updating outstanding ESG credit indicators,” the rating agency announced in a statement obtained by The Epoch Times.

The rating agency hinted that lack of effectiveness was the rationale for dropping the ESG scoring system—which has been the subject of sharp criticism from conservatives who see it as a manifestation of leftist or even neo-Marxist agendas in corporations.

“We have determined that the dedicated analytical narrative paragraphs in our credit rating reports are most effective at providing detail and transparency on ESG credit factors material to our rating analysis, and these will remain integral to our reports,” S&P Global said in the statement.

A Bloomberg report citing a “person close to the process” who declined to be identified indicated that the change was prompted by “expressions of confusion” on the part of investors who rely on the agency’s credit ratings to inform their investment decisions.

A request for clarification from The Epoch Times as to why the ESG scores were being dropped wasn’t returned by press time.

‘Not That Reliable’
Patrick Welch, chief ESG and ratings policy officer at Kroll Bond Rating Agency, told Bloomberg that confusion is the likely chief culprit driving the change at rival S&P Global.

By using a five-point rating scale, “you’re putting one scoring system—an ESG one—inside another scoring system, which is the credit rating,” Mr. Welch told the outlet.

He said some of the confusion is about whether the rating reflects financial risk to the company or the company’s effect on, for example, society and the environment.

Tom Lyon, a professor at the University of Michigan’s business school who has studied ESG ratings, told the Financial Times that ESG ratings are “not that reliable, and they disagree.”

Mr. Lyon noted that ESG ratings have been under attack by conservatives and congressional Republicans while suggesting that S&P Global folded in the face of pressure to stop using them.

While S&P Global has dropped its ESG scores, its rivals Moody’s and Fitch continue to use an alphanumeric scale for their ESG assessments.

Richard Hunter, chief credit officer at Fitch Ratings, told Pensions & Investments, “Fitch believes that there are profound limits to what text disclosures can do for investors monitoring an entire portfolio of hundreds of serviced issuers and bonds.

“We have found that having a numeric score that crisply identifies individual issuers with actual rating changes that can be classified as driven by a factor which has a direct relevance for ESG as well, or where those factors are heavily discussed at the committee, without rising yet to an actual rating change, has been highly valued by users.”

‘Obsession With Radical Social Change’
S&P Global, which is one of the world’s largest raters of corporate debt, faced calls for an investigation last year by a coalition of Republican attorneys general.

“Too many consumers and investors have been hurt by the woke ESG movement’s obsession with radical social change and willingness to ignore the law,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a statement in September 2022.

“We’re investigating S&P Global to find out whether they’ve engaged in the types of destructive, illegal business practices that are so pervasive in the ESG movement. If so, they will have to answer for their actions.”

While that investigation has yet to conclude, other experts say the pushback against ESG isn’t confined to conservatives.

Scott Shepard, a fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research, which is a free-market public policy research group, told The Epoch Times in a recent interview that opposition to ESG is gaining steam in the United States.

“We’re seeing something very different this time. Because it’s not just the conservatives, who are always interested in this sort of thing; it’s the whole country,” Mr. Shepard said of boycott calls facing brands such as Bud Light and Target over their embrace of left-wing principles.

ESG, which started as guidelines, has now turned into heavy-handed mandates on controversial “social justice” ideologies, he said.

Mr. Shepard noted that ESG initiatives could expose businesses to legal action if they can be shown to be a breach of fiduciary responsibility to shareholders.

Will Hild, executive director of Consumer’s Research, a nonprofit consumer protection group, told The Epoch Times during a recent interview that woke business practices aren’t going away without a fight.

Corporate leaders fear losing their jobs if they drop ESG more than they fear corporate losses, Mr. Hild said. That’s why woke companies don’t seem to learn their lesson and keep pushing ESG’s “far-left agenda,” he said.

“It’s a cover for pushing politics using other people’s money,” Mr. Hild said.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/us/major-credit-rating-agency-drops-esg-scores-amid-backlash-to-corporate-wokeism-5454252

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

Judicial Climate Activism in Montana

In a case that would make Greta Thunberg proud, 16 young people ages five to 22 successfully sued the state of Montana for failing to protect their right to a “clean and healthful environment.” Their entire case rested upon the utterly unmeasurable and unquantifiable claim that the Treasure State’s Environmental Policy Act has “harmed” them since it precludes local officials from incorporating “greenhouse gas emissions and corresponding impacts to the climate” into their evaluation process when considering energy project approvals.

In other words, since Montana passed laws to prevent ecofascists from crushing the fossil fuel industry in the state, these children sued. Nothing like using gullible kids to promote a Marxist political agenda, which is what the climate change cult is really all about.

Indeed, given the judge’s reasoning, it was clear that these young people were merely used as props in a show trial — the outcome of which was decided before it began.

Judge Kathy Seely of the First District Court in Montana effectively based her “harm” ruling on a rationale that could be boiled down to this: The kids are so sad. Seely claimed, “Youth plaintiffs have experienced past and ongoing injuries resulting from the state’s failure to consider [greenhouse gas emissions] and climate change, including injuries to their physical and mental health, homes and property; recreational, spiritual and aesthetic interests; tribal and cultural traditions, economic security and happiness.”

Seely further enumerated, “Plaintiff’s mental health injuries stemming from the effects of climate change on Montana’s environment, feelings like loss, despair, and anxiety, are cognizable injuries.” Really? Just reading Seely’s ridiculous ruling causes feelings of despair and anxiety over the state of our nation’s judicial system.

Reading through the decision, we’re left wondering who Seely paid off to get her district judge gig. It is really that bad.

Making matters worse, while the plaintiffs had little other than feelings to offer, the state brought data and evidence to support its defense. The state even brought in world-renowned climatologist Judith Curry to back up its claims. Curry blasted the climate alarmist group Our Children’s Trust, the ecofascists behind the lawsuit, cogently observing, “There is no right to a ‘safe and stable climate,' for the simple reason that Earth’s climate is constantly out of equilibrium and evolving.”

Ignoring sound science and reasoned logic, the Leftmedia celebrated the verdict as a landmark, precedent-setting decision upon which judicial momentum can be built for furthering the Left’s war against fossil fuels.

Hopefully, however, the vacuous argument of elevating feelings as facts won’t play with the appellate courts. Children crying emotional distress over the climate change bogeyman they have been indoctrinated to fear should not sway any sober-minded judge. If it does, then a bed manufacturer could be held liable for the nightmares a child experiences over fears of the imaginary monster living under his bed.

Finally, if anyone is at fault for the emotional “trauma” these children are experiencing, is it not the Chick Little climate alarmists? People like Al Gore and Greta Thunberg have often literally screamed their apocalyptic vision of a near future world where the oceans rise and the earth burns. How many times have these charlatans claimed that earth will end in X number of years if we don’t immediately stop carbon emissions, only for the date to come and go without even a hint of remorse for the deceit they’ve peddled? And how many children suffer despair and anxiety because of this climate alarmism hysteria?

https://patriotpost.us/articles/99742-judicial-climate-activism-in-montana-2023-08-17

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

Man learns unforgettable lesson about electric vehicles on 1,400-mile road trip: 'Biggest scam of modern times'

A Canadian man recently learned the hard way that electric vehicles have significant disadvantages compared to gas-powered vehicles.

On July 27, Dalbir Bala packed his wife and three children in his truck — a 2023 Ford F-150 Lightning Lariat that he purchased for $85,000 (or $115,000 in Canadian currency) in January — for a business trip to Chicago, the CBC reported.

Along the 1,400 mile trip from his home near Winnipeg to the Chicagoland area, Bala planned to stop at three charging stations. The truck's range, when fully charged, is about 320 miles.

Bala's stop at the first station in Fargo, North Dakota, was successful — albeit inconvenient because it took more than two hours to recharge the battery to 90%. But at the second station in Albertville, Minnesota, Bala discovered a charging station that did not work. After unsuccessfully calling for help, Bala drove to a nearby charging station in Elk River, Minnesota — but that one didn't work either.

With just 12 miles remaining on his battery, Bala made the decision to have his truck towed to a nearby Ford dealership, where he also rented a gas-powered Toyota 4Runner to complete his trip to Chicago. He picked up his electric truck on the return trip.

Now, Bala is telling his story and warning other consumers about the problems with electric vehicles.

"People have to make the right choices. I want to tell everybody to read my story," he told Fox Business. "Do your research before even thinking about it and make a wiser choice. ... The actual thing they promised is not even close. Not even 50%. And once you buy it, you're stuck with it, and you have to carry huge losses to get rid of that. And nobody is there to help you."

The nightmare trip is not Bala's only problem with the truck.

He explained in a social media post that not long after purchasing it, he was involved in a "minor fender bender" with a small amount of damage. Shockingly, it took six months for the damage to be repaired because of a parts shortage.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/dalbir-bala-electric-truck-road-trip

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

The Barrier reef: A very expensive false alarm

In 2018, the Coalition government gifted $444 million of other people’s money to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation. The money was apparently not even asked for by the foundation, but the Decider in Chief, then-Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and his profligate offsider Josh Frydenberg, signed off on ‘… the record funding agreement without an open tender.’ Said Turnbull at the time: ‘So this is a wonderful investment in ensuring that we maintain the health of the Great Barrier Reef.’

The purpose of the Great Barrier Reef Foundation, according to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation is to: ‘To find and grow the best solutions to protect the world’s greatest reef.’

Meanwhile, reported this week from the Australian Institute of Marine Science’s Annual Summary Report on Coral Reef Condition: ‘In 2022, the GBR (Great Barrier Reef) continues to recover, registering the highest levels of coral cover yet recorded in the Northern and Central regions over the past 36 years of monitoring.’

To repeat. The highest level of coral cover in 36 years of monitoring across two-thirds of the reef.

This begs the question… For what was $444 million of public money provided by the Coalition government? Either the Great Barrier Reef Foundation was absolutely brilliant at saving the reef or it achieved very little and the reef repaired itself. Was this another Coalition waste of money? Looks like the latter rather than the former.

According to Peter Ridd, someone with some familiarity of the subject: ‘The reef now has twice as much coral as in 2012 when it hit a low point after being smashed by major cyclones.’ Then Ridd added: ‘The truth is we have been scammed for decades, and the perpetrators have been caught out. Once-trusted science institutions have become untrustworthy. It is time they are subjected to serious scrutiny.’

Over 4 years, we have burned through approximately $245 million to achieve … what? Whatever it is, it is difficult to quantify. With this spending you’d think this project was part of the Department of Defence!

The final and most important question to ask then is … can we have the money back?

https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/08/can-we-have-that-444-million-back/

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

My other blogs. Main ones below

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM )

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

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

Princeton, MIT Scientists Say EPA Climate Regulations Based on a ‘Hoax’

Two prominent climate scientists have taken on new rules from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on cutting carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in electricity generation, arguing in testimony that the regulations “will be disastrous for the country, for no scientifically justifiable reason.”

Citing extensive data (pdf) to support their case, William Happer, professor emeritus in physics at Princeton University, and Richard Lindzen, professor emeritus of atmospheric science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), argued that the claims used by the EPA to justify the new regulations aren’t based on scientific facts but rather political opinions and speculative models that have consistently proven to be wrong.

“The unscientific method of analysis, relying on consensus, peer review, government opinion, models that do not work, cherry-picking data and omitting voluminous contradictory data, is commonly employed in these studies and by the EPA in the Proposed Rule,” Mr. Happer and Mr. Lindzen wrote. “None of the studies provides scientific knowledge, and thus none provides any scientific support for the Proposed Rule.

“All of the models that predict catastrophic global warming fail the key test of the scientific method: they grossly overpredict the warming versus actual data. The scientific method proves there is no risk that fossil fuels and carbon dioxide will cause catastrophic warming and extreme weather.”

Climate models such as the ones that the EPA is using have been consistently wrong for decades in predicting actual outcomes, Mr. Happer told The Epoch Times. To illustrate his point, he presented the EPA with a table showing the difference between those models’ predictions and the observed data.

“That was already an embarrassment in the ’90s, when I was director of energy research in the U.S. Department of Energy,” he said. “I was funding a lot of this work, and I knew very well then that the models were overpredicting the warming by a huge amount.”

He and his colleague argued that the EPA has grossly overstated the harm from CO2 emissions while ignoring the benefits of CO2 to life on Earth.

Many who have fought against EPA climate regulations have done so by arguing what’s called the “major questions doctrine,” that the EPA doesn’t have the authority to invent regulations that have such an enormous effect on Americans without clear direction from Congress. However, Mr. Happer and Mr. Lindzen have taken a different tack, arguing that because the EPA regulations are “arbitrary and capricious,” they fail a test laid out in Motor Vehicle Manufacturers v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company.

“Time and again, courts have applied ‘State Farm’s’ principles to invalidate agency rules where the agency failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, or cherry-picked data to support a pre-ordained conclusion,” they wrote.

According to Mr. Happer and Mr. Lindzen’s testimony, “600 million years of CO2 and temperature data contradict the theory that high levels of CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming.”

They present CO2 and temperature data indicating much higher temperatures and levels of CO2 than are observed today, with little correlation between the two. They also argue that current CO2 levels are at a low point historically.

“The often highly emphasized 140 [parts per million] increase in CO2 since the beginning of the Industrial Age is trivial compared to CO2 changes over the geological history of life on Earth,” they wrote.

The scientists’ testimony to the EPA also stated that the agency’s emissions rules fail to consider that CO2 and fossil fuels are essential to life on earth, particularly human life.

“Increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere create more food for people worldwide, including more food for people in drought-stricken areas,” they wrote. “Increases in carbon dioxide over the past two centuries since the Industrial Revolution, from about 280 parts per million to about 420 ppm, caused an approximate 20 percent increase in the food available to people worldwide, as well as increased greening of the planet and a benign warming in temperature.”

More CO2 in the atmosphere leads to more plant growth and higher farming yields, they said. Synthetic fertilizers, which are derivatives of natural gas, are responsible for nearly half the world’s food production today. “Net zero” goals would reduce CO2 emissions by more than 40 gigatons per year, reducing the food supply proportionally, according to the scientists.

In addition to disregarding the benefits of CO2, they stated, the EPA’s emission rules and the global warming narrative that has been used to justify them are based on flawed data.

In addition to teaching physics at Princeton, Mr. Happer’s decades of work in physics have focused on atmospheric radiation and atmospheric turbulence, and his inventions have been used by astronomers and in national defense.

“Radiation in the atmosphere is my specialty,” Mr. Happer said, “and I know more about it than, I would guess, any climate scientists.”

His expertise “involves much of the same physics that’s involved in climate, and none of it is very alarming,” he said.

The global warming narrative argues that as people burn fossil fuels, they emit higher concentrations of carbon dioxide into the earth’s atmosphere, which creates a “greenhouse effect,” trapping the sun’s radiation and warming the earth.

But one aspect of CO2 emissions that global warming models fail to take into account, according to Mr. Happer, is a phenomenon called “saturation,” or the diminishing effect of CO2 in the atmosphere at higher concentrations.

“At the current concentrations of CO2, around 400 parts per million, it decreases the radiation to space by about 30 percent, compared to what you would have if you took it all away,” he said. “So that’s enough to cause quite a bit of warming of the earth, and thank God for that; it helps make the earth habitable, along with the effects of water vapor and clouds.

“But if you could double the amount of CO2 from 400 to 800, and that will take a long time, the amount that you decrease radiation to space is only 1 percent. Very few people realize how hard it is for additional carbon dioxide to make a difference to the radiation to space. That’s what’s called saturation, and it’s been well-known for a century.”

https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/article/two-princeton-mit-scientists-say-epa-climate-regulations-based-on-a-hoax-5460699

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

Leftmedia Finally Questions Ethics of EVs

It’s taken long enough, but members of the Leftmedia finally have begun noticing that the promise of an electrically driven future may not quite live up to the morally superior moniker it has been given. In fact, a future where the vast majority of cars Americans drive are electric holds some considerable downsides, especially when it comes to human labor and negative environmental impacts.

Even The Washington Post has begun highlighting several of the genuinely problematic and morally reprehensible aspects of the “green revolution.” In a recent article titled “In scramble for EV metals, health threat to workers often goes unaddressed,” the Post notes the serious health dangers associated with the mining and production of manganese, one of the materials necessary for the production of EV batteries.

These mines and production facilities are located in places such as South Africa and Gabon, where worker protections and safeguards are often secondary as the demand for manganese rises. An increasing number of workers are suffering the negative health effects. The article highlights one former worker who asks: “How long is it going to take until people start realizing what is happening? Another 30 or 40 years? Must we wait until people start dying?”

Another Washington Post article, published this week, is titled “Despite reforms, mining for EV metals in Congo exacts steep cost on workers.” This time, the Post observes that mining cobalt from Congo, the world’s largest producer, comes via dire working conditions often endured by child laborers. Slave labor is also a significant contributing factor in the mining of cobalt.

While noting that “EVs are widely considered crucial to addressing climate change,” the article observes, “Without a full accounting, there is a risk that the green-energy transition could repeat the painful history of earlier industrial revolutions.” Ya think?

However, the reprehensible labor conditions for mining the minerals necessary for making EV batteries are just one of many problems with forcing this green revolution.

It’s painfully ironic that Kamala Harris is busy lying about Florida’s slavery curriculum while the Biden administration is seeking to force more Americans to buy into an industry that relies on slave labor.

While leftists largely ignore the exploitation of those laboring in the mines, Americans are increasingly bearing the economic brunt of Biden’s green revolution, which is being foisted upon the country via the regulatory state and will cost Americans billions of dollars. It’s everything from new CAFE standards that are heavily pushing the market toward EVs to a proposed change to the National Environmental Policy Act that would require all federal agencies to consider climate change for “environmental justice” when evaluating projects.

On top of all this is the fact that the country simply doesn’t have the infrastructure in place to handle a significant increase in EVs. There are not enough charging stations and not enough power being produced to provide for millions more new EVs.

Speaking of power, renewable energy sources cannot even promise to sustain the current power demands of the country, let alone a huge influx of EVs. Ask California.

Will the Leftmedia eventually get around to admitting this reality as well? Or is it too committed to the climate cult to be bothered?

https://patriotpost.us/articles/99544 ?

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

Brighton rock bottom: How the Greens nearly destroyed the city I love

Julie Burchill

When you’re short-sighted, everyone seems attractive; for this reason, I don’t often wear my glasses, as I think myopia has a felicitous effect on my attitude to life. However, after a whopping 28 years living in Brighton & Hove, it’s dawning on me that this has coloured my view of my adopted hometown too.

I love living in Brighton and wouldn’t dream of moving anywhere else. But I am privileged to do a thing I love for a living, when and where I want; for people who need to get around it on a daily basis, Brighton is an increasingly unpleasant place to be. A good deal of this is the fault of the Green council, the UK’s first ever; looking back on their recently ended rule, it feels like the city was overcome by an invading force who tried their best to destroy it, leaving residents looking around in dazed disbelief.

Oddly, considering the party’s name, the natural world appears to have been one of their main targets. The Greens had something of a slash-and-burn attitude to local flora. Hedges, bushes and even a bowling green, which had been standing for years, were eviscerated. Dutch elm disease ran riot: the council refused to properly treat all of the affected trees, some of which have now been chopped down.

Angry men on bicycles are the kings of our seaside urban jungle

Most perverse was the destruction of a large part of the oldest and longest ‘green wall’ (a vertically built structure intentionally covered by vegetation) in Europe in the spring of 2021, during nesting season for the hundreds of birds who inhabited it. Perhaps as it was established by the Victorians, it was probably a nasty colonialist nature reserve and deserved to die? One specimen of local flora which the Greens did like was weeds, which took over to the point of being a health hazard. Still, if you’ve righteously cracked down on herbicides, who cares if a few old ladies are hospitalised by nasty falls? The council even blamed Brexit for the weeds they had so lovingly nurtured.

In contrast to the disregard shown to the elderly, Brighton’s huge student population was endlessly pandered to by the council, who focussed on expanding student accommodation in the city practically to the exclusion of all other. Students often ride bikes; the justification for slashing the living wall was that it could allow a cycle lane to be built. This wasn’t a surprise: cyclists are the only beasts who have protected status here. Angry men on bicycles are the kings of our seaside urban jungle; it’s a cliche that fellows in flash cars are trying to compensate for inadequacies elsewhere, but a quarter of a century in Brighton has convinced me that this is equally true of grown men who ride huge bikes on pavements. It’s not like there aren’t any enough cycle lanes; in fact, there are so many that they regularly help bring our traffic to a standstill, causing extra congestion and pollution from cars.

Exorbitant parking fees imposed by the council are estimated to have cost us more than £1 million in day-tripper revenue over three years, but gridlock was nevertheless a regular occurrences. Some dunces suggested that this chaos was a sign that Brighton was a successful city. Another of the clowns, councillor Sarah Nield, had to apologise in 2020 for tweeting ‘laughed at queue of cars’ while observing how many freewheeling cyclists were around.

It was the stated aim of some Green councillors in 2020 that the city could be ‘car-free’ within three years. Luckily, the loonies were kicked out this May. The prospect of a crackdown on cars might have been appealing for the student population, but it would have effectively curtailed the movements of the old and the physically disabled. As is usual, it was one rule about transport-induced climate change for us and another for the planet-huggers, as we’ve seen with the globe-trotters of Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil, whose Instagram feeds often resemble recces for a re-make of Around The World In 80 Days. The leader of the city’s Green council had to apologise for a ‘major failure of judgement’ after being caught flying to a Cop conference in Glasgow on the same day he criticised the government for a ‘lack of action’ over climate change.

The old saucy Brighton was anathema to these pronoun-ed puritans

Apart from students, there were few people the Greens actually liked having here in Brighton. Those made to feel unwelcome included those who were born here (priced out), the working-class young (ditto), tourists (they planned to close public toilets) or those who preferred the naughty seaside-postcard town before Green Year Zero.

The old saucy Brighton was anathema to these pronoun-ed puritans who even attempted to ban the Christmas Day charity swim for ‘health and safety’ reasons. Why would you move to the louchest city in Britain and attempt to turn it into Gilead-on-Sea?

The list of Green idiocies and inefficiencies goes on forever, but thankfully I’ve got limited space. There was the infamous bin strike described so memorably by resident Lynne Truss:

‘The place turned into Armageddon…a tide of used teabags, eggshells, soiled kitchen paper, banana skins, smelly tin cans, and used sanitary towels advanced in such a determined and menacing manner down nice residential streets, you could almost hear it breathing.’

Somehow we managed to achieve one of the lowest recycling rates in England – 29 per cent whereas the national average is around 45 per cent. The pathetic and pointless British Airways i360 tower, opened in 2016, cost a fortune and is barely used. The decrepit West Pier once stood out; for the past decade it has fitted in perfectly as the city became a ghost of itself. When the Royal Albion Hotel burned down last month, it was found to be full of asbestos, making Brighton literally as well as figuratively toxic at the height of the tourist season.

Now the smoke has cleared and the future looks brighter. The Greens were sentimental sadists when they were in charge: sweet words smeared over actions of cruelty and callousness. A friend who moved to Stockholm told me: ‘The UK Greens seem to use ecology as an excuse to ruin people’s lives while the Swedes make the green thing about enhancing people’s lives.’ She’s right.

Brighton still shows up in national surveys as one of the best places to live; it’s a hopeful city, which has none of the feeling of ‘managed decline’ which other once-thriving cities have. My local heroine is the independent councillor Bridget Fishleigh, who never ceased drawing attention to the way the Greens were running the city into the ground. ‘Like many residents,’ she said, ‘I have high hopes for the new Labour administration – they have fresh ideas and aren’t tied to Labour of the past.’

Council leader, Bella Sankey, appears to be doing all she can to distance her party’s policies from those of the disgraced council; this feels very much like what will happen nationally at election time, when Keir Starmer will put clear water between himself and any Green policies in order to win back the Red Wall. Labour’s leader knows that yapping on about a better future is incompatible with delivering a net-zero one at great expense to an impoverished population.

The only fly in the ointment is the fact that the ghastly Eddie Izzard is planning to stand at the next election as a Labour candidate for Brighton Pavilion – the seat of the country’s only Green MP, Caroline Lucas. Talk about being caught between a frock and a hard place; hasn’t my beautiful, beleaguered, bashed-about city suffered enough? But, short-sighted though it may be, I still wouldn’t live anywhere else.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/08/brighton-rock-bottom-how-the-greens-nearly-destroyed-the-city-i-love

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

Australia: millions of animals die in the fires of environmentalism

From the 1980s, green academics introduced the theory that people are bad for the environment. They embraced the Wilderness Myth and burning was restricted. In 2003, after hundreds of homes were burnt and people were killed in Canberra, the Nairn Inquiry identified the problem that we weren’t burning enough.

Green academics and fire chiefs boycotted that parliamentary inquiry. They gave us the 2004 Council of Australian Governments (COAG) Inquiry which preached about ‘Learning to Live With Bushfires’. Now we have emergency response and evacuation instead of sustainable land and fire management. Over the years, hundreds of people and countless millions of animals have died as a consequence of mismanaged forests and the failure to keep up with controlled burn programs.

After Black Saturday 2009 and Black Summer 2019/20, emergency leaders and academics used the Climate Cop-Out to cover their derrieres. The bushfires Royal Commission turned into the Natural Disasters Royal Commission. The Emergency Leaders for Climate Action convinced our leaders that alleged warming had visited a holocaust upon us.

The only thing unprecedented about Black Summer was the filthy unmanaged scrub that fuelled the firestorms. During the Settlement Drought from 1790 to 1793, there were three consecutive extreme fire seasons in the area around Sydney. At one stage Parramatta had three straight days of searing northwesterly gales with mid to high 40s temperatures. Masses of flying foxes and lorikeets dropped dead on the ground in what is now Parramatta Park. Imagine what Flannery and Mullins would say if that happened today!

People were living in bark humpies, but there were no disasters, even though Aboriginal fires were burning 24/7 to the northwest. Firestorms couldn’t develop in the clean open landscape. After we made it a wilderness, a lightning strike in that same area ignited the world record Gospers Mountain fire of more than half a million hectares. Emergency Generalissimos with fire engines, heavy waterbombers, and computer models couldn’t save buildings clad with brick and steel.

This is not a climate crisis but a lack of common sense. Now green academics are trying to turn Aboriginal culture to their own ends. There’s nothing magic about cultural burning nor is it particular to any one race. Some of our elders, black, white, and brindle have the knowledge and experience to manage bushland. The academics advising governments don’t. Frequent mild burning is effectively illegal in New South Wales because the stupid rules and regulations are dictated by academics, not experienced practitioners.

You can’t burn too often. In mild weather, fire will only carry after continuous flammable fuel has accumulated. The trick is to burn it as soon as possible – when it is easy and safe. Even if people could control the climate, it wouldn’t change that simple fact. Equally important is managing the whole landscape, not just patches.

Uncontrollable firestorms explode from the wilderness because three-dimensionally continuous fuels accumulate in the absence of management. Hiring a waterbombing airforce costs zillions of dollars and makes no difference to wildfires in severe weather. It takes money away from land management, hurts taxpayers, and lines privileged pockets. But, I suppose it’s a small part of the Climate Scam.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/08/the-new-dark-ages-millions-of-animals-die-in-the-fires-of-environmentalism

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

My other blogs. Main ones below

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM )

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

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