The Great American Electric School Bus Boondoggle

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

Washington, D.C. could use another fiscal hawk like the late Sen. William Proxmire of Wisconsin.

During his Senate career from 1957 to 1988, Proxmire instituted a regular Golden Fleece Award, with which he mocked “the biggest, most ridiculous or most ironic example of government spending.”

Among his infamous recipients was the Department of Justice, receiving the award for conducting a study on why prisoners desire to escape.

Another honoree was the U.S. Postal Service, spending $4 million on an ad campaign urging Americans to write more letters.

In today’s government borrow-and-spend climate, Proxmire would find an embarrassment of riches for his satirical accolades. Here’s one that would surely join the ranks:

In the hardy fishing, timber, and tourism town of Wrangell, Alaska, the school district had the idea to apply for a federal grant for a new electric school bus. With the Environmental Protection Agency distributing nearly $1 billion in these electric school bus grants last year, it was raining money.

In October, the Biden Administration awarded $395,000 to Wrangell for the purchase of the electric bus, intended to expedite the transition to zero-emission vehicles and foster “cleaner air in schools and neighboring communities.”

Here’s the rub: Most students in this Alaska town can walk to school or catch a ride with an older sibling or parent who works at the school. Wrangell, with its 2,100 souls and only about 25 miles of road, has a school system serving 263 students and two school buses. And there are no neighboring communities in Wrangell, unless you get on a ferry or a plane.

As for the clean air aspect, Wrangell boasts some of the cleanest air in America. It’s situated in the middle of the nation’s largest national forest, the Tongass, which is the size of Virginia yet has a population of only 70,000 across its numerous islands and archipelagos. Between the millions of carbon-capturing trees and millions of acres of carbon-absorbing ocean, Wrangell is in a rainforest that is already on hydro power. It’s not belching much of anything into the air, which is swept clean by ocean breezes.

But somehow Wrangell, in spite of its voters’ overwhelming preference for President Donald Trump in 2016 and 2020, won a grant from the Biden Administration.

Its success was due to the fact that more northern communities in Alaska can’t use electric buses, as their batteries just don’t last in the cold winters, and the last thing communities need is to have a bus full of children break down in sub-zero blizzards. For most of Alaska, electric vehicles don’t make sense.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski was euphoric. After all, Wrangell is where her father, former Sen. Frank Murkowski, and his wife, Nancy, live. She brought home the bacon.

“Congratulations to the Wrangell School District for being a recipient of the EPA’s Clean School Bus Program, established by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. Wrangell’s new electric school bus will enhance the district’s ability to operate efficient and safe bus routes. I am thrilled to witness Alaskan communities reaping the benefits of my bipartisan infrastructure law,” she said in a statement.

The projected cost of the new electric bus is $375,000, with an additional $20,000 designated for a charging station.

Thus, the nearly $400,000 to transport even half of those 263 students pencils out to $1,500 per student. That $400,000 amounts to 8% of the district’s annual $5 million operating budget.

This alone would qualify it for Proximire’s Golden Fleece Award, although “Golden Fleet” would also be appropriate.

But then, an unexpected hurdle arose: The EPA grant stipulates that the bus company must dispose of one of its diesel-fueled buses. Not a mere sale or decommissioning of the bus, but complete destruction was required.

Taylor Transportation, the company that has the bus contract in Wrangell, questioned the wisdom of destroying a perfectly functional school bus from its fleet.

With the clock ticking, the district approached the EPA with a proposal: Could Wrangell purchase a bus in another jurisdiction, destroy it, present evidence of its destruction to the federal agency, and subsequently qualify for the grant for the new electric bus?

The EPA saw no apparent obstacles to this unconventional workaround.

For the past few weeks, Wrangell scoured other states for a bus that fit EPA’s criteria, which includes that the bus must have served as a functional student transporter for the last two years.

In other words, the bus Wrangell buys and destroys cannot be the dilapidated remnants of a Burning Man excursion.

In addition, not just any method of destruction will suffice. The EPA has regulations governing the disabling of a diesel school bus—no cliffs can be involved, for instance.

Sen. Proxmire would revel in the circus that is this wasteful endeavor.

Within the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill, bizarre trinkets like this abound for every community across America, enough to keep Golden Fleece Awards going for years.

Regardless of party, we need more fiscal hawks like Proxmires and fewer spendthrift Murkowskis in the Senate.

We need senators who will put their foot down on wasteful spending, not put their foot on the gas for borrowing against the futures of our children.

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.

AUTHOR

SUZANNE DOWNING

Suzanne Downing is publisher of Must Read Alaska.

RELATED ARTICLES:

STAR PARKER: The Do-Nothing Democrats Want To Pay You To Not Work

DAVID BLACKMON: The Supreme Court Just Voted Unanimously To Rein In Biden’s EPA

RELATED TWEET:

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Does ‘Net Zero’ make sense?

/in , , , , , , , /by

Do the maths. The figures don’t add up.

A lot of people are worried about climate change and global warming. Who can blame them? We are constantly told that global climate catastrophe is only a few years away or that “time has quite literally run out” as then Prince Charles did at COP26 in 2021. “Our world is burning” warnings by prominent leaders such as UN Secretary General Guterres are giving high school students a new kind of mental health trauma – eco-anxiety.

Politicians have responded by promising to stop climate change by reducing CO2 and other greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Their goal is to cap global warming at a 1.5°C increase over temperatures in pre-industrial times (1850-1900).

Spoiler alert! They are going to fail.

Why? There are two powerful reasons. (1) CO2 has not been the primary driver of temperature through time. (2) Natural forces such as Milankovitch Cycles have much more influence than the contribution of CO2. The solar forcing above 65º N latitude, the usual measure of the Milankovitch influence, can swing back and forth by as much as 100 W/m2 (see here and graph a here). This is significantly more than a 3 W/m2 increase that would result from doubling today’s CO2 level of 420 ppm, which would “have an inconsequential effect on global temperature.”

Thinking that we can stop climate change which has been going on for millions of years is like thinking that we can stop the movement of tectonic plates. And, by the way, these also contribute to climate change.

Net Zero is the proposed solution. Here’s how the United Nations explains the concept:

Put simply, Net Zero means cutting greenhouse gas emissions to as close to zero as possible, with any remaining emissions re-absorbed from the atmosphere, by oceans and forests for instance …

To keep global warming to no more than 1.5°C – as called for in the Paris Agreement – emissions need to be reduced by 45% by 2030 and reach Net Zero by 2050.

Transitioning to a net-zero world is one of the greatest challenges humankind has faced. It calls for nothing less than a complete transformation of how we produce, consume, and move about. The energy sector is the source of around three-quarters of greenhouse gas emissions today and holds the key to averting the worst effects of climate change. Replacing polluting coal, gas and oil-fired power with energy from renewable sources, such as wind or solar, would dramatically reduce carbon emissions.

But upon close inspection, Net Zero makes little sense.

Let’s look at the second largest emitter of GHGs, the USA, and one of the smallest, the City of Toronto, Canada where I live.

Net Zero for the United States

US Senator for Louisiana John Kennedy recently questioned Department of Energy Deputy Secretary David Turk about Net Zero. The exchange is highly revealing. Astonishingly, Mr Turk was unprepared for basic questions and kept talking about “orders of magnitude” and “getting our act together”. Senator Kennedy said that some of Mr Turk’s colleagues had mentioned US$50 trillion as the cost of fighting climate change.

With a bit of math and science, you can figure out for yourself whether American taxpayers are going to get bang for their bucks. Sharpen your pencil. It’s not hard.

There are three sources of temperature data: ground stations, weather balloons, and satellites.

Satellite data tell us that our atmosphere is warming at 0.13 ℃ / decade or 0.013 ℃ / year. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated, “For the decade 2011–2020, the increase in global surface temperature since 1850–1900 is assessed to be 1.09 [0.95 to 1.20] °C” (p. 41 here). Therefore, the IPCC range of warming is 0.0056 ℃ / year to 0.011 ℃ / year.

Let’s take the high end of the warming — 0.01 ℃ / year. Warming is due to natural causes and to GHGs; from 1850 to 2020 natural causes and GHGs have accounted for about 58% and 42% of warming respectively (footnote 4 here); let’s assume it’s 50/50. The US produces 13% of global GHGs. The human contribution to global warming will decrease every year until we hit Net Zero; the correction factor for that is ½. Lastly, there are only 27 years to go until 2050, the date for global Net Zero.

Multiply those numbers and you’ll get 0.009 ℃ (.01 x 0.5 x 0.13 x 0.5 x 27 ≃0.009). That’s the number that Senator Kennedy was asking for. In other words, American taxpayers will spend $50 trillion (about $150,000 per person) to avoid 0.009 ℃ of warming.

A high school student could tell you that this makes no sense.

When the New York State Legislature became the first US state to ban gas stoves and furnaces in most new buildings to reduce global warming, were its members aware of these facts?

And bear in mind that China, the world’s largest contributor to GHGs, could make America’s Net Zero target irrelevant. Premier Xi Jinping has promised that China will reach Net Zero by 2060. Given the unpredictability of China’s politics and economy, that seems impossibly ambitious. The Climate Action Tracker rates China’s Net Zero efforts as “highly insufficient”. It doesn’t have a great track record. While the US reduced its share of global GHG emissions from 2005 to 2019 from 17.3% to 12.5%, China’s share rose from 18.7% to 26.4%.

Toronto’s Net Zero

In 2019, City of Toronto Council voted unanimously to declare a climate emergency and committed to achieving Net Zero by 2040, one of the most ambitious Net Zero targets in North America. A news release stated:

“Toronto is joining more than 800 cities around the world in acknowledging the scale of the climate crisis including Amsterdam, Auckland, Barcelona, Edmonton, London, Los Angeles, Montréal, New York City, Ottawa, Paris, San Francisco, Sydney and Vancouver.”

As of today, 2,335 jurisdictions around the world have declared a climate emergency. Could the governments of so many big cities spanning the globe all be wrong? Yes, it is possible, especially if their politicians didn’t ask probing questions like Senator Kennedy did. Groupthink can lead to bad decisions.

To illustrate how sweeping this policy is, Toronto will use “a climate lens that evaluates and considers the climate impacts of all major City of Toronto decisions, including financial decisions” (see para 6.e here). This means in effect that reducing GHGs will outweigh all other criteria and considerations during the budget preparation process.

In December 2021, Toronto City Council adopted the ambitious TransformTO Net Zero Strategy cementing its commitment to GHG reduction. An April 2023 TransformTO update stated, “The Carbon Accountability Report also establishes a science-based corporate policy on offset credits aligned with Net Zero governance best practices, which will continue Toronto’s leadership in this rapidly developing space.”

Got that? Let’s take a closer look at this so-called “science-based” leadership.

Since Canada emits 1.5% of global GHG emissions, and Toronto has approximately 7.6% of Canada’s total population, we know that Toronto emits about 0.11% of global GHG emissions (.015 x .076 = .0011). Do the math as described above, and you’ll see that Toronto’s GHG emissions contribute about 0.000006 ℃ / year to global warming (.01 x .5 x .0011 ≃ 0.000006).

Toronto’s Net Zero Cost

Let’s now look at how much TransformTO Net Zero costs and bring it all together. For some perspective, Toronto’s 2023 operating budget is C$16.16 billion, and its capital budget is C$49.26 billion. TransformTO 2022 Annual Report: Laying the Foundation for Net Zero states: “the total investment required by the entire community, that is, the City corporation, the business community, other levels of government, and individual residents, is $145 billion.” Some of that will be spent on “climate resilience” measures that will not reduce GHGs.

Think about this for a minute. C$145 billion will be spent to avoid 0.00005 ℃ of global warming (0.000006 x 0.5 x 17 ≃ 0.00005).

The impact to Earth’s climate will be negligible, but the cost to Toronto and other levels of government will be huge, because money spent on Net Zero is money that could have been spent solving real problems related to health care, homelessness (declared an emergency in Toronto), education, etc.

This is not to say that we should never pursue green energy solutions. For example, the Toronto Transit Commission studied the deployment of e-buses. In comparison to a diesel fleet, the study concluded, “In 2040, when the capital costs and operating savings have normalized, the annual savings is projected to be $253.6 million.”

These significant savings would be in addition to reduced noise and cleaner air. Who could argue with that?

It’s likely, however, that the anticipated benefits of a successful deployment of an e-bus fleet will be conflated with the GHG reduction that will come from phasing out a diesel fleet, but those are two different things. The former is beneficial and consequential whereas the latter is not. Perhaps astonishingly, according to the CO2 Coalition, “People should be celebrating, not demonizing, modern increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). We cannot overstate the importance of the gas. Without it, life doesn’t exist.”

Politicians will try to present themselves as having accomplished something important with the reduction of GHGs, especially CO2, but they are setting themselves up for failure. The green energy sector will make megabucks, but not the rest of us. As they say, “Follow the money.”

We need to look after our environment and respond to climate change in more sensible ways, keeping in mind that CO2 is not a pollutant and is not involved in the production of smog.

Does your country, state, or city have a Net Zero program? If so, do the math and write to your elected representative with your concerns. Those numbers will communicate a powerful story.

AUTHOR

Fabiano Micoli

Fabiano Micoli first learned about A.P. Coleman’s contribution to climate science during a bicycle ride that took him through the Don Valley Brickworks. Fabiano has a B.Eng. (mechanical), MBA, and B.Ed…. More by Fabiano Micoli

RELATED ARTICLES:

STUDY: Only 12% of Atmospheric CO2 Added Since 1750 Is Man-Made, ‘Too low to be the cause of global warming’

DAVID BLACKMON: The Supreme Court Just Voted Unanimously To Rein In Biden’s EPA

EDITORS NOTE: This MercatorNet column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Yes, climate change is making people depressed and angry – but not for the reasons you might think

/in , , , , , , /by

Scaring readers out of their wits is not part of the job description of the American Geophysical Union.

The American Geophysical Union (AGU), founded in 1919, is possibly the world’s premier association of earth scientists, and numbers among its members many leading climate experts. I had the privilege of attending its annual Fall Meeting last December, held in Chicago, and I have never seen such a large concentration of scientific expertise in one place before.

The AGU publishes a science-newsmagazine called EOS, which summarizes technical and political developments of interest to the 65,000 or so members of the organization. I mention “political” because of the many scholarly publications I receive, EOS seems to be one of the most “woke.”

A good case in point is the article in the May 2023 issue of EOS with the title “The Mental Toll of Climate Change.” A notice at the head of the article reads, “Content Warning: This article discusses suicide and potential risk factors of suicide.” The author, Katherine Kornei, a science writer, interviewed mental-health providers and an “environmental psychologist” to explore the stresses brought on by both acute weather events (such as floods, tornadoes, and wildfires) and chronic issues (such as droughts and heat waves). And all these things are directly linked by the author to climate change. The few hard-science citations in the article referred to reports and papers that reinforce the notion that basically, anything that happens weather-wise that we don’t like is due to climate change.

Lest you think that an exaggeration, consider the first such citation. “In July 2018, an unprecedented heat wave in Japan killed more than a thousand people; researchers later showed that the event could not have happened without climate change.” This is a bold assertion, so I looked up the paper in question. It was authored by several meteorological researchers in Japan, who used statistical distributions based on a climate model which they admit (in another paper, which I had to track down) ignores atmosphere-ocean interactions and is useful only for modelling periods of up to a few years.

But to a science writer, their paper title (“The July 2018 High Temperature Event in Japan Could Not Have Happened without Human-Induced Global Warming“) was too tempting to resist. Here are a bunch of credentialed scientists saying that this deadly heat wave was the direct result of human activity. Only when one digs down into the details, as I did, does one find that the model they use leaves out essential features. Pretending the atmosphere doesn’t interact with the ocean may simplify a model, but it ignores well-known phenomena that can completely transform a model’s behaviour. And as Steven Koonin pointed out in a book I mentioned recently (Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters), to say anything meaningful about climate means that you need to take at least 30-year averages of data. A program that can only look at five years’ worth of data is useless for predicting climate events, although I’m sure it has enough free parameters to allow the researchers to obtain the results they wanted, namely, that the heat wave couldn’t have happened without climate change.

The rest of Kornei’s mental-health piece describes how “angry, baffled, and horrified” many people are when they hear that (a) climate change is soon going to bring civilization to a horrible end as we bake, freeze, drown, and/or blow away, and (b) there’s nothing we can do about it, or if we do we’ll have to go back to subsistence farming with mules and give up electricity and driving.

Well, if I really believed both of those statements, I’d be angry, baffled, and horrified too. Unfortunately, as Koonin points out in his book, climate scientists have joined forces with government leaders, commercial interests, and science journalists to paint this dismal picture, which Koonin, as an insider, says is highly distorted, to say the least.

Tackling the worst problem first, there is no logical way that any statistical model, even a good one (which the Japanese model is not) can “prove” a given weather event would not have happened without global warming. The only way you can do that is to have two identical Earths going exactly the same way till about 1800 AD and then let one exploit fossil fuels and keep the other one from doing so, and see what differences arise in the weather patterns. This experiment is impossible to do, and while essentially perfect climate and weather models could simulate such a thing, we are probably decades away from having such models, if indeed they can ever be made.

This leads to the second and more serious problem, which is that experts have irresponsibly given in to the temptation to go with the politically favourable climate-catastrophe narrative in flagrant violation of the principle of not venturing beyond your data. The Japanese report is a case in point, but there are hundreds of similar publications from all over the world that join the doom-crying chorus.

The members of the AGU who have encouraged this sort of thing bear the most responsibility for average citizens who are depressed because of climate change. Causing the problem, and then hiring a science writer to write about the problem, is the height of something—hypocrisy, irony, stupidity, take your choice.

The AGU should first clean up its own act by not exaggerating and fabricating claims of certain disaster that awaits us unless we voluntarily throw ourselves back to the Stone Age by giving up industrialized energy use. If as much effort was expended on adapting and mitigating whatever climate-change effects come our way, as there is now on showing how bad it’s going to be and developing punitive policies that thwart human flourishing, we’d be a lot better off.

And the AGU wouldn’t have to run articles on how depressed people are about the climate-change crisis that the AGU has played a large role in creating.

This article has been republished from the author’s blog, Engineering Ethics.

AUTHOR

Karl D. Stephan

Karl D. Stephan received the B. S. in Engineering from the California Institute of Technology in 1976. Following a year of graduate study at Cornell, he received the Master of Engineering degree in 1977… More by Karl D. Stephan

RELATED ARTICLE: And the inaugural Montgolfier Award for Sustained Stratospheric Virtue Signaling goes to…

EDITORS NOTE: This MercatorNet column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Climate Czar Kerry: Emissions from agriculture must be ‘front and center’

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

The climate war on food—Then they came for our food supply.

Farmers and ranchers who assume that their main job is to produce food to feed hungry people stand corrected. John Kerry, the Biden administration’s special envoy on climate, wants to enlist them in the global struggle to combat the “climate crisis.”

“A lot of people have no clue that agriculture contributes about 33% of all the emission in the world,” Kerry said during his May 17 keynote address at the Department of Agriculture’s AIM Climate Summit. “We can’t get to net-zero, we can’t get this job done unless agriculture is front and center as part of the solution. So all of us here understand the depths of this mission.”

“Food systems themselves contribute a significant amount of emissions just in the way we do the things we’ve been doing,” he continued. “With a growing population on the planet – we’ve just crossed the threshold of 8 billion fellow citizens around the world – emissions from the food system alone are expected to cause another half a degree of warming by mid-century.”

“Needs Innovation More Than Ever”

“This sector need innovation now more than ever,” Kerry went on. “We’re facing record malnutrition at a time when agriculture, more than any other sector, is suffering more than ever from the impacts of the climate crisis. And I refuse to call it climate change anymore. It’s not change. It’s a crisis.”

“We need economic, social, and policy innovation in order to scale adaptation of these technical solutions and get them into the hands of the folks in the fields of small farmers on a global basis. This is the promise of AIM for Climate Summit.”

Farmers won’t have to wait long for the “innovations” Kerry mentioned to come their way. The Biden administration has already pledged to take an “all of government” approach to addressing the “climate crisis,” and they mean business. Every agency of the federal government – from the Pentagon and HUD to the energy and agriculture departments – are pouring taxpayer-supplied resources into ever-expanding climate programs. The Department of Agriculture is already exhorting farmers to adopt “climate smart” policies when it comes to producing food. It is even dangling “climate-smart” grants before agricultural groups to get them to change their ways and grow food they way John Kerry and his ilk want them to do.

Though the Department of Agriculture has yet to elaborate on what it means by “climate smart,” it most certainly entails the agricultural sector severing ties to fossil fuels, either “voluntarily” or through coercion in the form of regulations. But because of natural gas’s role in making fertilizer, the government-forced transition will be a messy one. Farmers in places as far apart as Sri Lanka and the Netherlands were ordered by their respective governments to shrink their carbon footprint by reducing their nitrogen emissions. Protests in the Netherlands have been widespread, and in Sri Lanka, the government was overthrown, with the president forced to flee the country.

Lessons Not Learned

The climate misadventures in the Netherlands and Sri Lanka show what happens when people who know nothing about agriculture — and even less about the climate — impose policies on farmers that are divorced from the realities involved in producing food. When climate zealots mess with the food supply, they’re asking for trouble. Farmers in the U.S. are about to be told by urban elites how to run their farms. It won’t end well.

Author

Bonner Cohen, Ph. D.

Bonner R. Cohen, Ph. D., is a senior policy analyst with CFACT, where he focuses on natural resources, energy, property rights, and geopolitical developments. Articles by Dr. Cohen have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Investor’s Busines Daily, The New York Post, The Washington Examiner, The Washington Times, The Hill, The Epoch Times, The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The Miami Herald, and dozens of other newspapers around the country. He has been interviewed on Fox News, Fox Business Network, CNN, NBC News, NPR, BBC, BBC Worldwide Television, N24 (German-language news network), and scores of radio stations in the U.S. and Canada. He has testified before the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, and the U.S. House Natural Resources Committee. Dr. Cohen has addressed conferences in the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, and Bangladesh. He has a B.A. from the University of Georgia and a Ph. D. – summa cum laude – from the University of Munich.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Jane Fonda Blames Men for Climate Change: ‘We Have to Arrest and Jail Those Men’

Climate Activists Tipped Off WaPo Before They Vandalized A Famous Art Display, DOJ Says

EDITORS NOTE: This CFACT column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

‘I Just Can’t Get Over This Number’: CNN Host Shocked At Poll Showing Biden Cratering Among Key Demographic

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

CNN Host Poppy Harlow was shocked Friday about a new poll showing President Joe Biden polling poorly with independent-Democratic-leaning voters and younger voters.

CNN released a poll Thursday showing 66% of Americans say Biden winning in 2024 would be a “disaster” or “setback” for the country, with CNN’s Jake Tapper calling it “horrible news, horrible for Joe Biden.”

“New CNN polling shows 60% of Democratic and Democratic leaning voters backing Biden in 2024,” host Erica Hill said. The CNN poll showed 20% of Democrats support rival candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr and 8% are behind another challenger, author Marianne Williamson.

“When asked specifically about a second term, only a third of Americans feel a 2024 win for Biden would be a win for the country,” Hill continued, before introducing her panelists.

“When we look at this new polling, Ashley, you see the vast majority of Democratic aligned voters, they’re throwing their support behind Biden. But what stood out to me are independent leaning Democrats and younger voters, they’re really not as enthusiastic. There were questions about messaging. There were questions about what is or is not being sold. How significant do you think that hill is for Biden to climb?”

“I am almost certain that Joe Biden will be the democratic nominee by 2024,” former White House Senior Policy Adviser Ashley Allison responded, before saying Biden needs to “explain” to voters what he’s done and his plans for the future.

“I just can’t get over this number,” Harlow exclaimed. “Can we pull it back up? 66% of voters in this poll say Biden’s 2024 win, if he wins, what will that mean for the country? 66% say it will be a disaster or a setback. They’re not hot on Trump either, but how do you counter the numbers?”

“It’s going to be very difficult for him,” Republican strategist Chapin Fay said, arguing that the southern border is a huge issue plaguing the president.

Biden has performed poorly in recent polls, especially when it comes to issues like the border crisis. A recent Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll found just 31% of Americans approve Biden’s handling of immigration amid a surge of migrants arriving at the border.

AUTHOR

BRIANNA LYMAN

News and commentary writer.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Harvard Poll Shows One Stat That Could Mean The End Of Biden 2024

GAMA SOSA: Merrick Garland Is Slowly Defining A New Criminal Class, And Soon You’ll Be Part Of It

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Finland Electricity Prices Drops to BELOW ZERO Due to Efficiency of Nuclear Power Plants

/in , , , , , , /by

This is what common sense looks like.

Finnish Nuclear Plant Throttles Output After Electricity Prices “Become Too Cheap”

by Tyler Durden, Zero Hedge, May 25, 2023 – 02:45 AM

As we detailed in early May, the transition from testing to regular output last month saw Finland’s first nuclear power-plant drive electricity prices dramatically lower.

Asyle reports, the Olkiluoto 3 nuclear reactor in Eurajoki, southwest Finland, started regular electricity production in mid-April, about 14 years behind schedule

Since then prices for power in Finland have continued to plunge as the efficiency of the plant flooded the grid with ‘new’ energy.

So much in fact that early on Wednesday of last week, the market price for electricity dropped below zero cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) and for hours after that the price was only 0.3 cents per kWh at its highest, according to the country’s grid operator, Fingrid.

That was unacceptable and prompted the plant’s owner, Teollisuuden Voima (TVO) to significantly cut back its output…

“Electricity production must also be profitable for nuclear power plants, and when the price is particularly low, there may be situations where output is limited,” TVO communications manager, Johanna Aho, said.

According to Aho, cutting back on nuclear power production due to excessively low electricity prices is very rare, but not unheard of.

Janne Kauppi, an energy markets advisor at Finnish Energy, agreed with that sentiment.

“There haven’t been many situations where nuclear power output has been regulated specifically because of low prices,” Kauppi explained.

“When prices go negative on the electricity market, basically anyone who can adjust their production will do it, so that they don’t have to pay for their own production,” Kauppi noted.

The Finnish example is a testament to how nuclear can play a part in solving the current energy crisis, with consumers still paying sky-high fees for energy in many European countries.

However, the hypocrisy is of course that when power prices were extremely high in 2022, hurting consumers – it was all Russia’s fault; but now that prices are plummeting, operators can’t have that and withdraw supply to hurt consumers.

Do you see a pattern here?

Keep reading.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLE: Electricity prices in Finland flipped negative — a huge oversupply of clean, hydroelectric power meant suppliers were almost giving it away

RELATED TWEET:

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Supreme Court Rolls Back Biden EPA’s Expansive Water Regulation

/in , , , , , , , , , , /by

The Supreme Court rolled back the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority to regulate under the Clean Water Act (CWA) in a unanimous decision Thursday.

Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, brought by a couple prevented by the EPA from building a home on their own land near Priest Lake, Idaho because it contained wetlands, considered the scope of the agency’s “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) rule, which defines what “navigable waters” can be regulated under the CWA. Plaintiffs Chantell and Mike Sackett, who have spent 15 years fighting the agency’s rule in court, allege the EPA has overstepped the authority it was granted when Congress enacted the CWA in 1972—forcing them to stop construction on their land or face fines.

The Supreme Court sided with the Sacketts, determining their land is not covered under the text of the CWA, which gives the EPA authority to regulate “navigable waters.”

Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion, which was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barett, that the EPA’s interpretation “provides little notice to landowners of their obligations under the CWA.” The Court held that the CWA applies to only wetlands that are “as a practical matter indistinguishable from waters of the United States,” maintaining a “continuous surface connection.”

Though justices were united in their judgement, they maintained disagreements on definitions. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in an opinion concurring in judgement that was joined by Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, thought the majority went too far in its test for which wetlands are included.

“By narrowing the Act’s coverage of wetlands to only adjoining wetlands, the Court’s new test will leave some long-regulated adjacent wetlands no longer covered by the Clean Water Act, with significant repercussions for water quality and flood control throughout the United States,” he wrote.

Kagan similarly said in an opinion joined by Sotomayor and Jackson that the majority has appointed itself as “the national decision-maker on environmental policy” by choosing a test that “prevents the EPA from keeping our country’s waters clean by regulating adjacent wetlands.”

“The eight administrations since 1977 have maintained dramatically different views of how to regulate the environment, including under the Clean Water Act,” she wrote, noting some “promulgated very broad interpretations of adjacent wetlands.”

“Yet all of those eight different administrations have recognized as a matter of law that the Clean Water Act’s coverage of adjacent wetlands means more than adjoining wetlands and also includes wetlands separated from covered waters by man-made dikes or barriers, natural river berms, beach dunes, or the like,” she wrote. “That consistency in interpretation is strong confirmation of the ordinary meaning of adjacent wetlands.”

The decision likely means that the Biden administration will need to go back to the drawing board on its new WOTUS rule issued in January, which Republicans and some Democrats have criticized for placing a burden on landowners, ranchers and farmers while dramatically expanding the EPA’s authority. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell called it a “radical power grab that would give federal bureaucrats sweeping control over nearly every piece of land that touches a pothole, ditch, or puddle.”

In April, President Joe Biden vetoed a bipartisan bill to limit his administration’s WOTUS rule. Just days later, a federal court blocked the rule for 24 states that sued pending the Supreme Court’s decision.

“The Court’s ruling returns the scope of the Clean Water Act to its original and proper limits,” said Damien Schiff, a senior attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation who argued the case, in a statement. “Courts now have a clear measuring stick for fairness and consistency by federal regulators. Today’s ruling is a profound win for property rights and the constitutional separation of powers.”

AUTHOR

KATELYNN RICHARDSON

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLE: Biden’s EPA Chief Says ‘Environmental Justice’ Is In Agency’s ‘DNA’

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

‘It’s Criminal’: Central Wisconsin Communities Unite to Stave Off Looming Wind Turbine Industry

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

Power, money,  and fuel. We are really at war with these global idiots.

How many pipelines and energy projects were stopped dead in their tracks over some innocuous environmental concern or obscure fish “endangerment.”

As for “wind”, each wind turbine embodies a whole lot of petrochemicals and fossil-fuel energy in direct contrast to the Democrats war on oil.

‘It’s Criminal’: Central Wisconsin Communities Unite to Stave Off Looming Wind Turbine Industry

By: Epoch Times, May 21, 2023: (hat tip Carla)

Central Wisconsin communities are coordinating efforts to shine a light into the flickering shadow cast by a looming wind turbine industry.

“There is a revolt happening here,” attorney Marti Machtan told The Epoch Times. “I’ve never seen our communities engage like this in my life.”

Machtan is a member of Farmland First, an organization that aims to facilitate discussion among community members concerned about reported coercive, predatory tactics used by industrial wind companies to manipulate landowners into signing their property rights away in the name of green energy.

“These companies are sneaky about it,” Tom Wilcox— also a member of Farmland First and chairman of the Town of Green Grove in Owen, Wisconsin—told The Epoch Times. “They don’t want to come right out and say how this will work. In fact, part of the reason why people don’t know this is happening is farmers have to agree to keep their mouth shut on the details of the contract.”

Wilcox is also on the Clark County Board of Supervisors and chairman of the Clark County Planning and Zoning.

This month, at least 13 central Wisconsin towns have passed health and safety ordinances setting the ground rules for companies seeking to build wind turbines up to 600 feet tall as close as 1,250 feet from their homes.

The resolutions are written to mitigate the harm wind turbines have been reported to cause to people, their land, and their natural environment, including wildlife.

Word spread after some community members openly discussed rejecting alluring offers with payoffs of over $1 million over 30 years to have a wind turbine built on their farm.

Keep reading.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLES:

Rusting Monuments to Stupidity: Staggering Cost of Cleaning Up the Wind Industry’s Giant Mess

WIND TURBINE SLAUGHTER: Another Dead whale Washes Onto Jersey Shore — 9th One in NY-NJ Area in Just 2 months

Eminent Oxford Scientist Says Wind Power “Fails On Every Count”

Turbines Kill the Sea: “Carpet Bombing the Ocean Floor”

Bald, Golden Eagle Deaths Permitted Under New U.S. Wind Energy, Power Line Rules

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

AWED MEDIA BALANCED NEWS: We cover COVID to Climate, as well as Energy to Elections.

/in , , , , , , , , , , /by

Welcome! We cover COVID to Climate, as well as Energy to Elections.

Here is the link for this issue, so please share it on social media.

Bookmark or make Favorite the 2023, 2022, 2021 & 2020 Newsletter Archives.

Particularly note the ***asterisked*** items below…

— This Newsletter’s Articles, by Topic —

If You Only Have Time to Read a Few Select Articles:

*** Durham finds DOJ, FBI ‘failed to uphold’ mission of ‘strict fidelity to the law’ in Trump-Russia probe

*** Why the Durham Report Matters to Democracy

*** Tucker Carlson Announces New Show on Twitter

*** AI will be the Left’s greatest weapon against religious faith and truth

*** Google Unveils Plan to Demolish the Journalism Industry Using AI

*** Post Covid: Twelve Challenges for a Shattered World

*** Duke Health’s Antiracist “Pledge” Is Not Guided by Science

*** Supreme Court Case about “Home Equity Theft”?

*** Major New Book: The Marxification of Education

*** Wisconsin Asserts that Catholic Charity is Not ‘Primarily’ Religious

*** Using science to further government objectives

*** Study reveals scale of ‘science scam’ in academic publishing

*** An easy guide to rational energy policies

*** New Study: Nuclear Power Is Humanity’s Greenest Energy Option

*** Nuclear Power Everywhere All at Once

*** EPA v. The Grid

*** NY Senator Introduces Legislation to Prohibit Use of Fossil Fuels in Manufacturing of Renewable Energy Equipment

*** Senator Ron Johnson Asks Witnesses Blunt Questions About Climate Change

*** The Great Reset

*** The Left claims offshore wind costs are “benefits”

*** Electric Vehicle Illusions

Higher Education Related:

*** The Strategy Behind the Campaign to Abolish DEI Bureaucracies in Universities

Secondary Education Related:

*** Report: The Key to Fixing the US Education System

*** Are Our Children Being Propagandized in School?

*** Major New Book: The Marxification of Education

Review of The Marxification of Education

Activists threatened to ‘curb stomp’ them for speaking out against school curriculum

‘Never seen it this bad’: America faces catastrophic teacher shortage

Ever More Absurd New York City Education Spending

Oklahoma’s top education official wages war against teachers unions

Social-Emotional Learning (SEL):

*** Study Finds Multiple Problems with Push for Social-Emotional Learning in K-12 Education

*** Report: Social Emotional Learning — Don’t Be Fooled By The Title

*** Video: Social-Emotional Learning (SEL) | James Lindsay

*** The Trouble with Social Emotional Learning

*** Learning and Happiness: The Problem with Social-Emotional Learning

Social Emotional Learning: What could go wrong?

How social-emotional learning became a frontline in the battle against CRT

Greed Energy Economics:

Battle Looms Among NY Democrats Over High Cost of Green Energy Plans

Renewable Energy Health and Ecosystem Consequences:

Three bat species at risk of becoming endangered as wind turbines take heavy toll on wildlife

New Study: Bat Mortality in Wind Facilities of Southern Europe: Temporal Patterns and Implications in the Current Context of Climate Change

Renewables (General):

*** EPA v. The Grid

*** The wind and solar power myth has finally been exposed

*** Causal Effects

*** Wind and Solar Aren’t Nearly Enough: Why Biden Is Suddenly Supporting Fossil Fuels

There Is No Green “Energy Transition”

Oxford University’s Our World in Data falls for renewables industry spin

Wind Energy — Offshore:

*** The Left claims offshore wind costs are “benefits”

*** US Lawsuits filed against Offshore Wind Projects

R.I. fishermen file lawsuit notice over South Fork Wind Farm

‘Take’ authorizations prove NOAA is lying about whale deaths

Natural Resources Defense Council Announces STATE OF EMERGENCY for Atlantic Whales

CFACT’s Rucker testifies to NJ Senate GOP hearing on whale deaths

30th Dolphin Strands itself on a New Jersey beach

Wind Energy — Other:

*** Taking the Wind Out of Climate Change (referencing 60± studies)

*** How much wind killing do we want?

*** New Study: Wind Turbines Dry Out  Regional Soils

Studies Suggest That Wind Parks Cause Climate Change, Even Regional Drought

Study: The transmission of seismic vibrations from wind turbines

Nuclear Energy:

*** New Study: Nuclear Power Is Humanity’s Greenest Energy Option

*** Nuclear Power Everywhere All at Once

The Power of Fusion: Making America Energy Independent!

Fossil Fuel Energy:

*** NY Senator Introduces Legislation to Prohibit Use of Fossil Fuels in Manufacturing of Renewable Energy Equipment

*** An easy guide to rational energy policies

*** The Truth About Ozone

The Myth of Fossil Fuel Subsidies

Electric Vehicles (EVs):

*** Electric Vehicle Illusions

EPA’s almost bare-naked electric car mandate

California Will Be Exploiting Developing Countries to Achieve 1.8 Million EV Trucks

SUV emissions could wipe out EV gains

If the battery is the key to an EV future, China’s got a lock on it

Dominating EVs globally: How China is crushing the US car industry

Misc Energy:

*** The EPA Threatens to Turn Out the Lights

*** Paths to Net Zero: Identified, but not Demonstrated

Wheels Up

FERC commissioners tell senators of major grid reliability challenges, with some blaming markets

Biden Wages Terrifying, Suicidal War on Energy Security

Manmade Global Warming — Some Deceptions:

*** The Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC: An analysis of AR6

*** Actual science is discrediting the apocalyptic fantasies of ‘climate change’ cultists

*** Climate & Fairy Tales

What I Learned about What Exxon “Knew” re Climate Change

The Political Agenda of the IPCC

Manmade Global Warming — Misc:

*** Senator Ron Johnson Asks Witnesses Blunt Questions About Climate Change

*** The Obliging Presstitutes of Climate ‘Journalism’

*** 3 Damning Equations to Defeat Global Warming Zealots

*** CO2 Coalition Announces Election of Nobel Laureate Dr. John Clauser to its Board of Directors

*** Princeton University: Why Climate Change Is NOT an Emergency

Spoof: EIS Approval for Dummies

Canada’s green extremism is leading to disaster for its economy

US Election:

Election-Integrity.info (10 major election reports by our team of experts, plus much more!)

***  After Reviewing the Evidence, Sec. of State Says 2020 Election Was Stolen

*** WV SOS powerful statement to House regarding the 2020 presidential election

*** Our Interview with Secretary Warner

Democrats’ Far-Reaching ‘Reforms’ are the Real Threat to Election Security, Not Violent Conservatives

RNC Launches New Year-Round Election Integrity Department

Dominion CEO Predicts ‘Business Ultimately Goes to Zero’

US Election — State Issues:

*** New NC Supreme Court Majority Overturns Prior Majority’s Unconstitutional Interference in Redistricting

*** Virginia joins states pulling out of multi-state voter list program ERIC

The Voter Registration Machine Flipping the States Blue

Ranked Choice Voting Explained: Confusing, Chaotic

Alternate Voting Methods: The Left’s Radical Models For Political Control

Maryland Election Technology Not Certified, Requiring Immediate Decertification Of Machines

Governor Hobbs Thumbs Nose at Election Integrity and American Manufacturing

The Durham Report:

*** Durham finds DOJ, FBI ‘failed to uphold’ mission of ‘strict fidelity to the law’ in Trump-Russia probe

*** Why the Durham Report Matters to Democracy

Americans have lost their trust in government and Durham report shows why

Failed Justice Demands Accountability

RFK, Jr.:

Why RFK’s Candidacy Matters to the Conservative Cause

RFK Jr on Covid, Ukraine, Border, Nuclear Power and More

Misc US Politics:

*** 65-page Hunter Biden exposé produced by the House Judiciary Committee

*** Corruption of President Biden, and of the Justice Department, and of the Media

*** Trump’s CNN Town Hall Was a Dumpster Fire

White House to Crack Down on AI, Appoints VP Kamala Harris to Lead Task Force

Israel under Fire and The West’s Pusillanimous Response

What Happened to the Left?

The Blackout on Biden Corruption is Truly “Pulitzer-Level Stuff”

An Ulterior Media

Tucker Carlson:

*** Tucker Carlson Announces New Show on Twitter

Dominion settlement with Fox News had an unwritten agreement to fire Carlson

PAC to draft Tucker Carlson for president launches

Societally US:

*** Post Covid: Twelve Challenges for a Shattered World

*** Duke Health’s Antiracist “Pledge” Is Not Guided by Science

*** Supreme Court Case about “Home Equity Theft”?

*** Critically Thinking about Reparations

Manufacturing Mental Illness

Elites Manufacture Fake “Hate” Crisis as Pretext for Mass Spying, Blacklists, and Censorship

I identify as infallible, and I expect you to agree

US Politics and Socialism:

*** Rampage On America

*** Victor Hanson: The New Ugly Americans

U.S. financial system: 722 banks under threat of bankruptcy

Globalism:

*** The Great Reset

Timcast IRL – Elon Musk Names WEF Chair As Twitter CEO

Religion Related:

*** AI will be the Left’s greatest weapon against religious faith and truth

*** Wisconsin Asserts that Catholic Charity is Not ‘Primarily’ Religious

Catholic hospitals’ attorney reacts to win against Biden admin’s ‘shocking’ threats to force closures

Survey: Is Climate Change a False Religion?

VICTORY: North Carolina Establishes Law Protecting 3,000+ Lives Annually

Washington Elementary School District Settles With ACU After Discriminating Against Christians

Science:

*** Using science to further government objectives

*** Study reveals scale of ‘science scam’ in academic publishing

A Third of Scientific Papers May Be Fraudulent

Scientific Survey Shows Voters Across the Political Spectrum Are Ideologically Deluded

How Biden-Era Funding Is Skewing Scientific Research Ever-Wokeward

The Alarming Ideological Capture of Our Scientific Institutions

Plastic in the ocean is un-American; China is the big offender

Artificial Intelligence:

*** Google Unveils Plan to Demolish the Journalism Industry Using AI

AI Here, AI There, AI Everywhere

Artificial intelligence harsher than humans when people break the rules

AI Is Revolutionizing An Already Hi-Tech Oil & Gas Industry

Will AI Be Used To Skew The 2024 Election Results?

Five Reasons Why ChatGPT Flaunts Privacy

Ukraine:

*** Pray for the safety of the Ukrainian people

*** A well-rated source to make a Ukraine donation

*** Latest Developments in Ukraine: May 20th

COVID-19 — Injections:

*** Profiles in Courage: Prof. Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi

The COVID vaccines have an estimated death rate >1,000 higher than the acceptable safe limit

COVID-19 — Masks:

Masking Dissent

COVID-19 — Misc:

The Most Important COVID Test You’ve Never Heard Of

Long COVID scientists try to unravel blood clot mystery

COVID-19 — Repeated Important Information:

My webpage (C19Science.info) with dozens of Science-based COVID-19 reports

*** World Council of Health: Early COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines

*** FLCCC Long COVID Treatment Protocol

*** COVID-19: What You Need To Know (Physicians for Informed Consent)

*** If you have received a COVID-19 injection, here’s how to Detox

*** Place Your US Order for Free At-Home COVID-19 Tests

Please use social media, etc. to pass on this Newsletter to other open-minded citizens…If you’d like to be added to (or unsubscribe from) the distribution of our popular, free, worldwide Media Balance Newsletter, simply send me an email saying that.

Note 1: We recommend reading the Newsletter on your computer, not your phone, as some documents (e.g., PDFs) are much easier to read on a large computer screen… We’ve tried to use common fonts, etc. to minimize display issues.

Note 2: For past Newsletter issues see the archives from: 2020 & 2021 & 2022 & 2023. To accommodate numerous requests received about prior articles over all thirteen plus years of the Newsletter, we’ve put this together — where you can search ALL prior issues, by year. For a background about how the Newsletter is put together, etc., please read this.

Note 3: See this extensive list of reasonable books on climate change. As a parallel effort, we have also put together a list of some good books related to industrial wind energy. Both topics are also extensively covered on my website: WiseEnergy.org.

Note 4: I am not an attorney or a physician, so no material appearing in any of the Newsletters (or any of my websites) should be construed as giving legal or medical advice. My recommendation has always been: consult a competent, licensed attorney when you are involved with legal issues, and consult a competent physician regarding medical matters.

Copyright © 2023; Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions (see WiseEnergy.org).

Top State Judge Handling Climate Lawsuit Worked With Environmental Group Tied To Plaintiffs’ Lawyers

/in , , , , , , , , /by

The Chief Justice of Hawaii’s Supreme Court, who is hearing Honolulu’s lawsuit against oil and gas companies for climate damages, has worked with a D.C-based environmental group that has close ties to the plaintiff’s attorneys.

Honolulu’s lawsuit against Sunoco, Shell, Chevron and other companies is one of many lawsuits cities have filed against energy companies in an effort to extract alleged damages for the firms’ contributions to climate change; the Supreme Court declined to hear these lawsuits in April, pushing them back to state courts—meaning Honolulu’s case is now squarely before Hawaii Supreme Court Chief Justice Mark Recktenwald. However, on May 9, Recktenwald disclosed that he engages in “educational presentations relating to environmental, energy, and natural resource issues” and has worked with the Environmental Law Institute (ELI), a group which routinely collaborates with environmental activists.

ELI co-founded the Climate Judiciary Project, which developed a climate science and law curriculum for judges handling environment litigation, and has worked closely with individuals who have consulted for or been employed by the environmental activist legal firm representing Honolulu in its lawsuit, Sher Edling LLP.

“Judges are supposed to not only be impartial, but to maintain the appearance of impartiality so that the public can have faith in their rulings,” Rob Schilling, Executive Director of Energy Policy Advocates, a nonprofit that works for transparency in energy policy, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “It appears that the judge may have attended (or even presented at!) seminars organized for those on one side of this type of case. Those on the other side were not permitted to present their view, and the seminar took place outside of the courtroom and outside the protections provided by the rules of evidence.”

Recktenwald presented a remote course, “Rising Seas and Litigation: What Judges Need to Know About Warming-Driven Sea Level Rise,” in collaboration with the Environmental Law Institute on April 4, according to his disclosure. Recktenwald also presented at a December 2022 ELI webinar on “Hurricanes in a Changing Climate and Related Litigation and a 2020 symposium on “Judiciary And The Environmental Rule of Law: Adjudicating Our Future,” which was also in collaboration with ELI but was omitted from his May 9 disclosure.

Moreover, those connected to ELI and the CJP curriculum’s development have direct links to Sher Edling.

Ann Carlson, President Joe Biden’s nominee for National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administrator who served on the board of directors for the Environmental Law Institute from 2016 to 2020, previously consulted for Sher Edling and solicited donations on behalf of the firm, according to Fox News.

Carlson, who is a professor at UCLA Law School’s Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment Center, which previously hosted events supporting the cause of climate lawsuits, was also an advisor for ELI’s curriculum instructing judges on how to examine climate-based cases.

She also used money from funds she had access to at UCLA, titled the “Ann Carlson Discretionary Fund,” to help fund a 2019 trip that allowed her to “encourage Hawaii to consider a nuisance lawsuit,” according to emails obtained by Climate Litigation Watch. Honolulu filed its lawsuit in March 2020.

Michael Burger, who currently works on climate cases at Sher Edling in his capacity as Of Counsel, has spoken at an ELI briefing and conference. Burger has also filed multiple amicus briefs in support of cities suing oil and gas companies as executive director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School.

Former Sher Edling employee Meredith Wilensky was a Public Interest Law Fellow at the Environmental Law Institute before she joined the firm in 2017, according to LinkedIn.

Schilling said the connection to the law firm backing plaintiffs in these climate lawsuits is “clear.”

“In short, after the climate plaintiffs lost in California and New York, with one judge not only keeping the case in federal court but requesting a day of evidence on the science, the Environmental Law Institute scrambled to organize what became this running operation to get the plaintiffs’ case in front of as many judges as possible,” he said. “Their materials don’t even bother a nod at [subtlety].”

Northern District of California Judge William Alsup tossed climate cases from San Francisco and Oakland in June 2018, and Southern District of New York Judge John F. Keenan tossed a case from New York City in July 2018. The Climate Judiciary Project was launched in April 2019.

“As the body of climate litigation grows, judges must consider complex scientific and legal questions, many of which are developing rapidly,” its website states. “To address these issues, the Climate Judiciary Project of the Environmental Law Institute is collaborating with leading national judicial education institutions to meet judges’ need for basic familiarity with climate science methods and concepts.”

Modules in the Climate Judiciary Project’s curriculum from January 2023 include “Overview of Climate Litigation,” “Judicial Remedies for Climate Disruption: A Preliminary Analysis,” and “Procedural Techniques Available for Climate Litigation.”

Recktenwald notes in his disclosure that he also intends to present at a June 20 virtual event titled, “Environment, Energy and Natural Resource Disputes: The Use of Special Masters in Resolving Complex Litigation,” as co-chair of the Energy, Environment and Natural Resources Committee of the Conferences of Chief Justices and Chief Court Administrators. His notice asks “any party who has concerns” about his participation to object by May 19, 2023.

“And so, these seminars parade a series of plaintiffs’ witnesses and supportive amicus brief filers before potential judges,” Schilling said. “In fact, another activist seminar presenter, Prof. Charles Fletcher, just sought leave from the Hawai’i Supreme Court on Friday to file an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs.”

Recktenwald isn’t the only judge who has participated in ELI seminars. Two additional judges on the Hawaii Supreme Court, Associate Justice Sabrina McKenna and Associate Justice Michael Wilson, also participated in the 2020 symposium, along with judges on other Hawaii courts and from different states.

In March, the Hawaii Supreme Court found in a separate case that citizens have a right to a “life-sustaining climate system.”

Wilson wrote in a concurring opinion that we are facing a “climate emergency” that puts the “lives of our children and future generations” at stake.

“[T]he history of these seminars, from their timing and origins to the widespread and extremely active participation by judges hearing these cases — which of course was the seminars’ entire objective — is something that it is difficult to conceive is actually happening in the U.S,” Schilling said.

Recktenwald, Sher Edling, ELI and the companies being sued by Honolulu did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

AUTHOR

KATELYNN RICHARDSON

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLE: ‘Disappointing’: SCOTUS Won’t Hear Energy Companies’ Appeals To Climate Damage Lawsuits

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

STUDY: Only 12% of Atmospheric CO2 Added Since 1750 Is Man-Made, ‘Too low to be the cause of global warming’

/in , , , , , , /by

The Man-Made Global Warming Myth Debunked.

Devastating for the climate narrative.

Carbon-14 dating shows only 12% of atmospheric CO2 added since 1750 is manmade. ‘Much too low to be the cause of global warming.’

Truth is the enemy to the left. They are destroying civilization, our very way of life, in their pursuit of a dark, miserable future.

World Atmospheric CO2, Its 14C Specific Activity, Non-fossil Component, Anthropogenic Fossil Component, and Emissions (1750–2018)

Abstract

After 1750 and the onset of the industrial revolution, the anthropogenic fossil component and the non-fossil component in the total atmospheric CO2 concentration, C(t), began to increase. Despite the lack of knowledge of these two components, claims that all or most of the increase in C(t) since 1800 has been due to the anthropogenic fossil component have continued since they began in 1960 with “Keeling Curve: Increase in CO2 from burning fossil fuel.” Data and plots of annual anthropogenic fossil CO2 emissions and concentrations, C(t), published by the Energy Information Administration, are expanded in this paper. Additions include annual mean values in 1750 through 2018 of the 14C specific activity, concentrations of the two components, and their changes from values in 1750. The specific activity of 14C in the atmosphere gets reduced by a dilution effect when fossil CO2, which is devoid of 14C, enters the atmosphere. We have used the results of this effect to quantify the two components. All results covering the period from 1750 through 2018 are listed in a table and plotted in figures. These results negate claims that the increase in C(t) since 1800 has been dominated by the increase of the anthropogenic fossil component. We determined that in 2018, atmospheric anthropogenic fossil CO2 represented 23% of the total emissions since 1750 with the remaining 77% in the exchange reservoirs. Our results show that the percentage of the total CO2 due to the use of fossil fuels from 1750 to 2018 increased from 0% in 1750 to 12% in 2018, much too low to be the cause of global warming. 

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED VIDEO: Patrick Moore Co-Founder, former leader of Greenpeace: “Speaking Truth to Power Award”

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Sen. Joe Manchin Vows To Block All Biden Nominees To Environmental Protection Agency

/in , , , , , , , , /by

Democratic West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin will block all of President Joe Biden’s nominees to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over the agency’s proposed rule regulating power plants, he announced Wednesday.

“This Administration is determined to advance its radical climate agenda and has made it clear they are hellbent on doing everything in their power to regulate coal and gas-fueled power plants out of existence, no matter the cost to energy security and reliability. Just last week, before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, every FERC Commissioner agreed that we cannot eliminate coal today or in the near future if we want to have a reliable electric grid. If the reports are true, the pending EPA proposal would impact nearly all fossil-fueled power plants in the United States, which generate about 60 percent of our electricity, without an adequate plan to replace the lost baseload generation. This piles on top of a broader regulatory agenda being rolled out designed to kill the fossil industry by a thousand cuts,” Manchin said in a statement.

“Neither the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law nor the IRA gave new authority to regulate power plant emission standards. However, I fear that this Administration’s commitment to their extreme ideology overshadows their responsibility to ensure long-lasting energy and economic security and I will oppose all EPA nominees until they halt their government overreach,” he continued.

EPA administrator Michael Regan is scheduled to announce his agency’s new power plant regulations on Thursday. The new rules will reportedly require gas and coal power plants to employ carbon capture technology, according to The New York Times. Out of the 3,400 currently operational power plants in the U.S., fewer than 20 have the appropriate technology in place to comply with the rule. They would have to do so by 2040.

Republicans have made extensive use of the Congressional Review Act in the 118th Congress in a bid to push back against Biden administration rules and regulations. Manchin has signed on to resolutions that would roll back the COVID-19 pandemic emergency and a Department of Labor environmental, social, and governance investing rule. Congress could move to roll back the EPA regulation, although any passed resolution would be subject to a presidential veto.

Manchin has voted against Biden administration nominees more often than any other Senate Democrat. Most recently, he announced his opposition to a Department of the Interior nominee over concerns she would play “political games” with energy production. Manchin is still considering whether or not to support Labor Secretary nominee Julie Su.

The Senate is currently considering two nominees for EPA posts, and two others remain vacant, according to a Washington Post tracker.

AUTHOR

MICHAEL GINSBERG

Congressional correspondent.

RELATED ARTICLE: Manchin Sinks Biden Federal Reserve Nominee Who Drew Republican Boycott

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Wind turbines irreparable harm to our natural world: CFACT to NJ GOP legislators

/in , , , , , , /by

Last week I participated in a hearing conducted by the New Jersey Senate GOP on the subject of offshore wind and whales.  During my testimony I spoke about the “irreparable harm” in store for both people and marine life from permitting these unbelievably massive offshore wind farms to spoil the Jersey Shore.

You can watch the entire hearing below.  My testimony starts at 1:07.

“It’s our contention that the reckless net zero energy policies that are currently being pursued by the Biden Administration as well as certain governors and agencies at both the national and state level” I said, “are doing irreparable harm to our natural world, and they should be halted until further research be undertaken to assess their impacts.”

The rush that federal and state officials are putting on to broom these offshore wind projects through is as stunning as it is irresponsible.  Our coasts are being spoiled without regard to the harmful impacts in store.  This may spell the end for the Atlantic Right Whale as well as other species.

“The decibel level of the sonar testing for the offshore wind, where you are at [New Jersey], is not far removed from that which the Navy used, often reaching near 200 decibels,” I explained, “the monopile driving to place the wind turbines into the ground can also reach that level or higher as well as the operational sound of giant wind turbines once they’re up and running according to our research. This presents a clear and present danger to all whale species, especially the Right Whale, of which there are only about 350 or so that remain in the wild.”

Offshore wind is an inefficient way to produce energy, but a very efficient way to wreck natural habitats. CFACT calls for a halt until all the impacts are thoroughly understood.

For nature and people too.

RELATED ARTICLES:

CFACT’s Rucker invited to testify to NJ Senate GOP hearing on whale deaths

Big ‘Green’ groups love wind turbines — Eagles… not so much

Biden announces airlift of wind turbines and solar panels to Europe

Scotland cut down 14 million trees to make way for wind turbines

Frozen wind turbines, wolf quota hunt, gun control — oh my!

EDITORS NOTE: This CFACT column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Climate Change: A Fairy-Tale Wrapped In Falsehoods Inside Fictions

/in , , , , , , , , /by

The phony climate change narrative has had a rough time on Capitol Hill, lately.

David Turk, deputy secretary of the Energy Department, made a complete fool of himself in congressional testimony when he would not say how much it would cost to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050.  He admitted it would cost trillions of dollars, but would not affirm credible estimates it would cost $50 trillion.  All he did was dance around the question and filibuster.  And what do we get for spending $50 trillion?  He was asked point-blank how much achieving carbon neutrality by 2050 would lower world temperatures and he NEVER ANSWERED THE QUESTION.  He went on and on about how it’s a global problem and the U.S. is 13 percent of it, blah blah blah, but he would not be pinned down on the effect of carbon neutrality on temperatures.  He didn’t even offer to provide the information later, as congressional witnesses commonly do.  He just sat there all smug, repeating his platitudes about how “this is a global problem” and how we need ‘fundamental transformation’.  No, what we need is to stop government by phony narratives and get rid of tyrants like Turk who invoke those narratives to rule over us.  According to this guy, we’re just supposed to spend trillions of dollars without asking any questions to reach climate goals he won’t specify because, one may reasonably conclude from his evasiveness, spending trillions of dollars won’t make any difference at all to climate change.

But make no mistake: the ruling over us has already begun.  The Biden administration has issued an avalanche of new rules in the name of climate change raising the cost of washing machines, dishwashers, microwaves, toothbrush chargers, and other household appliances, as well as degrading their performance.  Climate change is YOUR fault, you see, and you must be made to suffer.  Only if you submit and bow down to your new masters will we keep the planet from burning up.  What a crock!

Back to Capitol Hill, Interior Secretary Deb Haaland was asked, “Are you aware that China controls, by proxy production, the supply chain of critical minerals that are critical to both the [electric vehicle] world and defense?  … Are you aware, by multiple studies, that in order to satisfy the present requirements of [electric vehicles] and critical minerals to defense, it would take an increase of 2,000% of mining for 20 years?”  She was tongue-tied.  She had no idea how to respond.  She had never heard this before, despite years of warnings from western land rights activists the federal government is locking up our minerals in national monument designations and making us completely dependent on China for our critical defense needs.    In addition, Haaland’s interior Department has been blocking critical mining projects in Minnesota and elsewhere that would reduce our dependence on China.

A recent World Bank study showed the world cannot possibly produce enough lithium, cobalt, copper, nickel, or other minerals necessary to support a world green energy transition.

So what we have here is government by phony narrative, implemented by ignorant know-nothing fools who have no idea what they’re talking about and are totally out of touch with reality.  All these self-promoters can see is that they’ve made their careers pushing absolute nonsense and the path to further power and riches for themselves is to keep right on doing so, regardless of the consequences to others.

But, as economists like to say, things will continue until they can’t.  Someday, hopefully in the not-too-far distant future, it will become apparent to all the green energy transition is a pipedream completely impossible to achieve.  It will become apparent too many other important values like national security, expense, performance, and living standards are being sacrificed on the altar of climate change for no good reason – green energy regulations are all pain for no gain.  And when that day comes, the charlatans of climate change who want to rule over us will be exposed for what they are.  That day can’t come soon enough.

©Christopher Wright. All rights reserved.

Visit The Daily Skirmish and Watch Eagle Headline News – 7:30am ET Weekdays

Gavin Newsom’s Carbon-Neutral Grid Plan Looks To Be Going The Way Of The Bullet Train To Nowhere

/in , , , , , , , , /by

California’s planned transition to a carbon-neutral electricity grid by 2045 relies heavily on offshore wind power. It might take a miracle to get there. The growth of offshore wind will have to accelerate faster than a Tesla Model S, which goes from zero to 60 in less than two seconds.

As of 2023, there is no offshore wind in California. But, as the Los Angeles Times reports, “state and local governments are banking on offshore wind to help reach their renewable energy goals.” CalMatters environment reporter Nadia Lopez says “California is betting on giant wind farms in the ocean to strengthen the grid and meet [the state’s] renewable energy goals.”

The potential is there. So are the hurdles.

“The California coast is home to some of the best offshore wind resources in the country,” says the energy and environmental blog of law firm Davis Wright Tremaine. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory estimates there is the potential to generate 201,000 megawatts of power off the coast. Plans call for the state to harness from 2,000 to 5,000 megawatts of it by 2030, then 25,000 megawatts (25 gigawatts) by 2045, generating enough electricity for 25 million homes. (There are currently about 14.5 million housing units in California, according to the Census Bureau).

But this is California, where building anything, in particular massive public works projects — say, a bullet train — is a task that is grueling, protracted and in some instances impossible.

The most stubborn barrier to overcome — and who could have guessed this? — will be cost. MIT Technology Review says California’s “audacious plans” run up against “a daunting geological challenge.” Just a few miles off the coast, the continental shelf drops sharply. This “makes it prohibitively expensive to erect standard offshore wind turbines which are set atop fixed structures that extend to the seafloor.” Turbines located near Morro Bay, where the water is 4,300 feet deep, will have to be built on floating platforms. But these floating turbines are not only “speculative,” says MIT, the technology behind them is also “very costly.” As of now, there are only a handful of floating offshore wind platforms in the world and the combined output of these demonstration projects, 123 megawatts, is meaningless on a global scale.

The University of California Berkeley’s Center for Environmental Public Policy says that nearly 24 of the 25 gigawatts of planned offshore electricity will be produced from windmills floating on platforms.

This of course will cause costs to rise to unaffordable levels. At $1.04 per megawatt hour, offshore wind has the most expensive “levelized cost of electricity and levelized cost of storage for new resources entering service in 2027,” according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Battery storage is next at 64 cents per megawatt hour. All dispatchable sources are far cheaper, including nuclear, which would cost 61 cents per megawatt hour.

There are also logistical detours and roadblocks ahead. Adam Stern, executive director of Offshore Wind California, an industry group, says to expect the planning and regulatory process to drag out (our words, not his) for five to six years.

The same eco-warriors who have pressured the state to close natural gas and nuclear plants, and wield almost unlimited political clout in Sacramento and Washington, will find environmental hazards to justify their opposition to offshore wind. Fishermen will protest the negative impacts on their livelihoods, and engineering, material and cost challenges associated with the underwater cables needed to anchor floating turbines and move the power they generate are bound to emerge.

And should the state decide to locate turbines nearer to shore to avoid the high cost of floating platforms, there will be opposition from rich coastal elites who don’t want their views by the spinning monsters.

What’s more, offshore wind is vulnerable to tsunamis, the threat of which is “high to very high” on the West Coast.

We are in the fourth month of 2023, not 22 years from the state’s 2045 deadline, and not a single offshore wind project has been started. It’s unlikely we will see even a glimpse of progress for years, maybe not even in this decade. Despite the obvious obstacles ahead, there’s been no talk of revisiting a surely impossible target date, no sense of uneasiness in Sacramento, just an Admiral Farragut “damn the torpedoes” mindset that has the potential to sink California.

AUTHOR

KERRY JACKSON

Kerry Jackson is a fellow with the Center for California Reform at the Pacific Research Institute.

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller.

RELATED ARTICLE: JASON ISAAC: The Great Carbon Capture Scam

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.