VIDEO: The Vortex — Campaigning for Catholics

TRANSCRIPT

You may remember your mom saying to you, “Never talk about religion or politics.”

Well, here at Church Militant, that’s all we do. And for the record, my mom, Mother Vortex, never said that. It was just the opposite — but I digress.

Catholics have traditionally voted and been involved in U.S. politics in numbers far greater than their percentage of the population. That’s something that political parties have noted in the past, most recently President Donald Trump when he was still just Candidate Trump.

In 2016, Trump scored gains among Catholic voters and may have been the first Republican who did better with Catholics than the electorate at large. There is a dispute among the so-called experts about that stat, however. Exit polls showed him beating Hillary among Catholic voters by 4% while losing the popular vote by two points.

If that’s true, Trump likely owes the White House to Catholic voters, who gave him the majority of the vote in blue wall states of Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Hillary failed to produce the so-called Catholic margin that Obama did in 2008 and again in 2012.

In fairness, a later academic survey claimed he lost Catholics by three points. But that would be a whopping seven-point swing between the exit polls and the later survey, so it remains an open question.

But however you slice it, Catholicism is a major factor in 2020, even in the face of a shrinking Catholic population. Trump, as he did in 2016, already has an active Catholic outreach in his campaign.

However, the only candidate from the Party of Death who openly claims the label “Catholic” is Joe Biden, the pro-abort phony — who was denied Holy Communion a couple weeks ago by a good priest in South Carolina — who is also singing hymns on the campaign trail.

Aware of Trump’s appeal to a seeming majority of Catholic voters, Biden is courting them, if even in a low-key kind of way. In Dubuque, Iowa last week, specifically Dubuque County, he sounded pretty devout, as you might expect.

Dubuque has the nickname “Rome of America,” and is one of only 74 counties out of 3,000+ that has a Catholic majority. So Biden used the opportunity to play up his faith, talking about it, but saying he doesn’t seek to impose it on anyone.

Notably, his campaign manager Greg Schultz is Catholic as well, and repeats the same mantra often on behalf of Biden in numerous press interviews.

Trump was able to secure his victory, at least in part, by convincing white working-class voters, especially in Midwestern rural areas and small towns, to get out and vote for him. Many of those places, like Dubuque County, also happen to be heavily Catholic.

In 2016, Trump won the county by roughly 500 votes, out of more than 45,000 cast. While the margin was razor thin in the more urban county, he cut deeply enough into it to neutralize it. That allowed him to secure a majority of Catholics in the more rural areas to win the entire state by a 51–41 margin over Hillary.

That win, incorporating a Catholic strategy, put Iowa in Trump’s column by the largest margin for any Republican since Ronald Reagan in 1980, and that is a hallmark accomplishment.

Biden still has to get past the raucous Democratic primary process, which changes frontrunners and margins almost daily.

One thing to keep an eye on, as a kind of political crystal ball for next November, is to see how Biden performs specifically in Dubuque County among Catholic voters in the Iowa caucuses — which, for the record, are less than 90 days away. Yes, you heard that right — February 3, it all kicks off in Iowa.

Two points worth noting in Campaign 2020: First, this may be the last election where the Catholic vote is so important. With the rapidly decreasing Catholic population as a share of the overall population, coupled with the upsurge of those with no religion, 2020 may signal the end of any intense politicking for the Catholic vote.

A short while ago, so-called nones (those professing no religious adherence) overtook Catholics as the most populous group in the nation in terms of religion, or lack thereof. In 2024, that lead will increase significantly, as the consequences of horrible catechesis drives more young people from the Church, and the culture remains unchallenged by compromised bishops.

Second point to note: Too many of the U.S. bishops equivocate on important topics like abortion, pushing a substitute morality instead, where issues like immigration and fake man-made climate change take center stage. Those issues are made-to-order Democratic talking points and play right into the hands of the Party of Death.

So we are left with the very interesting and curious situation that a man like Trump is actually pushing policies more Catholic than the Catholic bishops.

So when you hear “Don’t ever talk about religion and politics,” don’t believe it. Religion and politics are so tightly bound with each other that they are sometimes indistinguishable, especially on the campaign trail.

Church Militant will be your leading Catholic source for news and coverage of Campaign 2020 as election day approaches — now just 357 days away. And yes, we will be doing a lot of talking about it — religion and politics.

EDITORS NOTE: This Church Militant video is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Lettuce Pray: Climate Change, Neo-Paganism, and the End of the World

The climate change movement has become the “modern world’s secular religion,” declared Wall Street Journal columnist Gerard Baker recently.

Climate activists preach a gospel of conservation that aims to redeem humanity’s environmental sins. They counsel us to abstain from eating meat to reduce our “carbon footprint,” and prophesy that Earth will perish unless governments worldwide trust the oracle from whom we received this hallowed revelation.

Climate cultists appropriate aspects of Christianity to call the world to repent for its “Original Sin of a carbon industrial revolution,” wrote Baker. They do that and more. Climate cultists, whether consciously or unconsciously, have adopted the schema of the Christian eschaton, or end of the world. They have also incorporated into their faith elements of neo-paganism.

Baker wasn’t the first to spot traces of the eschaton in the climate gospel. Researchers Rachelle Peterson and Peter Wood remarked in “Sustainability: Higher Education’s New Fundamentalism” that “sustainability, like Christianity, offers a view of the Earth as once-pristine and pure but now fallen; recognizes the sinfulness of humanity,” and “offers forms of expiation and absolution.”

The demand for socialism is on the rise from young Americans today. But is socialism even morally sound? Find out more now >>

However, rather than seeking to redeem humanity in the “next life,” sustainability promises to stave off the end times and save sinners in the “here and now.”

Some episodes have emphasized the climate cult’s resemblance to neo-paganism. Sumantra Maitra at The Federalist pointed to an event at Union Theological Seminary in New York City where students confessed their sins to plants. Maitra argued that this means climate activists are “pagan animists.” In other words, they believe that worshipping nature enables one to “grow as a living soul connected to the universe.”

Maitra also highlighted a gathering at the Glarus Alps where 250 Swedes hosted a funeral to mourn a melting glacier. And Martha Sheen at The Irish Times identified shades of paganism in the climate gospel’s code of how to live, which prescribes “ritualistic sacrifices” like abstaining from meat to “satisfy the gods.”

Maitra and Sheen noted that, as opposed to Christians, Jews, and Muslims, who worship a personal creator that engages humanity from without space and time, neo-pagans worship Earth and other created things.

The emergence of pagan themes in climate activist circles is part of a trend away from Judeo-Christian-based faiths and toward religions like Wicca, which has surged in popularity among millennials, the demographic that worries most about climate change.

Wiccans aren’t the only neo-pagan sect. “Druids, Goddess worshipers, Heathens, and Shamans” count too. And although neo-pagan beliefs vary, historian Ronald Hutton of Bristol University has said that neo-pagans practice “forms of worship which regard nature as sacred.”

Some worship inanimate objects such as “trees, plants, and animals” to glorify the “soul” of each. Pre-Christian Celts, for example, worshipped the River Boyne in Ireland as Boann, the “Celtic Goddess of Poetry, Fertility, Inspiration, Knowledge, and Creativity,” to quote one feminist writer. Almost all pagans consult an astrology guru and play with tarot cards.

Neo-pagans form a small segment of Americans, but their ideas have permeated elites. Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in March indulged fans who obsessed over what her time of birth and horoscope meant for the future of the republic. In response to “fervent public interest,” she allowed astrologer Arthur Lipp-Bonewits to tweet the information.

Singer and climate crisis believer Lana Del Ray described herself in 2017 as a “witch” and said she hexed President Donald Trump. She bade her Twitter followers do the same, directing them to “bind” the president on dates that “corresponded to monthly waning crescent moons.”

New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady trumpeted his connections to neo-paganism after winning his sixth Super Bowl title in February. He told reporters that his wife, supermodel and climate crisis apologist Gisele Bundchen, “always makes a little altar” for him before the big game and provides him with “healing stones and protection stones.”

Bundchen allegedly predicted that the Patriots would overcome the Los Angeles Rams in Super Bowl 53 and said to Brady later that night, “You’re lucky you married a witch.”

There have also been reports claiming that conservative icon and former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who played a formative role in persuading the United States to sign on to the Montreal Protocol in 1987, consulted an astrologer after she was nearly assassinated in 1984 by IRA terrorists. The Irish Times in 1996 quoted astrologist Marjorie Orr alleging she was asked by Thatcher to “warn her of future threats.”

Former President Ronald Reagan, without whom there wouldn’t have been a Montreal Protocol, leveraged his influence to help the treaty along for reasons, said The New York Times in 2013, “no one has ever quite understood.”

Reagan was, of course, warned that failing to join the protocol would deplete the earth’s ozone layer. But according to former White House Chief of Staff Don Regan, “virtually every major move” at the Reagan White House was cleared by Joan Quigley, an astrologer hired by Mrs. Reagan after John Hinckley Jr. failed to assassinate the president outside the Washington Hilton in March 1981.

At one point, wrote historian H. W. Brands in “Reagan: The Life,” it appeared to some in the administration that Quigley’s consultations determined even the president’s medical regimen.

None of this suggests that all climate crisis believers are neo-pagans, but wherever one hears among elites a call to save the planet, one also finds neo-paganism.

The outbreak of essays revealing the climate change movement’s religious underpinnings bothered at least some of its defenders.

According to a blog post at Sightings, an outlet published by The University of Chicago’s Martin Marty Center for the Public Understanding of Religion, conservatives have made similar arguments about everything from “Marxism to socialism, liberal progressivism, [and] Silicon Valley capitalism,” all of which also combined the Christian eschaton with its own worldview.

Critiquing secular ideas about the eschaton isn’t a niche market for right-wingers, however. In “God and Gold: Britain, America, and the Making of the Modern World,” historian Walter Russell Mead traced the Christian, or, Abrahamic origins of today’s secular ideologies not to discredit them, but to explain how they influence domestic political movements and foreign policy.

The Abrahamic understanding of history teaches that events are “part of a narrative that extends back into the misty prehistoric past and forward to some unimaginable climax in the future.”

Liberalism borrowed from Abrahamism the idea that history has a “shape and purpose: a beginning, middle, and an end”: Humanity began prehistory in a state of natural freedom. The first despotic governments sank it into an era darkened by class warfare, wars over religion, and arbitrary state rule. History ends when representative democracies, religious liberty, free markets, and low tariffs between trading countries fulfill liberalism’s purpose to create a “peaceful, liberal, and prosperous world order.”

Climate activists (and most secular liberals) fall under the category of what Mead called “Unconscious Abrahamists,” or, “those whose mental and political worlds are shaped in an Abrahamic context without the influence of a conscious religious belief.”

In the climate activist’s version of history, Earth’s “Garden of Eden” spanned the years that preceded the Industrial Revolution. Man fell into history when he began to deforest the world and burn carbon-emitting fossil fuels to shelter his offspring and grow the economy. The last days will come when his refusal to recognize the “integrity of non-human nature” causes a global catastrophe that destroys the planet as we know it. An eschaton.

Appropriating Abrahamic themes isn’t likely to make climate cultists treat their political opponents amiably.

“Wars of religion are largely an Abrahamic trait, found among the Abrahamic peoples and, in self-defense, among their neighbors,” Mead wrote.

A survey of the news stories coming out of the world of climate activism shows that even secular citizens who claim to be relativists share the Abrahamic faiths’ tendency to insist upon the universality of truth. And like the warring sides in conflicts past, they intend to shape human beings and political institutions to reflect that understanding.

Climate cultists so far haven’t organized to resist the carbon-emitting powers by the sword, but they have assumed responsibility for remaking civilization in their image.

Ocasio-Cortez became an icon of climate cultism when she proposed the Green New Deal in February. The bill alleged that “human activity” is melting glaciers, and increasing the rate of occurrence of wildfires, severe storms, and droughts.

If the earth warms “two degrees Celsius beyond pre-industrialized” temperatures, she warned, 99% of coral reefs will go extinct and over 350 million people will fall victim to “deadly heat stress.”

Ocasio-Cortez also catastrophized that the climate crisis will cause the American economy to crumble. She predicted the United States will lose $1 trillion caused by damage to public infrastructure and “coastal real estate.” This detail likely hit home with AOC’s big-money donors and members of Congress.

The Green New Deal counted pilots, farmers, and coal miners together. It proposed that we mobilize the country to a degree not seen “since World II” to purge the earth of farting cows and airplanes.

To get there, we must first “overhaul transportation and agriculture,” which is to say the federal government must shut down transportation and agricultural industries as they currently exist. These policies will guarantee that the United States emits “zero greenhouse gases.”

Greta Thunberg, a 16-year-old of Swedish origin, bore witness to Ocasio-Cortez’s testimonial when she addressed the United Nations in September.

“My message is that we will be watching you,” Thunberg began before an audience of world leaders. She upbraided the carbon-emitting civilization that transmitted her image around the world crowing, “You have stolen my dreams.” Even 50% cuts won’t suffice to heal the planet. “If you choose to fail us,” she concluded, millennials “will never forgive you.”

The climate gospel of Thunberg and Ocasio-Cortez is spreading. Extinction Rebellion, a British environmentalist group, recently blockaded thoroughfares in London to “address the climate crisis.” It entreats its followers to create a “world that is fit for generations to come.” And hopes to regenerate our culture by making it “healthy, resilient, and adaptable.” Its members actively hose nonbelievers with fake blood. What does this mean for us?

No civilization has a pass to trash the planet, of which the post-industrialized world is guilty. Nevertheless, climate cultists have amalgamated ideas that should not mix. The heirs of the Wicker Man should not be flattered to think that they can deliver humanity’s salvation.

Despite their talk of bringing us together, neo-pagans behave like people unfit to rule. They mock climate skeptics, prophesy phony predictions, worship themselves more than “Mother Earth,” and threaten to harm us unless we do what they say.

A 2018 Gallup Poll survey showed that climate cultists are winning the minds of millennials. We’re running out of time to stop the disciples of AOC from taking their agenda to Washington. The best we can do now is show that climate cultists are exaggerating their claims to attain political power.

Perhaps we can. The concept of “solar geoengineering,” which would have us blast particles into the atmosphere to reflect the sun’s rays back into space to cool the planet, is gaining favor among climate scientists. Research is ongoing, though it appears we’ll be spared after all.

COMMENTARY BY

Dion Pierre is a research associate with the National Association of Scholars. He is co-author of the book series, “Neo-Segregation in American Higher Education.”

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Recent Energy and Environmental News

For the full version of the latest Energy & Environmental Newsletter, please click here…  To review some of the highlights, see below.

To accommodate the diversity of interesting material, the Newsletter articles are subdivided into ten (10) categories (see below) — our most ever!

My vote for the most outstanding articles this cycle:

Energy Economics

Everything You Hear About Billion-Dollar Disasters Is Wrong
Wind turbines don’t lead to a windfall
Perpetual Infants: $100 Billion in Subsidies and US Wind & Solar Want More
US wind seeking ‘tax policy parity’ with solar
NY State blows smoke to hide wind costs
California Subsidizes Natural Gas Plants to Prevent Widespread Blackouts
The Electric Car Fantasy
Sale of indulgences dominates Madrid climate summit

Wind Energy Health and Ecosystem Impacts

Germany stipulates countrywide turbine setbacks to be 3300± feet
Wind Turbine Noise — Sensing but not Hearing: Part1 and Part 2
Conventional Wind Energy – A Design Deadly for Birds
Inherit The Wind
PUC’s Former Lawyer Says Approval of Hawaii Wind Project Violated Law

Nuclear Energy

The BIG Potential for Nuclear Micro-Reactors
Energy Essentials: Clean, Safe & Reliable – Nuclear Is The Obvious Choice
Global Energy Forecast to 2050: Nuclear, biomass and CCS
Be Cautious with the Precautionary Principle: Evidence from Fukushima

Energy Misc

First-of-a-kind US grid cyber-attack hit wind & solar
How Renewable Energy Models Can Produce Misleading Indications
The Giga and Terra Scam of Offshore Wind Energy
US Military Wants More Rules for Turbines to Protect Helicopters
Why Renewables Need Gas
Coastal NC storm damage raises even more solar project questions
Was There Another Reason for Electricity Shutdowns in California?
Modern transportation — a miracle under attack

Paris Climate Agreement

Paris climate agreement leaking oil as emissions rise
The Pain and Pointlessness of the Paris Accord
Official Statement: On the U.S. Withdrawal from the Paris Agreement
Lawsuit Says Obama Entered Paris Climate Agreement Illegally
Madrid to host Cop25 climate talks in December after Chile withdraws

New Alarmist Climate Poll

Video: Dubunking the 11000 scientists claims
Doomsday poll shrinks 25%
Critics Blast Proposal To Curb Climate Change By Halting Population Growth

Global Warming (AGW)

Escape from Model Land
New Climate Models: Even More Wrong
Climategate: Ten Years Later
When Wolves Infiltrate the Flock: Discerning Climate Truth From Falsehood in Churches
Scientocracy Busts Open the Motivation behind Global Warming Politics
Climate Stalinism
Schiller Institute video: CO₂ Reduction is Costly, Deadly, and Unnecessary
Video: Geologist’s short talk on AGW to PA Legislature
Groupthink on Climate Change Ignores Inconvenient Facts
Carbon Dioxide and the Global Warming Hoax

Misc Education Articles

First Common Core HS Grads Worst-Prepared for College in 15 Years
Outnumbered: Academia’s Tilted Ideological Landscape
Univ of Michigan replaces Bias Response Team with Campus Climate Support

Misc US Politics Articles

An impeachment Enemy Within?
I am offended by…
The Beltway’s ‘Whistleblower’ Furor Obsesses Over One Name
New Book: The Plot Against the US President
Reverend Graham: Trump is President Because of God
The Trump Administration Continues to Streamline and Modernize EPA

Science and Misc Related Articles

Why People Are So Unreasonable These Days
Ecocide: Granting Nature Legal Status at the Expense of Humans
Pseudo scientists wreak havoc on society’s mental stability with fake data
The long history of eco-pessimism
Short video: Size of world’s religions: 1945-2019
Who Fact-Checks The Fact-Checkers?
What is Conservatism? The Fusionist Fight over Everything

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: Originally this was a monthly Newsletter. However, as pertinent material proliferated, it has been issued more frequently. As a guideline once we collect a hundred worthwhile articles, a new Newsletter will be issued on the following Monday. Recently this has resulted in a once every three weeks frequency — and occasionally once every two weeks.

Note 3: Our intention is to put some balance into what most people see from the mainstream media about energy, environmental and education issues… As always, please pass the Newsletter on to open-minded citizens, and link to it on your social media sites. If there are others who you think would benefit from being on our Energy & Environmental email list, please let me know. If at any time you’d like to be taken off this list, simply send me an email saying that.

Note 4: This Newsletter is intended to supplement the material on our website, WiseEnergy.org. For wind warriors, the most important page there is the Winning page.

Note 5: I am not an attorney, so no material appearing in any of the Newsletters (or the WiseEnergy.org website) should be construed as giving legal advice. My recommendation has always been: consult a competent licensed attorney when you are involved with legal issues.

Staying in Paris Agreement Would Have Cost Families $20K

Editor’s note: The U.S. just took a new, major step to leaving the Paris Agreement, a climate change deal between several countries. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said, “Today the United States began the process to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. Per the terms of the Agreement, the United States submitted formal notification of its withdrawal to the United Nations. The withdrawal will take effect one year from delivery of the notification.”

Pompeo added in his statement, made late Monday:

As noted in his June 1, 2017 remarks, President [Donald] Trump made the decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement because of the unfair economic burden imposed on American workers, businesses, and taxpayers by U.S. pledges made under the agreement. The United States has reduced all types of emissions, even as we grow our economy and ensure our citizens’ access to affordable energy.  Our results speak for themselves:  U.S. emissions of criteria air pollutants that impact human health and the environment declined by 74% between 1970 and 2018. U.S. net greenhouse gas emissions dropped 13% from 2005-2017, even as our economy grew over 19 percent.

Here’s a version of a previously published article from Heritage Foundation researcher Nick Loris on why the Paris Agreement wouldn’t significantly affect the climate—but would cost America jobs and would hurt some families’ incomes.


The demand for socialism is on the rise from young Americans today. But is socialism even morally sound? Find out more now >>


President Donald Trump is right to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. While the climate is indeed changing and human activity is playing a role, the chances of looming climate catastrophe are simply unrealistic and not grounded in reality.

But even granting such a looming catastrophe, the Paris Agreement itself would do little to alter the climate. To have any impact whatsoever on climate, the entire world would either have to quickly change the way it consumes energy or simply remain undeveloped. Both options are devoid of reality.

While many countries are rapidly expanding their use of renewable power, forecasts indicate that coal, oil, and natural gas will continue to provide the overwhelming majority of the world’s energy needs well into the future. For developing countries, the highest priorities are to reduce energy poverty and improve living standards.

Those who are clamoring for action on climate change are the ones who should actually be most upset with what a sham the Paris Agreement is. It’s been celebrated as a breakthrough achievement of the world’s developed and developing countries coming together, but it is anything but that.

With no enforcement mechanisms in place and no repercussions for failing to meet emissions reduction targets, countries are essentially free to do whatever they want, meaning they will continue on their business-as-usual trajectory without making any changes. China, for instance, can peak its emissions in 2030 even though projections have its peak emissions falling before that year.

India, for its part, has pledged to reduce its emissions levels, or cut its ratio of carbon emissions to gross domestic product. That ratio may well go down so long as carbon emissions rise at a slower rate than GDP, but carbon emissions will keep rising all the same.

Actually, India committed to emissions reductions that are less than what the country would achieve if it continues on the same track it is currently on today. In other words, it set the bar so low that it can continue along its businesses-as-usual trajectory of emissions intensity and come out looking like a climate hero.

As the Manhattan Institute’s Oren Cass wrote, “It’s easy to slim down to 180 pounds, if you weigh 175 to begin with.”

Pakistan was more honest than most about its emissions prospects, stating bluntly, “Given the future economic growth and associated growth in the energy sector, the peaking of emissions in Pakistan is expected to take place much beyond the year 2030. An exponential increase of [greenhouse gas] emissions for many decades is likely to occur before any decrease in emissions can be expected.”

Global compliance with the Paris Agreement has been nothing short of abysmal. In fact, most nations will soon fail to meet the deadlines they agreed to.

The original hope that each nation’s contribution might somehow push other countries to “do more” is not playing out. This deal was a hodgepodge of arbitrarily defined commitments with no enforcement mechanism. It was doomed from the start.

Following through with the Obama administration’s commitments would impose clear economic harm on the U.S. by driving energy prices higher—and that’s just a small part of the overall cost. Americans would pay more for food, health care, education, clothes, and every other good and service that requires energy.

These higher costs would be spread across the entire economy and would shrink overall economic growth and employment. Heritage Foundation analysts estimated that the regulations required to meet the Obama administration’s commitments would impose the following costs by 2035:

  • An overall loss of nearly 400,000 jobs, half of which would be in manufacturing.
  • A average total income loss of more than $20,000 for a family of four.
  • An aggregate GDP loss of over $2.5 trillion.

Other countries would continue getting a free pass under the agreement, but if the U.S. signed back on, one can be sure that environmental activist lawsuits would make sure the U.S. kept its obligations.

To make matters worse, the climate regulations encompassing the U.S. target may not even achieve the desired results and would require additional regulations. And that would just be the beginning. The Paris Agreement requires ever-increasing targets as time goes on, which would further increase the cost of compliance. These efforts would return us to the same costly and ineffective policies that the current administration is unwinding.

Congress should instead advance pragmatic policies that will actually drive innovation in energy and environmental protection.

COMMENTARY BY

Nicolas Loris, an economist, focuses on energy, environmental and regulatory issues as the Herbert and Joyce Morgan fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Read his research.Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLE: AOC Pushes Population Control to Stop Climate Change: Kill More People to Save the Planet


A Note for our Readers:

With the demand for socialism at an all-time high among our young people—our future leaders and decisionmakers—the experts at Heritage stopped and asked a question that not many have asked:

Is socialism really morally sound?

The researchers at The Heritage Foundation have put together a guide to help you and our fellow Americans better understand the 9 Ways That Socialism Will Morally Bankrupt America.

They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW! >>


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

BREAKING: Chilean unrest cancels COP 25, the UN climate conference

Chilean President Sebastian Pinera just announced that his country is cancelling COP 25, the UN climate conference that was scheduled to take place in Santiago December 2 -13.

Chile also canceled APEC, the Asia Pacific Economic Conference that was to open November 16th and at which President Trump had hoped to sign a major accord with China.

The shocking cancellations come as Chile has been rocked by violent protests.  It appears that Chile can no longer ensure the safety of international diplomats.

The UN COP, or conference of the parties, is the UN’s most important climate summit each year.  CFACT as a UN recognized observer organization was planning to once again send a delegation.

The cancellation of the UN climate conference is massively ironic as the riots in Chile were sparked by plans to hike public transit prices to keep up with higher energy costs from, as you’ve likely guessed, “green” energy.  Chile has been bragging about plans to source most of the power for its subway system from wind and solar. It was to be the perfect climate talking point — until reality intruded. The inefficient, intermittent nature of so-called “renewables” increases prices wherever they are used.

The refusal of Chilean citizens to tolerate with Green energy price hikes have been compared to the “Yellow Vest” protests in France.

Chile has rolled back the Metro fare hikes, yet the protests have gone on.  Up to a million protesters took to the streets of Santiago last week.  They tried to force entry into the Chilean Congress forcing legislators to flee as riot police covered their escape with tear gas.

There is no word yet on UN plans to delay / move the conference.  With just a month until the conference was scheduled to begin, rescheduling will be very difficult logistically.

Chile is South America’s greatest economic success story. However, like other countries in the region, it still has its struggles.

Forcing people to tighten their belts to pay for inefficient “Green” energy may have been the straw that broke the camel’s back.

UPDATE:

Statement by UN Climate Change Executive Secretary Patricia Espinosa

Earlier today, I was informed of the decision by the Government of Chile not to host COP25 in view of the difficult situation that the country is undergoing. We are currently exploring alternative hosting options.

Recent Energy and Environmental News

For the full version of the latest Energy and Environmental Newsletter, please click here…  To review some of the highlights, see below.

Based on a LOT of good inputs, I decided to do a major update of our popular AWG book list — it is now EIGHT (8) pages long! There are multiple interesting and informative books there for anyone. Please post it and pass it on!

To accommodate the diversity of interesting material, the Newsletter articles are subdivided into six (6) categories (see below).

My vote for the most outstanding articles this cycle: Draft Study (comments solicited): Human CO2 has little effect on the carbon cycleBernie Sanders’ Perpetual Motion Green New Deal, Report: Energy Illiteracy Must Not be Enshrined in LawThe Bogus “Consensus” Argument on Climate ChangeUS in Moral DeclineEnvironmentalism as Totalitarianism.

Energy Economics

After $100+ Billion in subsidies, U.S. wind industry demands more
Full cost of living impact of renewables subsidies revealed
Math is Hard for the Green-Minded
Bill Gates: Fossil Fuel Divestment has “Zero” Climate Impact

Nuclear Energy

What is a Nuclear Microreactor?
New DOE and NRC Agreement Will Lead to Faster US Nuclear Deployment
Report: Potential Adverse Human Health Impacts from Retirement of Illinois Nuclear Plants
Nobel Laureate: Lasers could cut lifespan of nuclear waste from “a million years to 30 minutes”

Energy Misc

Sierra Club Chickens on Wind Energy Infrasound
US Electrical Energy Reliability Gone With the Wind
Can This World Survive Without Fossil Fuels?
Bernie Sanders’ Perpetual Motion Green New Deal
Short video: All Electric?
California’s ‘green energy’ fail should be a warning to us all
On energy, New York’s head is in the sand
Report: Energy Illiteracy Must Not be Enshrined in Law
Video: President Trump’s Remarks at Shale Insight Conference
Video of full debate between Alex Epstein and Robert Kennedy Jr.

Global Warming (AGW)

Climate Change: Reality vs Apocalyptic Rhetoric
What you know about climate change is probably wrong
An Overview of the Latest Climate Science for Policymakers
The Bogus “Consensus” Argument on Climate Change
Did the IPCC predict a climate apocalypse? No.
Report: Eleven Empty Climate Claims
The Politics, Science, and Politicized Science of Climate Change
The Elite Machine Behind Greta Thunberg
Understanding the Climate Movement: Part 1Part 2, & Part 3
Short video: A message to the UN – from a little old lady
Who are the “Experts” on Climate Change?
Physicist: CO2 Retains Heat For Only 0.0001 Second, Warming ‘Not Possible’
Draft Study (comments solicited): Human CO2 has little effect on carbon cycle

Education

Misc (Science, Politics, etc.)

How the Traditional Husband was Shattered into a Million Pieces
US in Moral Decline
Bad Scientists Make for Bad Government
Environmentalism as Totalitarianism
The Academic Rants of Eco-Fascism
Will we keep our Republic in 2020, or will we bow to Socialism?
Agenda 2030Critique#1 and Critique #2
Nationalism Doesn’t Mean Isolationism
The UNHRC: Slaving Away for Human Rights

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 computer… We’ve tried to use common fonts, etc. to minimize display issues.

Note 2: Originally this was a monthly Newsletter. However, as pertinent material proliferated, it has been issued more frequently. As a guideline once we collect a hundred worthwhile articles, a new Newsletter will be issued on the following Monday. Recently this has resulted in a once ever 3 weeks frequency — and occasionally once every two weeks.

Note 3: Our intention is to put some balance into what most people see from the mainstream media about energy and environmental issues… As always, please pass the Newsletter on to open-minded citizens, and link to it on your social media sites. If there are others who you think would benefit from being on our Energy & Environmental email list, please let me know. If at any time you’d like to be taken off this list, simply send me an email saying that.

Note 4: This Newsletter is intended to supplement the material on our website, WiseEnergy.org. For wind warriors, the most important page there is the Winning page.

Note 5: I am not an attorney, so no material appearing in any of the Newsletters (or our WiseEnergy.org website) should be construed as giving legal advice. My recommendation has always been: consult a competent licensed attorney when you are involved with legal issues.

EDITORS NOTE: Copyright © 2019; Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions

The secret story behind the Green New Deal: Metals Needed for Carbon Neutrality in Short Supply

Solar panels, wind turbines, and electric car batteries are made from some of the most hard-to-get metals on earth— dysprosium, neodymium, manganese, cobalt, and lithium. According to UK scientists, the current annual global production of cobalt needs to double by 2050 to produce the electric vehicles required to just satisfy British climate targets. Another study found that if countries were to meet the Paris accord and keep warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, demand for cobalt and lithium would exceed the current supply by 2022 and 2023, respectively.

China leads the world in rare earth metal production (a group of 17 chemical elements), supplying 90 percent of the export market. The United States purchases 80 percent of its rare earth metals from China, despite having the resources to produce its own supply. These metals could be extracted profitably in the United States, but are not because of our restrictive and redundant environmental regulations.

Current Production, Reserves, and Prices for Major Metals

According to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy, global production of rare earth metals in 2018 totalled 167 thousand metric tons, with China producing 72 percent of the world’s production. China also controls 38 percent of the world’s reserves, which total 117 million metric tons. China’s reserves are the largest at 44 million metric tons, followed by the United States and Brazil, each with 22 million metric tons, and Russia with 17 million metric tons.

Global production of graphite totals 896 thousand metric tons, with China supplying 71 percent. Graphite reserves total 307 million metric tons with China and Brazil each controlling 24 percent.

The Democratic Republic of the Congo produced the most cobalt in 2018 at 112 thousand metric tons—a 71 percent share of the 158 thousand metric tons produced. Cobalt reserves total 6.6 million metric tons, with the DR Congo controlling 52 percent. However, there are ongoing problems with environmental and child labor issues in the DR Congo; labor abuses linked to cobalt mining have been widely documented by human rights groups and by media organizations across the world.

Australia and Chile lead the world in lithium production with 27 million metric tons and 16 million metric tons, respectively, produced in 2018 from a total of 62 million metric tons. World reserves of lithium total almost 14 million metric tons with Chile controlling 58 percent.

Lithium prices set a record high in 2018 at $14,656 per metric ton—21 percent higher than in 2017. Cobalt prices totaled $72,923 per metric ton in 2018—30 percent higher than in 2017.

U.S. Dependence on Foreign Metals

China leads the world in producing and exporting minerals and metals, supplying many that are critical to U.S. manufacturing, technology and energy production, and national defense. Many critical metals are on U.S. federally-owned lands, including manganese, cobalt, nickel, graphite, aluminum, and several of the rare earth metals. The United States is 100 percent import-reliant for 18 minerals—14 of them are considered “critical” by the Department of Defense or the Department of the Interior.

The United States has a duplicative and inefficient system of regulatory permits and oversight that governs domestic mining. Generally, the U.S. mining industry is faced with a regulatory system that forces them to wait seven to 10 years to obtain a mining permit, compared to Canada and Australia where the process takes two to three years, which limits our nation’s ability to capitalize on our mineral wealth. The United States needs to retool our permitting process so that minerals from U.S. public lands can fuel our advanced energy, infrastructure, and manufacturing technologies, which would increase U.S. manufacturing and its position in the global economy and reduce our dependence on foreign imports.

Conclusion

The United States needs to develop its critical metals and remove its reliance on foreign imports, particularly from the Chinese, who are leaders in rare earth metals and graphite production. These metals are used in many technologies and in national defense systems. To become self-reliant the United States needs to modify its regulatory permitting system and oversight. The sooner we can remove our dependence on these critical metals from foreign interests as we did for oil and natural gas, the better our nation with be economically and militarily. Otherwise, we risk dependency on other international actors for minerals at much higher rates than the United States was ever dependent upon OPEC.


Further reading on the global supply of rare earth metals is available here.

Further reading on the environmental impacts of rare earth metal production in China is available here.

RELATED ARTICLE: Here’s Why Californians Pay Way More for Gasoline Than Everyone Else

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

Green New Deal = Hugo Chavez’s Constitution?

After noting that a former chief of staff for socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez admitted that her “Green New Deal” is not about climate but changing the entire economy, Steve Milloy at Breitbart News drew up a list of similarities between it and the constitution ushered in by late Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez in 1999.

Milloy found similarities between the two plans in the areas of sustainable agriculture, education, markets, health care, housing, clean environment, social costs of human activity, no emissions, guaranteed jobs, work safety, unions, trade policy, and indigenous populations.

“Their common source,” Milloy notes, “is likely a United Nations document called the ‘International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,’ which was passed by the UN General Assembly in 1966 at the behest of the Soviet Union. The UN Covenant itself can be traced back to the Stalin-written Soviet Constitution of 1936.”

And just like Chavez’s and Stalin’s constitutions, the socialist vision of the Green New Deal will lead to economic ruin and untold human misery.

Hugo Chavez

In 1992, Hugo Chavez attempted a military coup of Venezuela. His revolutionary power grab failed and he was jailed until 1994 when he was freed by a presidential pardon. He was elected president in 1998 and has gradually increased his power and armed his personal militia.

Chavez has many links to violent terrorist organizations and totalitarian dictators. On Oct 12, 1999, Chavez was the guest of Communist China. While in China, he declared: “I have been very Maoist all of my life.” Like the Soviet, Cuban, and North Korean hosts of past WFYS meetings, Chavez is a proud Communist and an enemy of the USA.

To learn more about Hugo Chavez, click on the profile link here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Metals Needed for Carbon Neutrality in Short Supply

Here’s Why Californians Pay Way More for Gasoline Than Everyone Else

EDITORS NOTE: This Discover the Networks column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

World’s largest ice sheet growing

The West Antarctic ice sheet, the biggest mass of ice in the world, has been growing since the end of the nineteenth century.

Marc Morano featured a post about a fascinating Chinese study from Dr. Patrick Michaels at the website of CFACT’s friend and ally the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

The forthcoming study by six Chinese authors is scheduled to appear in the Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres.  The study concludes that Antarctic ice exhibited a “significant negative trend” during the nineteenth century, then a “significant positive trend” throughout the 20th.

This doesn’t help the narrative for those seeking to spread climate alarm one bit.

Here’s the latest example:  Artist Thomas Starr of Northeastern University has been placing fake historical markers in New England towns.  “Gazebo relocated due to recurring flooding caused by sea level rise, March, 2058,” reads a plaque on a gazebo in Durham, New Hampshire. He calls it the Seacoast Remembrance Project.  Starr’s plaques have been garnering the laudatory media write-ups we’re sure you’d expect.

Hey Durham Town Council, want to sell us the land your lovely seaside gazebo’s on at a generous discount?  We’ll take the problem off your hands.  It is doomed after all.

That sea level has been slowly rising at only 1 to 3 mm per year since before the industrial revolution, with no sign of meaningful acceleration, does not make it into the articles.  Hysterical sea level claims are not based on reality.  Dangerously rising seas exist only in the virtual world of climate computer simulations.

Those ever-faulty computer models project extreme Antarctic ice melt.  That it has not actually occurred does not seem to matter.  They even stoop to attributing extra high tides caused by natural lunar cycles, combined with ground level subsidence, to sea level rise.

Pity the tide gauges don’t show it.  Sorry Miami, your occasionally wet streets were not caused by electrical generation, air travel, bovine flatulence, or even SUVs.

Dr. Michaels speculates that the media will have no appetite for a study showing Antarctic ice gaining.  What do you think?

We’ll do him one better.  If they do cover it, they’ll try and spin it as justifying global warming alarm!

We factored the situation into our own computer models.  They project shamelessly disseminated climate propaganda.

Let’s see whose projections pan out.

Polar bear expert purged

Global warming campaigners have done an effective job at convincing the media and much of the world that polar bears are dying out.

It’s not true. 

In fact, thanks to a hunting ban, polar bears are a major conservation success story.  Their population ballooned from around 5,000 in the 1960s to (depending on whose estimate) from 22,000 to over 30,000 today.  Today the North is loaded with fat, happy, fecund bears (sorry seals).

It appears that telling the truth about polar bears made Dr. Susan Crockford, a respected, published Canadian zoologist, the victim of an ideological purge.  First she was removed from the University of Victoria’s speakers bureau, and then not renewed to her position as an adjunct professor.

“The loss of adjunct status,” Crockford wrote, “will primarily prevent me from continuing scientific research on speciation and domestication mechanisms in evolution: without an academic affiliation I will be unable to secure research funds or academic collaborations.”

But this woman of science is fearless.

“What a lack of academic affiliation has not done, and cannot do,” Crockford continued, “is stop me from investigating and commenting on the failures and inconsistencies of science that I see in published polar bear research papers and reflected in public statements made by polar bear specialists.  I am still a former adjunct professor and I will not be silenced.”

Free speech is anathema to the Left.

They don’t fear false or misleading information, that’s their stock in trade.  They fear the facts that prove them wrong.  They are prepared to wreak great harm on any who dare utter them.  They know they can’t silence Susan Crockford, but know also that harming her creates an atmosphere of fear that most others lack the courage to confront.

Warming campaigners are actively hunting scalps.  Take a look at this shocking anonymous admission from one of them that CFACT’s friend Russell Cook found, on of all places, CFACT’s own comment forum!

“You will be pleased to know that in the past two years I successfully had two deniers fired (forced resignations) from their university positions.  One was a prolific WUWT contributor.  I discovered a nice twist to the freedom of speech tale.  You can say almost anything except yell fire in a crowded room and are free to make a fool of oneself but can’t invoke one’s pedigree to do so i.e. you can state your doctorate or disciplines, but not your college, professional body memberships and imply they agree.  So that’s how I’ve been knocking them off by going to their employer, professional registration, professional memberships or their alma mater.  I have three scalps lined up now — infant stage But they will collapse like dominoes.”

Think of the malice and lack of respect and concern for others these people exhibit!  Academic freedom and the ability of all of us to participate in public discussion is truly under assault.

What would happen if our nasty commenter’s methods were applied equally to everyone?  How often do you read misleading and outright false pronouncements from climate campaigners in the press?  Do they not cite their academic and professional affiliations in their bios?

Donna Laframboise covered Dr. Crockford’s situation at Financial Post:

“Jeffrey Foss, a former chair of UVic’s philosophy department, says Crockford has been punished for speaking her own mind about matters of fact, which means she has been denied academic freedom and free speech. ‘I’m beginning to lose faith and hope in the university system,’ he says.”

Dr. Crockford said:

“It appears certain to me that the Anthropology Department bowed to pressure from the administration, who themselves bowed to pressure from outside the university community, in an attempt to stifle my legitimate scientific criticisms of polar bear conservation issues. This kind of bullying has been happening far too often at universities, even in Canada.”

The idea that climate pressure groups cannot demand unprecedented control over our economies, freedoms and personal lives, and obtain this without open public debate is monstrous.

Governments, universities, professional associations, the media and all institutions must be made aware of the dirty, destructive trick being played in the name of global warming.

We must insist on unfettered scientific discussion and the right of researchers like Dr. Susan Crockford, and each and every one of us, to speak without fear.

The Guardian goes Orwellian on Climate

The U.K. Guardian newspaper has for months been working to change the words we use to discuss climate and environmental issues.  They just published their glossary.

Prominent on the list is The Guardian’s formal adoption of the pejorative term “denier” and the elimination of the word “skeptic” to describe people attempting to correct the record on climate.  In the pages of The Guardian, if you have the temerity to point out that sea level has risen a scant 1 to 3 mm per year since before the industrial revolution, that measurements reveal climate computer models run too hot, that a weather event is historically normal, that intermittent wind and solar are inefficient, or that polar bears are thriving up north, you deserve to be lumped in with “holocaust deniers.”

Deniers?  Talk about speech as hate!

Guardian Editor-in-chief, Katharine Viner, said:

We want to ensure that we are being scientifically precise, while also communicating clearly with readers on this very important issue. These are the guidelines provided to our journalists and editors to be used in the production of all environment coverage across the Guardian’s website and paper:

1.) “climate emergency” or “climate crisis” to be used instead of “climate change”
2.) “climate science denier” or “climate denier” to be used instead of “climate sceptic”
3.) Use “global heating” not “global warming”
4.) “greenhouse gas emissions” is preferred to “carbon emissions” or “carbon dioxide emissions”
5.) Use “wildlife”, not “biodiversity”
6.) Use “fish populations” instead of “fish stocks”

Didn’t climate campaigners just get done insisting we all substitute “climate change” in place of “global warming” to divert attention from all those inconvenient satellites and thermometers recording less warming than they were supposed to?

Paul Chadwick, The Guardian’s readers’ editor, wrote in June:

I support Viner’s direction of travel. She is harnessing the power of language usage to focus minds on an urgent global issue. One challenge for the Guardian and the Observer will be to weigh, in specific journalistic contexts, two sometimes competing aspects of terminology used in public debates: language as description, and language as exhortation.

CFACT analyst Peter Murphy posted a warning about media complicity in attempts to stifle the global warming debate at CFACT.org:

This is dangerous, and it goes beyond climate issues. It’s bad enough for global warming activists and groups to attempt to silence opposition. A more problematic trend is when it comes from the media itself.

Murphy shared some prominent examples:

  • Chuck Todd, host of the NBC program Meet the Press announced last January he will never have as a guest anyone who questions or challenges global warming.
  • The Los Angeles Times and the magazine Popular Science announced they would no longer publish opposing opinions to global warming orthodoxy.
  • During CNN’s “Town Hall” on climate change with Democratic presidential hopefuls last August, moderators walked in lockstep with the doomsday scenario espoused by the candidates without critical examination.
  • Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., advocated that climate “deniers” be jailed for exercising their free speech rights if they oppose his extreme view of climate change.

George Orwell wrote powerfully about the alteration of language to enforce orthodoxy and censor thought in his masterpiece 1984.  He postulated a language called “Newspeak” that was designed to weed all that troublesome questioning of authority out of the English language.  The novels appendix explains that:

The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc (English Socialism), but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought — that is, a thought diverging from the principles of Ingsoc — should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words.

We again remind Chuck Todd, the Guardian and the rest, that Orwell wrote 1984 as a warning, not an instruction manual.

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

CLIMATE CHANGE: Everywhere warming twice as fast as everywhere else! [Video]

Posted by Eeyore

H/T PePo

RELATED ARTICLE: Using Children to Stir Up Climate Change Hysteria: It’s Child Abuse by Socialist Politicians and Teachers [Videos]

Fonda Wants to ‘Halt’ Governments That Don’t Fight Climate Change

Actress, activist, and Vietnam War traitor Jane Fonda said on CNN Monday that governments that don’t fight climate change should be brought to “a halt.”

“This is a collective crisis that required collective action, so I decided to use my celebrity to try to raise the sense of urgency, and I moved to Washington and I’m going to get arrested every Friday,” said Fonda.

“We have 11 years left to try to turn this fossil fuel disaster around so that we don’t completely pass the tipping point and it becomes untenable to govern, untenable to have a stable economy, or any kind of human rights or anything. There’s just going to be one disaster on top of another. But we do have time. We have time and it’s going to require people in every country all around the world to organize and mobilize and, if necessary, bring governments to a halt if we can’t make them do the right thing,” she added.

To confront the worst government climate offenders, Fonda should begin with Communist China, but leftists find that targeting America is safer and more satisfying.


Jane Fonda

In an October 2017 interview, HARDTalk host Stephen Sackur asked Fonda if she was ultimately proud of her country, to which she immediately answered “No.” Fonda then explained what she _was _proud of: “I’m proud of the resistance. I’m proud of the people who are turning out in unprecedented numbers and continue over and over and over again to protest what [President Donald] Trump is doing. I’m very proud of that core.” Sackur then raised the issue of the recent actions of National Football League players who had chosen to kneel during the playing of the national anthem before their games, as a symbol of protest against America’s racial injustice. When Sakur asked Fonda how she herself would act in a similar circumstance, she replied: “I would take a knee. I would take two knees. I’d get on all fours if necessary to get attention. And Trump is manipulating it to make it to have something to do with the military. It has nothing to do with patriotism, it has nothing to do with the military, it has to do with racism that is so alive and well in the United States.”

To learn more, click on the profile link here.

EDITORS NOTE: This Discover the Networks column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

“Water is the new oil.” JEA selling our water to Water Barons? Don’t laugh. It’s happening.

by Billie Tucker Volpe

I recently had a chance to speak with City Council Member Randy DeFoor. She was not happy with JEA fast-tracking a potential sale — and she was most disturbed by the potential sale of our water. And I could not agree with her more.

As a consultant to the board of JEA about 10 years ago, I had the opportunity to meet with each Executive Team Member and Board Member monthly. During one of my meetings with the head of the water division, he told me that the biggest issue JEA would face in the future would be … WATER! I’ll never forget that meeting because I am fully aware that water is THE one thing we all need to survive. You don’t mess around with our water.

After my conversation with Ms. DeFoor, I did some deep research and went back into my notes from those days at JEA. What I discovered was indeed scary. Scary because if we don’t pay attention — and especially the City Council Members — we may all be paying our bills to a Water Baron or a big bank somewhere in the world. Or even to China!

The information and facts are here for all to read for themselves. We hope each City Council Member will pay VERY CLOSE ATTENTION to the water sale at JEA.

Water is not to be gambled away because of political eyes seeing dollar signs. This is serious business friends and it needs your attention. Don’t take your EYE off this one.

Read this in-depth, fact-filled research paper about the sale of water across the world. Be informed. Contact your council member and tell them to read this too. You can reach them here.

Our water is the new oil for Water Barons. It’s also your “oil” so let’s not give it away without a fight!

RELATED ARTICLE: The New “Water Barons”: Wall Street Mega-Banks are Buying up the World’s Water

EDITORS NOTE: This Eye on Jacksonville column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

4 Ways All Electric Vehicles Are Doing More Harm To Mankind Than Good

While reading the October, 2019 issue of the California headquartered Motor Trend magazine I came across a letter to the editor from a “63-year old baby boomer” who wrote:

I’m a liberal greeny who knows that the planet has to be saved. Humans have caused climate change, but too many humans don’t want to recognize that fact. Especially human politicians.

The editor Ed responded with:

A lot of great points, Tom. There’s no doubt that fossil fuel powerplants hurt when it comes to emissions, but depending where you live, the impact could be minimal.

What does this 63-year old greeny get wrong?

Electric Vehicles (EVs) Depend on Government Subsidies

In a Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) column titled Electric Cars vs. Gas Cars: Is the Conventional Wisdom Wrong? Bill Wirtz wrote:

When Denmark got rid of its tax credits for electric vehicles, Tesla’s sales dropped by 94 percent. In Hong Kong, the company saw a decline of 95 percent as the city got rid of comparable tax advantages for those buying electric cars.

If you are a taxpayer and don’t drive an EV then your helping to pay for someone else’s all electric car or truck.

EVs Don’t Contribute to Gas Taxes

The gas taxes in the United State are used to build and maintain local roads and bridges, and the federal and state highway systems.

Julian Spector and Julia Pyper in the July 5, 2017 Green Tech Media column 17 States Now Charge Fees for Electric Vehicles reported:

Several states have passed or enacted new fees this year, bringing the total to 17.* Recent additions include West VirginiaMichiganMinnesotaIndianaOklahomaTennessee and California, which is home to leading EV maker Tesla and a suite of policies designed to incentivize electric-car adoption. South Carolina enacted a biennial fee for electric cars.

The following nine states passed or implemented EV fees in previous years: Georgia, Washington, Wyoming, Idaho, Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina and Virginia (see chart below). According to the Sierra Club, other states have introduced legislation this year that would require EV owners to pay a separate fee, including Kansas, New Hampshire and Montana.

Read more.

EVs Cause Harm to Mankind

In Electric Cars vs. Gas Cars: Is the Conventional Wisdom Wrong? Bill Wirtz wrote:

Electric vehicle batteries need a multitude of resources to be manufactured. In the case of cobalt, the World Economic Forum has called out the extraction conditions in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where 20 percent of the world’s cobalt comes from. Miners as young as seven years are suffering from chronic lung disease from exposure to cobalt dust. [Emphasis added]

EVs Strain Existing Electrical Grids

FEE’s Bill Wirtz wrote:

[O]ver 95 percent of Norway’s electricity comes from hydropower, of which 90 percent is publicly owned. That does not come without its downsides. As electricity consumption increases in Norway, the sector is unable to keep up. Last year, lack of rainfall and low wind speed exploded Norwegian electricity prices to the level of Germany (which is still in the process of phasing out nuclear energy). Norway then resorted to coal power, and as fossil fuel power imports exceeded energy export, Norway has actually seen an increase in CO2 emissions[Emphasis added]

Zero Hedge’s Tyler Durden in the column $35 Billion: UK Faces Huge Loss From Electric Vehicle Adoption noted:

If Great Britain keeps its commitment to switch over its vehicles to electric by 2050, the government will see a whopping loss of 28 billion pounds ($35 billion) paid by motorists driving traditional gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles.

Read more.

FEE’s Bill Wirtz concludes, “As much as consumers might care about CO2 emissions, they are even more price-sensitive. Even those consumers who aren’t will eventually be swayed when they find out their car brand is costing them comparably excruciating amounts in fuel.”

America depends on cheap, reliable and dependable sources of energy. Be it electricity or fuel for your automobile. California, the state with the most EVs, is experiencing electrical black outs.

Mankind advances via new technologies. Key to technology is reliable energy. Without reliable energy we go back to the dark ages, like in Northern California.

Conclusion

The climate changes on Mars as it does on plant earth, but there are no cars on the red planet.

The bottom line is:

  1. The climate changes.
  2. These changes follow natural cycles.
  3. Mankind cannot change these natural cycles.

Mankind was given dominion over the earth and all of its natural resources. Not using these natural resources, either voluntarily or by government mandate, harms humans. Using these natural resources wisely advances human flourishing.

Man can’t control the weather let alone the climate. Our 63-year old liberal greeny needs to face the facts. Going green isn’t helping mankind.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Electric Cars Aren’t Nearly as Green as People Think

It’s Time to Kill the Generous ElectricVehicle Subsidies

Zero Emission Vehicles Can Increase Air Pollution