Eco-Gadflies lament Endangered Species Act reform

The Endangered Species Act is a perfect example of a good law gone wrong.

The important goal of protecting biodiversity and helping species recover is all too often used by eco-gadflies to violate property rights and stifle economic activity.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Acting Director Margaret Everson said, “The Endangered Species Act has led to important conservation efforts that have brought species back from the brink of extinction,however, there are improvements we can make.”

CFACT’s Bonner Cohen was consulted by the Administration on how best to reform the ESA.  He explains at CFACT.org:

Over time, a statute originally intended to save bison, condors, bald eagles, and the like morphed into a powerful legal instrument that environmentalists adroitly used to shut down any activity – farming, ranching, logging, mining, energy extraction – they didn’t like. Rural communities in the West bore the brunt of the assault. Even worse, the ESA provided no incentives for landowners to cooperate with government officials in helping species to recover.

Now, the Trump administration has rolled out long-overdue reforms to both ease the burdens on landowners and actually aid in the recovery of species. The new regulations will affect future listings and will have no effect on species already listed.

The reforms keep the ESA’s protections solidly in place.  They merely ease bureaucratic overreach.  Placing huge areas off limits by designating them as critical habitats, with little or no benefit to the species in question, is an abuse of power.  The reforms also make it more possible to move species from endangered to threatened, or off the list entirely, as we succeed and they recover.  Government should plan for success.

CFACT has educated the public about abuses of the ESA for years and has long advocated for reform.

These reforms are small, measured public policy tweaks, that nudge the way we protect endangered species closer to reality.  You wouldn’t know it from the hue and cry emanating from the Left.

“Trump extinction plan guts Endangered Species Act,” proclaimed the Sierra Club.  “These changes crash a bulldozer” through the ESA said the Center for Biological Diversity.  Watch the headlines run by much of the media.  They are lifted right out of the press releases issued by these and other Green pressure groups.

California and Massachusetts have announced plans to sue.

Protecting endangered species is too important a priority to allow it to be misused by Green gadflies seeking to replace our free market economy with government control.

The Administration’s reforms ease the burden on property and business owners, while keeping species protection incredibly strong.

This is sound public policy and about time.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump ESA reforms emphasize species recovery over endless red tape

3 Ways Trump’s New Regulations Will Better Protect Endangered Species

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

Recent Energy & Environmental News

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

Since there is such a diversity of interesting material, the Newsletter articles are subdivided into four (4) categories.

My vote for the two most outstanding articles this cycle:

Cost-Effective Renewable Energy is a Fictional Construct and
The New Gas Revolution That Could Make Renewable Energy Obsolete.

Energy Economics

Cost-Effective Renewable Energy is a Fictional Construct
There is no conservative momentum for a carbon tax
Bill Gates: The hidden costs of unreliable electricity
Why should we subsidize tomorrow’s rich in the name of the climate?

Energy Misc

The New Gas Revolution That Could Make Renewable Energy Obsolete
If You Want ‘Renewable Energy,’ Get Ready to Dig
Green Technology’s Dark Side
Short Video: What’s the Deal with the Green New Deal?
Study: Green New Deal Would Cost $70k+ Per Household In First Year
Study: Is There a Future for Nuclear Power in the United States?
It’s Time to Flip the Bird to Wind Turbines
Germany’s renewable energy program is a big, expensive failure
New Michael Moore-backed documentary tackles alternative energy

Global Warming (AGW)

Democracy is the Enemy of Climate ActionThe Great Global Warming Hoax
TedTalk: How to fight desertification and reverse climate change
Video: Climatologist Dr Christy Testing Exaggerated Climate Change Claims
The New Dark Age Comes For Climate Science
Child prophets and proselytizers of climate catastrophe
Two Professors: IPCC Climate Modeling Opens Door To ‘Fake Conclusions’
Archive: IPCC AGW Data is Erroneous and Incomplete
Climate Change and the Horizon
Washington D.C. Conference Exposes ‘Climate Delusion’
Most Stories You Read About the Environment Are FakeNews

Misc (Education, Science, Politics, etc.)

The Environment: Getting Better All The Time
Some Recent Shootings: The Environmental Movement Connection
Michael Crichton: Famous novelist, physician, modern-day genius
The Coming Boeing Bailout?
Regarding Immigration: Let’s Be Like Norway
Dr. Jordan Peterson: The Meaning and Reality of Individual Sovereignty

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: 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 this on to open-minded citizens, and link to this 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 3: 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 4: 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.

United Nations: Give up meat to save the planet

The United Nations is gravely worried about your hamburger.

Yesterday, the Journal Nature carried a story with the provocative title “Eat less meat: UN climate change report calls for change in human diet.”

As expected, the report created quite a buzz in both the mainstream and social media world. Marc Morano, CFACT’s director of communications and editor of Climate Depot, was called onto Fox and Friends to comment. You can watch his appearance on the program posted below.

WATCH NOW

The long and short of the argument put forward by UN nanny-state officials is that “efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions and the impacts of global warming will fall significantly short without drastic changes in global land use, agriculture and human diets.” Hence, they conclude, there is a need to radically cut back on ranching and farming, and especially those dastardly cows that burp and blow gas out their backsides.

It would be one thing if they were just “urging” people to follow their advice. After all, there are many legitimate reasons people pursue vegetarian or vegan diets voluntarily. But alas, such is not the modus operandi of those in the liberal ruling class. They want to “incentivize” you to get with the program.

This was alluded to by Hans-Otto Pörtner, an ecologist who co-chairs the IPCC’s working group on impacts, adaptation and vulnerability, who stated this in the report: “it would indeed be beneficial, for both climate and human health, if people in many rich countries consumed less meat, and if politics would create appropriate incentives to that effect.”

What sort of “incentives” is Hans talking about? Well, if Germany is any indication, it could be something like a stiff tax on meat — much like cigarettes. Or perhaps it might be something like removing miles of farmland through “wetlands” and “endangered species” laws. Maybe it’s even imposing something like “Meatless Mondays” as Mayor de Blasio is currently serving up to school children in the Big Apple. Some are even advocating pressuring restaurants to provide “meat patches” and “eating insects” as featured menu items. The possibilities are endless.

I know, I know. Such Brave New World techniques to engineer societal conformance may seem a bit far-fetched at the moment. But we caution that it may not be far off if met with no opposition, for as philosopher William James once said “There’s nothing so absurd that if you repeat it often enough, people will believe it.”

CFACT will make every effort to make sure the “absurd continues to remain absurd.”

Why Florida’s ‘Red Tide Task Force’ is doomed to fail and waste taxpayer’s money

When ever there is a naturally occurring problem, like red tide, the first impulse by politicians is to create a task force to look at the naturally occurring problem.

Florida’s Republican Governor Ron DeSantis announced in a press release on August 2nd, 2019:

[T]he appointments of 11 expert researchers and leading scientists to the recently re-organized Red Tide Task Force. The Governor was joined by Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Secretary Noah Valenstein and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) Executive Director Eric Sutton. For over 15 years, this Task Force had been inactive and without funding until it’s re-organization by FWC today at the direction of Governor DeSantis. Governor DeSantis originally called for the re-organization of the task force on his second day in office via Executive Order 19-12.

The Red Tide Task Force will focus on the causes of Red Tide and will be supported by FWC’s Center for Red Tide Research, which received $4.8 million in the budget,” said Governor DeSantis. “My administration will continue to press forward to find solutions and empower our brightest minds to help protect our environment. The issues of Red Tide are complex, but with the appointments of these leading scientists and researchers, we hope to make a difference.” [Emphasis added]

Read the full press release.

How Government Gets Red Tide (Karenia brevis) Wrong

If you go to the Center for Disease Control fact sheet on red tide (Karenia brevis or K-brevis) you will find this information:

Algae are vitally important to marine ecosystems, and most species of algae are not harmful. However, under certain environmental conditions, microscopic marine algae called Karenia brevis (K. brevis) grow
quickly, creating blooms that can make the ocean appear red or brown. People often call these blooms “red tide.”

K. brevis produces powerful toxins called brevetoxins, which have killed millions of fish and other marine organisms. Red tides have damaged the fishing industry, shoreline quality, and local economies in states such as Texas and Florida. Because K. brevis blooms move based on winds and tides, pinpointing a red tide at any given moment is difficult.

Red tides occur throughout the world, affecting marine ecosystems in Scandinavia, Japan, the Caribbean,and the South Pacific. Scientists first documented a red tide along Florida’s Gulf Coast in fall 1947, when residents of Venice, Florida, reported thousands of dead fish and a “stinging gas” in the air, according to Mote Marine Laboratory. However, Florida residents have reported similar events since the mid-1800s. [Emphasis added]

The first report of red tide was by Angelo Heilprin, an American geologist, paleontologist and naturalist in 1886. Heilprin visited the Manatee River and Little Sarasota Bay and found, “thousands upon thousands of carcasses [of dead fish] heaped up in continuous banks” killed by “red tide.” Heilprin wrote about red tide in his May, 1887 book Explorations on the West Coast of Florida.

For 133 years the world, and Florida in particular, has known about red tide and a fix is not in the offing.

“Red Tide Task Force” is Doomed

Florida’s Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission website only shows predictions and areas currently impacted by red tide. The Commission’s website states, “FWC reports on the current status of Karenia brevis blooms using tables, static maps, and interactive Google Earth maps. Archived status maps can be found in our Flickr gallery.”

So does anyone have a solution to red tide?

Surf Rider Foundation’s Mara DiasHolly Parker note:

Red tides are naturally occurring, but there is ample evidence that shows nutrient pollution can fuel blooms, making them larger and longer lasting. Learn more about this here. Worse still, warming waters associated with climate change appear to be helping these blooms thrive in areas that haven’t been affected by algae blooms historically.

The nutrient pollution that fuels algal blooms comes from many different sources- runoff from agriculture and landscaping fertilizers, leaky septic tanks and aging sewage infrastructure, and stormwater and urban runoff.

Note how Dias and Parker try connecting red tide to “climate change” to create a boogeyman effect. Actually according to NASA the climate is cooling as we are experiencing a solar minimum (few or no sunspots), which makes the oceans cooler.

Conclusion

Sid Perkins of the Proceedings of the Natural Academy of Sciences of the United States of America reports:

Red tide blooms are natural events, not manmade, notes Robert Weisberg, a physical oceanographer at the University of South Florida in St. Petersburg, FL, who has been studying red tides in the Gulf of Mexico for decades. The blooms have been known to strike the Florida coasts since the 1500s when Spanish explorers mentioned warnings from Native Americans not to eat fish caught in discolored waters, he adds. [Emphasis added]

So what needs to happen to reduce, but not eliminate the “naturally occurring” red tide blooms is to stop fertilizing, repair leaky septic tanks, fix our sewage systems and stop urban runoff?

But this won’t stop red tide blooms. Why? Because they are naturally occurring.

Florida scientists like Weisberg have been studying red tide for decades to no avail. Spending $4.8 million dollars won’t stop the “naturally occurring” red tide blooms today, tomorrow or in the foreseeable future. Stopping us from fertalizing will only harm Florida’s farming and tourist industries. No one comes to Disney World to see dead plants that have haven’t been properly fertilized, right?

Floridians must understand that like “naturally occurring” hurricanes, red tide blooms are with us forever. We just need to prepare for them both.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: We Already Have the World’s Most Efficient Carbon Capture Technology

Mine It Here

A modern economy requires the use of metals and minerals.

Green zealots, because of their intense opposition to mining, are doing all they can to prevent us from getting these important metals here in the United States.

Such strident “keep it in the ground” opposition to mining not only impacts our economy, but our national security to boot.

Thanks to the shale energy revolution, America is finally close to energy independence.  Do we really want to take on a new “mineral dependence” that relies on China and other nations for the crucial rare earths and essential minerals we need?

This is the topic brilliantly unraveled in the captivating new book “Groundbreaking.” Read Duggan Flanakin’s review of it at CFACT.org:

Ned Mamula and Ann Bridges, in their new book Groundbreaking: America’s New Quest for Mineral Independence, demonstrate that these so-called “green” technologies are entirely dependent upon mining and processing of rare-earth minerals, copper, and other minerals. In short, these technologies are not so “green” (that is, clean and renewable) after all.

Nevertheless, the authors agree that, because the emerging economies are entirely dependent upon these “green” technologies, “minerals are the new oil.” Yet the U.S. produces no rare-earth minerals and remains entirely or heavily dependent upon imports for dozens of minerals and metals deemed as “critical” in a brand-new U.S. Geological Survey report.

Overcoming decades of anti-mining indoctrination, mis-education, and near-abandonment of reality depends on convincing users of green technology that they cannot rely on China to prop up the U.S. economy forever.

It requires a massive education campaign to show Americans that the tools of 21st Century technology cannot work without the rare-earth minerals that only China now supplies. Such a campaign will have to overcome the deeply ingrained belief (the result of decades of academic indoctrination) that mining is evil if done by Americans in America.

You can get your copy of this important new book at the CFACT store.

America is blessed with abundant supplies of metals and minerals.

Let’s make darn sure we use them, get the Greens out of the way, and build a brighter future for our nation.

RELATED ARTICLES:

How Natural Gas Exports Are Giving America a Key Edge

How Faulty Assumptions in Climate Predictions Could Mean Big Costs for Americans

Countering China, Trump Seeks to Increase Domestic Production of Rare Earths

Energy & Environmental News

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

Since there is such a diversity of interesting material, the Newsletter articles are subdivided into seven categories. Note that this issue has special sections on Offshore Wind Energy and Presidential Energy Policies.

My vote for the three most outstanding articles this cycle: Against Climate Panic, for Climate Hope,  Climate Trillions Frittered in the Wind and Liberal Professor Warns: Google Manipulating Voters ‘on a Massive Scale’.

Here is a short slideshow outlining multiple reasons why AGW computer models are suspect. Let me know any suggestions for improvements.

Energy Economics —

Study: The Social Cost of Carbon and Carbon Taxes
Wind Farm Back-of-the-Envelope Economic Analysis
The Confusions of the ‘Conservative’ Carbon Tax
Inconvenient Energy Realities
What It Will Take for the Wind and Solar Industries to Collapse

Energy: Wind Turbine Health & Environmental —

Infrasound Guidelines: Antiquated and irrelevant for protecting populations
Archive: Big Wind’s Dirty Little Secret — Radioactive Waste
Study: The Impact of Wind Energy on Wildlife and the Environment
Study: Green Killing Machines — the impact of renewables on wildlife and nature

Energy: Offshore Wind Energy —

Lake Erie Wind Project Shows Green Political Correctness Is A Disease
Developer: We won’t pursue wind farm in waters off Hamptons
Cuomo’s incredible wind-power pander
Offshore Wind Fiascos Illustrate the Absurdity of Climate Change Policies
Proposed New England Offshore Wind Facility Suffers Major Defeat

US Energy Policy and Presidential Politics —

U.S. Energy Is Hotspot In Trump’s Economy
Dems’ Energy Ideas Confused, Disastrous
AOC & Sanders seek a do-over for the Green New Deal
Green New Deal position by US Democrat candidates (so far all support)
Nuclear energy position by US Democrat candidates (mixed)

Energy Misc —

Fact-Check: Fearmongers Over Nevada’s Yucca Mountain
Tucker Carlson TV segment: the Green New Deal is a Power Play
100% Renewable Is 100% Unachievable, Even If You’re An Optimist
Sustainability and Global Warming Give Birth to Renewable Energy
Prepare for green blackouts: That’s what’s in store for New York
Balloon Tests to Simulate Turbine Height
Battery Storage—An Infinitesimal Part of Electrical Power

Global Warming (AGW) —

Excellent short video: Climate Apartheid?
Study: Human CO2 Emissions have little Effect on Atmospheric CO2
Study: No Experimental Evidence for Significant Man-made Climate Change
Big Government Is Not the Answer to Climate Change
How climate change got labeled a ‘crisis’
Things Keep Getting Worse For The Fake “Science” Of Climate Change
What Is The Biggest Holocaust? Green Fascism Reborn!
Short video: We Should Fire Fraudulent Data Presenters

Misc (Education, Science, Politics, etc.) —

US EPA: Air Pollution Trends Show Cleaner Air, Growing Economy
White House discusses real environmental solutions, media loses their minds
The Guardian Spreads Anti-Americanism
A Survivor of China’s Forced Labor Camp Urges US to Reject Socialism
Democratic Socialism Newspeak
Government is a great servant — but horrid master
YouTube ad policy bans keyword ‘Christian’ as unacceptable content

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: 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 this on to open-minded citizens, and link to this 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 3: 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 4: 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.

The Green New Deal: What It Means for Medicine

Preview

  • The truth has been acknowledged by Alexandria Ocasio Cortez’s own chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti The Green New Deal is not primarily about greening the planet or controlling the climate. It’s about socialism, as the people from whom she plagiarized it have said all along. It’s a fundamental transformation of our way of life.
  • What Americans need to know is the gritty detail behind the virtuous-sounding platitudes. How will their choices be constrained? How much will costs go up—for rent, utilities, fuel, food, and, of course, taxes? How will their standard of living be affected? And how will their actual medical care and health—as opposed to their health insurance card—be affected?

The truth has been acknowledged by Alexandria Ocasio Cortez’s own chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti The Green New Deal is not primarily about greening the planet or controlling the climate. It’s about socialism, as the people from whom she plagiarized it have said all along. It’s a fundamental transformation of our way of life.

Since everything you do leaves a “carbon footprint,” the GND encompasses literally everything—especially your medical care.

The first question is whether you should be alive at all. In his sensational 1968 book, The Population Bomb, entomologist (insect specialist) Paul Ehrlich predicted that hundreds of millions of people would starve to death in the 1970s. That bomb fizzled, but he still believes that civilization is doomed within decades, as humanity places inexorable burdens on our Planet’s life support systems. The optimum population of the planet is less than 2 billion, he thinks, or 5.6 billion fewer than we have now.

Once you’re here, Ehrlich and his acolytes would apparently tolerate your presence, although the decline in U.S. life expectancy for the third consecutive year would likely be good news. But having children is another matter. The demographic legacy of one person, calculated over the average time for that person’s lineage to die out, is about 6 person-lifetimes in the U.S., with eventual emission of 9,441 tons of carbon dioxide. So, “reproductive health” ideally means no reproduction for most people, and many millennials (and celebrities) seem to embrace that idea. Predictably, unrestricted or even free abortion is an article of faith among Democrat candidates. And the LGBTQ agenda, also favored by all, tends to contribute to the goal of population reduction.

Ironically, politicians still talk about “our children and our grandchildren,” though they may work to assure that many of us don’t have any.

The U.S. health care sector is said to account for around 10 percent of the CO2 generated in the U.S. and thus “could be implicated” in 10 percent (20,000) of the nearly 200,000 premature deaths attributable to air pollution annually in the United States. (There are about 3 million annual deaths in the U.S., and it is impossible to identify even one as being premature because of air pollution; the argument is purely statistical.) Thus, hospitals are supposedly killing people, albeit indirectly, by using carbon-based energy for heating, air conditioning, elevators, lighting, ventilators, etc.

Surgery is a special problem, beyond the use of electricity, because anesthetic gases that might have a greenhouse effect are vented to the atmosphere. So, are anesthesiologists to worry about a hypothetical tiny effect on the climate 50 years from now, instead of the best treatment for the patient?

“Social determinants of health” are the trendiest subject in “healthcare reform.” GND prescriptions would profoundly affect those. Diet would be mostly plant-based foods, with meat limited, ultimately to 1 oz per day. Living space would be restricted, some propose to 320 sq ft per person, with no single-family homes allowed except for trailers. Energy efficiency standards would entail restrictions on entry of outside air, without regard to effects on indoor air pollution, including bacteria and viruses. (More than 300 people in a huge Hong Kong apartment building were infected with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome [SARS] because of this.) Transportation would be mostly walking, bicycling, or public transport. Private vehicles, except possibly electric, might be banned entirely, with roads converted to parks and walkways. It is not clear what emergency responders would do. If electricity came mostly from wind and solar it would be scarce, unreliable, and many times more expensive than now. (Already tens of thousands of deaths in the UKare attributed to inability to afford adequate heating, as costs of “renewable” electricity soared.)

The Democratic presidential debates, except for some squabbling over things like alleged racism, were a display of groupthink. Everybody raised a hand in favor of the GND and universal health care. Some are more radical than others; Kamala Harris insists that we have a “climate crisis,” not just “climate change.” What Americans need to know is the gritty detail behind the virtuous-sounding platitudes. How will their choices be constrained? How much will costs go up—for rent, utilities, fuel, food, and, of course, taxes? How will their standard of living be affected? And how will their actual medical care and health—as opposed to their health insurance card—be affected?

© All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: The Green New Deal: Less About Climate, More About Control

CLIMATE STUDY: ‘We have practically no anthropogenic [man made] climate change.’

It now appears that all of the worry that mankind is destroying planet earth is wrong. The world is not ending in 10 years. Aren’t you relieved?

So what is the main factor controlling global temperature? Low clouds!

A June 29, 2019 study titled “NO EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE FOR THE SIGNIFICANT ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE” by J. Kauppinen and P. Malmi concluded,

We have proven that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature. The reason is that the models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction on the global temperature. A too small natural component results in a too large portion for the contribution of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. That is why IPCC represents the climate sensitivity more than one order of magnitude larger
than our sensitivity 0.24°C. Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10 %, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. The low clouds control mainly the global temperature. [Emphasis added]

J. Kauppinen and P. Malmi in their Abstract state,

In this paper we will prove that GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 fail to calculate the influences of the low cloud cover changes on the global temperature. That is why those models give a very small natural temperature change leaving a very large change for the contribution of the green house gases in the observed temperature. This is the reason why IPCC has to use a very large sensitivity to compensate a too small natural component. Further they have to leave out the strong negative feedback due to the clouds in order to magnify the sensitivity. In addition, this paper proves that the changes in the low cloud cover fraction practically control the global temperature. [Emphasis added]

Now you can rest easy and go on driving your SUV, enjoy eating beef, buy airplane tickets and turn your AC on.

All is well that ends well.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Fake Science of Global Warming

Climate Change Imploding As New Science Discovers Human Activity Has Zero Impact On Global Temperatures

Science and God

Guess who started the whole climate change debate? You guessed it UK PM Margaret Thatcher!

What most people fail to remember is history. if you ask most American’s who began the entire debate on climate change you would probably get the answer former Vice President Al Gore. The truth is today’s “environmentalist” or “green” movement began with former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Mrs. Thatcher was influenced in great part by environmentalist Sir Crispin Tickell, UK’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations from 1987-90.

On September 27, 1988 in a speech to the Royal Society, the independent scientific academy of the UK and the British Commonwealth, Mrs. Thatcher stated:

For generations, we have assumed that the efforts of mankind would leave the fundamental equilibrium of the world’s systems and atmosphere stable. But it is possible that with all these enormous changes (population, agricultural, use of fossil fuels) concentrated into such a short period of time, we have unwittingly begun a massive experiment with the system of this planet itself.

Recently three changes in atmospheric chemistry have become familiar subjects of concern. The first is the increase in the greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide, methane, and chlorofluorocarbons—which has led some [end p4] to fear that we are creating a global heat trap which could lead to climatic instability. We are told that a warming effect of 1°C per decade would greatly exceed the capacity of our natural habitat to cope. Such warming could cause accelerated melting of glacial ice and a consequent increase in the sea level of several feet over the next century. This was brought home to me at the Commonwealth Conference in Vancouver last year when the President of the Maldive Islands reminded us that the highest part of the Maldives is only six feet above sea level. The population is 177,000. It is noteworthy that the five warmest years in a century of records have all been in the 1980s—though we may not have seen much evidence in Britain! [Emphasis added]

Read Mrs. Thatcher’s entire speech.

Mrs. Thatcher then gave a speech on November 8, 1989 to the United Nations General Assembly on the “Global Environment.” Mrs. Thatcher noted:

We are seeing a vast increase in the amount of carbon dioxide reaching the atmosphere. The annual increase is three billion tonnes: and half the carbon emitted since the Industrial Revolution still remains in the atmosphere.

At the same time as this is happening, we are seeing the destruction on a vast scale of tropical forests which are uniquely able to remove carbon dioxide from the air.

Every year an area of forest equal to the whole surface of the United Kingdom is destroyed. At present rates of clearance we shall, by the year 2000, have removed 65 per cent of forests in the humid tropical zones. [end p3]

The consequences of this become clearer when one remembers that tropical forests fix more than ten times as much carbon as do forests in the temperate zones.

We now know, too, that great damage is being done to the Ozone Layer by the production of halons and chlorofluorocarbons. But at least we have recognised that reducing and eventually stopping the emission of CFCs is one positive thing we can do about the menacing accumulation of greenhouse gases.

It is of course true that none of us would be here but for the greenhouse effect. It gives us the moist atmosphere which sustains life on earth. We need the greenhouse effect—but only in the right proportions.

More than anything, our environment is threatened by the sheer numbers of people and the plants and animals which go with them. When I was born the world’s population was some 2 billion people. My [Michael Thatcher] grandson will grow up in a world of more than 6 billion people.

Put in its bluntest form: the main threat to our environment is more and more people, and their activities: The land they cultivate ever more intensively; The forests they cut down and burn; The mountain sides they lay bare; The fossil fuels they burn; The rivers and the seas they pollute.

The result is that change in future is likely to be more fundamental and more widespread than anything we have known hitherto. Change to the sea around us, change to the atmosphere above, leading in turn to change in the world’s climate, which could alter the way we live in the most fundamental way of all.

That prospect is a new factor in human affairs. It is comparable in its implications to the discovery of how to split the atom. Indeed, its results could be even more far-reaching. [Emphasis added]

The intent of Mrs. Thatcher’s speeches was to push for an alternative means of energy – nuclear power.

How it All Went Bad

Margaret Thatcher wanted to reduce the UK’s dependence on Middle Easter oil after the oil shock of 1978-79. According to Laurel Graefe, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta:

Like its 1973–74 predecessor, the second oil shock of the 1970s was associated with events in the Middle East, but it was also driven by strong global oil demand. The Iranian Revolution began in early 1978 and ended a year later, when the royal reign of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi collapsed and Sheikh Khomeini took control as grand ayatollah of the Islamic republic. In conjunction with the revolution, Iranian oil output declined by 4.8 million barrels per day (7 percent of world production at the time) by January 1979. However, this supply disruption may not have been the most important factor pushing oil prices higher. Rather, the Iranian disruption may have prompted a fear of further disruptions and spurred widespread speculative hoarding.

Oil prices began to rise rapidly in mid-1979, more than doubling between April 1979 and April 1980. According to one estimate, surging oil demand—coming both from a booming global economy and a sharp increase in precautionary demand—was responsible for much of the increase in the cost of oil during the crisis.

Mrs. Thatcher wanted to shift the world toward nuclear power. Her efforts failed due to the 1979 Three Mile Island and the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear power plant incidents. While Mrs. Thatcher’s nuclear power efforts failed the “green” movement in Great Britain exploded.

Nuclear power became the problem and not the solution to many.

In 1998 the United Nations first introduced the “Kyoto Protocol.”

Along Comes Al Gore

Between 1980 and 2006 the green movement was quietly but increasingly gaining political clout. The breakout came when former Vice President Al Gore released his film “Inconvenient Truth” on May 24, 2006. From this point on global warming and climate change became an issue of those seeking to control the means of producing oil, natural gas and coal. The alternative no longer was clean energy via nuclear power. Rather clean energy was anything but nuclear and fossil fuel driven power. It became solar and wind power, heavily subsidized by governments globally.

Along Comes Donald J. Trump

On June 1, 2017 President Trump formally removed the United States from the Kyoto Protocol. In a Rose Garden event President Trump stated:

Therefore, in order to fulfill my solemn duty to protect America and its citizens, the United States will withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord — (applause) — thank you, thank you — but begin negotiations to reenter either the Paris Accord or a really entirely new transaction on terms that are fair to the United States, its businesses, its workers, its people, its taxpayers.  So we’re getting out.  But we will start to negotiate, and we will see if we can make a deal that’s fair.  And if we can, that’s great.  And if we can’t, that’s fine.  (Applause.)

As President, I can put no other consideration before the wellbeing of American citizens.  The Paris Climate Accord is simply the latest example of Washington entering into an agreement that disadvantages the United States to the exclusive benefit of other countries, leaving American workers — who I love — and taxpayers to absorb the cost in terms of lost jobs, lower wages, shuttered factories, and vastly diminished economic production.

Thus, as of today, the United States will cease all implementation of the non-binding Paris Accord and the draconian financial and economic burdens the agreement imposes on our country.  This includes ending the implementation of the nationally determined contribution and, very importantly, the Green Climate Fund which is costing the United States a vast fortune. [Emphasis added]

Read the full statement here.

It was the conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher who started all of this climate change discussion. It was President Trump who ended it at least for the United States of America. Now you know the real story.

RELATED ARTICLE: EPA Administrator Explains What’s Changed at the Agency Since the Obama Years

Two Videos on the Global Warming/Climate Change Hoaxes

1. ET sent in a link to a video about a Nobel prize laureate smashing the global warming hoax for what it is. The video, unsurprisingly, is unavailable already on YouTube. While searching for it, I did find this one of Freeman Dyson on the subject. Look in to who Dr. Dyson is. I think as credentials go, he meets the toughest standard.

M. May have found the video featuring Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaever in question here:

How The Climate Media Subverts The Climate Debate

There is not a worse enemy of rightly understanding climate change, the causes, the threat and the cost-benefit of remediations than virtually every single media member that covers climate change.

They are part of the ongoing saga of environmental reporters who are as hardened and unobjective in their views as the Sierra Club and GreenPeace. I worked with several in newspapers over the years, and even back in the 1990s they almost universally became as activist in their reporting as the activists were in their activism. The cause was righteous and just!

It resulted in enormous misinformation and of course added to the mountain of distrust for the media that was growing skyward before social media was even on the scene. The global cooling crisis. The acid rain crisis. The nuclear energy crisis. The global deforestation crisis. The population bomb crisis. And on and on.

But nowhere has this been more disastrous than in the climate propaganda that passes itself off as news coverage. This was made crystal clear by the throng in the media center covering the Paris Climate Accord that jumped up and down cheering when it was signed in April 2016. Literally jumped up and down.

As a former member of the press corps, I recoiled at this outburst. But you should totally trust that you’re getting the straight dope from them on climate change.

The level of politicized reporting on the issue is how a member of Congress can propose the most childishly absurd Green New Deal and have every major Democratic candidate and much of the Democratic caucus sign on to it. The crisis is so severe that we need to eliminate plane travel in exchange for 19th century train travel and stop eating meat, plus so many more eye-popping proposals.

Of course the actual reality, which you have to dig for and which most Americans and virtually no Democrats access thanks to the climate media, is that climate change is real but the actual impacts are wildly overstated. Wildly, wildly, wildly overstated.

Last year’s U.S. Climate Assessment points this out, but media consumers would never know it. There is a Defcon 1 worst case scenario that results in far worse problems for the future of mankind than are delineated in the global warming issues of rising oceans and greater overall heat. This scenario envisions a nearly 12-degree increase by 2090 — three times the already questionable consensus, which nobody but the extremely extremists are suggesting is likely. It just not impossible.

But even with that scenario, the estimated climate change-caused damage rolls up to $500 billion annually in the U.S. That is an obviously notable amount today, but could be managed with some pain. But the GDP by 2090 will be unimaginably larger than today, meaning that $500 billion becomes very manageable pain point. Yet draconian measures are needed right now! The reality is that given the pace of scientific advancement and innovation, the solvability of global warming related problems is high.

Why? Guess which number was reported and which number was not reported? Yup. A 12-degree global temperature increase followed by the normal sky-is-falling hysteria and demands for radical lifestyle changes. But there was not a mainstream media outfit that reported the actual cost, which granted was buried by the climate change activist scientists, because that would make obvious that there is no looming crisis of any significance requiring the back-breaking policies with which Al Gore to AOC want to crush the world.

Remember how ineffectual those measures would be. The Paris Climate Accords were essentially worthless in impacting the rapid CO2 growth in China and India, but hit the U.S. hard. However, the U.S. accounts for less than 15 percent of global emissions — and falling.

This irresponsible climate media activism is why every Democratic candidate thinks they need some mammoth plan for global warming — even though studies have shown that if the U.S. cut every last carbon emission today it would have a negligible impact on global temperatures 50 years from now.

Nonetheless, even the supposed moderate in the race, Joe Biden, has had to come out with an anti-global warming plan that includes forcing emissions reductions on countries using tariffs — because if Trump uses tariffs to get better trade deals for American workers and companies, then by gosh Biden can use them to assuage the hysteria fevers caused by the infected climate change media.

It’s all just forehead slapping.

The bottom line, unfortunately, is that as bad as the political reporting is — and most every topic is now political it seems — the absolute least reliable is the climate change coverage, even more so than immigration coverage. You simply cannot accept anything you get from mainstream media sources on climate change. It’s a shame. But it’s true. And it means the ability to have any sort of unified understanding of what should be a straightforward issue is impossible.

Donald Trump: America’s Greenest President

America has never been cleaner or greener in the post-industrial revolution era.

This week President Trump made a major speech showcasing the good health of America’s environment and gains made on his watch.

Both are impressive.

Read the full text of the President’s remarksthe full White House fact sheet on the environment, and commentary by CFACT’s Adam Houser at CFACT.org.

America has the cleanest air and the best drinking water on record. Overall pollution levels are in decline.

As Adam Houser points out, you’d never know it from reading the press coverage.

The Green movement in America has gone astray.  Left-leaning politicians make futile gestures such as banning plastic bags, water bottles and drinking straws and subsidizing solar panels, electric cars and wind turbines.  None of this improves our environment, and in many circumstances actually hurts it.

In contrast, the Trump Administration has refocused America’s national efforts on genuine conservation work, and this has borne positive results including:

  • EPA has been been able to clean up Superfund sites at the fastest clip since 2005, and is on track to set a record this year.
  • Real steps are being taken to improve forest management and genuinely reduce the risk of wildfires.  All the green toys in the world could never accomplish that.
  • The federal government has come to the aid of the state of Florida to effectively combat red tide and keep Lake Okeechobee and the Everglades clean.
  • Despite alarms about withdrawing from the Paris accord, America is now leading the world on reducing CO2 emissions (if that’s your thing) while also leading the world in energy production.
  • Millions of acres are being opened up to hunting and fishing with wildlife expanding at a rapid clip.

While no means perfect, the Trump Administration is no doubt headed in a positive direction. It seems to recognize, unlike its predecessor under Obama, that man and nature can advance together, not in opposition. In this there is much to celebrate.

Head on over to CFACT.org for full details.

Indoors or out, this is a time of unprecedented well being in America. The summer months also provide us a great time to go outdoors and revel in America’s natural beauty. Unless, that is, you live in one of the broken cities run by the Left, such as Seattle, or San Francisco, where tent cities spring up and human waste clogs the streets.

Bottom line: If you care about sparking water, clean air, lush green spaces, and thriving wildlife, recognize that now is the best time in recent history to be alive.

To the chagrin of Greens everywhere, President Trump may well become our nation’s greenest President.

41 Inconvenient Truths on the “New Energy Economy”

Bill Gates has said that when it comes to understanding energy realities “we need to bring math to the problem.” He’s right.

A week doesn’t pass without a mayor, governor, policymaker or pundit joining the rush to demand, or predict, an energy future that is entirely based on wind/solar and batteries, freed from the “burden” of the hydrocarbons that have fueled societies for centuries. Regardless of one’s opinion about whether, or why, an energy “transformation” is called for, the physics and economics of energy combined with scale realities make it clear that there is no possibility of anything resembling a radically “new energy economy” in the foreseeable future. Bill Gates has said that when it comes to understanding energy realities “we need to bring math to the problem.”

He’s right. So, in my recent Manhattan Institute report, “The New Energy Economy: An Exercise in Magical Thinking,” I did just that.

Herein, then, is a summary of some of the bottom-line realities from the underlying math. (See the full report for explanations, documentation, and citations.)

1. Hydrocarbons supply over 80 percent of world energy: If all that were in the form of oil, the barrels would line up from Washington, D.C., to Los Angeles, and that entire line would grow by the height of the Washington Monument every week.

2. The small two-percentage-point decline in the hydrocarbon share of world energy use entailed over $2 trillion in cumulative global spending on alternatives over that period; solar and wind today supply less than two percent of the global energy.

3. When the world’s four billion poor people increase energy use to just one-third of Europe’s per capita level, global demand rises by an amount equal to twice America’s total consumption.

4. A 100x growth in the number of electric vehicles to 400 million on the roads by 2040 would displace five percent of global oil demand.

5. Renewable energy would have to expand 90-fold to replace global hydrocarbons in two decades. It took a half-century for global petroleum production to expand “only” ten-fold.

6. Replacing U.S. hydrocarbon-based electric generation over the next 30 years would require a construction program building out the grid at a rate 14-fold greater than any time in history.

7. Eliminating hydrocarbons to make U.S. electricity (impossible soon, infeasible for decades) would leave untouched 70 percent of U.S. hydrocarbons use—America uses 16 percent of world energy.

8. Efficiency increases energy demand by making products & services cheaper: since 1990, global energy efficiency improved 33 percent, the economy grew 80 percent and global energy use is up 40 percent.

9. Efficiency increases energy demand: Since 1995, aviation fuel use/passenger-mile is down 70 percent, air traffic rose more than 10-fold, and global aviation fuel use rose over 50 percent.

10. Efficiency increases energy demand: since 1995, energy used per byte is down about 10,000-fold, but global data traffic rose about a million-fold; global electricity used for computing soared.

11. Since 1995, total world energy use rose by 50 percent, an amount equal to adding two entire United States’ worth of demand.

12. For security and reliability, an average of two months of national demand for hydrocarbons are in storage at any time. Today, barely two hours of national electricity demand can be stored in all utility-scale batteries plus all batteries in one million electric cars in America.

13. Batteries produced annually by the Tesla Gigafactory (world’s biggest battery factory) can store three minutes worth of annual U.S. electric demand.

14. To make enough batteries to store two day’s worth of U.S. electricity demand would require 1,000 years of production by the Gigafactory (world’s biggest battery factory).

15. Every $1 billion in aircraft produced leads to some $5 billion in aviation fuel consumed over two decades to operate them. Global spending on new jets is more than $50 billion a year—and rising.

16. Every $1 billion spent on data centers leads to $7 billion in electricity consumed over two decades. Global spending on data centers is more than $100 billion a year—and rising.

17. Over a 30-year period, $1 million worth of utility-scale solar or wind produces 40 million and 55 million kWh respectively: $1 million worth of shale well produces enough natural gas to generate 300 million kWh over 30 years.

18. It costs about the same to build one shale well or two wind turbines: the latter, combined, produces 0.7 barrels of oil (equivalent energy) per hourthe shale rig averages 10 barrels of oil per hour.

19. It costs less than $0.50 to store a barrel of oil, or its equivalent in natural gas, but it costs $200 to store the equivalent energy of a barrel of oil in batteries.

20. Cost models for wind and solar assume, respectively, 41 percent and 29 percent capacity factors (i.e., how often they produce electricity). Real-world data reveal as much as ten percentage points less for both. That translates into $3 million less energy produced than assumed over a 20-year life of a 2-MW $3 million wind turbine.

21. In order to compensate for episodic wind/solar output, U.S. utilities are using oil- and gas-burning reciprocating engines (big cruise-ship-like diesels); three times as many have been added to the grid since 2000 as in the 50 years prior to that.

22. Wind-farm capacity factors have improved at about 0.7 percent per year; this small gain comes mainly from reducing the number of turbines per acre leading to a 50 percent increase in average land used to produce a wind-kilowatt-hour.

23. Over 90 percent of America’s electricity, and 99 percent of the power used in transportation, comes from sources that can easily supply energy to the economy any time the market demands it.

24. Wind and solar machines produce energy an average of 25 percent–30 percent of the time, and only when nature permits. Conventional power plants can operate nearly continuously and are available when needed.

25. The shale revolution collapsed the prices of natural gas & coal, the two fuels that produce 70 percent of U.S. electricity. But electric rates haven’t gone down, rising instead 20 percent since 2008. Direct and indirect subsidies for solar and wind consumed those savings.

26. Politicians and pundits like to invoke “moonshot” language. But transforming the energy economy is not like putting a few people on the moon a few times. It is like putting all of humanity on the moon—permanently.

27. The common cliché: an energy tech disruption will echo the digital tech disruption. But information-producing machines and energy-producing machines involve profoundly different physics; the cliché is sillier than comparing apples to bowling balls.

28. If solar power scaled like computer-tech, a single postage-stamp-size solar array would power the Empire State Building. That only happens in comic books.

29. If batteries scaled like digital tech, a battery the size of a book, costing three cents, could power a jetliner to Asia. That only happens in comic books.

30. If combustion engines scaled like computers, a car engine would shrink to the size of an ant and produce a thousand-fold more horsepower; actual ant-sized engines produce 100,000 times less power.

31. No digital-like 10x gains exist for solar tech. Physics limit for solar cells (the Shockley-Queisser limit) is a max conversion of about 33 percent of photons into electrons; commercial cells today are at 26 percent.

32. No digital-like 10x gains exist for wind tech. Physics limit for wind turbines (the Betz limit) is a max capture of 60 percent of energy in moving air; commercial turbines achieve 45 percent.

33. No digital-like 10x gains exist for batteries: maximum theoretical energy in a pound of oil is 1,500 percent greater than max theoretical energy in the best pound of battery chemicals.

34. About 60 pounds of batteries are needed to store the energy equivalent of one pound of hydrocarbons.

35. At least 100 pounds of materials are mined, moved and processed for every pound of battery fabricated.

36. Storing the energy equivalent of one barrel of oil, which weighs 300 pounds, requires 20,000 pounds of Tesla batteries ($200,000 worth).

37. Carrying the energy equivalent of the aviation fuel used by an aircraft flying to Asia would require $60 million worth of Tesla-type batteries weighing five times more than that aircraft.

38. It takes the energy equivalent of 100 barrels of oil to fabricate a quantity of batteries that can store the energy equivalent of a single barrel of oil.

39. A battery-centric grid and car world means mining gigatons more of the earth to access lithium, copper, nickel, graphite, rare earths, cobalt, etc.—and using millions of tons of oil and coal both in mining and to fabricate metals and concrete.

40. China dominates global battery production with its grid 70 percent coal-fueled: EVs using Chinese batteries will create more carbon-dioxide than saved by replacing oil-burning engines.

41. One would no more use helicopters for regular trans-Atlantic travel—doable with elaborately expensive logistics—than employ a nuclear reactor to power a train or photovoltaic systems to power a nation.

This article is republished with permission from Economics 21. 

COLUMN BY

VIDEO: Big Government Is Not the Answer to Climate Change

In the 1970s, Americans were told we were in a global cooling crisis and if something wasn’t done, we’d enter a new ice age.

When that didn’t happen, a few decades later we were told that entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend was not reversed by the year 2000.

Despite the consistent failure of these apocalyptic warnings, that hasn’t stopped climate change alarmism.

We’re now being told we only have 12 years to combat climate change, and the solution is to fundamentally dismantle the system of free enterprise. That means Washington controls things like how we produce our energy, what food we eat, and what type of cars we drive.

The question is, even if we believed their alarmist, catastrophic predictions, would their proposals work?

Not according to the climate scientists’ own models. Based on those models, even if the United States cut its carbon dioxide emissions to zero, it would only avert global warming by a few tenths of a degree Celsius—in 80 years.

We would see no noticeable difference in the climate, yet it would come at an enormous cost to the American people.

Climate change is happening, and human activity undoubtedly plays a role, but big-government climate policies are all economic pain, no environmental gain.

After all, the purpose of climate change regulations is to drive energy prices higher so families and businesses use less energy.

Abundant energy sources such as coal, oil, and natural gas have allowed Americans to affordably drive to their jobs, light and heat their homes, and power their refrigerators, computers, and iPhones.

On the other hand, more heavy-handed climate regulations would drive up electricity bills and prices at the pump.

Families would be hurt multiple times over, paying not just more for energy but also more for food, clothing, and health care, as energy is critical for every stage of planting, harvesting, manufacturing, and transporting goods to consumers.

These rising costs would stifle economic growth, one of the most important factors for maintaining a cleaner environment.

As a country’s economy grows, the financial ability of its citizens to take care of the environment grows, too. So creating more economy-killing climate regulations and taxes would not only harm the livelihoods of the American people, it would also harm our ability to protect our environment.

Instead, government should focus on keeping the economy strong by reducing taxes and eliminating regulatory barriers to energy innovation.

For example, some states produce clean, cheap natural gas, but excessive regulations and litigation prevent the construction of pipelines to distribute natural gas to other parts of the country.

Furthermore, competitive electricity markets can give consumers the option to buy 100% renewable power if they like. And fixing a broken regulatory system will allow new, innovative commercial nuclear technologies to get off the ground.

This is how we can ensure affordable, reliable, and cleaner energy. It’s how we can keep our economy growing. And ultimately, it’s how we can ensure a cleaner environment for America.

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: How the Trump Administration Is Reining in the EPA’s Union

RELATED VIDEO: What the Left Gets Wrong About Climate Change | The Daily Signal


Dear Readers:

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY


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

Energy & Environmental News

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

My vote for the two most outstanding articles this cycle: Dr. Judith Curry: Climate Scientists’ Motivated Reasoning and What I Learned on My Undercover Mission Among the Greenies.

Regarding the current Newsletter, since there is such a diversity of interesting material, I’m subdividing the most noteworthy articles into five categories. Note that this issue has a special section on the atrocious new NYS “Energy” Policy…

Energy Economics —

Study: The Levelized Cost of Electricity from Existing Generation Resources

Energy Misc —

Energy: NY’s Green Manifesto —

Global Warming (AGW) —

Misc (Education, Science, Politics, etc.) —

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 issues.

Note 2: 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 this on to open-minded citizens, and link to this 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 3: This Newsletter is intended to supplement the material on our website, WiseEnergy.org. The most important page there is the Winning page.

Note 4: 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.

Copyright © 2019; Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions (see WiseEnergy.org)