Europe’s attempted transition to so-called “Green” energy has been a massive fail.
Wind and solar have proven too inefficient and unreliable to meet the continent’s needs, leaving it dependent on fossil fuels from, of all places, Russia.
Now, with Russian supplies partially cut off, Europe faces what French President Macron called, “the end of abundance.”
The folks handling President Biden’s energy policy have learned nothing. They remain fully determined to force America into the same energy mistakes Europe made.
Meanwhile, autocracies such as China and Russia, and emerging economies such as India, are basing their energy economies on the efficiency of fossil fuels and nuclear. China’s greenhouse gas emissions now exceed those of the entire rest of the developed world, COMBINED!
CFACT’s team of energy scholars have done their usual thorough and compelling job of exposing the Left’s energy incompetence in a series of fact-filled articles at CFACT.org.
David Wojick delved deep into the inherent flaws in the so-called “Inflation Reduction Act” (IRA), saying: “The Democrats writing the IRA decided that since tax credit subsidies do a good job of promoting renewables and electric vehicles, they should do more. They should promote things like union wages, mining and manufacturing, which have nothing to do with climate.
“Think of it as social engineering squared. In the vernacular this is called ‘mission creep.’ A program designed to do one thing tries to do something very different, often unsuccessfully.”
Bonner Cohen, meanwhile, exposed the roadblocks popping up in local communities for Biden’s “incredible transition” to renewables. Cohen writes: “President Biden’s ‘incredible transition’ to what he assures us will be a clean-energy future is not going down well with residents and public officials in south-central Idaho, who are up in arms over a proposed wind power project that will have as many as 400 giant turbines marring the picturesque countryside.
“Commissioners in Lincoln and Minidoka counties on August 15th independently adopted resolutions opposing the project that would go up on 73,000 acres of federal land under the jurisdiction of the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM).”
The free world’s energy economy is too important to subjugate it to Left-wing groupthink.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Committee For A Constructive Tomorrowhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngCommittee For A Constructive Tomorrow2022-08-24 13:05:112022-08-24 13:05:11Left-Wing ‘Green’ Energy Proves Useless
E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D., Founder and National Spokesman of The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, www.CornwallAlliance.org, author of over a dozen books and over a thousand articles, former associate professor of historical theology and social ethics at Knox Theological Seminary and of interdisciplinary studies at Covenant College.
Jeanette Ward for Wyoming came to Casper, Wyoming a political refugee from fascist Illinois. She served there (2015-2019) as a School Board Member on the largest elected school board in Illinois (U-46), she defended parental rights against the transgender mob, politically biased textbooks, and race hustlers. She publicly exposed a fellow board member who said the American Flag was “nothing more than toilet paper” to her and who said Jeanette was the “21st century brand of the KKK”. Jeanette ran for State Senate in Illinois in 2020 and learned first-hand how the left converted the Covid scam into a weapon for institutionalized election theft. Losing a previously +9 Republican district by about 1700 votes, Jeanette lost VBM (vote by mail) in just ONE of the four counties in my district by roughly 8000 votes, where the clerk for that county didn’t bother to verify any of those VBM signatures. The straw that broke the camel’s back for her family was when one of her family’s high-school daughters was threatened with out-of-school suspension for not wearing a mask. She’s PRO-LIFE, PRO-FREEDOM, PRO-2nd AMENDMENT, and PRO-FAMILY.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Conservative Commandos Radio Showhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngConservative Commandos Radio Show2022-08-24 06:21:412022-08-24 06:21:41PODCAST: Misleading Infographic about Climate Change and Wildfires
The Climate Intelligence CLINTEL.com website states:
Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. In particular, scientists should emphasize that their modeling output is not the result of magic: computer models are human-made. What comes out is fully dependent on what theoreticians and programmers have put in: hypotheses, assumptions, relationships, parameterizations, stability constraints, etc. Unfortunately, in mainstream climate science most of this input is undeclared.
To believe the outcome of a climate model is to believe what the model makers have put in. This is precisely the problem of today’s climate discussion to which climate models are central. Climate science has degenerated into a discussion based on beliefs, not on sound self-critical science. We should free ourselves from the naïve belief in immature climate models. In future, climate research must give significantly more emphasis to empirical science.
There is no climate emergency
A global network of over 1100 scientists and professionals has prepared this urgent message. Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures.
Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming
The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming.
Warming is far slower than predicted
The world has warmed significantly less than predicted by IPCC on the basis of modeled anthropogenic forcing. The gap between the real world and the modeled world tells us that we are far from understanding climate change.
Climate policy relies on inadequate models
Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as global policy tools. They blow up the effect of greenhouse gases such as CO2. In addition, they ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.
CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth
CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.
Global warming has not increased natural disasters
There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent. However, there is ample evidence that CO2-mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly.
Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities
There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050. If better approaches emerge, and they certainly will, we have ample time to reflect and re-adapt. The aim of global policy should be ‘prosperity for all’ by providing reliable and affordable energy at all times. In a prosperous society men and women are well educated, birthrates are low and people care about their environment.
Epilogue
The World Climate Declaration (WCD) has brought a large variety of competent scientists together from all over the world*. The considerable knowledge and experience of this group is indispensable in reaching a balanced, dispassionate and competent view of climate change.
From now onward the group is going to function as “Global Climate Intelligence Group”. The CLINTEL Group will give solicited and unsolicited advice on climate change and energy transition to governments and companies worldwide.
* It is not the number of experts but the quality of arguments that counts.
NOBEL LAUREATE PROFESSOR IVAR GIAEVER NORWAY/USA
PROFESSOR GUUS BERKHOUT / THE NETHERLANDS
DR. CORNELIS LE PAIR / THE NETHERLANDS
PROFESSOR REYNALD DU BERGER / FRENCH SPEAKING CANADA
BARRY BRILL / NEW ZEALAND
VIV FORBES / AUSTRALIA
PROFESSOR JEFFREY FOSS † / ENGLISH SPEAKING CANADA
JENS MORTON HANSEN / DENMARK
PROFESSOR LÁSZIÓ SZARKA / HUNGARY
PROFESSOR SEOK SOON PARK / SOUTH KOREA
PROFESSOR JAN-ERIK SOLHEIM / NORWAY
SOTIRIS KAMENOPOULOS / GREECE
FERDINAND MEEUS / DUTCH SPEAKING BELGIUM
PROFESSOR RICHARD LINDZEN / USA
HENRI A. MASSON / FRENCH SPEAKING BELGIUM
PROFESSOR INGEMAR NORDIN / SWEDEN
JIM O’BRIEN / REPUBLIC OF IRELAND
PROFESSOR IAN PLIMER / AUSTRALIA
DOUGLAS POLLOCK / CHILE
DR. BLANCA PARGA LANDA / SPAIN
PROFESSOR ALBERTO PRESTININZI / ITALY
PROFESSOR BENOÎT RITTAUD / FRANCE
DR. THIAGO MAIA / BRAZIL
PROFESSOR FRITZ VAHRENHOLT / GERMANY
THE VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY / UNITED KINGDOM
DUŠAN BIŽIĆ / CROATIA, BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA, SERBIA AND MONTE NEGRO
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2022-08-19 09:45:392022-08-22 06:16:08WORLD CLIMATE DELCARATION: There Is No Climate Emergency!
It’s been a bad stretch for the phony climate change narrative, lately.
A new report shows 96 percent of NOAA’s temperature stations don’t meet the agency’s own placement standards. They are deliberately placed near urban areas in order to overstate average temperatures, leading to the now-routine bogus claims we’re having the ‘hottest year on record’.
Someone pointed out the inconvenient truth that NASA has recognized over the years that the biggest factor affecting temperature and climate is the sun, specifically, variations in the earth’s solar orbit. Fly too close to the sun, and things get a little warmer, whodathunkit.
Those disappearing coral reefs in Australia? Well, guess what – they’ve rebounded to record levels. Environmentalists routinely tell you the sky is falling and the coral reefs are disappearing, but neither is true.
The climatistas prattle on about extreme weather events, but the fact of the matter is that the number of climate-related deaths has dropped by 99 percent since 1920 and is now approaching zero – except for storm chasers, of course. Oh, by the way, the number of tropical cyclones has dropped 13 percent since pre-industrial times, a new study found. Sorry to rain on your anti-growth parade.
The climate change crowd is deceiving you when it claims extreme weather is increasing and climate change is to blame. It turns out that the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – IPCC – recently changed its methods, producing an increase in extreme weather events on paper but not in the real world. “(T)he latest IPCC report has introduced novel ‘attribution’ statistics and now insists that things are getting worse. It’s yet another case of scientists trying to scare the public into compliance,” a recent paper said.
So-called experts say sea levels are rising, but photos show they’re not, and the satellite data underlying the sea level rise claim has not been vetted for satellite altitude which makes all the difference in the method used.
Greenies hyperventilate about the water level at Lake Powell being down 94 feet since 2000 and blame evaporation from hotter temperatures, but it is government policies that produced the drop. The original plan was to hold back water in wet years to make up for dry years, but the government now releases more water than originally planned in wet years, leaving no cushion. You can’t blame that on climate change – or maybe you can, if you’re dishonest.
Similarly, it is government policies that are producing the increasing wildfire problem in the West. Litigation under environmental laws and environmental reviews have delayed thinning and controlled burns. Some controlled burns are being done, stupidly, in windy conditions. So look to forest management, not climate change, if you’re sincerely interested in finding the culprit instead of just demagoguing the issue.
California and Germany are finding out that alternative energy isn’t all sunshine and lollipops. Faced with electricity shortages from pursuing green energy policies, both are moving toward increasing reliance on their fossil fuel and nuclear power plants.
If you’re pinning your hopes the planet won’t burn up on the new climate bill Joe Biden is signing today, you might want to reconsider. If you use U.N. climate models and everything in the bill goes swimmingly, the average temperature of the earth in the year 2100 will be 61.972 degrees instead of 62.0 degrees, best case. I’m so relieved, and I’m so glad we’re spending $739 billion dollars to achieve a drop of 0.028 degrees. Lollipop, anyone?
The Green Movement is a total assault on capitalism, freedom, and our entire way of life by the Far Left global elites. It’s implementation will cause significant economic decline in countries throughout the world. Furthermore, if this movement is not stopped, you can expect massive instability in your cities and your towns, and your communities in the years ahead.
“An unpleasant surprise to the ingenuity and resilience of the international Far Left in its environmental assault upon capitalism has been the venality, cowardice, and invertebrate tactical stupidity of much of the corporate world.” – @ConradMBlackhttps://t.co/vSryieyV4N
Germany’s economy will lose more than 260 billion euros ($265 billion) in added value by 2030 due to the Ukraine war and high energy prices, spelling negative effects for the labor market, according to a study by the Institute for Employment Research (IAB).
In comparison with expectations for a peaceful Europe, Germany’s price-adjusted gross domestic product (GDP) will be 1.7% lower next year and there will be about 240,000 fewer people in employment, said the study published on Tuesday.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Geller Reporthttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Geller Report2022-08-15 06:10:502022-08-15 06:11:08Germany To Lose $265 billion By 2030 Due To Green Energy Hoax
Please use social media, etc. to pass on this Newsletter to other open-minded citizens…If at any time you’d like to be added to (or taken off) the distribution of our popular, free, worldwide Media Balance Newsletter, simply send me an email saying that.
Note 1: We recommend reading the Newsletter on your computer, not your phone, as some documents (e.g. PDFs) are much easier to read on a large computer screen… We’ve tried to use common fonts, etc. to minimize display issues.
Note 2: For recent past Newsletter issues see 2020 Archives & 2021 Archives & 2022 Archives. To accommodate numerous requests received about prior articles over the twelve plus years of the Newsletter, we’ve put together since the beginning of the Newsletter — where you can search by year. For a detailed background about the Newsletter, please read this.
Note 3: See this extensive list of reasonable books on climate change. As a parallel effort, we have also put together a list of some good books related to industrial wind energy. Both topics are also extensively covered on my website: WiseEnergy.org.
Note 4: I am not an attorney or a physician, so no material appearing in any of the Newsletters (or any of my websites) should be construed as giving legal or medical advice. My recommendation has always been: consult a competent, licensed attorney when you are involved with legal issues, and consult a competent physician regarding medical matters.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00John Droz, Jr.http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJohn Droz, Jr.2022-08-14 10:02:462022-08-15 05:43:00MEDIA BALANCED NEWSLETTER: We cover COVID to Climate, as well as Energy to Elections.
The so-called ‘Inflation Reduction Act’ passed by the Senate contains $250 billion in Energy Department loan guarantees for, among other things, renewable energy. This should scare the bejeezus out of anybody who remembers the Solyndra green energy scandal during the Obama administration overseen by none other than Joe Biden.
The scandal resulted in $2.25 billion taxpayer dollars lost and a hundred criminal investigations. The centerpiece of the scandal was the disastrous $535 million loan guarantee to Solyndra which went bankrupt. Many other companies went bankrupt as well, like electric car maker Fisker Automotive which received a $529 million dollar loan to build a factory in Delaware, of all places. Hmm, wonder how Delaware got selected. Battery maker A123 went bankrupt after getting $250 million in stimulus money. Then there was the Crescent Dunes thermal solar power plant in Nevada which got almost a billion dollars in federal financing, but never reached its energy output targets, and went bankrupt in 2014.
Strict controls were promised for the loan guarantee program but, instead, we got good old-fashioned graft and corruption dressed up in a shiny new eco-friendly coat. Now we can expect a new round of companies to go bankrupt because they’re ill-conceived and have to turn to government for funding after finding no one in private financing will touch them.
The government loan office is already back in business. In May, the Energy Department announced a $500 million loan guarantee for a hydrogen storage facility in Utah, the first clean energy loan guarantee since 2014. But federal spending on fanciful environmental projects never really stopped. For example, $5.5 billion in funding for electric public transit vehicles was announced in March. Too bad about that electric bus that caught fire and burned up in Connecticut in July. The taxpayers got smoked on that one.
You can already catch whiffs of corruption in federal energy project spending under the Biden administration. A Biden mega-donor got a $500 million government loan to build a solar company in India. The federal agency involved has a history of prioritizing politically connected projects backed by huge political contributors. Joe Biden’s choice to head the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is all in for Biden’s green energy push and with good reason. He spent years lobbying for a company that is behind an offshore wind farm backed by the administration. A Democrat congressman from Illinois pushed for $273 billion in ‘tax credits for clean energy’ without disclosing his ownership interest in an alternative energy company that stood to benefit from the subsidies.
A top deputy for Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm pushed several policy recommendations from an energy storage industry lobbying group she used to work for. Granholm herself comes from the green energy swamp, being a big investor in a green energy company until ethics rules forced her to sell her stake for a cool $1.6 million profit.
So, what we have here is a new Solyndra Corruption Act handing a bunch of green energy cronies a huge new pile of federal money with which to enrich their friends in the green energy swamp. Expect prior patterns from the Solyndra scandal to hold. Expect more green energy companies to gorge themselves on government dough and go bankrupt. Expect taxpayers to lose billions more, and expect some of the loot to end up in the pockets of Biden cronies. We know this is going to happen and a lot more of our money will go down the drain. The only question is, how much are we going to be scammed out of this time?
The government drive to force auto manufacturers to produce uneconomical and unreliable as well as totally inefficient electronic cars is a scam. It’s not an error, however, it is their intent.
The analyses in the column are spot on, but the author refuses to look the issue square in the actual intent.
The public at large will be denied any “right” to private transportation.
A public at large and free to roam the country is anathema to the Bolshevik ideal. The public is to be wired into high density dwellings (not privately owned individual homes) and will either bike to work or take public transportation. Privately owned vehicles will be a thing of the past, and electric vehicles will be doled out on a parity basis for members of the party in good standing, and the models according to position. Gasoline vehicles will exist at the party’s permission to do essential work for farms, factories, aircraft, and train locomotives.
George Orwell knew whereof he wrote.
The book 1984 was supposed to be a warning (like Mein Kampf) but the people read it and said, that’s preposterous, never happen to a modern, civilized people.
The utility companies have thus far had little to say about the alarming cost projections to operate electric vehicles (EVs) or the increased rates that they will be required to charge their customers. It is not just the total amount of electricity required, but the transmission lines and fast charging capacity that must be built at existing filling stations. Neither wind nor solar can support any of it. Electric vehicles will never become the mainstream of transportation!
The problems with electric vehicles (EVs), we showed that they were too expensive, too unreliable, rely on materials mined in China and other unfriendly countries, and require more electricity than the nation can afford. In this second part, we address other factors that will make any sensible reader avoid EVs like the plague.
EV Charging Insanity
In order to match the 2,000 cars that a typical filling station can service in a busy 12 hours, an EV charging station would require 600, 50-watt chargers at an estimated cost of $24 million and a supply of 30 megawatts of power from the grid. That is enough to power 20,000 homes. No one likely thinks about the fact that it can take 30 minutes to 8 hours to recharge a vehicle between empty or just topping off. What are the drivers doing during that time?
ICSC-Canada board member New Zealand-based consulting engineer Bryan Leyland describes why installing electric car charging stations in a city is impractical:
“If you’ve got cars coming into a petrol station, they would stay for an average of five minutes. If you’ve got cars coming into an electric charging station, they would be at least 30 minutes, possibly an hour, but let’s say its 30 minutes. So that’s six times the surface area to park the cars while they’re being charged. So, multiply every petrol station in a city by six. Where are you going to find the place to put them?”
The government of the United Kingdom is already starting to plan for power shortages caused by the charging of thousands of EVs. Starting in June 2022, the government will restrict the time of day you can charge your EV battery. To do this, they will employ smart meters that are programmed to automatically switch off EV charging in peak times to avoid potential blackouts.
In particular, the latest UK chargers will be pre-set to not function during 9-hours of peak loads, from 8 am to 11 am (3-hours), and 4 pm to 10 pm (6-hours). Unbelievably, the UK technology decides when and if an EV can be charged, and even allows EV batteries to be drained into the UK grid if required. Imagine charging your car all night only to discover in the morning that your battery is flat since the state took the power back. Better keep your gas-powered car as a reliable and immediately available backup! While EV charging will be an attractive source of revenue generation for the government, American citizens will be up in arms.
Used Car Market
The average used EV will need a new battery before an owner can sell it, pricing them well above used internal combustion cars. The average age of an American car on the road is 12 years. A 12-year-old EV will be on its third battery. A Tesla battery typically costs $10,000 so there will not be many 12-year-old EVs on the road. Good luck trying to sell your used green fairy tale electric car!
Tuomas Katainen, an enterprising Finish Tesla owner, had an imaginative solution to the battery replacement problem—he blew up his car! New York City-based Insider magazine reported (December 27, 2021 ):
“The shop told him the faulty battery needed to be replaced, at a cost of about $22,000. In addition to the hefty fee, the work would need to be authorized by Tesla…Rather than shell out half the cost of a new Tesla to fix an old one, Katainen decided to do something different… The demolition experts from the YouTube channel Pommijätkät (Bomb Dudes) strapped 66 pounds of high explosives to the car and surrounded the area with slow-motion cameras…the 14 hotdog-shaped charges erupt into a blinding ball of fire, sending a massive shock wave rippling out from the car…The videos of the explosion have a combined 5 million views.”
We understand that the standard Tesla warranty does not cover “damage resulting from intentional actions,” like blowing the car up for a YouTube video.
EVs Per Block In Your Neighborhood
A home charging system for a Tesla requires a 75-amp service. The average house is equipped with 100-amp service. On most suburban streets the electrical infrastructure would be unable to carry more than three houses with a single Tesla. For half the homes on your block to have electric vehicles, the system would be wildly overloaded.
Batteries.
Although the modern lithium-ion battery is four times better than the old lead-acid battery, gasoline holds 80 times the energy density. The great lithium battery in your cell phone weighs less than an ounce while the Tesla battery weighs 1,000 pounds. And what do we get for this huge cost and weight? We get a car that is far less convenient and less useful than cars powered by internal combustion engines.
Bryan Leyland explained why: “When the Model T came out, it was a dramatic improvement on the horse and cart. The electric car is a step backward into the equivalence of an ordinary car with a tiny petrol tank that takes half an hour to fill It offers nothing in the way of convenience or extra facilities.”
Our Conclusion
The electric automobile will always be around in a niche market likely never exceeding 10% of the cars on the road. All automobile manufacturers are investing in their output and all will be disappointed in their sales. Perhaps they know this and will manufacture just what they know they can sell. This is certainly not what President Biden or California Governor Newsom are planning for. However, for as long as the present government is in power, they will be pushing the electric car as another means to run our lives.
Dr. Jay Lehr is a Senior Policy Analyst with the International Climate Science Coalition and former Science Director of The Heartland Institute. He is an internationally renowned scientist, author, and speaker.
Tom Harris is Executive Director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition, and a policy advisor to The Heartland Institute.
You do not need to have an advanced degree in mathematics to understand the term “Overload”! The average person, no matter where you live, can quickly identify the political feel-good sensation that is being attempted by those short-sighted individuals who are promoting the EV revolution….Vehicle manufacturers, Charging station builders, Transmission Line contractors, Battery producers….etc. i.e. Everyone that has their hands out for a government subsidy (i.e. your tax money).
“It’s Magic”….and you are saving the planet by creating less pollution as you get rid of your gas burning vehicle and take out a five-year loan to pay for the shiny new $60,000 electric car. No more fill-ups at the service station and the global warming is solved. You can now sit back and imagine the new polar ice formations that are providing a safe environment for the Polar Bears, Seals, Penguins that we all adore. We have done our part saving humanity…..and you can see the smile on little Greta Thunberg’s face!
BUT WAIT….why are we losing power at our house?
Well the short answer is….We failed to understand that our electrical grid reached max capacity and was overloaded when all of the EV’s were plugged in tonight at the same time. The next short answer is…..where do you think the energy came from to supply the grid in the first place? It sure was not from Wind or Solar….nor from any other alternate energy source we use which, when all combined, only provides 7% of today’s use demand. It was from the traditional combustible resource called Hydrocarbons!
Until we discover a non-hydrocarbon energy source that is efficient and safe, GET OVER IT …. Like it or not, we are committed to Oil & Gas!
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Royal A. Brown IIIhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRoyal A. Brown III2022-08-05 05:38:252022-08-05 05:39:03All Electric Car Scam
Does Biden deserve credit or does the second law of demand explain our less painful trips to the pump?
Anyone who has a car is breathing a sigh of relief this last week. After two years of increasing gas prices, we’ve finally had a significant fall in gas prices.
Gas prices are still high at $4.33/gallon (nearly double the $2.18 they were in July of 2020), but there appears to be light at the end of the tunnel.
Since the current administration has taken a great deal of heat over high fuel prices, perhaps it’s no surprise to see the White House taking credit for the lower prices. Earlier this month, President Biden noted that gasoline prices had fallen for 30 consecutive days.
“Our actions are working, and prices are coming down,” Biden said days later.
However, there is little evidence to indicate the majority of the price drop is due to any particular policy change.
This leaves us with an important question. Why exactly are prices falling?
Falling Demand?
Several outlets have undertaken the task of explaining this price decrease. Some seem to have arrived at an answer that is in the right direction.
An article on MarketWatch pinpoints the ultimate cause as falling demand. “Gasoline demand weakness against historical seasonal strength is pressing retail prices lower,” MarketWatch reported analyst Brian Milne saying.
A report by ESAI Energy, an analytics firm, said on Wednesday that the firm expected a global surplus of four million barrels a day in the roughly 100-million-barrel-a-day market in the second quarter. “This is a significant drop in demand,” said Sarah Emerson, ESAI president.
In other words, the oil purchasing decisions are falling below what the oil industry expected. Four million less barrels a day are being utilized than industry experts had anticipated. The Times continues:
An Energy Department report released Wednesday showed that gasoline demand in recent weeks had dropped by 1.35 million barrels a day, or more than 10 percent. A recent survey from AAA seems to back this up, highlighting that two thirds of Americans have claimed to have changed their driving habits since the price increases.
So there’s our answer, right? Falling demand means lower prices.
There are several problems with this explanation, but the problems manifest in one particular issue. Neither of these articles gives a satisfactory answer for why demand would be falling.
In order to understand why demand is changing we first need to eliminate a fallacious reason. It might be tempting to say demand is falling because the price is high. In fact, the MarketWatch article seems to suggest this explanation. But this claim is wrong.
It’s true that when the price of gas (or any good or service for that matter) rises, people will purchase a smaller quantity of that good or service. Economists call this the first law of demand.
But the key part of that statement is when the price rises. Higher prices have existed for a while and cannot explain suddenly lower quantity demanded. Why didn’t the higher prices lead to a lower quantity demanded earlier?
In fact, committing to this explanation that higher price leads to lower demand is contradictory because it would be akin to saying “higher prices cause lower demand which causes lower prices.” This circular reasoning is confusing and incomplete at best.
Scarcity + Time = Substitution
MarketWatch and The New York Times missed it by that much.
I believe the outlets are right to pinpoint changing demand as the relevant factor for falling prices, and they’re right that higher prices are part of the story, but the explanation is missing the most important part.
To see what’s really going on, consider an example.
Imagine you’ve booked your vacation for the summer and you’ve decided to do a cross-country trip in an RV. The RV is rented, you’ve put in for vacation days at work, the insurance is covered, you’ve paid for tickets for sights and attractions, and your family is packed and ready.
You go to bed and gas prices are $2/gallon. The next morning you pull into a gas station with the RV and the price has skyrocketed to $4/gallon. The cost of your travel has doubled.
Do you cancel? In some cases the answer could be yes, but for many people the higher cost of gas is less than the cost of planning an entirely new vacation and executing the plan within a day. The cost of doing the logistics of canceling bookings and organizing something to do with your vacation days is high on short notice.
Now imagine a different scenario. You’re six months out from your trip and gas prices skyrocket to $4. You haven’t rented an RV or put in for vacation days. You assume gas prices will stay high until your vacation. Do you change your vacation plans? It seems likely.
The answer isn’t certain, but what we can say with certainty is that it’s more likely that someone will change vacation plans in the second scenario with six months notice relative to the first scenario with no notice.
Why? Simply put, it’s more costly to find substitutes in the short run than in the long run.
This illustrates a principle called the second law of demand which states that people are relatively more responsive to price changes in the long run than in the short run. Economists call this responsiveness “elasticity”.
With this insight in hand, we are now equipped to give a more robust explanation for falling gas prices.
To begin, gas prices increase substantially. It’s too costly for people to substitute their gas usage in the short run. You still need to drive to your vacation, work, or church the next day if gas prices go up. But, as more time passes, there is more ability to cheaply discover alternatives like bus routes, carpool situations, financing for electric cars, or telework options.
In the case of vacations you could substitute your RV trip with the “staycation” option, which is growing in popularity, given you have time to plan.
Then, as more people substitute these options for gas, gas stations face a new lower demand. Again, this doesn’t occur immediately because it’s costly to make these substitutions in the short run.
Admittedly, confirming this theory as the number-one cause of falling gas prices would require significant statistical work, but the theory is consistent with the basic facts of lower demand and the time that’s passed since gas prices have risen.
Is it possible that releases of supply from the government’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve have had some impact? It certainly should make some difference, but as the articles above indicate, the basic evidence seems to show demand changes are the driver here—not supply changes.
Even Biden’s own Treasury Department estimates the US strategic reserve release to have impacted prices from 13 cents to 33 cents with a little more potentially due to international releases. This upper estimate, based on very generous assumptions, still leaves about half of the price drop unexplained.
And even without statistical testing, the second law of demand is an economic law which means it certainly plays some role in the more responsive demand, everything else held constant.
It’s not clear that we’re out of the woods on inflation yet. However, I remain confident that consumer-side substitutions and supplier-side innovations will continue to work to make gas prices more affordable—so long as meddlesome regulators stay out of the way.
Peter Jacobsen teaches economics at Ottawa University where he holds the positions of Assistant Professor and Gwartney Professor of Economic Education and Research at the Gwartney Institute. He received his graduate education George Mason University and received his undergraduate education Southeast Missouri State University. His research interest is at the intersection of political economy, development economics, and population economics. His website can be found here.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFoundation for Economic Education (FEE)2022-08-03 12:14:242022-08-03 12:14:57Why Are Gas Prices Falling?
Scientific American: “In the U.S., people eat more protein than they need to. And though it might not be bad for human health, this excess does pose a problem for the country’s waterways. The nation’s wastewater is laden with the leftovers from protein digestion: nitrogen compounds that can feed toxic algal blooms and pollute the air and drinking water. …
Once it enters the environment, the nitrogen in urea can trigger a spectrum of ecological impacts known as the “nitrogen cascade.” Under certain chemical conditions, and in the presence of particular microbes, urea can break down to form gases of oxidized nitrogen. These gases reach the atmosphere, where nitrous oxide (N2O) can contribute to warming via the greenhouse effect and nitrogen oxides (NOx) can cause acid rain.” … Patricia Glibert, an oceanographer at the University of Maryland, suggests consumers could switch to a “demitarian” diet—an approach that focuses on reducing the consumption of meat and dairy..”
[ … ]
Climate Depot’s Morano: “They will not give up. They will continue to scare you about climate change in every, and any conceivable way. Now when you pee, you are allegedly a human pollution machine that is heating up the planet. The voiding of your bladder must be curtailed for the sake of the planet! So says ‘The Science’!”
WEF: “More sharing can reduce ownership of idle equipment and thus material usage,” the group argued, pointing to statistics that show the average vehicle in England is driven “just 4% of the time.”
Calls for ending private car ownership are growing:
Climate Depot’s Marc Morano: “Sen. Manchin caved to utter climate nitwittery that has real consequences for the U.S. economy currently being starved of energy by a wacko ideology that is dominant within the Democratic Party. Now Al Gore is claiming that this bill, which is just a much larger rehash of Obama’s green stimulus, will somehow save us from a pending climate ’emergency.’ Meanwhile, in the real world, this new Orwellian named ‘Inflation Reduction Act’ will have no impact on global emissions — let alone the climate. Even fellow climate activists and democrats are admitting this, calling the deal ‘a baby step‘ and a ‘minimum’ impact on climate change. Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. analyzed the climate bill’s impacts and found that Biden’s 50% emissions-reduction target for 2030 would have an undetectable impact on overall global emissions.
Morano: “But never fret, the bill will have massive impacts on American energy, the economy, and inflation and it may solve racism.” See: ‘$60 billion in climate reparations’ – Dems’ New Spending Bill Imposes Methane Tax To Fund ‘Environmental Justice’ Programs – Morano: “Somehow the ‘solutions’ to climate change have morphed into including $60 billion in climate reparations in the name of ‘equity.’ Anyone who drinks milk or eats meat will now be paying reparations. Will the $60 billion actually help solve racism? Anyone who thinks this climate bill has anything to with the climate has not been paying attention.”
“Dr. Roger Pielke ran the numbers and found that, even if it achieved Biden’s 50% emissions-reduction target for 2030, which it almost certainly won’t, the impact on overall global emissions would be nearly unmeasurable.”
Alex Newman: Even private land ownership is in the crosshairs, as global food production and the world economy are transformed to meet the global sustainability goals, U.N. documents reviewed by The Epoch Times show.
One of the earliest meetings defining the “sustainability” agenda was the U.N. Conference on Human Settlements known as Habitat I, which adopted the Vancouver Declaration. The agreement stated that “land cannot be treated as an ordinary asset controlled by individuals” and that private land ownership is “a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, therefore contributes to social injustice.”
“Public control of land use is therefore indispensable,” the U.N. declaration said, a prelude to the World Economic Forum’s now infamous “prediction” that by 2030, “you’ll own nothing.”
Morano: “Due to fossil fuels, due to our energy that Gore has been fighting for decades, there has been a 99% drop in climate-related deaths since 1920. It is a success story and mostly credited to fossil fuels which fuel development, which fuel economic growth, which fuels safety from extreme weather events. So Gore has it wrong. The people blocking him (the ‘climate deniers’) are the ones saving lives.”
Morano: “Somehow the ‘solutions’ to climate change have morphed into including $60 billion in climate reparations in the name of ‘equity.’ “Anyone who drinks milk or eats meat will now be paying reparations. Will the $60 billion actually help solve racism? Anyone who thinks this climate bill has anything to with the climate has not been paying attention.”
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Marc Moranohttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngMarc Morano2022-08-02 05:27:542022-08-02 05:28:10STUDY: Human ‘Pee a Problem Pollutant’ You are pollution!
Please use social media, etc. to pass on this Newsletter to other open-minded citizens…If at any time you’d like to be added to (or taken off) the distribution of our popular, free, worldwide Media Balance Newsletter, simply send me an email saying that.
Note 1: We recommend reading the Newsletter on your computer, not your phone, as some documents (e.g. PDFs) are much easier to read on a large computer screen… We’ve tried to use common fonts, etc. to minimize display issues.
Note 2: For recent past Newsletter issues see 2020 Archives & 2021 Archives & 2022 Archives. To accommodate numerous requests received about prior articles over the twelve plus years of the Newsletter, we’ve put together since the beginning of the Newsletter — where you can search by year. For a detailed background about the Newsletter, please read this.
Note 3: See this extensive list of reasonable books on climate change. As a parallel effort, we have also put together a list of some good books related to industrial wind energy. Both topics are also extensively covered on my website: WiseEnergy.org.
Note 4: I am not an attorney or a physician, so no material appearing in any of the Newsletters (or any of my websites) should be construed as giving legal or medical advice. My recommendation has always been: consult a competent, licensed attorney when you are involved with legal issues, and consult a competent physician regarding medical matters.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00John Droz, Jr.http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJohn Droz, Jr.2022-07-31 15:16:242022-07-31 15:16:24AWED Newsletter: We cover COVID to Climate, as well as Energy to Elections.
Canada has its own farmers’ problem, resembling that of the Netherlands. The Trudeau government is set to impose a 30% reduction in fertilizer emissions (nitrous oxide) across the country as a part of his environmental emissions reduction strategy. Trudeau’s aim is to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2030.
The fertilizer industry association, Fertilizer Canada, commissioned a damning report warning that such reductions would lead to a $48 billion loss in farm incomes over the next eight years leading up to 2030. In the end, analysts say, the reasoning is flawed and will backfire.
Simultaneously, the Trudeau government has imposed a tariff on Russian-imported nitrogen fertilizer, which will hike up production costs for farmers, since Eastern Canada doesn’t produce nitrogen. Canada is the only G-7 country to impose such a tariff.
Farmers in Canada have faced on ongoing onslaught by the Trudeau government. In 2020, Trudeau infuriated the farming industry when he imposed an increase in the carbon tax. He called his plan “A Healthy Environment and a Healthy Economy” from Environment and Climate Change Canada,” but it served as nothing but a provocation to the farming industry:
Groups such as the Grain Farmers of Ontario (GFO), Grain Growers of Canada (GGC), Canadian Federation of Agriculture (CFA) and Western Canadian Wheat Growers (WCWG) have all come up with shock, anger, and strong criticism of the plan.
Dutch political commentator Eva Vlaardingerbroek recently summed up the situation in the Netherlands and Canada. She stated that Dutch farmers were really “protesting a Communist agenda.” She added that countries such as Canada and the Netherlands are being used as “staging grounds for the World Economic Forum (WEF) and other globalist elites to pursue their radical schemes to transform society.”
Last weekend, a “slow roll” convoy began to move into Ottawa to show support for Dutch farmers. And in Saskatchewan, hundreds of protesters in dozens of vehicles showed up to stage a “slow roll” protest.
Frustration and alarm are building all across Canada, prompting the question of whether Canadian farmers will protest in large numbers.
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is slated to impose a 30% reduction in fertilizer emissions in the country, sparking intense backlash from farmers and provincial agriculture ministers, who argue the target will decrease crop output, increase prices, and cost farmers billions in lost revenue.
The new target, which seeks to “reduce absolute levels of GHG emissions arising from fertilizer application,” is part of the Trudeau government’s goal of reaching net-zero carbon emissions by 2030.
But the news has been met with disdain by farm and agriculture groups in the country that argue imposing such restrictions will shift production to higher-cost, less efficient countries.
“The world is looking for Canada to increase production and be a solution to global food shortages. The federal government needs to display that they understand this,” Alberta Minister of Agriculture Nate Horner said last week in response to the news.
Farming is a major sector of the Canadian economy. In 2021, the country exported nearly $82.2 billion in agriculture and food products, and the agriculture and agrifood sector accounts for roughly 6.8% of its annual gross domestic product.
“Farmers don’t need the government to tell them how to properly use fertilizer. We engage crop consultants, soil tests and use the latest technology available to us,” Gunter Jochum, president of the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association, said in a statement. “Our government should be strongly supporting the agronomic techniques that we have put into practice.”
A recent study commissioned by the association found that the new targets would cost Canada’s so-called “prairie provinces” billions in lost grain revenue by 2030— including $2.95 billion from Alberta, $4.61 billion from Saskatchewan, and $1.58 billion from Manitoba.
“We’re really concerned with this arbitrary goal,” Saskatchewan Minister of Agriculture David Marit said in a statement.
The new reductions target comes just weeks after the Netherlands introduced a similar proposal — touching off a wave of protests and angry crowds that shut down bridges, food distribution centers, and other export hubs across the country.
Analysts say that by reducing output from countries such as Canada and the Netherlands, each among the world’s most sustainable and environmentally efficient producers, leaders risk redistributing global production to countries that require more land and more fertilizer, likely resulting in higher nitrogen pollution overall….
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2022-07-30 07:38:292022-07-30 07:38:29Trudeau Sparks Backlash from Farmers and Provinces over Fertilizer Emissions Green Plan
Solar panel lead in the groundwater and wind turbine fiberglass in your lungs.
20 years after voters rejected ‘toilet-to-tap’ water, Los Angeles Democrats brag that they will be the first city in the state to pipe toilet water to faucets for the sake of the environment.
As part of the city’s version of the Green New Deal, a majority of Los Angeles water will be ‘toilet-to-tap’. California Democrats, who refuse to build new dams or do anything to expand water resources, are set to spend at least $12 billion on what they describe as “locally sourced” water which certainly sounds nicer than toilet water. The environmentalist elites will go on drinking bottled water and it will be the city’s poor drinking out of the toilet.
Environmentalists insist that nothing can go wrong even though a 2019 NIH hosted survey noted that “there have been relatively few health-based studies evaluating the microbial risks associated with potable reuse” and that California wants to achieve “a benchmark level of public health protection of 1 infection in 10,000 people per year.” That’s 1,000 people in Los Angeles County. The risks include “pathogenic bacteria, viruses, and protozoa” transmitted via a fecal-oral route” including Hepatitis A. A new reservoir might cost $4 billion, but environmentalists would rather spend three times as much on their toilet-to-tap plan.
‘Toilet-to-tap’ is just one of the multitude of ways that environmentalism creates an environmental hazard, threatening public health and undermining life in California.
No state has been as in love with solar power. With over 700 solar power plants and hundreds of thousands of residential solar panels, Californians enjoy an expensive and unreliable energy supply that leads to regular brown-outs. Solar panels generate their energy during the day, when most people aren’t home so that it goes to waste while being useless at night.
But in Hotel California, you can’t check out of subsidizing China’s exported solar industry.
As of 2020, California Democrats imposed a solar mandate requiring all new homes to have solar panels which added over $10,000 to the cost of a new home putting home ownership even further out of the reach of most people and making a mockery of talk of “affordable housing”.
The California Public Utilities Commission has admitted that the state has far more solar panels than it needs, but has argued that it should “dramatically overbuild solar” and then let it go to waste. Wasting a lot of energy has become the best way to stop waste and save the planet.
With a lifespan of 25 years, the early generations of solar panels have begun to clutter up the state’s landfills. Ironically, only about 10% of the solar “green energy” solution are recycled and the rest represent a serious toxic waste hazard. Behind the illusion of clean energy is the grimy reality that solar panels break down and just turn into poisonous and dangerous trash.
Recycling, itself a scam, often just sends our waste abroad to poor countries. A New York Times article described how in Africa, laborers “break them open with machetes and drain the acid into the ground by hand” which “pollutes the soil and water with lead, which can lead to brain damage.” Actual recycling of solar panels is unworkable because it costs more to recycle them than it does to make them. So it’s just more economical to bury solar panels in landfills.
Faced with a growing toxic solar panel problem, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control reclassified them. In a press release typical of the state’s environmentalist puffery which always boast about being the first to pursue some disastrous policy, DTSC boasted that it was the “first in the nation” to “add hazardous waste solar panels to its universal waste program.”
Meredith Williams, DTSC’s director, claimed that lowering hazardous waste restrictions on solar panels was “another great step forward in our state’s efforts to put environmental protection first – both for the health and safety of our people and natural resources.”
California Democrats were boasting of being the first in the nation to ignore the environmental risks of an environmental policy in the name of the environment. The planet was being destroyed to save the planet. And people were being exposed to toxic chemicals to prop up the solar panel industry, its woke investors who finance the Democrats, and Chinese manufacturers.
California solar has become too big to fail. With billions in state subsidies and massive amounts of money seized from homeowners to fund the solar scam, the threat of lead and cadmium leaching into groundwater can’t be permitted to stop the environmentalist solar disaster.
As each generation of solar panels ages into oblivion, the solar trash problem will boom. And it’s just getting started. The hundreds of thousands of rooftop solar panels will either end up in the trash or will require spending twice as much up front to subsidize their eventual disposal.
At least.
While California Democrats fight to shut down the state’s nuclear power, they double down on solar which as Michael Shellenberger has argued, “produced 300 times more toxic waste than high-level nuclear waste.”
California’s solar subsidies will not only put homeownership further out of reach but are set to cover the state in toxic trash. Solar panels are worthless as energy and they’re worthless as trash. Governments have to mandate and subsidize their installation and then their disposal.
The situation isn’t much better with the ubiquitous wind turbines whose blades can’t be recycled.
Much as solar panels are filling up landfills, so are wind turbine blades. And those blades which “can be longer than a Boeing 747 wing” will first have to be cut up with a “diamond-encrusted industrial saw” and then hauled away on tractor trailers to massive landfills.
Fiberglass blades aren’t biodegradable and burning or crushing them releases toxic fibers that have been linked to everything from skin reactions to lung disease.
Inhaling fiberglass dust is potentially dangerous. Especially from something the size of a jet wing. That just leaves one option. The same option as for nuclear power. Bury them.
Wind turbines, which were supposed to save the environment, are piling up in rural areas in Wyoming, Iowa and South Dakota.
“The wind turbine blade will be there, ultimately, forever,” an energy company executive admitted.
So much for clean energy saving the planet.
Environmentalists agonize over the 85,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel in the United States when a single wind turbine blade can weigh 12 tons. It’s estimated that by 2020, wind turbine blade waste will amount to over 2 million tons or 1% of landfill capacity.
The green agenda isn’t saving the planet, it’s destroying it and harming people.
Environmentalism is an environmental hazard that threatens both the ecosystem and public health. From the solar panel lead in the groundwater to the wind turbine fiberglass in your lungs to the toilet water in your sink, there’s nothing ‘clean’ about the environmental agenda.
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2022-07-29 06:14:322022-07-29 06:14:32Environmentalism is an Environmental Hazard
“Toxic? If by ‘divisive and toxic’ you mean Climate Depot is serving to derail the man-made global warming agenda and its sub-prime science and politics, I happily plead guilty!” — Marc Morano
Gore is trying desperately to say something provocative to make himself relevant which is how he came up with the Uvalde school shooting analogy which is absurd… Due to fossil fuels, due to our energy that Gore has been fighting for decades, there has been a 99% drop in climate-related deaths since 1920. It is a success story and mostly credited to fossil fuels which fuel development, which fuel economic growth, which fuels safety from extreme weather events. So Gore has it wrong. The people blocking him (the ‘climate deniers’) are the ones saving lives.
TRANSCRIPT:
Jesse Watters: Marc Morano is the publisher of Climate Depot and author of the Green Fraud. So Marc, you heard this same gore song and dance before you heard hear it about every 5-to-10 years when he has a new investment fund and documentary. Has anything changed?
Marc Morano: No. Nothing has changed for Al Gore’s world. Unfortunately, he has been replaced by Leonardo DiCaprio and Greta Thunberg (& AOC) and now he has been replaced by random activists stopping cars on the highways in major cities trying to get Biden to declare a climate emergency.
Gore is trying desperately to say something provocative to make himself relevant which is how he came up with the Uvalde school shooting analogy which is absurd. Due to fossil fuels, due to our energy that Gore has been fighting for decades, there has been a 99% drop in climate-related deaths since 1920. It is a success story and mostly credited to fossil fuels which fuel development, which fuel economic growth, which fuels safety from extreme weather events. So Gore has it wrong. The people blocking him (the ‘climate deniers’) are the ones saving lives.
Jesse Watters: If we had listened to all these Gore predictions, people wouldn’t have air conditioning couldn’t heat homes in winter time he would actually be killing people, wouldn’t he?
Marc Morano: There is a war on air conditioning. There is a war on, gasoline power there is a war on your thermostat, they want to have governments with smart meters. They have done everything. The debate has changed though. Gore actually did talk about sea level and temperature. Now we have NASA scientists claiming White supremacists are causing global warming. Professors at Rhode Island saying the data is racist and you can’t trust data anymore. Science has been turned on its head. If you go back and look at Gore’s first film it’s kind of quaint considering how crazy the climate movement. We have reached peak climate insanity.
Jesse Watters: Gore he has gotten rich. $300 million man now? How does he make all this money?
Marc Morano: It’s amazing. When Gore left the vice presidency in 2001, it was estimated by Fast Company magazine he was worth about 1 or $2 million. Fast forward, about a decade, and he is worth at least 100 million and then he went on a quest to be the world’s first carbon billionaire. How? He had a Powerpoint that was reported on in the “the Washington Post” and other major publications that listed all the companies you should be investing in. Guess what? When Obama became president and did his big green stimulus, Al Gore was funded lavishly by federal dollars, and as you mentioned he sold al Jazeera. That wasn’t enough. He went on a quest to be the world’s first fake meat billionaire. They are shutting down modern farming in Sri Lanka and the Netherlands and replacing it with lab-grown meat. Guess who the pioneers pushing it are? Bill Gates and of course Al Gore is standing to profit hugely off of our lack of lab grown meat, profiting off the fake meat business now.
Jesse Watters: I don’t think fake meat looks very good for you because al is not looking very trim to be generous. Marc, thank you so much for your analysis.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Marc Moranohttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngMarc Morano2022-07-28 11:27:072022-07-28 11:32:35VIDEO: Al Gore’s Climate Hypocrisy — How Gore Cashes in on Going Green
It’s been a rough couple of weeks for climate true-believers. If you’re one of them, buckle up, you’re about to get red-pilled:
A wind turbine in Texas caught fire and was destroyed after being hit by lightning. The 800 pounds of oil in the gear box produced a column of thick black smoke. Firefighters are not prepared to handle that kind of blaze. Before you dismiss this as a one-off, you should also know Mother Nature can destroy wind turbines with 200 mile-per-hour wind gusts in hurricanes. Wind turbines are only designed to handle 160 mile an hour winds. The flexible blades can bend, curve backwards, hit the tower, and destroy the whole thing. And you want to put more turbines in the Atlantic Ocean, smack dab in the middle of Hurricane Alley?
So much for romancing the turbines. But there’s always electric vehicles, right? A new electric bus caught fire and was destroyed in a bus parking lot in Connecticut. Those fires are hard to handle, too. Fire officials said, “Lithium-ion battery fires are difficult to extinguish due to the thermal chemical process that produces great heat and continually reignites….” This happened one day after the Governor celebrated a new law phasing in electric vehicles for the state fleet. Fires aren’t the only problem. If you buy a used EV and the battery quits, you will find a replacement battery will cost you more than the used EV did in the first place. And you won’t be able to get a replacement without condoning forced labor in China. You’re not in favor of slavery, are you? But don’t let me spoil the party. I’ll leave that to the countries having second thoughts about EV mandates because of the cost, the hit to living standards, the lack of infrastructure, and the wishful thinking behind them.
Oh well, there’s always solar panels, right? Never mind that their output can decrease 25 percent if it gets too hot outside. Worn-out panels end up “in landfills, where in some cases, they could potentially contaminate groundwater with toxic heavy metals such as lead, selenium and cadmium.” That’s according to the left-wing Los Angeles Times, by the way.
Oh well, at least we’re getting rid of coal, right? Hate to break it to you, but China is building coal-fired power plants like there is no tomorrow, more than the rest of the world combined. Germany is turning back to coal after its disastrous green energy policies which shut down 14 nuclear power plants produced the highest household electricity bills in the world, and resulted in over-dependence on Russian gas. World coal-usage continues to go up, not down. So you can super-glue yourself to the Mona Lisa all you want, but the fact of the matter is whatever we do here in the West isn’t going to make any difference to climate change, not one bit.
Gee, all these problems nobody ever talks about. Oh well, at least our leaders have their hearts in the right place, right? Actually, no. Biden’s green energy transition is being led by green energy investors who are dictating government policy to enrich themselves. For example, Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm was on the board of an electric car company and, in May, pocketed a cool $1.6 million from exercising stock options in the company. John Kerry – Saint John Kerry – has green energy investments in China. Hunter Biden owns a stake in a Chinese company that assisted in the purchase of a cobalt mine, cobalt being necessary for electric car batteries. Did the ‘Big Guy’ Joe Biden get 10 percent of this deal, too? Green-friendly ESG funds are moving into fossil fuel investments, profiting from the mayhem green energy policies have produced.
And you thought these people were environmentalists and true believers. Joke’s on you. You’ve been played.
