Solar Panels Produce Tons of Toxic Waste—Literally

A closer look at solar panels opens a wide array of questions that need answers.


Solar panels have been heralded as the alternative to fossil fuels for decades. Most readers have likely seen exciting headlines claiming we could power the world’s energy demands multiple times were we simply to cover the Sahara Desert with a solar farm the size of China. The fact that such endeavors would be unsustainable due to their size and the sheer amount of maintenance required or that the necessary infrastructure to bring this energy all around the world is simply unimaginable is irrelevant to those who dream of a solar future.

That’s fine; we’re all dreamers in one way or another. This fantasy has grasped many voters, however, and politicians are all too keen to jump on the gravy train of alternative energy. Solar panels are subsidized to an enormous extent, as are solar farms, be they public or private. In the age of emissions trading and international climate conferences, nothing is applauded more than showing off some big investments into harvesting the sun as an electricity supplier.

This zeitgeist is reflected in solar panel sales. The different arrows in the chart below point to the moments when Solar Investment Tax Credits (ITC) were introduced, extended, or expanded.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE SEIA CHART

Beyond the clear misallocation of resources and energy market price distortions, there is a further environmental problem associated with solar panels.

Beyond the inefficient use of these resources to begin with (in the process of making crystalline silicon from silicon, as much as 80 percent of the raw silicon is lost), there are numerous human health concerns directly related to the manufacture and disposal of solar panels.

According to cancer biologist David H. Nguyen, PhD, toxic chemicals in solar panels include cadmium telluride, copper indium selenide, cadmium gallium (di)selenide, copper indium gallium (di)selenide, hexafluoroethane, lead, and polyvinyl fluoride. Silicon tetrachloride, a byproduct of producing crystalline silicon, is also highly toxic.

The pro-solar website EnergySage writes:

There are some chemicals used in the manufacturing process to prepare silicon and make the wafers for monocrystalline and polycrystalline panels. One of the most toxic chemicals created as a byproduct of this process is silicon tetrachloride. This chemical, if not handled and disposed of properly, can lead to burns on your skin, harmful air pollutants that increase lung disease, and if exposed to water can release hydrochloric acid, which is a corrosive substance bad for human and environmental health.

For any user of solar panels, this is not an immediate risk as it only affects manufacturers and recyclers. More disconcerting, however, is the environmental impact of these chemicals. Based on installed capacity and power-related weight, we can estimate that by 2016, photovoltaics had spread about 11,000 tons of lead and about 800 tons of cadmium. A hazard summary of cadmium compounds produced by the EPA points out that exposure to cadmium can lead to serious lung irritation and long-lasting impairment of pulmonary functions. Exposure to lead hardly needs further explanation.

In one 2003 study, researchers drew attention to the fact that cadmium is the benefactor of special environmental treatment, which allows solar energy to be more economically efficient (as far as that word quite applies to solar energy even in the current state of subsidization). They wrote:

If they were classified as “hazardous” according to Federal or State criteria, then special requirements for material handling, disposal, record keeping, and reporting would escalate the cost of decommissioning.

This mirrors an answer given by Cara Libby, Senior Technical Leader of Solar Energy at the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), who admits that there is no lucrative amount of salvageable parts on any type of solar panel. She adds:

In Europe, we’ve seen that when it’s mandated, it gets done. Either it becomes economical or it gets mandated. But I’ve heard that it will have to be mandated because it won’t ever be economical.

It is no wonder that Chinese factories, when confronted with the exorbitant costs (both financial and environmental) of decomposing solar panel chemicals properly, prefer to release them into the environment rather than dispose of them in an environmentally safe manner.

Stanford Magazine also points out that solar energy has a higher carbon footprint than wind and nuclear energy. Ray Weiss, a professor of Geochemistry at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, explains that a number of solar panels release nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), a chemical compound 17,000 times worse for the atmosphere than carbon dioxide. As recently as 2015, he explained that many manufacturers were still struggling to figure out how to contain its release into the atmosphere.

Energy policy is not a place for emotion or action based on instinct. We throw around a lot of buzz words that lead us to the belief that one energy supply is “cleaner” than the other. The reality is that human action and interaction require a constant supply of energy. All forms of energy production have an impact on the environment.

Questioning certain narratives regarding the eco-friendliness of those classified as “renewable” but do not live up to an environmental standard that reasonable people could support is essential to both innovation and environmental protection.

Bill Wirtz

Bill Wirtz is a Young Voices Advocate and a FEE Eugene S. Thorpe Fellow. His work has been featured in several outlets, including Newsweek, Rare, RealClear, CityAM, Le Monde and Le Figaro. He also works as a Policy Analyst for the Consumer Choice Center. Learn more about him at his website.

RELATED ARTICLES:

French Protesters Didn’t Want Macron’s Gas Tax. They Should Reject His Climate Agenda.

Green New Deal: Unnecessary, Illogical, and Immoral

Does Justice Demand Fossil Fuel Divestment?

RELATED VIDEO: Harvard-Yale football game has been delayed due to students protesting climate change.

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

Radicals Fail to Silence German Scientific Conference

A mob of left-wing protesters wanted to stop EIKE, the European Institute for Climate and Energy, from holding its annual two-day scientific conference in Munich. CFACT helped form EIKE 10 years ago to give Germany and Europe a climate skeptic voice as part of their political and scientific discourse.

The conference, which is a forum for scientists and experts who challenge global warming alarmism to express their views, was scheduled for months. It was scheduled for months.  Conference space, hotel rooms, and catering were booked.  Then the protesters showed up and marched around the hotel with a bullhorn weeks before it began.

The hotel chain contacted EIKE and canceled their contract.

Polar bear expert Susan Crockford who is speaking at the conference wrote:

I found out late yesterday that the organizers of the Munich conference had had their venue cancelled at the last minute due to intimidation by activists from a group called the ‘Anti-Capitalist Climate Society.‘ Apparently, a crowd of about 20 thugs staged a flash mob at the hotel booked to host the EIKE meeting and threatened further havoc and disruption to guests if the conference was allowed to go ahead.

Breitbart reports:

‘The safety and well-being of our guests and staff is always our top priority,’ hotel management declared in its cancellation letter. ‘Due to the polarizing effect of the EIKE association we could not guarantee this security for our hotel guests or for the participants of the event. For this reason, our responsibility as hosts requires you to cancel this booking.’

EIKE’s scientists are polarizing?  How’s that for victim blaming!?  Maybe it’s the radicals trying to bully their neighbors into Socialism who are polarizing.

EIKE quickly scrambled and worked to move their conference to a Holiday Inn.  Then the Holiday Inn backed out!
The good news is that the conference opened today.  The protesters showed up, but did not succeed in their mission to shut down science.  Their banner (above) reads, “we found you.”

Germany is not only several steps further down the road to bad energy policy, Germans do not enjoy the degree of free speech Americans take for granted.  The Left hates free speech and looks forward to the day when people who value freedom cannot gather or speak on either side of the Atlantic.

Take heed.

Exclusive: Inside The Media Conspiracy To Hype Greta Thunberg And The UN Climate Conference

  • More than 200 media outlets and journalists partnered together with activists to coordinate and hype climate change news before the 2019 U.N. climate summit.
  • Two of the largest media outlets — BuzzFeed News and HuffPo — did not disclose their role in the project to their readers, a Daily Caller News Foundation review found.
  • The project raises questions about whether journalists should work side-by-side with activists to hype climate change. 
Over 250 news outlets and journalists partnered with Columbia University School of Journalism’s flagship magazine to shape control of “climate crisis” coverage in the lead up to the United Nations climate conference. The coverage-coordination initiative included directing how much time, space and prominence should be devoted to the coverage, and asking that climate “news” be added to seemingly unrelated stories.

Some of the biggest media outlets in the country, such as CBS and Bloomberg, joined the effort. But others, such as The Washington Post and The New York  Times, declined to participate in a project they reportedly feared appeared activist in nature. More troubling, a number of the major outlets that joined did not disclose participation to their readers.

In addition to CBS and Bloomberg, the effort, called Covering Climate Now, involved BuzzFeed News, HuffPost, The Daily Beast, the Center for Public Integrity, Newsweek, Rolling Stone, Slate, Vanity Fair and The Weather Channel, among many others. BuzzFeed and The Huffington Post were among the major outlets that did not disclose the coordination. When asked by the Daily Caller News Foundation, the lack of disclosure was criticized by the Society of Professional Journalists.

The coordination effort was organized in part by Columbia Journalism Review (CJR), a nonprofit that represents professional journalists and was traditionally focused primarily on journalism ethics. Covering Climate Now’s founders hope to continue elevating climate news even after the project ends. The effort’s target was the lead-up to, and coverage of, the U.N. “Climate Action Summit,” held Sept. 15-23.

BuzzFeed News reached more than 27 million unique views between September and October, according to Quantcast, a website measuring audience size. BuzzFeed is owned by Jonah Peretti, an internet entrepreneur who founded the outlet in 2006 to track viral online content, and the left-leaning HuffPo is owned by Verizon Communications. Media tycoon Arianna Huffington originally founded HuffPo in 2005 with the help of Peretti.

Covering Climate Now’s founders kicked off the project in April and announced in May that they would ask partners to devote a week to climate-related news, starting in September. The Nation environmental correspondent Mark Hertsgaard co-founded the project under the assumption that the news outlets don’t cover climate change as urgently as he thinks they should.

WaPo and others did not contribute because they believe Covering Climate Now has the “aroma” of advocacy, he complained in September.

“We believe that every news organization in America, and many around the world, can play a part,” CJR posted May 22. Sometimes that will mean committing your newsroom to important and high-impact stories. Other times it will mean sharing your content, engaging your community, or adding a few lines of climate information to stories that wouldn’t otherwise have them.”

Covering Climate Now has not responded to the DCNF’s request for comment.

Much of the group’s coverage leading up to the U.S. climate summit focused on Swedish activist Greta Thunberg, a 16-year-old girl who traveled to the U.S. in August on a racing yacht. Her visit was designed to galvanize American support for policies that seek to tackle climate change.

Thunberg’s activism and Covering Climate Now’s media blitz seemed to fall flat with the crowd of United Nations diplomats: No major promises were made to tackle climate change at the summit. The European Union, for instance, didn’t go along with environmentalists’ wishes and set a goal to be carbon neutral by mid-century out of fear that such ambitions would tank its member state’s struggling economies.

“Large parts of the mainstream media have stopped pretending to strive for objectivity in their reporting,” Myron Ebell, a climate skeptic and director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Center for Energy and Environment, told the DCNF. “On the climate issue, many outlets and reporters are now publicly boasting about the fact that they are promoting their own prejudices on the grounds that increasing global energy poverty is a noble cause.”

Ebell was not the only energy advocate to criticise the program. “This is nothing more than what used to be known as ‘civic journalism’ … or propaganda for the left dressed up as news reporting,” Steve Milloy, JunkScience.com publisher, told the DCNF. He also suggested the media are being hypocritical. They would thrash the fossil fuel industry if it attempted to recruit reporters in a quest to support natural gas, Milloy said.

Much Of The Content Was Not Disclosed

BuzzFeed News and HuffPost did not divulge their participation in Covering Climate Now in any of the articles they published on climate change during that week, according to a DCNF review of the project. They never mention the words “Covering Climate Now” in any of their posts during the week-long coverage leading up to the climate summit.

HuffPost did not respond to numerous requests for comment while BuzzFeed News said the partnership did not affect the outlet’s coverage. “Our coverage of climate change is year-round and unaffected by outside partnerships,” Matt Mittenthal, a spokesman for BuzzFeed, told the DCNF.

Covering Climate Now published a list of articles on its website throughout September that promoted climate coverage.

Nearly 40 of the articles on the list of 128 failed to mention the project. The list included pieces from CBS News, Bloomberg News and The Nation, all of whom produced pieces that failed to mention their participation in an outside project designed to direct their editorial bent. Many of the articles on the list bore labels containing the words “Covering Climate Now” but do not otherwise explain what the project entails or which groups are involved.

CBS News, which has not returned requests for comment, produced a Sept. 21 feature on clear cutting in Oregon that did not include a disclosure. The title of that feature was “Who should be in charge of America’s ancient forests: industry or environmentalists?” which discussed the impact clearing U.S.’ forests has on the environment and if private companies should be allowed to use forests.

CBS News included disclosures on articles throughout September that discuss how Americans feel about climate change. The channel also mentioned its participation in a Sept. 17 feature highlighting how U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres is considering a summit to discuss ways of re-invigorating the Paris Climate agreement, which he says needs to be re-booted.

Bloomberg News, for its part, published a statement on Sept. 16 announcing its role in the project, but the outlet still produced content that did not contain disclosures. The outlet published a Sept. 22 article titled “Big Oil Prepares to Defend Big Gas as Climate Week Begins,” which discusses how the oil industry is defending the use of natural gas as a clean alternative to coal. The article did not mention the outlet’s participation in Covering Climate Now.

Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg founded Bloomberg News. Bloomberg, who flirted with the idea of running for president in 2020 and filed in the paperwork to participate in Alabama’s Democratic primary, has devoted much of his philanthropic work to funding various anti-coal projects. Bloomberg News has not responded to the DCNF’s request for comment.

The Nation, Covering Climate Now’s co-founder, published a 2,400-word article on Sept. 18 with an alarmist headline suggesting that Americans are “fueling the next global extinction.” The piece did not contain a disclosure but notes that it was originally published by Tom Engelhardt at TomDispatch.com, though the DCNF was unable to locate the article on Engelhardt’s website.

The Nation, which announced the project in a July post, also published a journalistic piece on Sept. 19 by Nation associate editor Zoe Carpenter that fails to mention Covering Climate Now. Nobody from the outlet has responded to requests for comment.

Wealthy Climate Activists Also Participated

Covering Climate Now was aided by wealthy advocacy groups, some of which help journalists edit and craft stories discussing climate change from an alarmist perspective. One nonprofit group associated with the project is Climate Central, which provides extensive guidance to reporters.

“We contribute data and charts plus a science reporter and an editor,” the group’s website notes. “For a text story, we help craft a feature in a way that puts climate change in appropriate and accurate context. For broadcast media, we provide story and interview suggestions and help develop and review scripts.”

Climate Central has not responded to the DCNF’s request for detailed information about how it contributes to journalists’ content. The group is funded in part by the Energy Foundation, a charity providing grants to various groups with the hope of transitioning the U.S. away from fossil fuels.

Is This Ethical?

Reuters did not participate in the project, yet its editors did not object when Yereth Rosen, a freelancer for the wire service, contributed. Reuters, which opposes advocacy journalism, dismissed any suggestion that Rosen’s contributions are inappropriate.

“We do not see this cause in conflict with the Trust Principles. All stories, under the Trust Principles, are required to be accurate, fair and free from bias. Ms. Rosen’s work for Reuters has been exemplary in this regard,” Brian Ross, Reuters’s ethics and standards representative, wrote in an Aug. 15 email reviewed by the DCNF.

Ross was responding to an Aug. 13 email complaint from a former reporter who was concerned about Rosen’s role in Covering Climate Now. The person made the complaint through the outlet’s online support option. Reuters was more circumspect in later emails to the DCNF on the subject.

“While we do not comment on individuals in our newsroom, all Reuters journalists, including freelancers, are bound by our Trust Principles of ‘integrity, independence and freedom from bias,’” Heather Carpenter, a spokeswoman for Reuters, told the DCNF.

“Our journalists are to remain free from personal conflicts on the subjects they are assigned to cover,” she added. Reuters has not made Rosen available for comment nor did it address whether it is appropriate to allow an external group to dictate what content its reporters publish.

The Society of Professional Journalists, however, criticized the lack of transparency.

“We encourage journalists to be transparent,” Lynn Walsh, a national board member and former president of the Society of Professional Journalists, one of the oldest groups representing journalists, told the DCNF. “If they did not include any disclosure there is nothing we can do though. SPC is not a regulatory body.” She went on to say that any group involved must explain exactly what the project entails.

Why Didn’t WaPo And The NYT Contribute?

Most legacy media are unwilling to break away from the idea that journalism should not advocate for a position, according to Hertsgaard, who co-founded Covering Climate Now in part to impress upon journalists the importance of covering climate without feeling compelled to provide a platform to climate skeptics.

“The New York Times is not on there, The Wall Street Journal is not on there, The Washington Post is not on there,” Hertsgaard said in a September podcast with Kyle Pope, editor and publisher of CJR. Hertsgaard was referring to the major outlets that did not contribute content to Covering Climate Now.

“This has an aroma — in their minds — of activism,” Hertsgaard continued, explaining why the big three legacy outlets preferred not to join. He and Pope noted Covering Climate Now intends on breaking up that perception by wrapping climate coverage in the blanket of science rather than politics.

The Post refused to comment for this story. The NYT, WSJ and Hertsgaard have not responded to the DCNF’s request for comment.

Advocacy-style journalism is the new in-thing, according to David Blackmon, an independent consultant and analyst who has nearly 40 years experience in the energy industry.

“I don’t think that anyone would object to any of it if they were upfront about their agenda,” he told the DCNF. “There’s no effort to properly identify agenda-driven pieces. They are backed up with factual information, but it usually tells just half the story. It’s become the norm.”

Blackmon, a Forbes contributor, noted that much of the reporting is one-sided and focuses exclusively on one narrative: Climate change must be stopped at any cost. Such reporting rarely gives coverage to the economic consequences of climate activists’ preferred policies, he noted.

“We are at a point where we were at the turn of the 21st century,” Blackmon told the DCNF. “You had partisan affiliated outlets and almost no objective journalism at all. We’ve gone to that place after a period of time.

RELATED ARTICLE: UN’s New Report Shows There’s ‘Little Basis’ For A Favorite Claim Of Climate Activists

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COMMENTARY BY

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

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

Recent Energy and Environmental News

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

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

My vote for the most outstanding articles this cycle:

Energy Economics

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

Wind Energy Health and Ecosystem Impacts

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

Nuclear Energy

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

Energy Misc

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

Paris Climate Agreement

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

New Alarmist Climate Poll

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

Global Warming (AGW)

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

Misc Education Articles

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

Misc US Politics Articles

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

Science and Misc Related Articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

Staying in Paris Agreement Would Have Cost Families $20K

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

Pompeo added in his statement, made late Monday:

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COMMENTARY BY

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

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


A Note for our Readers:

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

Is socialism really morally sound?

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

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

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW! >>


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UPDATE:

Statement by UN Climate Change Executive Secretary Patricia Espinosa

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

Recent Energy and Environmental News

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

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

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

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

Energy Economics

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

Nuclear Energy

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

Energy Misc

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

Global Warming (AGW)

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

Education

Misc (Science, Politics, etc.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Current Production, Reserves, and Prices for Major Metals

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

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

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

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

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

U.S. Dependence on Foreign Metals

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

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

Conclusion

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


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

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

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

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

Green New Deal = Hugo Chavez’s Constitution?

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

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

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

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

Hugo Chavez

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

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

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

RELATED ARTICLES:

Metals Needed for Carbon Neutrality in Short Supply

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

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

World’s largest ice sheet growing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let’s see whose projections pan out.

Polar bear expert purged

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

It’s not true. 

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

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

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

But this woman of science is fearless.

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

Free speech is anathema to the Left.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Crockford said:

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

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

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

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

The Guardian goes Orwellian on Climate

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

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

Deniers?  Talk about speech as hate!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Murphy shared some prominent examples:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Eeyore

H/T PePo

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

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

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

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

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

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


Jane Fonda

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

To learn more, click on the profile link here.

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