Displaying posts categorized under

ENVIRONMENT AND JUNK SCIENCE

JOE BIDEN: PUTIN’S GREEN PATSY

https://issuesinsights.com/2022/02/25/joe-biden-putins-green-patsy/

President Joe Biden has finally come forward with sanctions against Russia and Vladimir Putin for invading Ukraine. Don’t expect much. Thanks to Biden’s economically destructive climate-change policies, Putin holds a decisive advantage in this conflict.

“This aggression cannot go unanswered,” Biden said, speaking Thursday as he unveiled what he called “devastating” financial punishments. “If it did, the consequences for America would be much worse. America stands up to bullies. We stand up for freedom. This is who we are.”

During his campaigns and while in office, Biden has often posed as a tough guy against the Russians – even as his family pocketed millions from Russian and pro-Russian Ukrainian politicians, corruption virtually ignored by the American big media.

“Putin knows, if I am president of the United States,” Biden said in a 2019 fundraising video, “his days of tyranny and trying to intimidate the United States and those in Eastern Europe are over.” 

So far, mission not accomplished.

Then there’s this:

“Vladimir Putin doesn’t want me to be president. He doesn’t want me to be our nominee,” Biden tweeted on Feb. 21, 2020. “If you’re wondering why – it’s because I’m the only person in this field who’s ever gone toe-to-toe with him.”

Well, he’s now going “toe-to-toe” with Putin for real, and it doesn’t look so good. His sanctions, which may pinch Russia a bit but don’t go nearly far enough to reverse Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine, sound tough. Among them are restrictions on Russian financial institutions, bans on technology exports, and financial restrictions on some members of Putin’s government. But not Putin himself.

“Putin is the aggressor. Putin chose this war. And now he and his country will bear the consequences,” Biden said Thursday, outlining his actions, which, he predicted, would “impose severe costs on the Russian economy, both immediately and over time.”

In fact, Biden pulled his punches, leaving Russia’s economy still standing.

LET THEM EAT BUGS

https://issuesinsights.com/2022/02/22/let-em-eat-bugs/

For those who haven’t heard, cattle and pork are threats to the environment. The farms that raise them are foul greenhouse gas offenders. Better, say our superiors, that we settle for a nice bowl of insects instead.

A recent New York Times opinion feature headlined “​​The Joy of Cooking (Insects)” looks at “​​our broken food system and the three chances you get to help fix it – and save the planet – every day.”

“​​A growing tribe of environmentalists, academics and entrepreneurs are arguing that edible insects must enjoy a wider acceptance to help create a more sustainable global food system,” says the Times.

“It’s time for bugs. Whether you regard them as agents of filth or sources of nutrition, integrating more of them into your diet … is among a suite of dietary changes that we urgently need to consider to deal with food insecurity, biodiversity loss and climate change.”

The World Economic Forum claims “eating insects could reduce climate change” since “our consumption of animal protein is the source of greenhouses gas.”

The same organization has also said “we need to start nurturing – and eating – weeds,” which “can be nutritious and tasty, if we know which ones to pick.” Again, the greenhouse gases emitted by animal farming is the reason we need to go on a North Korean diet. Just another sacrifice we have to make to keep Gaia healthy.

The phrase “let them eat cake” has been attributed to Marie Antoinette. Whether she or an unnamed “great princess” of France said it, its disregard for hungry and sometimes starving peasants was clear. The royal class was going to continue to dine sumptuously, at least until they lost their heads in the revolution, and the rest were going to have to do with less.

Biden’s Regulators Empower Putin FERC sets rules that will block new U.S. natural gas pipelines.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/joe-bidens-regulators-empower-putin-ferc-natural-gas-joe-manchin-11645217981?mod=opinion_lead_pos1

We live in strange and contradictory times. President Biden is trying mightily to deter a Russian invasion in Ukraine at the same time his regulators are working to give Vladimir Putin more leverage over global energy supplies. Obsessive climate politics gets more self-destructive by the week.

In an act of bizarre timing, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on Thursday revised its policy for approving natural gas pipelines and export terminals. FERC by law must vouch that projects are in the public interest and won’t have a significant environmental impact. But now the agency plans to include greenhouse gas emissions in this analysis. The vote was 3-2, with two Republican commissioners dissenting.

***

Here’s the kicker: The pipeline analysis may include emissions from upstream production and downstream consumption even though there’s no reliable way to measure either one.

Why global warming is good for us Climate change is creating a greener, safer planet. Matt Ridley

https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/02/15/why-global-warming-is-good-for-us/

Global warming is real. It is also – so far – mostly beneficial. This startling fact is kept from the public by a determined effort on the part of alarmists and their media allies who are determined to use the language of crisis and emergency. The goal of Net Zero emissions in the UK by 2050 is controversial enough as a policy because of the pain it is causing. But what if that pain is all to prevent something that is not doing net harm?

The biggest benefit of emissions is global greening, the increase year after year of green vegetation on the land surface of the planet. Forests grow more thickly, grasslands more richly and scrub more rapidly. This has been measured using satellites and on-the-ground recording of plant-growth rates. It is happening in all habitats, from tundra to rainforest. In the four decades since 1982, as Bjorn Lomborg points out, NASA data show that global greening has added 618,000 square kilometres of extra green leaves each year, equivalent to three Great Britains. You read that right: every year there’s more greenery on the planet to the extent of three Britains. I bet Greta Thunberg did not tell you that.

UC-Berkeley Gets Mugged by Environmentalists By Dan McLaughlin

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/uc-berkeley-gets-mugged-by-environmentalists/

Lots of things done by liberals and progressives sooner or later reach targets they were “never meant to” harm.
I am fond of citing Robert Conquest’s Three Laws of politics:

1. Everyone is conservative about what he knows best.

2. Any organization not explicitly and constitutionally right-wing will sooner or later become left-wing.

3. The behavior of any bureaucratic organization can best be understood by assuming that it is controlled by a secret cabal of its enemies.

The old saw about a conservative being a liberal who has been mugged is a variant on Conquest’s First Law. Something similar is now happening to the University of California at Berkeley. One would think that Berkeley, of all institutions, cannot be outflanked from the Left, but in California, eventually, the bill for leftism comes to everyone. In this case, the state’s oppressive regime of environmental regulation is threatening Berkeley’s enrollment:

UC Berkeley, one of the nation’s most highly sought after campuses, may be forced to slash its incoming fall 2022 class by one-third, or 3,050 seats, and forgo $57 million in lost tuition under a recent court order to freeze enrollment, the university announced this week. The university’s projected reduction in freshmen and transfer students came in response to a ruling last August by an Alameda County Superior Court judge who ordered an enrollment freeze and upheld a Berkeley neighborhood group’s lawsuit that challenged the environmental impact of the university’s expansion plan. Many neighbors are upset by the impact of enrollment growth on traffic, noise, housing prices and the natural environment. The University of California Board of Regents appealed the ruling and asked that the order to freeze enrollment be stayed while the appellate process proceeds. Last week, an appellate court denied that request. The regents on Monday appealed that judgment to the California Supreme Court. . . . The furor has left 150,000 first-year applicants to UC Berkeley in the lurch, just a month before the campus is scheduled to send out admission offers.

Faced with a pincer movement from environmental activists, neighborhood NIMBYists, and an activist judge, Berkeley is . . . fighting them and bemoaning the outcome, insisting that the environmental impact is being overstated:

“This court-mandated decrease in enrollment would be a tragic outcome for thousands of students who have worked incredibly hard to gain admission to Berkeley,” UC Berkeley said in a statement. “If left intact, the court’s unprecedented decision would have a devastating impact on prospective students, university admissions, campus operations, and UC Berkeley’s ability to serve California students by meeting the enrollment targets set by the state of California.”

Even some Democrats are shocked into action when it’s Berkeley, not some rancher, on the receiving end of this, although it appears that the proposed solution may protect only the favored state university:

State Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) said he would unveil legislation next week related to the state environmental law that was used by the Berkeley neighborhood group. He declined to release details but said the state law was never meant to stop public universities from expanding to meet student needs. “It’s outrageous that a court is dictating a student enrollment cap for UC,” he said. “That’s a complete overreach.”

Lots of things done by liberals and progressives sooner or later reach targets they were “never meant to” harm.

The Misrepresentation Of The Scientific Consensus On Climate Change Iain Aitken

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/02/10/the-misrepresentation-of-the-scientific-consensus-on-climate-change/

[Note: This essay is abstracted from my eBook Myths: Widely Held But False Beliefs In The Climate Change Crisis, available on Amazon]

In their Fifth Assessment Report the IPCC, the ‘internationally accepted scientific authority on climate change’, gave their opinion of how much of the recent global warming was caused by human activity: ‘It is extremely likely [95-100 percent confidence] more than half of the observed increase in global mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic [i.e. man-made] increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together’. Reflecting that opinion Wikipedia states that the ‘Scientific consensus on climate change’ is that ‘the Earth is warming and… this warming is mainly caused by human activities’. It claims that 97-100% of actively publishing climate scientists endorse this opinion. Similarly, NASA claim that, ‘A consensus on climate change and its human cause exists… human activities are the primary cause of the observed climate-warming trend over the past century.’ And in an October 2020 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes climatologist Dr Michael Mann said, ‘There’s about as much scientific consensus about human-caused climate change as there is about gravity.’ So is it actually true that 97-100% of climate scientists explicitly or implicitly endorse this key IPCC opinion?

Although science is not remotely democratic (it only needs one scientist to prove that the ‘consensus view’ is wrong and it is wrong) the fact remains that if this 97-100% consensus assertion is true then it is indeed very powerful. If the ‘internationally accepted scientific authority on climate change’ says something is almost certainly true and almost all climate scientists in the world agree then it almost certainly must be true – mustn’t it? Whilst there is undoubtedly almost total scientific consensus amongst the scientific authorities (literally dozens of scientific academies from around the world explicitly or implicitly endorse the IPCC’s opinions) that does not necessarily reflect the consensus view amongst climate scientists themselves. So what exactly is it that climate scientists agree on?

Facebook, other tech giants censor inconvenient facts about climate change By Bjorn Lomborg

https://nypost.com/2022/02/07/facebook-other-tech-giants-censor-facts-about-climate-change/

The online world has become a free-speech battleground. Tech platforms have sided with illiberal regimes to censor posts while flagging “misinformation” in free countries. We all share a legitimate interest in avoiding outright falsehoods, but much censorship today — whether at dictators’ behest or in the name of eradicating “misinformation” — ultimately is about restricting discourse to a narrow corridor of the politically acceptable. That makes it harder to identify smart policies.

This is especially troubling for important issues like climate change. Global warming is real and man-made. However, social-media giants — Facebook in particular — are going far beyond censoring people for denying its existence.

Facebook monitors what people say about climate change in 100 countries and uses third-party fact-checkers to identify misinformation for flagging or removal.

Here’s something Facebook’s censors deemed unacceptable: I wrote a comment using the latest peer-reviewed research from the medical journal Lancet on deaths caused by heat and cold. The paper is the first to show that globally, every year, half a million people die because temperatures are too hot, while 4.5 million people die because it is too cold. In other words, nine times more people die from the cold than the heat.

‘No’ on Sarah Bloom Raskin Biden’s appointee for Fed vice chairman is intent on destroying fossil fuels, no matter the economic cost. By Tim Stewart and Kathleen Sgamma

https://www.wsj.com/articles/sarah-bloom-raskin-federal-reserve-vice-chair-supervision-nomination-confirmation-oil-gas-energy-prices-biden-11643833586?mod=opinion_lead_pos5

These are precarious times for the American economy. Inflation has reached generational highs while the stock market is experiencing its most significant pullback since March 2020. As it responds, the Federal Reserve is walking a financial tightrope: Raise interest rates too little and inflation gets worse; raise interest rates too much and the economy crashes. But while central bankers are trying to maintain their balance, President Biden is cutting the rope.

Last month the president nominated Sarah Bloom Raskin, a former Obama financial regulator, to serve as the Fed’s new vice chairman for supervision. The Federal Reserve’s mission, as outlined by Congress, is explicitly nonpolitical. Good monetary policy requires the Fed’s leaders to set partisanship and personal preferences aside. But judging by her past public statements, Ms. Raskin would have a hard time doing that.

A hallmark of Ms. Raskin’s career has been her vendetta against U.S. energy producers—a vendetta she likely plans to take with her to the Fed. Last summer she advocated using the Fed’s stress tests to penalize banks that serve fossil-fuel companies. She has also urged the Fed to use its risk-based capital standards to drive capital away from oil and natural-gas firms toward “sustainable investments.” She has even gone so far as to suggest that the Fed should de-bank energy companies by establishing portfolio or concentration limits for banks on “high-emission assets.”

Melbourne University Circles the Green Drain Tony Thomas

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2022/01/melbourne-university-circles-the-green-drain/

About 6200 final-year secondary students from 700 schools have been invited to start at Melbourne University (UoM) this year, UoM being a world 30-40th top-ranked university. Good luck to the kids. They’ve suffered eleven school-years of climate doomism; the university will dish out more of it. Two professors in UoM publication Pursuit, for example, see the prospect of another 0.5degC warming by 2030 as a “shrieking emergency siren”.

UoM’s 2020 annual report (p88) says (emphasis added)

Planning for a suite of online modules for all commencing undergraduate students … commenced in 2020 … The Sustainable campuses and communities module, developed in 2020, explores the impact of humans on climate and the environment.

UoM is awash in “sustainability”, code for anti-conservative politics and zero-emission fantasies. A few months after the toothless 2015 Paris accord, the university adopted its “Sustainability Charter” , and then came the 2017-20 plan “Integrating action on sustainability across all areas of institutional activity for the first time”. UoM’s goal is to force Sustainability dogma across every campus, every faculty, every subject and every cafeteria (vegan synthetic steaks, anyone?).[i] Faculty who resist this politicising of their subjects – and the university admits such hold-outs exist (p2) – are being counselled on right-think.

Green Utopia. Not.by Andrew I. Fillat and Henry I. Miller

https://issuesinsights.com/2022/01/20/green-utopia-not/

BOSTON (Jan. 1, 2037) – My New Year’s resolution is to remember the bright side of the efforts to reduce climate change over the past 15 years. It won’t be easy. I just got my electric vehicle (EV) back after 12 days. A big accident in a snowstorm had snarled traffic on I-95 and caused most of the cars to run out of charge. It took dozens of tow trucks working round the clock to get all the cars back to their owners. But I can’t drive all that much anyway because the frigid winter temperatures have reduced my EV’s range by 40%. And with the cost of electricity for charging so high, I pine for what it cost in the old days to fill up my car with gas.

The power outages last year were also trying. When my neighbors got their third EV, it blew our local transformer and with the equipment backlogs, it took almost a week to get power back. All my food spoiled, and, in order to preserve my car’s charge, I had to drastically limit my travel to the necessities. I couldn’t cook because gas is no longer permitted in our town, and I had to convert to all-electric at huge expense. Cold showers weren’t fun either.

I had wanted to get a battery backup for my home, but the price had risen tenfold because almost all the battery manufacturing capacity was diverted to EV’s to comply with state and federal mandates. I am really worried about how I will pay for new batteries for my EV, given the absurd prices nowadays. I will end up paying twice as much as I did seven years ago for the entire car! Even my electric utility could not get enough batteries to allow their wind and solar plants to store energy for nights and calm or overcast periods. I really hate those rolling blackouts. Also, I do feel a little guilty about the scarred landscapes out West where the mines to extract lithium and rare earth elements have proliferated like weeds. But I suppose that is their contribution to fighting climate change.