RUTHFULLY YOURS

TORONTO—The Environmental Protection Agency said Tuesday it is moving to withdraw proposed restrictions on the development of the Pebble Mine in Alaska, owned by Vancouver-based Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd.

The move is a reversal from the agency’s stance on the matter under the Obama administration, and the latest signal that EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is following through on his promise to make his agency more friendly to business and roll back Obama-era restrictions.

“The current administration at EPA is closely focused on enforcing environmental standards and permitting requirements for major development projects like Pebble in a way that is both rigorous and robust, but also consistent to provide predictability and an even-playing field for all resource developers,” said Tom Collier, the chief executive of Pebble Limited Partnership, Northern Dynasty’s wholly-owned subsidiary.

The EPA in 2014 made a proposed determination to bar large-scale mining on the site, in Alaska’s Bristol Bay area, because of concerns about threats to an extensive salmon spawning area. A 2014 EPA report said the Pebble mine could have “significant” adverse effects on the fisheries and the Native Alaskan communities that depend on them.

The EPA said in a statement that it will seek public comments for 90 days on Tuesday’s decision.

The move follows a settlement agreement between the agency and Pebble Partnership, reached in May, that allows the mining project to proceed the “normal course” permitted under Clean Water Act rules and other environmental regulations, without being subject to what the company called “extraordinary development restrictions.”

Now, Northern Dynasty said, the EPA’s move clears the way for it to get going on an environmental impact study, which could take several years. Under the terms of the settlement, Northern Dynasty has agreed to hire the US Army Corps of Engineers to complete the study. CONTINUE T SITE

Renewable energy is the way of the future, we are told. It is inevitable. Some renewable energy advocates boldly claim that the world could be powered by renewable energy as early as 2030 – with enough government subsidies, that is. And of course, the mainstream media play their part, hyping up the virtues of solar and wind energy as the solution to climate change.

In one regard, they are quite right: in terms of generational capacity, wind and solar have grown by leaps and bounds in the last three decades (wind by 24.3% per year since 1990, solar by 46.2% per year since 1990). However, there are two questions worth asking: (i) are renewable energies making a difference, and (ii) are they sustainable?

To answer the first question: No, wind and solar energy have not made a dent in global energy consumption, despite their rapid growth. In fact, after thirty years of beefy government subsidies, wind power still meets just 0.46% of earth’s total energy demands, according to data from the International Energy Agency (IEA). The data include not only electrical energy, but also energy consumed via liquid fuels for transportation, heating, cooking, etc. Solar generates even less energy. Even combined, the figures are minuscule: wind and solar energy together contribute less than 1% of Earth’s energy output.

Bottom line: Renewables are not making a difference. It would be far more cost-effective and reasonable to simply invest in more energy-efficient technology. But of course, doing so would not line the pockets of billionaires like Elon Musk.

To answer the second question: Is renewable energy sustainable? Is the future wind- and solar-powered?

No.

Looking first at wind energy: Between 2013 and 2014, again using IEA data, global energy demand grew by 2,000 terawatt-hours. In order to meet this demand, we would need to build 350,000 new 2-megawatt wind turbines – enough to entirely blanket the British Isles. For context, that is 50% more turbines than have been built globally since the year 2000. Wind power is not the future; there is simply not enough extraditable energy. Unfortunately, better technology cannot overcome this problem: turbines can become only so efficient due to the Betz limit, which specifies how much energy can be extracted from a moving fluid. Wind turbines are very close to that physical limit.

The state of solar energy is only slightly more promising. Recent findings suggest that humanity would need to cover an equatorial region the size of Spain with solar panels in order to generate enough electricity to meet global demand by 2030. Not only is this an enormous amount of land that could otherwise be used for agriculture, or left pristine, but it also underestimates the size of the ecological footprint, since only 20% of mankind’s energy consumption takes the form of electricity. Were we to switch to electric vehicles, the area needed would be five times as large.

Way, way back in April 2017, scientists around the world participated in the ‘March for Science’ as a show of force and unity against an allegedly anti-science Trump administration. Their motto was “science not silence”: many wrote that mantra on pieces of duct tape and stuck it across their mouths.

March for Science organizers claimed that “the best way to ensure science will influence policy is to encourage people to appreciate and engage with science. That can only happen through education, communication, and ties of mutual respect between scientists and their communities — the paths of communication must go both ways.”

But that was so three months ago.

Many scientists are now rejecting an open debate on anthropogenic global warming. EPA administrator Scott Pruitt appears ready to move forward with a “red-team, blue-team” exercise, where two groups of scientists publicly challenge each other’s evidence on manmade climate change. The idea was floated during a Congressional hearing last spring and outlined in a Wall Street Journal op-ed by Steve Koonin, former undersecretary of energy in the Obama administration. Koonin said the public is unaware of the intense debate in climate science and how “consensus statements necessarily conceal judgment calls and debates and so feed the “settled,” “hoax” and “don’t know” memes that plague the political dialogue around climate change.”

It would work this way: A red team of scientists critiques a key climate assessment. The blue team responds. The back-and-forth continues until all the evidence is aired and refuted, followed by public hearings and an action plan based on the findings. It happens entirely out in the open. Koonin said this approach is used in high-consequence situations and “very different and more rigorous than traditional peer review, which is usually confidential and always adjudicated, rather than public and moderated.” (Climate scientist Judith Curry has a good primer on this concept here.)

Pruitt is prepared to pull the trigger on this idea, according to an article in E&E News last week. In an interview with Breitbart News on June 5, Pruitt touted the red-team, blue-team initiative, saying that “the American people need to have that type of honest open discussion, and it’s something we hope to provide as part of our leadership.”
Instead Of Dialoguing, Climate Scientists Preach

Now you would think the scientific establishment would embrace an opportunity to present their case to a wary, if disinterested, public. You would think the 97 percent of scientists who supposedly all agree human activity is causing climate change would eagerly line up to vanquish climate deniers, especially those in the Trump administration. You would think the same folks who fear a science-averse President Trump would be relieved his administration is encouraging a rigorous, forensic inquiry into the most consequential scientific issue of our time that has wide-ranging economic, social, and political ramifications around the world.

You would think.

But instead, many scientists and activists are expressing outrage at this logical suggestion, even advising colleagues not to participate. In a June 21 Washington Post op-ed, three top climate scientists repudiated the red-team concept, offended by the slightest suggestion that climate science needs fixing. Naomi Oreskes, Benjamin Salter, and Kerry Emanuel wrote that “calls for special teams of investigators are not about honest scientific debate. They are dangerous attempts to elevate the status of minority opinions, and to undercut the legitimacy, objectivity and transparency of existing climate science.”

There haven’t been any sunspots for the last 44 days, and some scientists believe that the sun is entering a period called a “deep solar minimum,” with unpredictable, but potentially devastating effects. But don’t worry: even if we don’t know what’s going to happen over the next couple of years, it is still “settled science” (ask Al Gore, if you doubt this) that in a century the “earth’s temperature” will rise and cause catastrophe.

Meanwhile, in the ort run, the science isn’t looking very settled. The New York Post reprints a story from the UK Sun:

The sun might soon batter us with a shower of deep space rays so intense, it could cause part of our atmosphere to collapse.

Space scientists reckon we are on the verge of a “deep solar minimum,” which is a period of low activity.

Unlike the name suggests, this could cause an outer layer of the atmosphere called the thermosphere to contract — and it’s not entirely clear what the effects of this could be on our planet.

Professor Yvonne Elsworth at the University of Birmingham in England believes that a “fundamental change in the nature of the [sun’s magnetic] dynamo may be in progress.”

It’s backed up by NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory’s daily snaps, which have shown a spotless sun for 44 days in a row.

This led scientists to believe that it’s nearing a tumultuous period not seen since 2008.

There is too much “may” and “might” floating around here for me to be 100% confident that the atmosphere will “collapse.”

One finding that I have arrived at (and I am a “social scientist” with a PhD in Sociology, after all) is that claiming catastrophe is a good way for a scientist to get attention. Maybe even some grant money.