RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2022/05/a_climate_change_class_action_lawsuit.html

The UN IPCC and associated green activist groups; Federal, state, and local entities; universities; foundations; non-profit groups; and many corporations argue that the world will be destroyed without policies designed to turn on their heads the current energy system and American economy. However, the green agenda that is designed to eradicate fossil fuels will inflict enormous economic damage on America’s ordinary citizens and overall economy—and will do the same to other countries as well. This is true even though the “climate change” models have never been fully and objectively vetted, so there is no solid evidence to justify these upheavals.

Nevertheless, American Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency and, indeed, almost every federal agency and their federally funded cohorts in many state agencies are committed to decarbonization. This is true for a commitment that they admit that they do not know how to implement, as to which they cannot ascertain the final cost, and they’re unable to determined the overall consequences of their policies.

Daniel Yergin, in his The New Map, explains that the current energy system took 100 years to develop. To turn it on its head within a few decades is simply not possible. He predicts that we will move towards decarbonization, though at a slower pace than currently targeted. Further he claims that the “climate change” debate is over, even if the green winners are found to be grossly wrong and trillions of dollars are wasted. But should we accept that a debate that never really took place is over?

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2022/05/the-selective-targets-of-green-scorn/

“Greens diktats concerning climate change, global warming, weather and the role of human economic activity in ending life has swept the world like a virus, for which the only antidote is rational thinking. Without a reasoned and rational approach to global problems, Green ideology may turn out to be the greatest confidence trick in the history of Mankind.”

There is no surer way for a political party to gain voters’ attention than to predict the imminent end of the world. Creating fear in the public mind is as old as politics, itself. Having shaken people’s faith in the future by instilling that fear, the party’s next ploy is to offer a solution that is not open for debate.

No contemporary party has used this method of politicking with such success as The Greens. For years they have successfully portrayed themselves as tree-hugging pacifists whose sole concern is protection of the environment. However, this is only a minor part of an ideology founded on scenarios that forecast the end of the world.

One of their earliest forecast calamities depended on a hole in the ozone layer above the Antarctic. In the view of the Greens, this would expand, causing increased solar radiation that would endanger life on Earth. This idea did not attract enough public attention to elicit the widespread fear the Greens’ always need to advance their agenda. Moreover, proof that the hole was expanding, was not convincing.

Next came global warming. Selective evidence of increased temperatures that would cause droughts, crop failures and mass deaths from starvation, pointed to humanity’s inevitable end.

https://tomknighton.substack.com/p/is-the-climate-scare-train-starting?s=w

Climate change has been the great doom-and-gloom scenario of my life. Sure, the hole in the ozone layer was scary, but we were going to be wiped out by climate change long before we got cancer from the lack of ozone.

And, to be honest, I believed it all.

Then again, this was pre-internet, so it was much more difficult to find contrary information to what the media was dishing out.

And that’s without going into Al Gore’s craptacular piece of propaganda.

But for years, we’ve had a lot of rhetoric about how everything horrible is going to happen, only for climate models to universally fail to pan out remotely as climate scientists claim.

Now, Nature is taking scientists to task for the doom-and-gloom.

https://issuesinsights.com/2022/05/10/the-global-warming-scare-is-most-certainly-overheated/

Does anyone wonder where all the global warming destruction is? After all, the media are unrelenting in telling us how much climate change caused by man is affecting us. Yet no existential threat has emerged. There’s something off with the story.

The climate alarmists have based their predictions of doom on computer models that have been projecting global temperature increases, the likes of which, they tell us, are unsustainable. We must cut our carbon dioxide emissions, even if (actually, especially if) it hurts developed world economies.

This is the narrative we’re bombarded with on a daily basis. And it’s wrong.

Those models that have been used to fuel the fright are, without a doubt, unreliable. According to a recent story published in Nature magazine written by a group of climate modelers, “a subset of the newest generation of models are ‘too hot’ and project climate warming in response to carbon dioxide emissions that might be larger than that supported by other evidence.”

The authors, though, are careful to preserve the narrative, warning that “​​whereas unduly hot outcomes might be unlikely, this does not mean that global warming is not a serious threat.” They can’t help themselves.

ttps://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2022/05/biden_doj_sets_up_a_new_office_of_environmental_justice__headed_by_another_fanatic.html

As if we didn’t need yet another government agency in this age of behemoth federal spending, the Biden administration has saddled the U.S. with a new one, the Office of Environmental Justice. The $1.4 million monstrosity will be buried within the U.S. Department of Justice under the authority of U.S. associate attorney general, Vanita Gupta, who set up the new bureaucracy-enforcer arm. It will be headed by one Cynthia M. Ferguson, whose title is acting director. And you can bet it’s going to be a problem.

According to the Washington Examiner:

The Justice Department is launching a new Office of Environmental Justice, Attorney General Merrick Garland announced on Thursday, which will seek to redress health risks from climate change faced by minorities and low-income people in the United States.

“Although violations of our environmental laws can happen anywhere, communities of color, indigenous communities, and low-income communities often bear the brunt of the harm caused by environmental crime, pollution, and climate change,” Garland said at a news conference on Thursday.

“For far too long, these communities have faced barriers to accessing the justice they deserve,” Garland said, adding that the Justice Department “will prioritize the cases that will have the greatest impact on the communities most overburdened by environmental harm.”

Which sounds like a shakedown operation. We already know that activist groups have conspired with the Environmental Protection Agency for millions in payouts as well as the ‘right’ to write regulations themselves in exchange for not protesting the agency. We saw the details of that scandal in the late Obama years, after President Trump’s officials came to power and put a stop to it. Remember this?

In fulfilling his promise to end the practice of regulation through litigation that has harmed the American public, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt issued an agency-wide directive Oct. 16 designed to end “sue and settle” practices within the agency.

Sue and settle refers to the practice of special interest groups filing suit against federal agencies with the two parties coming to an agreement outside of the normal rule-making process. These settlement agreements are negotiated behind closed doors with no participation from the public or affected parties.

…and…

For example, between 2009 and 2012, EPA chose not to defend itself in over 60 lawsuits from special interest advocacy groups. These cases resulted in settlement agreements and EPA publishing more than 100 new regulations — including the recent Clean Power Plan.

https://us7.campaign-archive.com/?e=a9fdc67db9&u=9d011a88d8fe324cae8c084c5&id=3e2507af14

My previous post on Tuesday contained some highlights from the May 3 public hearing of New York’s Climate Action Council. The CAC is the body that is charged with devising a “Scoping Plan” to inform all us New Yorkers how we will achieve “zero carbon” electricity by 2030 and a “zero carbon” economy by 2050. I attended the hearing for about two and a half hours, during which about 60 people spoke.

Reflecting on the hearing a few days later, I think there are a few more highlights that would interest the readers, and will give some more insights into the nature of progressive thinking.

As stated in my prior post, of the 60 or so speakers, all but myself and four others were vigorous supporters of the critical necessity of achieving the stated zero carbon goals by the given dates as an urgent matter of saving our planet and our children. This was so despite what appeared to me to be manifestly huge issues of physical feasibility and cost that are almost certain to cause these grand “net zero” energy schemes to fail. The CAC’s draft “Scoping Plan,” as it currently exists for public comment, does not consider these feasibility or cost issues in any remotely adequate fashion, if at all. That fact did not appear to bother the overwhelming majority of the speakers.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/green-judges-vs-american-gas-mountain-valley-pipeline-fourth-circuit-court-of-appeals-11648155967?mod=opinion_lead_pos4

Here’s a hard political reality behind high energy prices: It has become nearly impossible to build a natural gas pipeline in the U.S. Consider West Virginia’s Mountain Valley pipeline, which has come under a relentless siege by green groups and activists in judicial robes. While more than 90% complete, the pipeline is in danger of getting cancelled.

The 304-mile interstate pipeline aims to deliver natural gas from Appalachia’s Marcellus and Utica shale deposits to the mid- and south-Atlantic regions. A pipeline shortage has reduced the incentive for drillers to produce more natural gas. Yet states in the mid- and south Atlantic desperately need more gas as their populations grow.

Federal regulators have signed off on most of Mountain Valley’s environmental permits, but greens have filed lawsuits at every turn. Oddly, their repeated challenges keep landing before the same Fourth Circuit three-judge panel of Roger Gregory, James Wynn and Stephanie Thacker even though cases are supposed to be assigned to judges at random.

These same three judges also blocked a permit for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline, only to be overruled by a 7-2 Supreme Court majority in 2020. A few weeks later, Duke Energy and Dominion Energy cancelled the pipeline, blaming exploding costs, delays and uncertainty from future litigation. They probably saw what was happening to Mountain Valley.

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/

Today I trekked out to Brooklyn to testify at a public hearing on New York’s plans to achieve “net zero” electricity by 2030 or so, and a “net zero” economy by 2050. Actually, it wasn’t much of a trek — the hearing took place at an auditorium in Brooklyn Heights, near the first subway stop on the other side of the East River.

The organization holding the hearing was the New York Climate Action Council. This body was created under New York’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act of 2019 (Climate Act), and is tasked with figuring out how to achieve the statutorily mandated net zero targets. The first statutory target is 40% reduction in carbon emissions by 2030, which as a practical matter means that fossil fuels must be almost completely eliminated from the electricity sector by that date. The Council issued its Draft Scoping Plan for how to achieve the targets on December 30, 2021. The Draft Scoping Plan is some 300 pages of text plus 500 pages of appendices; but the gist comes down to, we will order the private sector to eliminate emissions by various dates certain, and then it is up to the little people to work out the details. Today’s hearing allowed for members of the public to comment on the Draft Scoping Plan, supposedly so that any appropriate adjustments can be made before the Plan becomes final later this year.

The Climate Action Council has some 21 members. A full list can be found here. Seven of the 21 attended today’s hearing. I’m going to give you a list of these people and their titles, to give an indication of the extent to which the Council is dominated by environmental activists and political functionaries with no background or interest in how a huge electrical grid might actually get converted to “net zero” as an engineering matter. The members present were: Doreen Harris, President and CEO of the New York Energy Research and Development Authority; Basil Seggos, Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation; Roberta Reardon, Commissioner of the New York State Department of Labor; Robert Rodriguez, Acting Secretary of State of New York; RuthAnne Visnauskas, Commissioner and CEO, New York State Homes and Community Renewal; Peter Iwanowicz, Executive Director, Environmental Advocates NY; and Raya Salter, Lead Policy Organizer, NY Renews. Of these, maybe Ms. Harris of NYSERDA knows something about how the electrical grid works. Then again, maybe she doesn’t.

https://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2022/05/02/clean-energy-has-a-dirty-little-secret-n1593821

Clean energy has a dirty little secret, just revealed by MIT science writing student Shel Evergreen: Its “unsustainable” appetite for minerals and the dirty ways they’re obtained.

From Evergreen’s report for Ars Technica:

In South America’s Atacama Desert, salt flats are dotted with shallow, turquoise-colored lithium brine pools. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, children chip at the ground for cobalt. In China, toxic chemicals leach neodymium from the earth.

All that extraction “presents humanitarian, environmental, and logistical challenges,” she writes.

Scenes like those might already be familiar ground for those who aren’t wedded to the green fantasy of clean energy. But what you might not know is just how much worse things are going to have to get for Mother Earth if the Greens (no relation) are going to “save” her.

The International Energy Agency warned last year that “to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, overall mineral requirements would need to increase six-fold.”

“Those minerals have to come from somewhere, and that often involves harmful sourcing, increased greenhouse gas emissions, and limits on the mineral supply.”

It’s somehow news that we can’t put minerals that we don’t have into solar panels, electric car batteries, or wind turbines. It ought to be news — GIANT BOLD-TYPE HEADLINE news — that clean energy means increased carbon emissions.