RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://amgreatness.com/2021/12/22/can-a-struggling-america-afford-costly-climate-hysteria/

Spiraling inflation and COVID’s economic dislocations threaten America’s wobbly economy. Yet the Biden Administration, to fight “climate change,” has imposed significant new regulatory costs, committed itself to massive spending increases, and seeks even more spending and new taxes, which together could bring us to an economic tipping point.

But rather than acknowledge the irreparable damage that onerous climate policies will certainly wreak, the administration forecasts untold devastation if the country does not buy its prophecies of environmental cataclysm.

The public is left to choose between unsustainable costs or existential climate doom, supposedly proven certain by “science.” But what does noncontroversial “science” really prove?

First, there is no doubt that greatly increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide, absent extreme amounts of negative feedback, will elevate temperatures. No reasonable scientist disputes this bland statement.

But three questions are generally avoided, or dishonestly addressed, by demagoguing politicians and the credulous media. First, how great a temperature increase will be caused by doubling CO2? Second, even if we accept massive, debilitating costs to fight CO2 increases, will bearing those costs actually help us avoid the environmental Armageddon predicted, or, will the status quo persist in any event? Third, are there significant benefits from increasing CO2 that will substantially improve life for billions of impoverished individuals worldwide, with negligible costs?

https://issuesinsights.com/2021/12/18/biden-methane-rule-chokes-on-climate-change-fallacies/

With the Biden administration all but embracing the ludicrous benchmarks of the “Green New Deal,” it’s important to remember that this far-left environmental blueprint remains unpopular with many politicians and the public at large.

Biden himself is fresh from last month’s posturing with world leaders, celebrities, and activists at the U.N. sponsored COP26 climate change conference in Glasgow, where he made it clear the U.S. will take a back seat to no nation in strangling a domestic economy with feckless environmental hokum.  

The “big” announcement from COP26 this year was 100 countries pledging to reduce methane emissions by 30% below 2020 levels within the next decade. This global pledge spurred Biden’s most significant climate policy announcement yet, a new regulation out of EPA to limit methane emissions.

For anyone who has been paying attention, none of this should come as a surprise. Environmental groups and the mainstream media have been setting the stage for this policy announcement for months.

However, as is often the case with ballyhooed pronouncements on climate action, the alleged facts and research peddled as justification for draconian action are at best incomplete and at worst, shockingly deceitful. What is revealed is merely another example of the environmental left’s sustained assault on American oil and gas.

In response, our organization released an exhaustive policy brief that breaks down and exposes the ecosystem that allows the Biden administration to bog down the oil and gas industry with crippling restrictions, even as domestic energy prices soar and Biden begs OPEC to pump more oil our way.

https://spectatorworld.com/topic/the-climate-change-conformists/

Herman Melville spent several weeks as an involuntary guest of the Typee, Marquesan Islanders known for their fierce cannibalistic ways and their exquisite tattoos. It was 1842 and Melville was a rebellious twenty-two-year-old hand who had jumped ship from a whaling vessel. Several years later, in his first novel, Typee: A Peep at Polynesian Life, Melville recounted his deep fear that his hosts would tattoo his face.

Facial tattoos were common among the islanders. Some Westerners got facially tattooed as well, but those were men who had relinquished their homes and become the original beachcombers, white men who belonged neither here nor there. Tattooing in general was hardly a respectable thing. Well into the middle of the twentieth century, tattoos were the distinguishing marks of sailors, ex-cons, prostitutes, and carnies. Then the markings began to creep over the shoulders, scapulars, and forearms of young people who just wanted to take a walk on the wild side.

By now, of course, tattoos are everywhere, and though far less common on the face, they’ve invaded that portion of the dermis too. We are told, to be sure, “face tattoos are for bold men,” and I’d say even bolder women.

Why did Melville find them abhorrent while today they are merely “bold”? Fashions change, of course, but this touches something deeper. We have as a culture undergone some profound shifts in our sense of bodily integrity and personal autonomy. “Transgressive” has gone from a term of condemnation to a way of praising those who defy the stultifying conformity of society.

https://issuesinsights.com/2021/12/13/renewable-sustainable-dissecting-green-buzzwords/

Remember when Humpty Dumpty lectured Alice, “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less”? With talk of climate change constantly in the news, marketing departments are increasingly getting in on that game. One in every six consumer products touts sustainability claims. So should you trust what is on the label? 

Some terms like “organic,” for farming practices, have been around long enough to have their own third-party certification programs. While not perfect, it’s at least a layer of scrutiny that is missing from newer buzzword claims.

One of those newer terms is “renewable.” The word invokes thoughts of clean energy and boundless resources. 

Reality check: “Renewable” only means a product has been sourced from something that cannot be depleted. Paper is often labeled renewable since trees and forests regrow and are replanted. But that doesn’t make products made from renewable resources automatically better than other products. 

Water cartons, for example, have been touted as a “renewable” alternative to plastic bottles. Alaska Airlines recently announced it would be getting rid of plastic water bottles and replacing them with boxed water. But there’s a catch.

The paper in cartons is renewable, but the cartons are not merely paper. After all, paper’s not waterproof. As any kid knows after taking a juice box apart, there are glued layers of plastic and aluminum needed to waterproof the product. 

Crucially, that means while the paper part of the carton is “renewable”, the cartons themselves are difficult to recycle. Cartons cannot be recycled in areas where 40% of the country lives. Carton production releases roughly the same amount of greenhouse gases as the production of a recycled plastic bottle. A carton is better off being incinerated, according to a study by the Danish Environmental Protection Agency. 

Does the “renewable” label mean the product is better for the environment? Not necessarily. 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/in-the-race-for-climate-leadership-everyones-a-loser-opinion/ar-AARGkLg

Last year, Joe Biden campaigned on the promise that America would lead the world in the fight against climate change. At last month’s Glasgow climate conference, however, President Biden diluted candidate Biden’s bold promise to a plaintive “hopefully”—implying, he said, leadership by example. At home, his climate plan in the Build Back Better bill is stalled in the Senate, and his election pledge to legislate a net-zero enforcement mechanism by the end of his first term has gone nowhere.

Aspirations to climate leadership are faring little better in Europe. Germany’s new traffic-light political coalition—the red SPD, the yellow Free Democrats, and the Greens—is making the Paris climate agreement its top priority. In April, Germany’s constitutional court ruled that its 2050 net-zero target was so distant that it violated the freedoms of young people. So, along with Sweden, Germany became the first country to legislate a 2045 net-zero target. Yet the new German government’s net-zero plan, as outlined in the coalition agreement, may as well have been designed to worsen Europe’s current energy crisis and sink its largest and most successful economy.

Under the timetable inherited from the Merkel government, zero-emitting nuclear power—which only a decade ago accounted for one-fourth of German electricity generation—will be phased out by the end of next year. To make matters worse, the new coalition is bringing forward the closure of all Germany’s coal-fired power stations from 2038 to 2030 and at the same time raising the share of renewables to 80 percent. Notes energy expert Lucian Pugliaresi, Germany’s energy policy initiatives “will not be sufficient to meet demand for electricity in Germany in 2030.”

https://www.sciencenatures.com/2021/12/a-mini-ice-age-could-hit-earth-by-2030.html

Amid rising concerns over the effects of global warming, a group of scientists has claimed that the Earth could in a little over a decade be hit by a “mini ice age” that would freeze major rivers. The startling prediction is based on a mathematical model of the Sun’s magnetic energy which also suggests that Earth’s temperature will start dropping in 2021.

The plummeting temperature will then lead to something called the “Maunder minimum”, which is referred to a previous mini ice age that occurred between 1646 and 1715, turning London’s Thames into a frozen river, scientists claimed. The latest research, led by maths professor Valentina Zharkova at Northumbria University, is built on a previous research that predicts the movements of two magnetic waves produced by the Sun. It also foretells rapidly decreasing magnetic waves for three solar cycles that will begin in 2021, and last for as many as 33 years.

According to the model, the two magnetic waves will become increasingly offset during Cycle 25, which peaks in 2022. During Cycle 26 between 2030 and 2040, the waves will become out of sync, causing reduction in solar activity by as much as 60 percent.

 “In cycle 26, the two waves exactly mirror each other — peaking at the same time but in opposite hemispheres of the Sun,” Zharkova reportedly said in 2015 while conducting a previous research on the phenomenon. “Their interaction will be disruptive, or they will nearly cancel each other. We predict that this will lead to the properties of a ‘Maunder minimum’.”

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2021-12-4-fossil-fuel-restriction-dam-starting-to-break

Somewhere a couple of decades or so ago, the rich parts of the world embarked on a program of replacing energy from fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas) with energy from intermittent “renewables” (mainly wind and solar). In trendy academic, journalistic, and otherwise progressive circles, the idea took hold that this was the way to “save the planet.” This program was undertaken without any detailed engineering study of how or whether it might actually work, or how much it might cost to fully implement. In the trendy circles, there took hold a blind faith in the complete ability of the government, by dispensing taxpayer funds, to order up whatever innovation might be needed to move us forward to this energy utopia.

The latest UN-orchestrated effort to implement the renewable energy program, known as COP 26, has just broken up. To read the verbiage emanating from the affair, all is on track, if a bit slower than one might have hoped.

But I have long predicted that this program would come to an end when (absent some miraculous innovation that nobody has yet conceived) the usage of the renewables got to a sufficient level that their costs and unworkability could not be covered up any longer. Until very recently the pressure of elite groupthink has been able to maintain a united front of lip service to the cause. But consider a few developments from the past few weeks, just since the end of COP 26:

Japan

Japan tends to keep its head down in international affairs, and at COP 26 signed on to the happy talk group communiqués without raising any particular issues. But there is no getting around that Japan has the third largest economy in the world — after the U.S. and China, and larger than any European country — so its actions in energy policy are inherently significant. Also, Japan has relatively little energy production of its own, is heavily dependent on imports, has harsh winters, and has a growing Chinese military and economic threat right on its doorstep. Is Japan really going to trust its fate to intermittent wind and solar energy?

On December 1 Bloomberg reported: “Japan Is Backing Oil and Gas Even After COP26 Climate Talks.” It seems that this rather significant country may be seriously re-thinking the move away from fossil fuels. Excerpt:

Government officials have been quietly urging trading houses, refiners and utilities to slow down their move away from fossil fuels, and even encouraging new investments in oil-and-gas projects, according to people within the Japanese government and industry, who requested anonymity as the talks are private.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/12/the-new-nuclear-moment/

Parts of the Left are shifting to pro-nuclear

The past few weeks have seen a radical change in the outlook for nuclear energy. Coincident with the global COP26 conference, major center-left forces have shifted their position from opposition to support. While a year ago French president Emmanuel Macron was calling for cutting the nuclear fraction of France’s electric power from its current 75 percent down to 50 percent (thereby eliminating the world’s only actually decarbonized major electric-power grid), on November 9 he called for “relaunching construction of nuclear reactors in our country . . . to guarantee France’s energy independence, to guarantee our country’s electricity supply and achieve our objectives, in particular carbon neutrality in 2050.” Whereas a few months ago European Union bureaucrats drawing up the “taxonomy” that defines which energy sources would be considered carbon-free (i.e. valid substitutes for fossil fuels) excluded nuclear power, now nearly all except the fanatical Germanic states have reversed themselves. Indeed, the map of pro- and anti-nuclear Euro­pean countries now closely resembles a map of World War II circa March 1945, shortly before the taking of the Ludendorff Bridge broke the last line of organized resistance in the Reich.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/12/the-extraordinary-hidden-costs-of-the-climate-change-transition/?utm_source=

How climate policy will weaken the West

T o achieve per capita economic growth, an economy must either produce goods and services that were not previously produced or produce the existing goods and services in a more efficient way. If an economy continues to produce the old goods and services but replaces the inputs with a more costly set of inputs, per capita growth will be negative. Such an economy would become poorer over time and less wealthy in per capita terms. This is the likely future of the U.S. and Europe as they stumble their way toward an effort to transition their economies to a different, more expensive, set of energy sources.

If, as a homeowner, you were suddenly told that you needed to rebuild your home with a whole new set of more costly materials, you would not be pleased. But if the goal of this costly rebuilding were saving the planet, you might tolerate the transition.

Hoping to spare you and your neighbors the harmful effects of your current building materials, you begin the transition. The fact that there is a target date for this transition will, of course, dramatically increase the costs of this transition, which will be considerable in any event. When the transition is complete, you will have less wealth than you would have had, had there been no such transition. But you say to yourself, at least I am doing some future good for me and my neighbors. Saving the planet seems like a worthwhile goal.

Looking down the block you see multiple new homes being constructed utilizing the exact same materials that you are being asked to remove from your house. These materials are much cheaper than those used in the project on which you embarked, and thus your neighbors, constructing their new homes, will likely be prospering by producing their homes, identical to yours in most respects, by using the cheaper building materials.