RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2024/08/our-coming-energy-famine/

Economic change and Biden’s hostility to fossil fuels are setting up an electricity crisis

Most Americans are unaware of a grave danger looming on the horizon: a historic — and entirely self-inflicted — energy-scarcity crisis. The “transition from fossil fuels” presupposes that “clean energy” substitutes will be ready when needed. But while the war on fossil fuels is making real gains, at least in the electricity sector, the effort to deploy renewable substitutes is failing catastrophically. Add soaring demand, and America is facing the worst energy shortfall in its history.

The nation’s grid regulators are already sounding the alarm. “I am extremely concerned about the pace of retirements we are seeing of generators which are needed for reliability on our system,” Willie Phillips, a Biden appointee who chairs the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), testified last year. According to fellow FERC commissioner Mark Christie, a Trump appointee, “The red lights are flashing.”

States in the Midwest are likely to be among the hardest hit. In a February report, Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO), a high-voltage transmission system that provides power to 15 states in the central U.S., warned of “urgent and complex challenges to electric system reliability,” citing a “hyper-complex risk environment.” NERC, which oversees electricity supply across North America, expects MISO to face a staggering capacity shortfall of 4.7 gigawatts (GW) — equivalent to above five average-size nuclear-power plants — by 2028.

Realistically, the only way that America could make up the shortfall in electrical capacity would be through a massive increase in the number of coal and natural-gas power plants. Alas, those are primary targets of the Environmental Protection Agency’s new power-plant rule, published in May.

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2024-6-8-the-latest-on-the-federal-war-against-internal-combustion-vehicles

I’m old enough to remember a time when there were serious environmental concerns with internal combustion engine vehicles. NOx and SOx emissions caused a thick layer of brown smog in the atmosphere during calm weather spells in summer and winter; and a layer of black soot would cover the snow along the roadside in the winter. But gradually that all got cleaned up. Today the bona fide serious environmental concerns about internal combustion engines are far in the past. But the war to eliminate them — supposedly on environmental grounds — is just ramping up.

The Biden Administration is all in with the plan to get rid of the ICE car. Why? It seems to have something to do with the non-existent “climate crisis.” Meanwhile, Congress has passed no legislation authorizing the executive agencies to force ICE vehicles off the market. Nor is the Administration honest enough to admit that they are engaged in outlawing the vehicles that 90+% of the people drive.

Instead we get massive and thoroughly dishonest regulations effectively forcing the approaching end of the ICE vehicle without ever directly saying so. All with effective dates far enough into the future that the public will not notice that anything is happening in time for the upcoming election.

Two big new regulations on this subject have just gone final. First, there was EPA’s “Multi-Pollutant Emissions Standards for Model Years 2027 and Later Light- Duty and Medium-Duty Vehicles,” issued on April 18. And then yesterday from the NHTSA (part of the Department of Transportation) we get “Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards for Passenger Cars and Light Trucks for Model Years 2027 and Beyond and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Heavy-Duty Pickup Trucks and Vans for Model Years 2030 and Beyond.” The first is 373 pages in the three-column, single-spaced format of the Federal Register. The second is 1004 pages in standard double-spaced typing.

If you should take the time to read some or all of the 1377 pages of text, don’t expect to find anywhere in all of that an admission that the plan is to suppress and ultimately eliminate the internal combustion car. Instead it’s happy sweet talk about the supposed “health” benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

https://issuesinsights.com/2024/05/30/climate-hysterics-keep-saying-the-quiet-part-out-loud/

The climate alarmists have a long habit of revealing the true motives behind the global warming scare, and of course they have nothing to do with keeping the sky from catching on fire. In the most recent tacit admission, a college professor suggests that the administration sell the climate crisis to black voters by listing all the green energy government handouts they can avail themselves of.

In the New York Times piece published over the weekend, Jerel Ezell, a University of California, Berkeley, assistant professor “who studies environmental politics and race,” expressed concern that “politicians often seem to downplay the crisis when courting black communities.”

“Democratic strategists seem to see climate change as a key political issue only for white liberal elites and assume that other groups, like black voters, are either unaware of or apathetic about it.”

So Ezell suggests that rather than appealing to “​​airy calls for solving a global climate crisis,” Democrats should opt for “a sharp message designed specifically for young black Americans that focuses on how the Biden administration is investing in clean energy hubs, green work force development, tax credits for home improvement measures and community grants.”

Or in the words of blogger and law professor Ann Althouse, Democrats need to let black Americans “know there are billions of dollars ‘waiting to be doled out’ to their specific communities.” 

“That’s ‘how much black Americans care’ — they care about the money that might be doled out to them,” Althouse writes. “That’s what it says in the article.”

Sounds as if Ezell practices the soft bigotry of low expectations against his own community.

https://issuesinsights.com/2024/05/28/a-sneaky-way-to-end-fossil-fuel/

When candidate Joe Biden promised while on the campaign trail that “we’re going to end fossil fuel,” could anyone have guessed that emptying the nation’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve was part of the plan? Maybe Biden had that in mind all along – enact policies that raise the price of gasoline, dip into the reserves to lower prices for consumers, then finally wring them dry for, putatively, the same reason. That’s one way to get rid of quite a lot of fossil fuel.

The federal Strategic Petroleum Reserve is “the world’s largest supply of emergency crude oil,” says the Energy Department. It was created in 1975 by the Energy Conservation Act, “primarily to reduce the impact of disruptions in supplies of petroleum products and to carry out obligations of the United States under the international energy program.” The oil is stored in underground salt caverns at four sites along the Gulf Coast. Initially planned to hold up to 1 billion barrels of petroleum, the authorized storage capacity, at 714 million barrels, is a bit short of that. Still, says the Energy Department, this “makes it a significant deterrent to oil import cutoffs and a key tool in foreign policy.”

The SPR was never intended to be a political chip, to be tapped into by a president who wants to temporarily push down gasoline prices to gain votes.

Nor was it to be used as a means to end fossil fuels, a Democratic Party dream that would be a long national nightmare for the country.

The Biden administration has authorized two releases from the country’s petroleum reserves. Last week it announced the sale and liquidation of 1 million barrels from the Northeast Gasoline Supply Reserve, established after 2012’s Hurricane Sandy damaged refineries and terminals, and left “some New York gas stations without fuel for as long as 30 days.” The Energy Department says this “solicitation is strategically timed and structured to maximize its impact on gasoline prices, helping to lower prices at the pump as Americans hit the road this summer.”

https://issuesinsights.com/2024/05/17/bidens-7-5-billion-ev-charger-plan-backfires-spectacularly/

At a Rose Garden event this week, President Joe Biden bragged that “Thanks to my Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, we’re building a network of 500,000 charging stations all across America.”

This is about as believable as the story of his uncle’s cannibalistic demise.

The truth is that Biden’s five-year, $7.5 billion effort to jump-start the development of electric vehicle charging stations is doing the opposite. The money has so far produced only eight new charging stations in two years. The overall growth rate in EV charging stations has slowed since he signed that bill. And earlier this month, Tesla gutted its EV charger efforts, dealing the entire scheme a huge blow.

In other words, this is shaping up to be a massive waste of taxpayer money.

The slow rollout of the Biden-approved EV stations is in part due to cumbersome rules and regulations required to access the money. That’s no surprise.

But it’s actually having a broader negative impact, slowing the growth of EV stations overall.

In the two years before Biden signed that infrastructure bill, the number of EV charging stations grew by roughly 20,000, according to data compiled by the Department of Energy. In the two years since, just 16,000 stations went online, even as EV sales accelerated. The result is that the ratio of charging stations to EVs is about half what it was in 2021. The administration says not to worry, because the buildout will soon take off. We aren’t holding our breath.

But even if the stations do start to roll out, these numbers don’t account for the large number of charging ports that aren’t working at any given time because of communication failures, power outages, software bugs, or other problems with the complicated tech.

A survey by J.D. Power found that almost 21% of drivers using public charging stations reported malfunctions. And when a Wall Street Journal reporter went around to 30 fast-charging stations in the Los Angeles area, she encountered problems at more than 40% of them.

https://issuesinsights.com/2024/05/15/biden-to-ruin-thousands-of-miles-of-land-for-green-energy-scheme/

The Biden administration has announced plans to despoil thousands of miles of land throughout the United States with new corridors for wind and solar transmission lines. In addition to stretching across thousands of miles of land in length, the Department of Energy reports the transmission-line projects may be up to 100 miles wide. The transmission lines, which are necessary to deliver wind and solar power from rural wind and solar projects to distant population centers, will destroy an enormous amount of open spaces and wildlife habitats. The Energy Department is tapping into $4.5 billion to make the project happen.

States whose lands will be affected include Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia. Much of the land will be in migratory bird corridors and sensitive ecological habitats.

The scope of land development for these projects highlights some of the many environmental shortcomings of wind and solar power. Land conservation used to be a primary component of environmentalism. However, wind and solar power are the worst offenders among energy sources. Scientists at Harvard University report that converting existing electricity generation from conventional sources to wind power would require covering one-third of America’s landmass with wind turbines. That number would grow to one-half of America’s land mass under the Biden administration’s plans to electrify transportation vehicles. Necessary transmission lines, like the ones just announced by Biden’s DOE, would defile immense amounts of land in addition to the wind turbines themselves.

https://issuesinsights.com/2024/05/14/scientist-or-activist-with-climate-its-often-hard-to-tell-the-difference/

Last week, Nature magazine allotted space to a researcher who wrote about “​​the importance of distinguishing climate science from climate activism.” While surprising, it is nonetheless encouraging. It’s well past the time the zealots in white coats were outed for who they are.

Ulf Büntgen, affiliated with multiple universities, wrote that he is “concerned by climate scientists becoming climate activists,” and is also “worried about activists who pretend to be scientists,” because doing so “can be a misleading form of instrumentalization.”

That Nature would allow something bordering on blasphemy in the climate cult to appear in its pages is rather remarkable. We thought the publication had hopelessly and forever been lost to wokeness and global warming fanaticism, that objective science had been abandoned in exchange for following the progressive agenda.

Not that anyone would consider Büntgen to be a “climate denier,” an ugly label the media, activists and politicians attach to skeptics of the global warming narrative. He references “the many threats anthropogenic global warming is likely to pose on natural and societal systems” and seems troubled about “the continuous inability of an international agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to tackle global warming, despite an alarming recent rise in surface temperatures and associated hydroclimatic extremes.”

Yet he is evenhanded enough to point out a “​​quasi-religious belief” instead of an “understanding of the complex causes and consequences of climate and environmental changes undermines academic principles.” He suggests that “climate science and climate activism should be separated conceptually and practically,” and insists that “the latter should not be confused with science communication and public engagement.”

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2024-5-11-even-stupider-than-the-stupidest-litigation-in-the-country

I have had several posts on a collection of related cases that I have called “The Stupidest Litigations In The Country.” These are cases where climate hysterics have sued oil and gas producing companies, or the federal government, or both, seeking various extreme punishments ranging from massive damages up to and including an order to end all production of fossil fuels. The asserted grounds vary somewhat from case to case, but a central theme is a claimed constitutional right to a “clean and healthy environment.”

My last update on these cases was a post on April 9. A main subject there was the lawsuit of Juliana v. United States, which is one of the cases where the federal government is the defendant and the goal is to require it to force an end to the production of fossil fuels. The occasion for the post was that, nine years into the litigation, the federal defendant had just launched its third effort to get the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to end the case on the ground of “non-justiciability” — that is, to get the court to rule that such an issue of society-wide energy policy is not a proper subject to be decided by a court. Instead, the Department of Justice was arguing, this sort of question must be left to the political branches of government, that is, legislatures and executives. (On May 1, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit in fact ordered that the Juliana case be dismissed. We’ll see if that sticks. The plaintiffs still have a few litigation options left, including seeking “en banc” review from the full Ninth Circuit, and seeking review from the Supreme Court.)

Meanwhile, be careful what you wish for. If the decision to blame energy-producing companies for everything wrong with the environment is to be left to the political branches, what’s to stop those political branches from jumping into this act?

In the last few days, the legislature in the state of Vermont has done just that. NBC News has the story on May 7, with the headline “Vermont passes bill to charge fossil fuel companies for damage from climate change.”

It looks like little Vermont (population about 650,000) is going to step up to save the planet where all the big players like the federal government and California have failed. The idea here is that the state will force the fossil fuel producers to pay damages to compensate for any losses attributable to “climate change.” If you believe that all extreme weather is the fault of “climate change” (and it appears that they do believe that), then this could add up to some enormous sums. From NBC:

Vermont lawmakers passed a bill this week that is designed to make big fossil fuel companies pay for damage from weather disasters fueled by climate change.

https://amgreatness.com/2024/05/11/greta-thunberg-and-the-greatest-of-all-heresies/

The other day, as environmental hero/prophetess Greta Thunberg donned a keffiyeh and joined the pro-Hamas protests in Malmo, Sweden, social media blew up with its usual mix of angry condemnation and fierce support. “How could she?” countless posters tetchily demanded, only to be met, in response, with the equally peevish “How could you?” With a few notable exceptions, most observers missed the obvious point that of course the erstwhile environmental activist was protesting the Jewish “oppressors” and supporting their poor, Palestinian victims; of course she took to the streets with neo-Marxist identitarians to demand “justice” and an end to “colonialism;” of course she has and will continue to embrace every subversive left-wing liberationist cause. How could do otherwise? After all, these causes are all interconnected, if not wholly identical.

Interestingly, some otherwise keen political observers are only now coming to the conclusion that Marxism is not economic in nature but religious and that it does not stand on its own as a unique and discrete phenomenon but is interconnected with all of the other anti-realist, quasi-religious utopian endeavors that have accompanied its rise over the last nearly two centuries. Marxism, for all its destructive murderousness, is but one component—albeit the dominant component—of the enduring effort to update and replace the moral system that was undermined and largely abandoned in the West with the Enlightenment.

Perhaps the greatest and least appreciated analysis of what we would broadly call “the left” is that which appears in Chapter 6 (or 7, depending on the edition) of Hilaire Belloc’s 1938 classic The Great Heresies. It is “The Modern Phase.”

Belloc is careful in his presentation of this heresy to clarify that it is not merely Communism or “Bolshevism” that constitutes this perversion of Catholicism but the broader “Modern Attack.”  Nevertheless, it is clear that he has in mind what we know today as “the left.”  Moreover, it is clear that he sees this “religion of man” and its ill-defined “spiritualism” as both an obvious Catholic heresy and the greatest and deadliest of them all.