Right Wing Granny

News behind the news. This picture is me (white spot) standing on the bridge connecting European and North American tectonic plates. It is located in the Reykjanes area of Iceland. By-the-way, this is a color picture.

Right Wing Granny

Tag Archives: Fossil fuel

Things We Were Told By The Environmentalists That Are Actually Myths

Posted on by

On April 9th, American Greatness posted an article about the things we have been told by the environmentalists that are simply not true.

This is the list:

(1) We are in a climate crisis – ...There is ample evidence that average global temperatures are not rapidly increasing, if they are even increasing at all. There is also strong evidence that extreme weather events are not increasing but rather that our ability to detect them has improved and that population increases have led more people to live in places that are particularly vulnerable to extreme weather.

(2) There are too many people – …The United Nations now estimates the total global population to top out at around 10 billion people, after which it is projected to decline.

(3) We are running out of “fossil” fuel –…According to the authoritative Statistical Review on Global Energy, based on current consumption, proven reserves could supply oil for 61 years, natural gas for 50, and coal for 208. This grossly understates the big picture, however, because proven and recoverable reserves are being expanded all the time.

(4) Biofuel is renewable and sustainable – …Worldwide, biofuel crops already consume an estimated 500,000 square miles while only offsetting 2 percent of the global consumption of transportation fuel.

(5) Offshore wind energy is renewable and sustainable – Absolutely not. Wind turbine blades, on land or offshore, routinely kill raptors, condors, and other magnificent endangered birds, along with bats and insects. Offshore, there are additional harmful impacts. Electromagnetic fields from undersea cables produce birth deformities in marine life and produce magnetic fields that disrupt the orientation abilities of some fish. Their low-frequency operational noise disrupts sounds made by fish for mating, spawning, and navigating.

(6) Renewables are renewable – …Just the consumption of natural resources to build these renewables is hardly sustainable. For example, using data from the International Energy Agency, geopolitical writer Peter Ziehan calculated the mineral requirements for power generation, comparing renewables to natural gas in terms of kilograms of minerals per megawatt of capacity. Offshore wind: 16,000 kg/MW, onshore wind: 10,000 kg/MW, solar photovoltaic: 7,000 kg/MW, and natural gas: 2,000 kg/MW. Compounding this disparity is the fact that natural gas power plants can operate for 60 years or more, whereas solar installations are operable for 30 years at most, and wind turbines substantially less than that, depending on where they’re situated.

Please follow the link above to read the rest of the myths. The world’s economy runs on fossil fuels, and until the free market (not government subsidies) comes up with something better, fossil fuels will be the center of the world’s economy.

Conservative Replies to Debate Questions

Posted on by

Author: R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D.

I watched the Vice President candidate’s debate the other night and thought that J.D. Vance did a good job. The following are my answers to some of the critical issues that were raised in the debate.

Climate Change. The climate constantly changes. Always has; always will. The idea that the recent destructive hurricane, Helene, was caused by man-made climate change is pure ignorance and typical of the environmental extremists. Severe hurricanes have occurred as far back as records have been kept–long before man’s burning of fossil fuels could have caused them. The Left continues to spout the idea that man-made climate change is “settled science” when it is not. This allows them to justify ruining our energy production.

Green Energy. The Democrat agenda is to spend more of our taxpayer money on solar and wind projects purchased from China, and importantly, to mandate electric vehicles. Meanwhile, China is building a new coal fired plant about every month and using coal that we ship to them. As Europe has found out, no modern civilization can exist on wind and solar. We need more access to fossil fuels and to start building nuclear plants which the environmental extremists are blocking.

Open Borders. The Democrats want open borders in order to get more voters who will support their socialist agenda. They give illegals free housing, food, cell phones and healthcare and will, if allowed, grant them citizenship so they can vote. They realize that they are losing support from working class Americans, blacks, and Hispanics because of their harmful policies and need to replace these voters. Biden/Harris have had the ability to close the borders just as Donald Trump was able to do. THEY WANT OPEN BORDERS!

Housing Costs. The cost of new homes is up over 30% since Biden/Harris took office. Their reckless government spending caused the highest inflation in 40 years. Soaring fuel prices have increase the production cost and shipping cost of all building materials. Inflation caused a surge in mortgage rates from 3% under Trump to over 7% under Biden/Harris. Their solution–to start another big government program of taking money from working Americans and give it to first time home buyers.

Abortion. There is nothing in the Constitution that addresses abortion as a right. In fact, the Constitution specifically states that if an issue is not specified as the responsibility of the federal government then it must be left to the states. That is exactly what the Supreme Court’s ruling against Roe vs Wade rightfully concluded. The Democrats do not want to follow the Constitution–they want a federal law on abortion. Kamala Harris has promised to remove the filibuster rule and pack the court in order to accomplish this objective. They also want to avoid the reality that terminating a child that can live on its own with proper medical care, is not murder.

As in any debate, there are important issues that were not addressed. For example, the increasing crime rates and the destruction of our cities by failing to enforce the law. Anyone want to visit San Francisco? I do not. Recent reports show that due to the Biden/Harris open border policy, 425,000 criminals, 13,000 convicted murderers, and 16,000 sexual assault offenders were released into this country. The Democrats abuse of the law to go after their political opponents should alarm all Americans. No president has ever been indicted while in office or out of office other than President Trump. Yet, they continue to say that he is the threat to democracy when they are the real threat!

Let’s face reality. Harris/Walz are the most radical socialists ever to run for president and vice president. Their policies will make America a weak, failing, socialist country. Choice: big government socialism or traditional American free enterprise and individual freedom. Easy decision actually.

The Impact of the National Debt

Posted on by

Author: R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D

We, the American taxpayers, need to be aware of the soaring national debt; primarily because we will ultimately suffer the consequences of this out-of-control spending. Let’s take a look at the facts. I strongly suggest that you sit down as you read this.

Much of the following data was obtained from the website www.us.debtclock.org as of the end of August 2024. The total debt is currently 35.2 trillion dollars. This debt, by far the highest of any country in history, is increasing at the rate of 1 trillion dollars every three months. This amounts to $268,000 per taxpayer. The debt to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) ratio is 122% as compared to 35% in 1980. This is comparable to an individual having a debt that is 122% higher than their total assets and income. The interest alone on the national debt now amounts to 918 billion dollars per year, which is more than the entire military defense budget. This is clearly unsustainable.

The impact of federal spending on inflation is equally alarming. Compared to the year 2000, the price of essentials is truly shocking. For example, the average price of a new home is now $406,000 as compared to $166,000 in the year 2000. New cars now average $49,000 as compared to $22,000; annual healthcare now averages $15,000 as compared to $5,000; college tuition now averages $27,000 per year compared $11,000. Contrast these dramatic increases to the increase in median annual income that is now $39,000 compared to $32,000 in the year 2000. Clearly, the standard of living of the average American, especially the young, has diminished significantly, especially when you add the $268,000 we all owe on the national debt!

As we face the upcoming election, we need to evaluate the impact the Democrat and Republican platforms will have on the national debt and inflation. The Democrat platform, as far as we can tell, includes price controls, $25,000 gifts to first time home buyers, increases in corporate tax rates, allowing the Trump tax cuts to expire, a tax on unrealized capital gains, transferring student loan debt to others, and a wealth tax. History shows that none of these proposals will reduce the national debt or inflation–they will only increase government spending and reduce the incentive of the average person or corporation to invest.  Couple this with the money being spent to support illegal aliens, and the problem only worsens. For example, price controls lead to shortages in supplies and result in price increases. The Republican platform includes efforts to reduce the cost of energy by eliminating costly green energy programs and expanding the use of fossil fuels and nuclear power, reducing excessive government regulations, incentives to increase investments, and returning manufacturing to this country. Decreasing the cost of energy is essential to reducing inflation. The national debt crisis can only be solved by reducing the size of the federal government (e.g. abolishing the federal Department of Education and cutting the budgets of all federal agencies) and growing the economy by encouraging investment.

We have a very clear choice in the upcoming election. The fate of the economic survival of this country is on the ballot. Time to face reality.

When Green Energy Just Isn’t Green

Posted on by

On Friday, an ABC affiliate in Iowa posted an article about a windmill on a farmer’s property that was struck by lightning. This is the third time the windmill has been struck by lightning in a year and a half. A county ordinance requires that any windmill that is not producing energy must be taken down in a year. The owners of the turbine are responsible for taking the windmill down, but the farmer is responsible for the damage caused by the windmill fire.

The article notes:

While the turbine’s owners have to take care of that, the damage left behind is the responsibility of the land owner.

After the wind turbine’s blade fell to the ground, debris from the turbine coated the surrounding farmland.

“I don’t really know how you ever clean it up, especially since the longer you wait the harder it is to cleanup. And since there’s so much still here I don’t know what we’re gonna do with it,” said Sally Freeman, the farm’s owner.

Freeman is now dealing with her third turbine fire, and she’s learned from experience that cleanup takes forever.

…Previous cleanups left Freeman’s cornfield littered with wires and fiberglass, and the industrial equipment used to remove the last turbine is still taking up space.

All the fiberglass and waste in the field means she can’t use the land, a loss that loss costs a lot of money.

Green energy is not quite ready for prime time. A lot more research and development is needed before green energy becomes a viable alternative to fossil fuel. Getting the government out of the energy sector and letting the free market prevail would help encourage the research and development needed!

Didn’t Anyone Think This Through?

Posted on by

On Tuesday, The American Thinker posted an article about the demand for copper that the switch to electric vehicles would create.

The article reports:

A team of University of Michigan researchers recently discovered that the amount of copper needed to keep up with the manufactured demand created by the globalist E.V. agenda is “essentially impossible” to generate. On May 16th, Engineering and Technology published an article by Tanya Weaver which covered the results of the new study:

Copper cannot be mined quickly enough to keep up with current policies requiring the transition to electric vehicles (EVs), according to a University of Michigan study.

…

The study found that renewable energy’s copper needs would outstrip what copper mines can produce at the current rate. Between 2018 and 2050, the world will need to mine 115% more copper than has been mined in all of human history up until 2018 just to meet current copper needs without considering the green energy transition.

To meet the copper needs of electrifying the global vehicle fleet, as many as six new large copper mines must be brought online annually over the next several decades. About 40% of the production from new mines will be required for EV-related grid upgrades.

So what exactly do these numbers look like, in context? Well here’s this, also from Weaver:

[A]n EV requires three to five times more copper than petrol or diesel cars, not to mention the copper required for upgrades to the electricity grid.

‘A normal Honda Accord needs about 40 pounds of copper. The same battery electric Honda Accord needs almost 200 pounds of copper,’ said Adam Simon, professor of earth and environmental studies at the University of Michigan.

‘We show in the paper that the amount of copper needed is essentially impossible for mining companies to produce.’

Wow. Wind mill blades that don’t biodegrade filling up our landfills, solar panels made with toxic chemicals, and now not enough copper to be green. Can we please just go back to fossil fuel. It works and can be used in a way to minimize pollution.

Following The Science?

Posted on by

On Friday, Just the News posted an article about some recent comments by Representative. Cori Bush, D-Mo, about the causes of recent problems with the American electric grid.

The article reports:

A House Oversight and Accountability subcommittee hearing Tuesday examined threats to the security and reliability of the U.S. electricity grid, which can lead to more blackouts.

While reliability assessments regularly find that increased reliance on wind and solar, increased demand from electrification, an underbuilt electrical delivery network, and rapid retirements of on-demand generators are creating an increased risk of blackouts, Rep. Cori Bush, D-Mo., ranking member of the subcommittee, instead blamed other sources of the problem, namely, white supremacy. She also threw in “climate change” for good measure.

The article notes:

Fallon (Pat Fallon, R-Texas, chairman of the Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Energy Policy and Regulatory Affairs) also talked about threats from cyberattacks by “foreign adversaries” meant to cripple the grid. “It’s critically important for Congress to engage in serious discussions to identify the risks to this reliability and safeguard our grid against threats,” Fallon said.

He said many of these risks are caused by the federal government, including the attempts to get rid of all fossil fuels, which he said are needed for providing consistent power generations. He also pointed to regulations that are increasing demands on the grid, including more electrification of appliances and heat, as well as electric vehicle mandates.

Bush, in her opening statement, argued that the problems of electricity reliability were unrelated to wind and solar. Fossil fuels, Bush said, were the problem, and they were especially harming non-white people.

“Decades of pollution and overuse and over reliance on fossil fuels have disproportionately harmed black and brown communities in St. Louis, and throughout the world,” Bush said.

If we truly want to know what the problem is with our electric grid, we only have to look to Germany and Spain–both countries attempted to build an energy infrastructure based solely on green energy, and both countries discovered that was not possible. The sun does not shine all of the time, and the wind does not blow all of the time. Reliable back-up sources of energy are needed. It is time to take an honest look at natural gas and nuclear energy as the path forward to lowering pollution. It is also time to acknowledge that although America needs to make an effort in the direction of cleaner energy, until China and India stop building coal plants, our efforts are insignificant.

Standing Up to the Climate Hoax

Posted on by

Author: R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D

It is becoming increasing apparent that not only is there no scientific evidence that manmade CO2 emissions are causing climate change, but that this hoax is being used by the Democrat Marxists to control us and limit our freedoms. It is also being used to enrich the elite at the expense the taxpayers and to raise energy bills dramatically higher.

A recent article in the Epoch Times revealed that the United Nation’s Convention on Climate Change deliberately altered their report so that any observed climate change would be falsely blamed on mankind’s burning of fossil fuels. Several scientists who objected to this unsubstantiated claim were ostracized and removed from the committee. World renowned physicist, Frederick Seitz, wrote in an article that he had never in his extensive career, including as President of the National Academy of Sciences, ever seen such corruption in the scientific review process and that no study to date has demonstrated that climate change is due to mankind’s use of fossil fuels. Recent reports by qualified experts have reported that rising CO2 levels are offset by increased plant growth and that CO2 levels do not increate warming, but rather the opposite. That is, rising climate temperature cycles caused by factors such as solar activity, produce an increase in CO2 and not the reverse.

So where does all this bring us? The only rational conclusion (in spite of what the environmental extremists and those making a huge profit from solar and wind farms) is that there is absolutely no need to restrict the use of fossil fuels. It is estimated that that the current effort to replace fossil fuels is costing the average American over $2,000 per year and rising. This will devastate our economy for absolutely no valid reason.

Here in North Carolina, we can fight back against this leftist agenda in at least two ways. First, repeal HB 951 passed into law in 2021 that requires electricity generating power plants to reduce their carbon emissions by 70% by 2030 and achieve carbon emission neutrality by 2050. Second, pass a law prohibiting the construction of offshore wind farms near Kitty Hawk and Bald Head Island that is being pushed by Governor Cooper. It should be noted, that solar and wind farm components are obtained from China while they continue to construct coal burning plants at an alarming rate.

The Republican controlled General Assembly needs to step up to the plate and stop this disastrous program before it is too late. Any candidate for office who does not recognize the danger posed by the Left’s extremist environmental program and is not willing to stand up against it does not deserve our support.

Destructive Carbon Emission Mandates

Posted on by

Author: R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D

The Marxist Left is out to destroy our country. Period. Anyone who does not recognize this is either blind or part of the problem. Karl Marx in his book, The Communist Manifesto, stresses the importance of finding an issue that allows the government to control the people. Well, the Democrat Marxists have found that issue: the manmade CO2 climate change hoax. Regrettably, we have some Republican legislators who have been going along with this non-scientific, unproven belief that threatens to destroy our country and our standard of living.

Recent declarations by respected climate scientists are increasingly showing that there is no evidence that CO2 emissions have any impact on climate conditions. In fact, they have argued that increasing CO2 levels enhance plant growth essential to man’s survival. The climate has changed dramatically over millions of years as a result of natural causes such as solar flares, earth orbit, tilt of the earth, ocean currents, and other changes having nothing to do with man’s actions. Climate change, whatever the causes, is not an existential threat to mankind. What is a threat are the extreme actions being taken to combat a non-existing problem. No modern civilization can exist without adequate, inexpensive energy from fossil fuels. We are committing social suicide by going along with the elimination of fossil fuels.

Let’s look at some things occurring in North Carolina that are heading us down the road to economic catastrophe. First, in 2021 the General Assembly passed and Governor Cooper signed HB 951 which established the requirement to cut carbon emissions from electric power plants 70% by 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality by 2050. This will require massive expenditures on solar and wind farms and the construction of massive battery centers to store electricity, since wind and solar are intermittent sources. Who makes the solar panels, the wind mills, and the battery components? You guessed it; our global enemy China. It is estimated that the average consumer’s electric bill will quadruple and there will be massive electricity shortages. Germany, which tried to rely on solar and wind, had to reactivate their coal fired plants to handle the demand for electricity this winter. The cost of electricity in Germany is three times higher than in the United States. Meanwhile, we have the technology to have the cleanest coal fired plants in the world and have a 200 year supply of coal; which we are now sending to China.

Second, the Cooper regime is proceeding with the construction of offshore wind farms. One off Kitty Hawk and the other of the southern coast near Bald Head Island. Again, these will be built by foreign countries and use Chinese components. Just think how vulnerable these wind mills will be to attack in the event of war.

I hope I have made my case that these actions are a real threat to the citizens of North Carolina; and all for no legitimate reason. Manmade Climate Change is a Marxist hoax! We need to pressure the General Assembly to (1) repeal HB 951 establishing CO2 emission mandates; (2) block the construction of wind farms off the coast; (3) remove all state tax incentives for solar and wind energy projects. Before you cast your vote this year, find our where each candidate stands on this issue. It is a looming crisis that must be stopped.

Who Are The Zero Net Carbon Rules For?

Posted on by

Obviously the zero net carbon rules are not for the people who recently attended the Climate Control Summit.

On Tuesday, The U.K. Daily Mail posted the following:

JOSH HAMMER: A climate summit to turn you green with nausea: Kamala and Kerry flew on SEPARATE jets… the host is a Sultan oil boss… and it’s all held in Dubai – where they air condition the desert. What a net zero charade!

Keep in mind that these are the people who want to take away our gas stoves and air-conditioning and tell us to eat bugs while they jet around the world and eat Colby beef.

The article notes:

The United Nations‘ 28th climate change conference is melting down faster than an iceberg in the Arctic.

It’s a collection of the world’s rich and influential who’ve set out to save all of humanity by getting rid of fossil fuels. But apparently, the engines of this international powwow don’t run well on bull manure.

John Kerry, the failed presidential candidate now moonlighting as President Biden’s ‘special presidential envoy for climate’, is leading the American delegation for the COP28 summit.

True to form, Kerry, our Bay State plutocrat, reportedly jetted in on a carbon-belching private plane.

And Kamala Harris, our flailing vice president, deemed the meeting urgent enough to justify the greenhouse gases necessary to fuel Air Force Two and fly her to the lavish affair as well.

Would it be too much to ask them to ride share?

The article also notes:

Kerry is a hypocrite of world-historical proportions. He is a fabulously wealthy man (through marriage) who flies around the world aboard gas-guzzling planes to useless junkets to admonish the plebeians who drive to work in gas-guzzling cars. And to top it all off, this weekend in Dubai, Kerry had the chutzpah to preach that all coal plants must be shuttered posthaste.

His reason? Coal plants are killing people daily.

You know what else kills people daily, and on an order of magnitude considerably larger than climate change? Poverty. And there is no more time-proven, efficient method for alleviating poverty than ensuring the widespread availability of affordable energy.

Please follow the link to read the entire article. The author makes a number of very important points.

Board of Education Resolutions 

Posted on by

Author:  R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D    

As I have mentioned in prior articles, the local Boards of Education are the only elected body that we have direct influence over when it comes to our county public school systems. The State Board of Education is made up of appointed members. It is incumbent on us to make sure that the local Boards of Education members know how we want the schools to operate. We can let them know by attending the Board meetings, contacting individual board members, or by formal resolutions directing them to take specific actions.  An example of the latter is the four resolutions that will be presented to the Craven County Board of Election on Thursday November 16 at their public meeting.    

The four resolutions consist of the following:  Resolution #1:   Removing identity focus (i.e. Critical Race Theory) from the curriculum in the schools in all grades. Removing all books, etc., that advocate CRT.  American is not a racist country and should not be portrayed as such. People should be judged by the content of their character and achievement and not their ethnic/racial identity.  Resolution #2:  Removing Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI) teaching and practices from the schools. DEI is based on Marxist principles that advocate equal outcome instead of the American principle of equal opportunity. This teaching not only breeds distrust and hostility between the races, but undermines the notion that everyone should strive to achieve their best and should be rewarded appropriately.  Resolution #3:  Removing transgender instruction. The notion that any student can choose their gender rather than live consistent with their gender at birth is destructive and amounts to child abuse.  All children should be addressed by the pronoun consistent with their biological gender at birth and any child exhibiting gender confusion should be referred to their parent(s)–not to school counselors.  Resoution #4:   Climate Change. Children in public school are being indoctrinated with the unproven belief that climate change is being caused by man’s burning of fossil fuels and that the earth will become uninhabitable if drastic action like wind and solar are not implemented. This has become the ideology of the Left and anyone challenging their radical beliefs is labeled a “climate denier”.  This resolution would require that both sides of this issue be covered as part of regular science classes and not used as indoctrination. The climate has never been static and has always been changing. They are frightening our children with their unproven ideology. 

Most clear thinking conservatives will agree that the above issues need to be removed from the public schools. They represent a communist inspired threat to our way of life and American values. The public schools should be focusing on doing a better job teaching traditional academic skills.  For example, the recent report about the Craven County Schools showed that 57% of students are not reading at expected grade level and a whopping 65% are not achieving at the expected grade levels in math. Meanwhile, it is costing the  taxpayers close to $12,000 per year per student. It is high time that the Board of Education force the school administration to focus on improving academic performance and stop indoctrinating our children.  If you agree you should let your Board member know. It should be noted that these four resolutions were drafted by the Craven County 20th Republican Precinct, and endorsed by the Craven County GOP Executive Committee and the Craven County Republican Men’s Club.     

A Very Short-Sighted Plan

Posted on by

There is a lot of climate change panic going on right now. It’s summer, and it is hot. In some places it is hotter than it has been for a long time. However, I would hesitate to say that it is hotter than it has ever been (we still haven’t seen plants growing on the Greenland Ice Cap where plant life fossils have been found in the past). Since everyone is sweating and complaining about the heat, this is a really good time to talk about global warming and blame man for its existence. We can choose to overlook climate cycles and simply complain about the heat. The Biden administration is planning to take full advantage of our summer heat wave.

On Tuesday, Townhall reported the following:

President Joe Biden’s Special Coordinator for International Energy Affairs Amos Hochstein made an appearance on CNN Tuesday morning as gas prices continue to bust the budgets of American families. 

During his remarks, Hochstein said the White House does not want oil and gas companies embarking on new projects and that they are working to accelerate the current, extremely painful and unaffordable transition to alternative energy. 

Has it occurred to the brilliant people in the Biden administration that we are more likely to find a way to turn fossil fuel into almost entirely clean energy than we are to be able to run a country on green energy? When you evaluate the push toward green energy by our political leaders, it’s a good idea to look at their stock portfolios and investments as well as their personal actions (private jets, oceanfront property, carbon footprint, etc.). In 2010 I wrote an article about the closing of the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) which was doing carbon trading. What had happened was that the Obama administration had not been successful in passing Cap and Trade legislation and the trading of carbon credits was not going to happen. A lot of liberal Congressmen lost money they had invested in the CCX when it stopped carbon trading. That alone should tell you all you need to know about the dreaded climate change.

The article at Townhall notes:

“It’s about making a choice between what is the short term and the medium term so we can make sure we have enough oil and gas to support us through the transition and what are the kind of steps we don’t want the oil and gas industry to take that would have longterm consequences when we don’t want new major projects that would take 20-30 years that would become profitable,” Hochstein said. “So we have to make that differentiation to make sure the American consumer has what it needs to grow, grow our economy and the global economy, but not take steps and endanger the climate work that we’re trying to do to make sure that we’re on a better footing to accelerate the transition.”

The political elites in America will find a way to avoid the suffering that will result from their policies. Meanwhile, Americans who are simply trying to work, raise families, and generally be good citizens will suffer. The only way to deal with the Biden administration is to limit their power by placing conservatives (I didn’t say Republicans) in Congress in 2022 and electing a conservative President in 2024.

 

Making A Bad Situation Worse

Posted on by

During the 2020 presidential campaign, former President Obama warned us about the ability of former Vice-President Biden’s ability to mess things up. I am not posting the actual quote because this blog is family friendly, but you can find it in a search engine if you want to read it. It begins, “Don’t underestimate Joe’s ability…” On Tuesday, The Daily Caller posted an article that illustrates that point.

The article reports:

President Joe Biden’s budget proposes to scrap more than $45 billion in fossil fuel subsidies, his administration’s latest attack on the beleaguered industry.

The White House budget will remove more than a dozen fossil fuel industry tax credits, increasing the federal government’s revenue by an estimated $45.2 billion between 2023-2032, according to the proposal published Monday. The administration explained that the proposal was written to prevent further fossil fuel investment.

“These oil, gas, and coal tax preferences distort markets by encouraging more investment in the fossil fuel sector than would occur under a neutral system,” the Department of the Treasury wrote in its general budget explanation.

“This market distortion is detrimental to long-term energy security and is also inconsistent with the Administration’s policy of supporting a clean energy economy, reducing our reliance on oil, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions,” the department added.

…“This budget is basically a $45 billion tax increase on the oil and gas industry,” Mike Palicz, the federal affairs manager at Americans for Tax Reform, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “This is more targeting oil and gas for provisions that are just good tax policy that any industry should be able to take advantage of.”

“This is a clear effort to continue to try and paint (the oil and gas industry) as the villain,” he continued.

The article concludes:

Republicans, who have doubled down on calls for the Biden administration to incentivize domestic energy production in recent months, slammed his tax proposal Monday.

“President Biden wants to spend more taxpayer dollars on his green energy schemes instead of increasing American energy production to solve the energy crisis he created,” Wyoming Sen. John Barrasso, the top Republican on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said in a statement. “The president’s priorities could not be more out of touch with families in Wyoming and across the country.”

“This budget is dead on arrival. Republicans will focus on what Americans care about most: national security, energy security, and economic security,” he continued. “That means tackling inflation, unleashing American energy production, and keeping Americans safe.”

The White House didn’t respond to a request for comment.

If by some horrible miracle this budget passes, every Congressman who votes for it should be voted out of office in the midterms. The average middle-class American cannot afford what will happen to gas prices if this passes. The average middle-class American cannot afford to buy an electric car–regardless of the government rebate. This is an attack on the average American.

Another Unsung Accomplishment By President Trump

Posted on by

Hot Air is reporting today that America reduced its greenhouse gas emissions in 2019.

The article reports:

Increased natural gas consumption helped bring down U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2019, according to a recent report from the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Chances are you haven’t heard. That’s because the mainstream media and environmentalists insist on condemning the Trump administration for championing fossil fuels even though the United States is doing a better job at reducing emissions than many other countries that signed the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement.

The public can credit much of this success to the fracking boom, which has made natural gas much more plentiful. Cheap, abundant natural gas has gradually been displacing coal, which emits about twice as much carbon dioxide. A recent Rhodium Group study found that coal-fired power generation dropped by 18% last year, the lowest level since 1975.

The article concludes:

Meanwhile, thanks to a huge abundance of cheap natural gas (generated via fracking), America reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 2% in 2019 after previously cutting them by the same amount the prior year. In fact, U.S. emissions went down by 12% between 2005 and 2017. By next year, American emissions are projected to be the lowest they have been since 1991, a time when the population was much lower than it is now.

By comparison, how are the “good” countries who signed on to the Paris accord doing? As it turns out, France Germany and the United Kingdom all missed their emissions reduction goals last year. Germany’s emissions actually increased after they started gutting their nuclear power program and were forced to restart some coal-fired plants to keep the lights turned on.

The only countries that are given high marks for meeting the climate agreement’s objectives are very small nations with low populations and not very much economic or industrial activity. So who are the real bad guys in this story? Before any global consortium starts trying to dictate to us how to handle our greenhouse gas emissions, perhaps they should get their own houses in order and follow our example. Rather than just talking about reducing emissions, we’re actually doing it. And we didn’t need a treaty with anyone else to get the job done.

The reason the success of America in reducing greenhouse gases is not heralded is that the success goes against the purpose of the climate change agenda–it doesn’t allow tyrannical countries to shake down democracies and republics.The goal of the climate change rhetoric is to redistribute the world’s wealth–to take money from countries that have prospered under the free market and give it to countries where the government controls the economy. America’s success in reducing greenhouse gas emissions simply does not fit the desired template.

This Is Truly Sad

Posted on by

Yesterday The Washington Examiner posted an article about a recent comment by former Vice-President Joe Biden.

The article reports:

2020 Democratic front-runner Joe Biden said miners need to find “jobs of the future” when talking about transitioning the economy away from fossil fuels.

“Anybody who can go down 300 to 3,000 feet in a mine can sure as hell learn to program as well,” Biden said Monday during a campaign event in New Hampshire. “Anybody who can throw coal into a furnace can learn how to program, for god’s sake!”

On Sunday, Biden also said he wanted to throw fossil fuel executives in prison for damaging the environment.

“Put them in jail,” he said. “I’m not joking about this.”

The comment came after the former vice president said that there would not be a single new coal plant made in the U.S. earlier this month. During the December Democratic debate, Biden said he was willing to end hundreds of thousands of jobs in the fossil fuel industry.

I can’t believe that anyone who listens to what he says would vote for this man.

How Does Economic Growth Influence Your Vote?

Posted on by

During the Democrat debate last night, former Vice-President Joe Biden made a very interesting statement.

Townhall reported the following:

Former Vice President Joe Biden stated he is more than willing to “sacrifice” the ongoing economic growth, resulting in the displacement of thousands of blue collar workers, in order to shift towards a more green economy. 

“The answer is yes, because the opportunity, the opportunity for those workers to transition to high paying jobs, as Tom said, is real,” Biden said during the sixth Democratic presidential debate on Thursday.

“We’re the only country that’s taken great, great crises and turned them into enormous opportunities. I’ve met with the union leaders. For example, we should in fact be making sure right now that every new building built is energy contained, that it doesn’t leak energy, that in fact we should be providing tax credits for people to be able to make their homes turn to solar power,” he continued.

Instead of fossil fuel jobs, Biden said there is an opportunity to install 550,000 charging stations across the United States so that the country can own the electric vehicle market. 

“There are so many things we can do. We have to make sure we explain it to those people who are displaced, that their skills are going to be needed for the new opportunities,” Biden added.

I wonder if the former Vice-President understands what it will be like for those workers as he ‘transitions’ the economy. I wonder if he is planning to make their house payments and their car payments. I wonder if he remembers the hardships the Obama administration caused to the coal industry workers in West Virginia. We really cannot afford to elect a President who plans on taking jobs away for the good of the people.

Some Presidential Candidates Don’t Understand Economics

Posted on by

The Gateway Pundit posted an article today about a recent tweet by Elizabeth Warren.

This is the tweet:

The article includes the following quote from an article posted at The Heartland Institute website on September 19, 2018:

A 2015 Harvard Business School/Boston Consulting Group study estimates fracking supported 2.7 million jobs in 2014, with the potential to grow to 3.8 million jobs by 2030. Similarly, PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) prepared a report for the American Petroleum Institute that estimates the oil and natural gas industries supported 10.3 million jobs in 2015, an increase of about 500,00 compared to 2011.  The RAND Corporation projects the industries will support an additional 1.9 million jobs by 2035.  By the same year, a 2012 IHS Markit study estimates fracking will have created 3.5 million jobs. 

A 2016 Chamber of Commerce study projects that if the fracking revolution of the previous decade had not occurred, 4.3 million jobs would not have been created, the U.S. economy would be $500 billion smaller and residential natural gas prices would be 28 percent higher. 

There is also the matter of national security. America now has the freedom to choose its friends without worrying whether or not our oil supply will be cut off. Some of us remember the 1970’s gas lines and high price of gasoline.

The world economy (that includes America) is currently based on fossil fuels. Countries who can supply reasonable priced energy attract manufacturing and businesses which create jobs. The end the production of fossil fuel and fracking in America is to reduce America to the status of a third-world (or lower) country.

Following The Money On Renewable Energy

Posted on by

John Hinderaker at Power Line Blog posted an article yesterday about the cost of the a green energy proposal in Minnesota. The article illustrates what will happen if this sort of program is attempted on a national scale.

The article reports:

Today Center of the American Experiment released a groundbreaking paper that addresses a relatively mild “green” proposal: legislation that would raise the renewable energy standard in Minnesota from 25% to 50%. Two of my staffers have been working on the paper for months, drawing on publicly available (but rarely consulted) sources to understand what would be necessary to achieve that 50% goal, what it would cost, how it would impact the state’s economy, and what effect it would have on global temperatures.

The paper is titled “Doubling Down on Failure: How a 50 Percent by 2030 Renewable Energy Standard Would Cost Minnesota $80.2 Billion.” With appendices, it runs to 75 pages. I am not aware of a similarly comprehensive analysis that has been done of any “green” proposal at either the state or the federal level. The paper is fully transparent: all assumptions, data and calculations are clearly set forth. The appendices are largely spread sheets. If anyone disagrees with the report’s conclusions, it should be easy to identify where and why those disagreements arise. You can read the paper here.

The article cites a few highlights from the report:

* Building and maintaining “green” wind and solar facilities, along with transmission lines and necessary natural gas complementary plants (to provide electricity when the wind isn’t blowing, i.e. 60% of the time), would cost $80.2 billion through 2050. For a state like Minnesota, that number is out of the question.

* Every household in Minnesota would pay an average of $1,200 per year, in 2016 dollars, through higher electricity rates and otherwise.

* Electricity prices would rise by 40.2%.

* Electricity-intensive industries like mining, agriculture, manufacturing and health care would be hurt the most. Once again, urban greenies are hammering rural, and physically productive, America. [That last is my commentary, not found in the executive summary.]

* Higher electricity prices are a dead loss that will reduce spending in other areas as household budgets are squeezed. Therefore, according to economist John Phelan, using the generally accepted IMPLAN software, achieving the 50% renewable goal would cost Minnesota 21,000 permanent jobs, and reduce the state’s GDP by $3.1 billion annually. It is one small step on the road to Venezuela.

This really does not sound like a good idea. The push for green energy has always been about government power–whether at the state or federal level. It is interesting that the political left has chosen to attack fossil fuels just at the time when America has achieved energy independence because of fossil fuels and fossil fuels are driving our economic success. Economic success is the enemy of those who espouse socialism–if people are become prosperous, why would they want something different?

No, The Oceans Did Not Begin To Rise With The Advent Of Fossil Fuel

Posted on by

Yesterday The Washington Post posted an article about some new information on climate change and rising oceans. The facts simply do not support the idea of the catastrophic sea-level rise that those who practice the religion of global warming have predicted.

The article reports:

In her latest paper, Ms. Curry  (Climatologist Judith Curry) found that the current rising sea levels are not abnormal, nor can they be pinned on human-caused climate change, arguing that the oceans have been on a “slow creep” for the last 150 years — before the post-1950 climb in carbon-dioxide emissions.

“There are numerous reasons to think that projections of 21st-century sea level rise from human-caused global warming are too high, and some of the worst-case scenarios strain credulity,” the 80-page report found.

Her Nov. 25 report, “Sea Level and Climate Change,” which has been submitted for publication, also found that sea levels were actually higher in some regions during the Holocene Climate Optimum — about 5,000 to 7,000 years ago.

“After several centuries of sea level decline following the Medieval Warm Period, sea levels began to rise in the mid-19th century,” the report concluded. “Rates of global mean sea level rise between 1920 and 1950 were comparable to recent rates. It is concluded that recent change is within the range of natural sea-level variability over the past several thousand years.”

Such conclusions are unlikely to find favor with the global-warming movement, or within the academic climate “consensus,” where some experts have predicted that mean sea level could rise by five to 10 feet by the end of the 21st century.

The article concludes:

She said she doesn’t believe her findings on sea-level rise are particularly controversial, saying that they jibe with those of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

“It’s pretty well-documented in the literature,” said Ms. Curry. “I frame the problem a little different, and my conclusions are a little different than some people, but this has been pretty well-documented and supported.”

Ms. Curry left academia in January 2017 for a host of reasons, one of which was the “craziness” associated with the politics of the climate-change debate. She moved to Reno and has since devoted her energies to her company, Climate Forecast Applications Network.

Her clients include the federal agencies and companies in the energy and insurance business seeking answers on the risks associated with climate change. After a lifetime spent in the ivory tower, she said she finds the real-world work rewarding.

“When there’s something that really depends on the outcome and the understanding of this information, rather than just using it as a political tool to drive policy, it’s really a different ballgame,” she said. “People making real decisions, people spending real money — their companies could be hurt by getting things really wrong in either direction. So that’s what I’m trying to help with.”

Given that nobody wants to be labeled a “denier,” what does she prefer to be called? That’s an easy one.

“I’m a scientist. And I regard it as my job to continually reevaluate the evidence and reconsider my conclusions. That’s my job,” Ms. Curry said. “And some people don’t really want scientists. They want political activists. But if you want a scientist, give me a call.”

Maybe at some point we can end the hysteria and get back to science.

He’s Back

Posted on by

The Washington Examiner is reporting today that former Vice-President Al Gore wants to ‘decarbonize’ the world’s energy system.

The article reports:

Al Gore wants to reverse modernity and save the world from itself through an elimination of its fossil-fuel-based energy system. During the final week of April, his newly created Energy Transitions Commission released a document setting forth a fool’s-errand pathway to “decarbonize” the world’s energy system.

…But, don’t worry! The all-in estimated cost to re-engineer humanity is only a mere $15 trillion—enough money to give every man, woman, and child in the United States more than $46,000.

Al Gore has been demonizing fossil fuels and attempting to marginalize all those involved in the traditional energy sector since 1988, the year the climate-change movement was rolled out in Washington, D.C., which happened to correspond with a nationwide heatwave and with Yellowstone in flames. Ever since, Gore’s pathway to political power and personal riches has been a successful one, to be sure, but his multi-trillion-dollar effort today is his most sophisticated effort to date. Unfortunately for him, it will also fail, because what he’s selling in his “new” proposal is bad for the people being asked to embrace it.

The plan suggested by the former Vice-President would tax carbon use at $50 per ton and gradually increase to $100 a ton. This would essentially destroy the market for the continuing development of fossil fuel. Since the world’s economy runs on fossil fuel, this tax would be devastating to the world’s economy.

I need to explain that I am concerned about keeping planet earth as clean as possible and providing the best living conditions for everyone living on the planet, but I don’t believe taxing carbon is the answer. I am also not impressed by those complaining about the carbon footprints of most Americans while they live in mansions and travel in private jets to climate conferences??!!

In August 2014, The Daily Caller posted an article which stated:

The Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed global warming regulations aren’t just about stemming global temperature rises — according to agency’s chief, they are also about “justice” for “communities of color.”

“Carbon pollution standards are an issue of justice,” said EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy in a teleconference call with environmental activists. “If we want to protect communities of color, we need to protect them from climate change.”

If you truly want to protect communities of color, you need to reform the welfare culture in those communities, and help the residents of those communities obtain the education and tools they need to be successful. You need to restore the two-parent family in all communities and bring back the values that made America great–hard work, equal opportunity (not equal results), honesty, respect for the law, and the concept of working together to help everyone reach their potential. We need to teach all Americans that nothing is free and that you can choose not to be a victim.

Meanwhile, hopefully Al Gore’s carbon tax will be dead on arrive in Congress and at the EPA.

 

The Unintended Consequences Of Green Energy

Posted on by

Wind energy has its positive traits. However, the wind does not always blow twenty-four hours a day, and a back-up source of energy is required. There are also other consequences.

Yesterday The Daily Caller posted an article about the impact of a wind farm off the coast of Block Island.

The article reports:

The fishing industry is worried the first offshore wind farm to come online in the U.S. will ruin their way of life and kill jobs.

An offshore wind turbine three miles off the coast of Block Island, Rhode Island, will kill large numbers of fish and potentially drive hundreds of small coastal enterprises out of business, according to a fishing industry representative. Fishermen fear offshore wind turbines will continue to pop up along Atlantic Coast, eventually make it impossible to be a commercial fisherman.

“This will absolutely cost jobs in the U.S.,” Bonnie Brady, director of the Long Island Commercial Fishing Association, told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “If New York Governor [Andrew] Cuomo’s administration gets what it wants from offshore wind that’s thousands of fishing jobs. It’ll rip the coastal communities apart.”

The article further reports:

“Block Island has messed up gill netters and trawlers,” Brady said. “They’re not going to certain areas because its a risk to the boat. The five turbines they put in place there are ruining one of the most productive bottoms around.”

Estimates from the liberal Brookings Institution suggest the U.S. fishing industry supports 1.5 million jobs and generated $90 billion annually.

“These are great jobs,” Brady told TheDCNF. “You can make a really good living working on a fishery. It is a solidly middle class life and a really good trades-job. We have more growth potential for fishing jobs in the U.S. than anywhere else, but we’re being removed from our fishing grounds because of offshore wind.”

There may come a time when ocean-based wind power makes sense, but that time is not now. In addition to the unreliability of the electricity produced by wind and the damage to the fishing industry, the cost of wind-powered electricity is about for to six times the cost of conventionally generated electricity. It may also turn out that in our rush to save the environment with green energy, we have damaged areas of the environment we chose to overlook because of political fads.

 

 

 

The Law Of Unintended Consequences At Work

Posted on by

One of the problems with the idea of ridding ourselves from fossil fuels is that we really haven’t perfected the alternatives. Our economy runs on fossil fuels, and until we develop a safe, clean, inexpensive, efficient, and reliable alternative, our economy will continue to depend on fossil fuel. In 2014, I posted a story explaining what happened when Spain attempted to switch over to green energy. As far as I know, the only country in the world that has successfully made the switch to green energy is Iceland. They have been able to generate large amounts of electricity because of the volcanoes the island sits on. Recently scientists have discovered that there is a serious down side to solar energy (other than the birds that have been fried while flying over solar panels).

On March 1st, The Daily Caller reported that the construction of solar panels generates Nitrogen trifluoride (NF3).

The article reports:

Nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) is a key chemical agent used to manufacture photovoltaic cells for solar panels, suggesting government subsidies and tax credits for solar panels may be a driving factor behind the 1,057 percent in NF3 over the last 25 years. In comparison, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions only rose by about 5 percent during the same time period.

NF3 emissions have rapidly increased in Asia as well due to its rapidly growing solar panel market, and researchers think that many nations are under-reporting their NF3 emissions by roughly a factor of 4.5.

NF3 emissions are 17,200 times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas over a 100 year time period.

NF3 is also used in the production of semiconductors and LCD flat screens.

The article also points out:

The 1,057 percent increase in US annual emissions of NF3 from 1990 to 2015 compares to an increase of 5.6 percent in carbon dioxide emissions, according to EPA data in a recently-published draft of a new report

There is, however, some good news. The study concluded that the more modern solar panels will emit less NF3 and will have a positive impact on the environment. This conclusion was reached by considering the amount of CO2 that would not be released when the solar panels were used. After some adjusting of the numbers, solar panels could be shown to have a positive impact on the environment. It might be a good idea to keep in mind at this point that a good statistician can make any group of numbers say anything he wants them to say.

If It Won’t Work, Why Is The Government Funding It?

Posted on by

One of the biggest problems in the American economy right now is crony capitalism. Rather than a free market system where innovation is rewarded, we have devolved into a system where the federal government picks which companies will receive money from the government to become successful and which companies will simply have to rely on their own abilities to become successful. One of the places where this has been the most obvious has been the ‘green energy‘ industry. On Thursday, The Daily Caller posted an article stating some basic facts about green energy.

The article reports:

Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have confirmed what many in the energy world already knew: Without government support or high taxes, green energy will never be able to compete with conventional, more reliable power plants.

…The MIT study also noted that solar and wind power are more than twice as expensive as natural gas, and tax on carbon dioxide emissions could increase electricity prices enough for green sources to compete. Even environmental groups such as The Sierra Club worry increasingly cheap energy will make the case for green power weaker.

The article goes on to explain that fossil fuel is cheap and reliable. As of yet, green energy is neither. We would probably have a better chance of developing green energy if the government would get out of the way and let the inventors take over and be rewarded for their efforts. Until change becomes extremely profitable (outside government subsidies), it is unlikely to happen.

The Use Of Coal Has A Positive Impact On The Environment???

Posted on by

Steven Hayward posted an article at Power Line today about the increase in the use of coal to generate electricity. The article includes the following chart:

It seems that the environmentalists are caught between a rock and a hard place–they don’t approve of coal and they don’t approve of fracking, which results in cheap natural gas that generates electricity in a more environmentally friendly way than coal.

The article points out that India regards the use of coal to generate electricity as its path to prosperity. Even worse, coal-generated electricity has cut pollution in India because it reduces the use of small wood-fueled cookstoves.  According to a recent global health study, small wood-fueled cookstoves are the largest environmental health threat in developing nations.

So where are we? Environmentalists are doing their best to shut down coal plants in America, despite the fact that the global warming scare is pretty much over. Developing countries are using coal because it creates less of an environmental problem than small wood-fueled cookstoves. Natural gas, the clean alternative to coal in electricity production is out of favor with environmentalists because it is obtained by fracking. So what are we supposed to do?

Enhanced by Zemanta