The Dangers Of Moving To Green Energy Before The Technology Is Perfected

On February 10th, The John Locke Foundation posted an article about the proposed energy policies of North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper.

The article reports:

  • Last summer California suffered two days of rolling blackouts
  • California’s Utility Commission recently published their findings of what happened to cause the massive loss in power
  • Years of misguided policies led to a shortage of dispatchable energy — the same policies Gov. Roy Cooper is advocating for North Carolina

Last summer California suffered two days of rolling blackouts because the customers’ needs for electricity exceeded the California power system’s ability to generate electricity. Such a thing should never happen. The California Utilities Commission recently published a report explaining what happened and why.

North Carolinians should know that many of the energy policies Gov. Roy Cooper has advocated for here in North Carolina follow the mistakes identified as the cause of California’s blackouts. As in California, these missteps will leave North Carolina unprepared for our energy future and will ultimately lead to blackouts here. North Carolina should not repeat California’s mistakes.

The job of providing stable electricity to the consumer can be complicated, but this much is pretty simple: enough electricity must always be generated to meet the demand. The United States has developed one of the world’s finest electricity systems. Its costs are among the lowest, and its reliability is among the highest. What happened to California? What bad energy decisions were made over the years in California resulting in rolling blackouts?

According to the “Root Cause Analysis” published by California Independent System Operator, the California Public Utilities Commission, and the California Energy Commission, here are the factors that led to the outages:

  1. Climate change–induced extreme weather caused the demand to exceed the generating capability of the California system.
  2. In transitioning to “clean” energy, the State’s dispatchable generating capacity had “not kept pace” with the state’s needs.
  3. The State’s “Resource Adequacy” program failed to predict the needs of the heat wave.

The article concludes:

Cooper is steering North Carolina in the same direction. He opposes building new natural gas pipelines while pushing for more solar plants, which need natural gas backup. Is this where we want North Carolina to go? Do we want more poverty? Do we want the poorest having to pay more of their monthly income for electricity? Do we want rolling blackouts?

Shouldn’t we learn from California’s mistakes instead and keep natural gas plants supplied with gas while we build more nuclear power?

There are a few things those promoting green energy (including electric cars) fail to mention when promoting their agenda. The disposal of the blades on windmills and the disposal of solar panels are creating an environmental hazard. The mining of lithium for electric car batteries involves the use of slave labor in Africa. (articles here, here, here, and here). Rolling blackouts are not acceptable in a country as prosperous as America. We have cut our carbon footprint significantly with the use of natural gas. It is folly to believe we can run a successful economy without the careful use of fossil fuel to keep the economy going. Spain learned that lesson in the early 2000’s (article here).

Hopefully the legislature can put Governor Cooper on the right track.

 

This Is What Desperation Looks Like

Yesterday Breitbart reported on a recent statement by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY).

The article reports:

Thursday on MSNBC’s “Andrea Mitchell Reports,” Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) weighed in on the possibility of President Donald Trump giving his speech accepting the Republican Party presidential nomination from the White House, despite some suggesting it could a violation of the Hatch Act.

Trump has maintained that such an act would be legal because the Hatch Act did not “pertain to the president.”

After calling it “an outrage” and bemoaning the president for continuing to “demean his office,” Gillibrand seemingly agreed with Trump by saying that if anyone helps him with his speech, then it would be “in violation of the Hatch Act.”

“I think it’s an outrage,” Gillibrand lamented. “President Trump continues to demean his office. He continues to break norms, and if anyone helps him do his speech, it’s in violation of the Hatch Act. So he may well be exempt, but again, to misuse federal resources for political gain is something that we do not tolerate and is illegal in many respects. So I hope he does not choose to again cross that line and continue to undermine the office of the presidency by doing things that are inappropriate and unethical.”

So what is this about? Governor Cooper of North Carolina has extended his coronavirus rules so that there is still a limit of 10 people who can gather indoors. The rules may be slightly relaxed for the convention, but not significantly. Because of this, President Trump decided not to make the trip to Charlotte to accept the nomination. The Democrats thought that they had found a way to limit the excitement of the Trump campaign. President Trump then suggested that his acceptance speech would be broadcast from the White House. The backdrop of the White House is actually a positive for the campaign–it implies a serious candidate who is currently in charge. This is another wile e coyote moment for the Democrats–they wanted to box President Trump in a corner by limiting the people at the Republican convention, but somehow he managed to turn their idea into a positive.

How Many Times Do Voters Have To Pass This To Make It Law?

A 2016 article at CNN reported:

A federal appeals court Friday overturned parts of North Carolina’s 2013 voting law, including provisions that required voters to show a photo identification card, saying they were enacted “with racially discriminatory intent” in violation of the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act.

“We cannot ignore the record evidence that, because of race, the legislature enacted one of the largest restrictions of the franchise in modern North Carolina history,” 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Diana Motz wrote.

This was the third federal court ruling against voter identification laws this month. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled July 20 that Texas’ voter ID law violated the Voting Rights Act, and federal judges softened a Wisconsin law on July 19.

The voters responded by passing an amendment to the North Carolina Constitution in November 2018 that required voter id.

The Carolina Journal continues the story today:

 A federal court gave North Carolinians who adopted a constitutional amendment requiring voter ID a late lump of coal.

U.S. District Court Judge Loretta Biggs and Magistrate Judge Patrick Auld issued a notice Thursday, Dec. 26, saying the court will put the law implementing the constitutional amendment on hold. They’re presiding over a lawsuit challenging the law requiring voters to present a state-approved form of identification at the polls. The court said it will issue an order next week.

…What happens next is anyone’s guess. The defendants in the lawsuit who have standing to file an appeal may choose not to, jeopardizing the voter ID requirement for the March 2020 primary.

The N.C. chapter of the NAACP filed the lawsuit a year ago, saying the 2018 implementing law was too much like earlier voter ID attempts that were ruled unconstitutional. Senate Bill 824 became law Dec. 19, 2018, over Gov. Roy Cooper’s veto.

But in its lawsuit, the NAACP didn’t include the General Assembly among the defendants, even though legislators passed the law being challenged. The only defendants are Cooper (who vetoed S.B. 824) and the members of the State Board of Elections.

Legislative leaders asked the court in January to join the lawsuit. Biggs rejected the request, saying the elections board could defend the law.

County elections boards were told Thursday the voter ID informational mailing was scrapped.

It is significant that the only defendants are Governor Cooper and the State Board of Elections. My guess is that the Governor will choose not to oppose the ruling and we will have to vote for voter id again. The legislature passed voter id laws a few years ago, and the voters amended the Constitution to require voter id last year. The court is taking away the rights of the voters and of the legislature. That should not be allowed to stand.

So Remind Me Why I Voted

We live in a representative republic. We elect people to represent us. Occasionally we actually vote on issues via referendums, ballot initiatives, etc. Those votes directly reflect the will of the voters.

In 2018, the General Assembly passed a law putting an item on the ballot that required voters to show identification in order to vote. Governor Cooper vetoed the legislation; the Senate overrode the veto. The measure was also challenged in court, but that challenge seems to have gone nowhere.

The voters of North Carolina approved voter id by more than 50 percent. The Governor has called the law racist and unnecessary. If everyone is required to show identification, how is that racist? The law is necessary because we have a number of voters on our voter rolls that are over 110 years of age. I doubt that all of those people are still alive. There are also situations where fifty or more people are listed as having the same address–an address that does not have an inhabitable building. There have also been situations where people who voted were asked to serve on a jury and told the court they couldn’t because they were not American citizens. Wow.

Yes, voter id is necessary. Yes, the voters of North Carolina voted for it. Yes, Governor Cooper, you should be representing the will of the voters.

If You Voted For A Democrat In North Carolina, This Is What You Got

Yesterday The Daily Haymaker posted an article about the vote in the General Assembly that failed to overturn Governor Cooper’s veto of the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.

This is the essence of the bill:

If an abortion results in the live birth of an infant, the infant is a legal person for all purposes under the laws of North Carolina and entitled to all the protections of such laws. Any infant born alive after an abortion or within a hospital, clinic, or other facility has the same claim to the protection of the law that would arise for any newborn, or for any person who comes to a hospital, clinic, or other facility for screening and treatment or otherwise becomes a patient within its care.

By not overriding the Governor’s veto, the law has now declared that a living, breathing baby is not a legal person and is not entitled to the rights of a legal person. That is truly a dangerous place to be. You can make the argument that a baby in the womb is not a person (although scientifically that argument does not stand up), but how can you declare a living, breathing human being not a person? In the future are there going to be other living, breathing people who the legislation will declare do not have the rights of a legal person? This isn’t about abortion–this is about providing care for a living human being.

The article notes:

They’ll call you a bigot if you don’t want guys dressed like girls in the restroom or locker room with your wives or daughters. They’re also for stronger protections for barnyard animals than for newborn humans. Meet Wayne Goodwin’s Democrat Party, 2019 edition.

Common sense is obviously not a functioning part of the North Carolina Democrat party.