Getting Everyone on Board

For John, BLUF:  The Environmentalists are not bringing along the larger population in their efforts to save the world.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Dutch farmers’ party secures landslide victory

Here is the sub-headline:

The BBB's huge election win is a direct challenge to Mark Rutte's coalition

From UnHerd, by Ms Senay Boztas, 16 March 2023.

Here is the lede plus three:

With the highest turnout in 30 years, Dutch voters gave an extraordinary signal to their four-party Government on Wednesday: the Farmer Citizen Movement (BoerBurgerBeweging, or BBB) is set to come first in regional elections, which decide the make-up of the Dutch Senate.

In a long voting day, with locations from repurposed drive-through testing centres to ancient churches, an estimated 61% of Dutch people turned out. The result was astonishing, even though the party has been creeping up the polls, feeding on anti-establishment feeling after unpopular Covid lockdowns.

Some analysts saw the election as a fight between two ‘moods’ in the Netherlands: a mood of (Right-wing) discontent, echoed also across other countries, versus the traditional consensus-driven Dutch mood. With 18 parties in parliament, politicians have typically found a way to muddle along, but this election was different thanks to the thorny issue of nitrogen compound pollution, which is tying the country in knots before a bill has even passed through parliament.

EU rules, Dutch laws, and court verdicts mean the country must reduce emissions of ammonia, nitrogen oxides and nitrous oxide from farming, transport and building machines. The question is who takes the hit — and whether 30% of productive farms should be shut, forcibly if necessary. The Netherlands, which feeds the world with its intensive farming and livestock-heavy agriculture, is at the sharp end of the international climate debate.

It is my secret belief that when folks talk about Caucasian European Males they are really talking about the Anglo-Dutch project, which brouoght Democracy to Europe and North America.  So, a major political change such as the recent Dutch elections should be seen as a possible signal of the system being out of adjustment

Through my narrow lens I see that the Progressive Environmentalists in the Netherlands have failed to build a sufficiently broad concensus among all voters, conidering all equities, to pass commonly agreed legislation, with all feeling they have a fair oppoortunity to make their case.  This is about building consensus,  That appears not to have happened before these recent elections. 

This should be a warning to all political parties and movements in the United States.  Just because you think your cause is righteous does not mean you don't have to build a consensus across the fruited plain.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Citizens police Tour de France

For John, BLUF:  The Legislature should understand what the People are feeling and be responsive to it, either legislating as they want or stnading up and leading the People in a new direction.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Tour de France fans take justice into their own hands and tackle militant eco-protesters before dragging them off the road to stop them blocking the race

Here is the sub-headline:

• Climate activists held a fourth protest at the Tour de France today but were dragged off the road by fans
• The incensed bystanders piled into the road and hauled the eco-protesters off the tarmac so bikes could pass
• Police later arrived and arrested eight activists from the sideline of the competition, which finishes today

From The Daily Mail, by Reporter Charlotte McLaughlin, 25 July 2022, 03:01 EDT.

Here is the lede plus two:

Tour de France fans took matters into their own hands yesterday as they angrily removed a gang of eco-protesters threatening to disrupt the historic bike race by sitting in the middle of the road to block oncoming riders.

Eight climate activists from French campaign group Dernière Rénovation (Last Renovation) sporting T-shirts emblazoned with the message 'we have 978 days left' to tackle environmental decline tried to stop the race during the 20th stage between Lacapelle-Marival and Rocamadour on Saturday.

But their attempts to wreak havoc at the stage were thwarted by spectators, who stormed onto the road and dragged them out of the path of the oncoming bikes even before the police arrived on the scene to make arrests.

This is the kind of thing thaat happens when the ordinary citizenry gets tired of being pushed around by criminls or protestors and the police are not doing their job.

The good news here is that the citizens just pushed the Climate Change protestors oult of the way.  They did not, themselves, ingage in vioolence..

On of the issues for the Public is if the Climate change we are experiencing is of a magnitude and velocity as to require rapid change, thus justifying massive civil disobedience.  I am doubtful that is what the science is saying.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Congress; Do Your Job

For John, BLUF:  The most important decision in this SCOTUS Term is with regard to the Enviornmental Protection Agency and the broad sweep of authority it has given itself.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The Justices Send a Message to Congress

Here is the sub-headline:

The EPA case doesn’t preclude climate rules.  It require lawmakers to enact them.

From The Wall Street Journal, by Columnist Kimberley A. Strassel, 30 June 2022, 6:41 pm ET.

Here is the lede plus one:

It’s tempting to view Thursday’s Supreme Court decision to rein in the Environmental Protection Agency’s climate authority as a missile aimed solely at the bureaucratic swamp.  It’s just as much a swipe at that bureaucracy’s enabler:  the feckless U.S. Congress.

Sweep away the opinion’s numbing technical descriptions, and the ruling is a joy to read.  The six conservatives on the court, in an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, have officially declared the “major questions doctrine”—a concept that has appeared in a handful of past court decisions—to be a living, breathing principle.  The federal bureaucracy is no longer allowed to impose programs of major “economic and political significance” on the country absent “clear congressional authorization."  Hallelujah.

This points directly to Represenative Lori Trahan and Senators Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey.  The US Supreme Court is asking them to assume their responsibilities as our elected legislators.

But, in the mean time, we are losing our Democracy and sliding toward a Chinese style democratic centralism, a nation run under the principles of the Chinese "Social Credit" System.  We, the voters, need to hold our legislators accountabe, including for allowing Federal Three Letter Agencies to usurp their legislative responsibilities.  Government Agencies should not be providing the direction that should come from debated and voted legislation.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

The Little People Suffered

For John, BLUF:  The sanctimonious Enviromentalists and climate change advocaates claim the sky is falling, but they have no real plan for helping the vast majority of the People in this "crisis".  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Elitist environmentalists hate the working class

From The New York Post, by Law Professor Glenn H. Reynolds, 26 June 2022, 7:12 pm.

Here is the lede plus two:

As the United States faces skyrocketing oil, gas and electricity prices, the obvious solution is to drill for more oil and gas and build more generating plants.  Naturally, that’s off the table because the people who are being hurt most aren’t the ones who set the agenda.

High prices hurt everyone to a degree, but they’re hardest on the working classes.  Most Americans drive to work, and even in most places with mass transit there are far more jobs within a 30-minute drive than there are within a 30-minute bus or train ride.  Cars also make it easier to take kids to school, shop for groceries in a wider variety of places and stay in touch with family and friends.

With gas prices having more than doubled since January 2021, the cost of doing all these things has also more than doubled.  For a family that’s stretched tight already, twice as much money for gas means less money for other things, like food, clothing or education.  (And it doesn’t help that prices for those things are also skyrocketing.)

People who respond to complaints about the high price of gas at the pump by saying buy an Electric Vehicle are out of touch with the Average American, who can't afford an Electric Vehicle, if one were available.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Hope Over Reality

For John, BLUF:  Not every good idea works out when it meets reality.  The groceery store plastic bag ban is an exaample.♠  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Research suggests plastic bag bans may be backfiring in a way that makes complete sense once you think about it

Here is the sub-headline:

From Not the Bee, by the NTB Staff, 30 Mrch 2022 4:30 pm.

Here is the lede plus one:

Plastic bag bans are fairly irritating—they're paternalistic, preachy, and they deprive countless homes of the endless usefulness of the all-purpose plastic bag—but more than that, it appears that they might not actually, you know, work:

Researchers at the University of Georgia suggest that banning the sale of plastic bags may come with a side-dish of unintended consequences.

The new analysis suggests that plastic bag ban policies — while well-intentioned — may end up having the opposite effect.  The issue that comes up is that grocery bags are viewed as single-use items, but they often get a (brief) second lease on life as liners for small trash cans.  Without the shopping bags available, people look for alternatives — which the researchers suggest means they buy small plastic garbage bags.

And there you are.  Do state legislatures not have research organizations?  People who look at the long term conseuences.  I would give a pass to local elected bodies, but if it is a city the size of Lowell, Mass, don't they have a Department of Planning and Development, with people capable of asking questions?.

The plastic bag ban is another triumph of hope over reality.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  From our time living in the Naples, Italy, area, in the mid 1970s, the NATO Allied Community (US, British, French, Greek and Turk) referred to the small plastic bag as an "Italian Attache Case," in that they were (re)used on the local economy to carry just about anything.

Reds Under the Bed

For John, BLUF:  We have had Communists in the Treasury Department since at least World War II, the Big One.  However, this seems a little blattant.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Treasury Department Nominee Says Biden Administration Purposefully Wants to Bankrupt Oil, Coal and Gas Companies

From The Conservative Tree House, by Sundance, 9 November 2021.

Here is the lede plus two:

Against catastrophic outcomes, we have been pointing out how the people within the Biden administration are not incompetent; they know exactly what they are doing, and they are destroying the U.S. economic system on purpose.  All of their economic damage is by design, it’s a feature – not a flaw.

An example today is so demonstrative of that point, it’s almost a parody.  Joe Biden’s nominee for the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), a branch of the Treasury Department that polices some 1,125 banks, is a communist ideologue named Saule Omarova.  She is directly from communist central casting and literally from Kazakhstan in the former Soviet Union.  Ms. Omarova graduated from Moscow State University in 1991, and Joe Biden nominated her for the OCC job in September.

Today, Ms. Omarova is caught on tape saying it is the intent of the Biden administration to use the treasury department to bankrupt oil, coal and natural gas companies.  This is what happens often with avowed ideologues; they are so focused on their mission to destroy the U.S., they often just say the stuff out loud

I would say Ms Omarova is problamtic as a high level Tresury official.  I was thinking that before this most recent revelation.  Before this she was talking about eliminating local banks.

What are they thinking?  Who are they paying off?  For sure, this kind of thinking is not good for our Capitalist system, for Citizenry across the fruited plain, or for the environment.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Hurting Our Neighbors

For John, BLUF:  Abusing one's neighbors is not good locally, nor is it good on the international stage.  We have been abusing Canada, regarding their oil production, in the name of the environment.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

'Smacks of hypocrisy':  Alberta slams White House for demanding more OPEC oil after cancelling Keystone XL

Here is the sub-headline:

Biden is taking the heat for higher gasoline prices during the summer driving season

From the Canadian Financial Post, by Reporter Colin McClelland, 12 August 2021 .

Here is the lede plus one:

Wounded after U.S. President Joe Biden cancelled the Keystone XL pipeline that would have shipped Alberta crude to the United States, the province snapped at the White House’s call on the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries Wednesday to raise production faster than planned.

“The Biden administration pleading with OPEC to increase oil production to rescue the United States from high fuel prices months after cancelling the Keystone XL pipeline smacks of hypocrisy,” Alberta Energy Minister Sonya Savage said in a statement Wednesday.  “Keystone XL would have provided Americans with a stable source of energy from a trusted ally and friend.”

This is the kind of good relations with our neighbors to the north that I desire.

Or maybe it is just that Alberta is one of those "Western" Provences, and thus doesn't really count, sort of like those fly-over states in the US.  This is why Speech Boy♠ is wrong when he calls for abolition of the US Senate, at least in my opinion.  The people in different regions have different needs, values and goals and governments should be structured to show some deference to that fact..

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  "Speech Boy" from his time writing speeches for President Bill Clinton.  Thzt would be Michael A Cohen.  And just like Michael, he dropped notice of a new book to read, MacArthur at War, by Author Walter Borneman.  Great, as thought I am not behind already.

Democrats Divided

For John, BLUF:  Are the Democrats divided, between their environmentalis wing and their humanitarianist wing?  It could be a problem trying to get things done in DC.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

'Climate Change' vs. the Uyghurs

From The Pipeline, by Mr Tom Finnerty, 8 July 2021.

Here is the lede plus two:

Pretty shocking -- Politico reports on growing tensions within the Democratic coalition, with the environmental activist faction of the party objecting to even the mildest attempts by the Biden administration to confront China over its human rights violations and international aggression.

As a new Cold War takes shape between the U.S. and China, progressives fear the result will be a dramatically warming planet.  Over 40 progressive groups sent a letter to President Joe Biden and lawmakers on Wednesday urging them to prioritize cooperation with China on climate change and curb its confrontational approach over issues like Beijing’s crackdown on Hong Kong and forced detention of Uyghur Muslims.

The problem for the Biden administration is that American public opinion has shifted significantly against China in recent years, such that according to a recent Pew survey, 89 percent of Americans "consider China a competitor or enemy, rather than a partner."  This move began with Donald Trump calling out China's predatory trade policy and intellectual property violations before he was even president and continued through then-President Trump and Chairman Xi's trade war.  It was cemented, however, by the CCP's handling of the Covid-19 outbreak last year, which, if the no-longer-a-conspiracy-theory lab leak hypothesis turns out to be true, would mean that China is responsible for the most significant man-made disaster in human history.

No comment.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Saving the Humans

For John, BLUF:  For the Progressives in the United States there seems to be a sense that the Uyghurs are small potatos and their fate is not worth upsetting the climate apple card over.  How utilitarian of them.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Biden’s new Cold War with China will result in climate collapse, progressives warn

Here is the sub-headline:

A political fight is brewing among wings of the Democratic Party over Beijing’s help in curbing climate change versus curbing its human rights abuses.

From Politico, by Mr Alexander Ward, 7 July 2021, 05:05 PM EDT.

Here is the lede plus three:

As a new Cold War takes shape between the U.S. and China, progressives fear the result will be a dramatically warming planet.

Over 40 progressive groups sent a letter to President Joe Biden and lawmakers on Wednesday urging them to prioritize cooperation with China on climate change and curb its confrontational approach over issues like Beijing’s crackdown on Hong Kong and forced detention of Uyghur Muslims.

It's the latest salvo in the months-long drama between progressive Democrats who say cooperation on climate change should take precedence over competition with China, and moderates who think the administration can do both things at once.  As the Biden administration solidifies its China strategy, and as anti-China legislation moves through Congress, this intra-Democratic tussle could define the U.S.-China relationship for years to come.

The progressive organizations, including the Sunrise Movement and the Union of Concerned Scientists, “call on the Biden administration and all members of Congress to eschew the dominant antagonistic approach to U.S.-China relations and instead prioritize multilateralism, diplomacy, and cooperation with China to address the existential threat that is the climate crisis,” their letter reads.  “Nothing less than the future of our planet depends on ending the new Cold War between the United States and China.”

Frankly, there is not much we can o to save the Uygurs from their fate.  We can't effectively intervene to protect them.  If they leave China we can offer them refuge, but what are the odds that they can escape?  Unlike Cubans trying to escape to Florida, the Uygurs are landlocked, in the Western part of China.

On the other hand, should we just roll over on the issue of human rights?  Which leads to a deeper question.  Are human rights universal, as the Declaration of Independence states, or are they a construct given us by the state?  There are implications with the second option, including that our effort to provide equal rights to all is unique to us and some other nations who trace their governmental system back to 1215 AD an the meeting of the Barons with King John.♠ 

I think the Progressives petitioning the Biden Administration, and protesting at the White House, blocking entrances, have this stick by the wrong end.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  The implication is that if you think your freedom is limited here, it could be much worse in other places, even places your ancestors left hundreds of years ago.

Save The Uyghurs

For John, BLUF:  While some are calling for saving the environment, others are trying to save ethnic minorities, caught up in larger social movements.  Some ethnic minorities are not making the progressive cut.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

'Climate Change' vs. the Uyghurs

From The Pipeline, by Mr Tom Finnerty, 08 July 2021.

Here is the lede plus one:

Pretty shocking -- Politico reports on growing tensions within the Democratic coalition, with the environmental activist faction of the party objecting to even the mildest attempts by the Biden administration to confront China over its human rights violations and international aggression.

As a new Cold War takes shape between the U.S. and China, progressives fear the result will be a dramatically warming planet.  Over 40 progressive groups sent a letter to President Joe Biden and lawmakers on Wednesday urging them to prioritize cooperation with China on climate change and curb its confrontational approach over issues like Beijing’s crackdown on Hong Kong and forced detention of Uyghur Muslims.

The problem for the Biden administration is that American public opinion has shifted significantly against China in recent years, such that according to a recent Pew survey, 89 percent of Americans "consider China a competitor or enemy, rather than a partner."  This move began with Donald Trump calling out China's predatory trade policy and intellectual property violations before he was even president and continued through then-President Trump and Chairman Xi's trade war.  It was cemented, however, by the CCP's handling of the Covid-19 outbreak last year, which, if the no-longer-a-conspiracy-theory lab leak hypothesis turns out to be true, would mean that China is responsible for the most significant man-made disaster in human history.

The pronunciation of the ethnic group, the Uyghurs, is WEE-goorz.

The Uyghurs are an Islamic ethnic group, which has resisted assimilation into the larger Han population.  They have been sent to re-education camps, their reproductive freedom restricted, their women violated and their organs harvested.  Bad as all this is, there is little we can do about it, ecept scold and impose economic sanctions.  The Author notes that the Progressive Environmentalists want us to do nothing, for the sake of their ideology.

But for the environmentalists, none of this really matters.  They've convinced themselves that climate is the preeminent political issue, and no other consideration comes close.  Many of them would even argue that American capitalism and climate change are inseparable -- even indistinguishable -- political problems, never mind the fact that, while the U.S. has led the world in total carbon emissions decline since 2000, China's new coal-fired energy capacity alone outstripped the rest of the world by 300 percent in 2020.

When you think it is the end of the world in just a few years then your survival instincts kick in and all else falls away, including moral clarity.  Avoiding the Apocolypse becomes the focus.  I can understand it, and yet still I believe these are misguided thoughts.  We are not facing an existential climate disaster.  Is action required to secure our future?  Yes.  However, it should be doable within the larger context of our society.  We can think and engineer our way out of climate change issues, and in doing so guard against the consequences of the iron law:  "Every solution contains the seeds of a new problem."

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Stop the Pipeline, etc

For John, BLUF:  Sometime in the past folks laid down markers to show that President Trump was beholden to President Putin.  President Trump missed them, but President Biden is on course.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Earth to Joe Biden:  Canceling Keystone XL Pipeline Is a Gift to China and Russia

From Real Clear Energy, by Writer Daniel Turner, 19 January 2021.

Here is the lede plus one:

Joe Biden’s plans to cancel the Keystone XL Pipeline is a gift to someone.  The radical green groups for sure: they have opposed the oil link since its inception.  The trucking and railroad industry will benefit, too, because once the pipeline is stopped, then the oil will be transported in and around America by something with wheels.  It’s also a gift to our adversaries:  for who will benefit when America and Canada can’t bring their fossil fuels to market? The competition.  Russia and Venezuela will be thrilled to know their market share will increase thanks to the Biden Administration’s fumble.

What’s fascinating about Keystone is how un-fascinating the project actually really is.  Sure, it’s a marvel of engineering and an extraordinary accomplishment of human and mechanical skills.  The 1,200 mile pipeline from Alberta, Canada to the U.S. Gulf Coast carrying crude oil to be refined is a great infrastructure project.  A State Department study commissioned during the Obama Administration (when Joe Biden was Veep, a point which requires emphasis) determined the pipeline would create 3,200 temporary construction jobs directly, 42,000 additional jobs indirectly, and generate over $2 billion in wages.  For the people in Montana, South Dakota, and Nebraska, the states through which the proposed pipeline will transverse, that’s an enormous opportunity.

Of course, it is bad for the environment and the pipeline traverses sacred lands for local Native American tribes.  As to the first, I am not sure that stopping the pipeline will stop the flow of oil.  What will our Canadian neighbors do?  Stop pumping oil because we (or a voal minority) don't like it?  I am doubtful.

However, this has larger implications.

Back in February 24, 2017, in The American Interest, Mr Walter Russell Mead wrote:

If Trump were the Manchurian candidate that people keep wanting to believe that he is, here are some of the things he’d be doing:

• Limiting fracking as much as he possibly could
• Blocking oil and gas pipelines
• Opening negotiations for major nuclear arms reductions
• Cutting U.S. military spending
• Trying to tamp down tensions with Russia’s ally Iran

These outcomes were inevitable, based upon the way the American Voters cast their ballots in November.  They will get a chance to change their minds in 2022.  Reversiung the inevitable consequences may be harder.  But, we are a Democracy, so our course is not always steady.

Exit Question:  Can Canada sue us over cancellation of the Keystone XL Pipeline?

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Electric Cars Will Require Investment

For John, BLUF:  One wonders if the Eco-friendly have costed out their ideas?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Musk:  Electric Cars Will Require a Lot More Electric Power Than We Currently Have

From PJ Media, by Mr Bryan Preston, 1 December 2020.

Here is the lede plus several:

Tesla CEO Elon Musk says we’ll need more electricity to power cars like his.  A lot more.

Tesla Chief Executive Elon Musk said on Tuesday that electricity consumption will double if the world’s car fleets are electrified, increasing the need to expand nuclear, solar, geothermal and wind energy generating sources.

Increasing the availability of sustainable energy is a major challenge as cars move from combustion engines to battery-driven electric motors, a shift which will take two decades, Musk said in a talk hosted by Berlin-based publisher Axel Springer.

There’s no unicorn energy source or free lunch.  Currently, electric cars are primarily powered by coal, natural gas, and nuclear.  Those are the sources we use to generate electricity, after all, according to the Energy Information Agency.  Renewables are growing but still account for less than 20% of U.S. electricity.

There’s no free lunch when it comes to renewable energy sources, which may not even be all that renewable.  Wind and sun are free, but the means of generating power from them are not.

I, for one, like the use of nuclear power.  While it requires care in setting up, it is a reliable and consistent source of power, and it is relatively ecofriendly.

As for the rush toward electric cars, I am hoping that we have a more indepth conversation about the future, and consider the long term, the unintended, consequences.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Jane Challenges DC

For John, BLUF:  I can see where Ms Jane Fonda is coming from, suggesting Defense dollars be diverted to fighting global warming, but we can't arm the Ukraine, defend the Kurds and still use those same dollars to fight climate change.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Cut Military Budget and Apply it to Green New Deal, Jane Fonda's Protest Advocates

From PJ Media, by Mr Nicholas Ballasy, 12 November 2019.

Here is the lede plus one:

Actress Jane Fonda, along with Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, co-founders of Ben & Jerry's ice cream, led a climate action protest dedicated to calling on lawmakers to cut the defense budget and apply the savings to a Green New Deal to combat climate change.

"We are now spending over half of the federal government’s annual discretionary budget on the military when the biggest threat to mm U.S. national security is not Iran or China, but the climate crisis.  We could cut the Pentagon’s current budget in half and still be left with a bigger military budget than China, Russia, Iran and North Korea combined.  The $350 billion savings could then be funneled into the Green New Deal and ensuring a just transition for fossil fuel workers and communities," read a Facebook post announcing Friday's protest.

The organizers of the protest argued that "just one percent of the 2019 military budget of $716 billion would be enough to fund 128,879 green infrastructure jobs instead, and it would take just 11 percent — or $80 billion — to produce enough wind and solar energy to power every household in the United States."

Note that Ms Fonda is smart enough to recognize the Federal Budget is divided into discretionary and non- discretionary.  And there is a lot of money in the Defense Budget.

The thing is, Ms Fonda's ideas run counter to the views of the Deep State.  We can't cut the Defense Budget and continue to deploy forces to various global hotspots.  And the "Deep Staters" don't want to pull those forces back.  So, how are the Democrats going to square that circle?  Or, are they going to kick it down the road until after Inauguration In 2021?

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Cooking With Gas

For John, BLUF:  In my mind the expression Cooking with Gas emerges from my childhood, when it signified that one was now on the right path to success.  Apparently no longer.  That said, this might make the people of North Andover happy.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

No more fire in the kitchen:  Cities are banning natural gas in homes to save the planet

From USA Today, by Ma Elizabeth Weise, 10 November 2019.

Here is the lede plus six:

Fix global warming or cook dinner on a gas stove?

That’s the choice for people in 13 cities and one county in California that have enacted new zoning codes encouraging or requiring all-electric new construction.

The codes, most of them passed since June, are meant to keep builders from running natural gas lines to new homes and apartments, with an eye toward creating fewer legacy gas hookups as the nation shifts to carbon-neutral energy sources.

For proponents, it's a change that must be made to fight climate change. For natural gas companies, it's a threat to their existence.  And for some cooks who love to prepare food with flame, it's an unthinkable loss.

Natural gas is a fossil fuel, mostly methane, and produces 33% of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.  Carbon dioxide is the primary greenhouse gas causing climate change.

“There’s no pathway to stabilizing the climate without phasing gas out of our homes and buildings.  This is a must-do for the climate and a livable planet,” said Rachel Golden of the Sierra Club’s building electrification campaign.

These new building codes come as local governments work to speed the transition from natural gas and other fossil fuels and toward the use of electricity from renewables, said Robert Jackson, a professor of energy and the environment at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California.

We have not gotten to the stage where households are being forced to convert away from gas for cooking, but it does mean developers are being incentivized to switch to electric.

I wish the article had talked to the question of alternative electricity generation being brought on line to meet the deficit as gas goes away.  Is anyone doing any forward planning?

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Life Tradeoffs

For John, BLUF:  Per "A Guide to Longevity Throughout History, From the Prehistoric Onward", life span has doubled since around 1800.  But, there were costs.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Air pollution caused 400,000 premature deaths in Europe

From The New York Post, by Reuters, 16 October 2019.

Here is the lede plus four:

Poor air quality caused about 400,000 premature deaths in Europe in 2016, the most recent year data is available and almost every city-dwelling European is exposed to pollution levels that exceed healthy levels, according to a report on Wednesday.

“Air pollution is currently the most important environmental risk to human health,” the European Environment Agency (EEA), the EU’s health agency, said in the report.

The report’s author, EEA air quality expert Alberto González Ortiz, said that while the level of dangerous particles in European cities was dropping, it was not dropping fast enough.

“We have not yet reached the EU standards and of course we are far from reaching the WHO (World Health Organization) standards,” Ortiz said.

EU law currently requires countries to assess the level, notably in urban areas, of a range of pollutants, including ozone and particulate matter and take action if certain limits are hit.

So, what are the tradeoffs?  I assume we all attribute these deaths to pollution from the industrial revolution.  Thus, the question is, how much would we trade off to save those 400,000 lives?  And, the Supplementary Question:  How many additional early deaths would accrue from giving up the some of the benefits of modernity?

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Climate Change Mass Extinction

For John, BLUF:  Not all we hear about species extinction will square up with the facts.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Gregory Wrightstone:  exposing the mass extinction lie

Here is the sub-headline:

From What's Up With That, by Charles the Moderator, 27 May 2019.

Here is the lede plus two:

One million species will become extinct in the not-too-distant future and we are to blame.  That is the conclusion of a new study by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).  The Summary for Policymakers (SPM) was issued on May 6th {the full report will be issued “later this year} and warns that “human actions threaten more species with global extinction now than ever before” and that “around 1 million species already face extinction, many within decades, unless action is taken to reduce the intensity of drivers of biodiversity loss.”

It also asserted that we have seen increasing dangers over the last several decades, stating “the threat of extinction is also accelerating:  in the best-studied taxonomic groups, most of the total extinction risk to species is estimated to have arisen in the past 40 years.”  The global rate of species extinction claimed “is already tens to hundreds of times higher than it has been, on average, over the last 10 million years.”

The release of the report spawned a media frenzy that uncritically accepted the study’s contention that we will see more than 20,000 species per year bite the dust in the not too distant future.  PBS called it the “current mass extinction,” and the New Yorker’s headline read “Climate Change and the New Age of Extinction.”

Then there is this paragraph, with a reference to a chart in the story:

Below, all 529 species available from the Red List with a known extinction date are shown below in Figure 2 by decade of extinction.  This chart reveals quite a different story than that advanced by the new report.  Instead of a steady increase in the number and rate of extinctions we find that extinctions peaked in the late 1800s and the early 20th century, followed by a significant decline that continues today.  It is thought that this extinction peak coincides with introduction of non-native species, primarily on islands (including Australia).

We need to be aware of species loss, but we have to take a wholistic approach, so we don't dame one species at the expense of another.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Don't Idle Your Auto On The Continent

For John, BLUF:  When overseas, take the bus.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Did you know: Why leaving your car engine running in France could land you in trouble

Here is the sub-headline:

Did you know there is a fairly unknown law in France about leaving your engine running that you'd be wise to be aware of, especially given the French police seem to be cracking down on it.

From The Local, 4 March 2019.

Here is a key paragraph:

… in France this is in fact punishable with a fixed fine of €135, which may be reduced to €90 or increased to €375, or even a daunting €750 depending on the case and how long it takes you to pay the fine.

As of this writing 1 Euro trades for 1.13 dollars (1€ = $1.13).

In Belgium it is a €130 fine.

Another reason for being happy living in America.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Population Change

For John, BLUF:  My whole life I have been receiving messages about the dangers of population growth.  Maybe that isn't the future.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

THE WORLD MIGHT ACTUALLY RUN OUT OF PEOPLE

From Wired Magazine, by Reporter Megan Molteni, 4 February 2019.

Here is the lede plus two:

YOU KNOW THE story.  Despite technologies, regulations, and policies to make humanity less of a strain on the earth, people just won’t stop reproducing.  By 2050 there will be 9 billion carbon-burning, plastic-polluting, calorie-consuming people on the planet.  By 2100, that number will balloon to 11 billion, pushing society into a Soylent Green scenario.  Such dire population predictions aren’t the stuff of sci-fi; those numbers come from one of the most trusted world authorities, the United Nations.

But what if they’re wrong?  Not like, off by a rounding error, but like totally, completely goofed?

That’s the conclusion Canadian journalist John Ibbitson and political scientist Darrell Bricker come to in their newest book, Empty Planet, due out February 5th.  After painstakingly breaking down the numbers for themselves, the pair arrived at a drastically different prediction for the future of the human species.  “In roughly three decades, the global population will begin to decline,” they write.  “Once that decline begins, it will never end.”

I don't buy into a never-ending decline in population.  The rest makes good sense.  Some people love having and raising children.  Others don't.  The trend is the don't folks outnumber those who want lots of children.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Ed Goes Hard Left

For John, BLUF:  Politics makes for strange bedfellows—Mr Charles Dudley Warner.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Ed Markey pairs with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Green New Deal

From The Boston Herald, by Ms Marie Sianiszlo (marie.szaniszlo@bostonherald.com), 8 February 2019.

Here is the lede plus one:

Sen. Edward Markey partnered with freshman U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on her controversial “Green New Deal” proposal to cut fossil fuel use and achieve “net-zero” greenhouse gas emissions within 10 years — an idea that one economist said would “significantly” raise the cost of energy?

Markey’s move to the left is seen by political analysts as a positioning for his own looming re-election battle — to ward off the kind of progressive challenge that took out former veteran U.S. Rep. Michael Capuano.  Markey himself cited the initiative as a looming campaign issue.

“This is going to enter the 2020 election cycle,” Markey said at a news conference outside the Capitol with Ocasio-Cortez and several of the resolution’s more than 60 co-sponsors.  “The greatest climate denier of them all is in the White House.  …The green generation has risen up, and they are saying we want this issue solved.  We now have the troops, we now have the money, and we’re ready to fight.”

One hopes this will not become the law of the land until we figure out how much it will cost and how to pay for it.  In saying that I am flat out rejecting the idea that the end of the world as we know it is only 12 years off.♠

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Of course the Second Coming could end the world as we know it, but with a good outcome, not a bad one.

Environmental Improvement

For John, BLUF:  I am not sure banning straws is going to break the camel's back.  We are seeing the leading edge of a moral panic.  We are making progress and we need to remain calm and carry on.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

When It Comes To The Environment, These Are The Good Ol' Days

From Investor's Business Daily, a 2 August 2018 Editorial.

Here are three key paragraphs, excerpted by Law Professor Glenn Harlan Reynolds in his blog post:

From 1970 to 2017, the six major pollutants monitored by the EPA plunged by 73%.  By comparison, during that time the U.S.’ economy grew 262% and its population by 60%.

The decline in pollution is steep. Carbon monoxide, down 77%. Lead, 80%.  Nitrogen oxide, 56%.  Ozone, 22%.  Particle pollution, off an average 38%. Sulfur dioxide, 88%.

Not included in the report, but equally if not more significant, is the fact that CO2 — the main greenhouse gas — overall has plunged 29% since peaking in 2007.  That’s been the relentless focus of global warming activists and the left-leaning power elites from their policy perches at think tanks, NGOs, and global government organizations such as the U.N.

Then Professor Reynolds goes on to say:

Meanwhile, Europe, despite all the sanctimony, is making no such progress.

Is it possible that for the Europeans it isn't so much about the results as it is about the process?  I recall a quip, attributed to a German Professor out of Heidelberg:♠

That Works Very Well in Practice, But How Does It Work In Theory?

By the way, here is the US EPA Report.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Attributed here to a Boston based magazine back in 1911.