Radical Green New Deal predictions

 

Jack Hellner at American Thinker debunks some “global warming” myths: 

Here are some of the destructive policies of the radical greenies that are based on predictions, not scientific data:

The destruction of energy-producing companies that produce reasonably priced energy.  (They clearly don't care about the harm to the poor and middle class by high inflation.)

The promotion of the highly flammable pollutant lithium while seeking to control CO2, a non-pollutant clear gas that makes plants grow and allows the world to be fed.

Spending trillions on carbon capture.

Selling worthless carbon credits so people like John Kerry can pretend they care as they fly in their private jets.

Outlawing gas stoves, furnaces, lawnmowers, leaf-blowers, and gas grills.

The destruction of fishing and killing of whales by wind farms.

Read the rest here.

RELATED:  Edward Ring at American Greatness just published “The Corruption of Climate Science”;  click here.

# # #

Wind & solar renewables: pointless

 

Bryan Leyland at The Telegraph UK explains why renewable energy sources (wind and solar) are never going to achieve "net zero".  I missed this column when it appeared a few weeks ago, but it's still current.  And it's still a pipe dream:

Many governments in the Western world have committed to “net zero” emissions of carbon in the near future. The US and UK both say they will deliver by 2050. It's widely believed that wind and solar power can achieve this. This belief has led the US and British governments, among others, to promote and heavily subsidise wind and solar.

These plans have a single, fatal flaw: they are reliant on the pipe-dream that there is some affordable way to store surplus electricity at scale.

In the real world a wind farm’s output often drops below 10 per cent of its rated “capacity” for days at a time. Solar power disappears completely every night and drops by 50 per cent or more during cloudy days. “Capacity” being a largely meaningless figure for a wind or solar plant, about 3000 megawatts (MW) of wind and solar capacity is needed to replace a 1000 MW conventional power station in terms of energy over time: and in fact, as we shall see, the conventional power station or something very like it will still be needed frequently once the wind and solar are online.

The governments of countries with a considerable amount of wind and solar generation have developed an expectation that they can simply continue to build more until net zero is achieved. The reality is that many of them have kept the lights on only by using existing fossil fired stations as backup for periods of low wind and sun. This brings with it a new operating regime where stations that were designed to operate continuously have to follow unpredictable fluctuations in wind and solar power. As a result operating and maintenance costs have increased and many stations have had to be shut down.

In fact it's already common to see efficient combined-cycle gas turbines replaced by open-cycle ones because they can be throttled up and down easily to back up the rapidly changing output of wind and solar farms. But open-cycle gas turbines burn about twice as much gas as combined cycle gas turbines. Switching to high-emissions machinery as part of an effort to reduce emissions is, frankly, madness!

Much more at the link here.  But try sharing any of these facts with a green zealot.  It may be that only after unimaginable damage and suffering resulting from reducing access to energy that the greenies will wake up.  Maybe not even then . . .

# # #

Last chance to save Earth

 

The editorial board at Issues and Insights published this earlier today:

John Kerry said earlier this month that we’ve reached “the last best opportunity we have to get real and serious” about global warming. What’s the difference between him and a loon walking down Manhattan’s Fifth Avenue wearing one of those sandwich boards proclaiming the end of the world is nigh? We’re struggling to see any.

Kerry, the Biden administration’s special presidential envoy for climate – an office that amounts to much less than a bucket of warm spit – is part of a chorus of fearmongering that goes back more than three decades. 

“In 1989 the United Nations gave us 10 years to save the world,” science site Watts Up With That posted last year. 

Guess blogger Eric Worrall then went on to list more than a dozen “last chances” to stop global warming.

“If we do not heed this last chance, I’m sure there will be another last chance in the near future, just like all the previous last chances,” he said.

Dire, way-off-base predictions have been the hallmark of radical environmentalism for at least a half century. Reason’s Ronald Bailey took “a look back” in 2020 at the first Earth Day and the forecasters “who got the future wrong.” He notes that the world did not have to halve the planet’s population or stop economic growth completely “to prevent the imminent ecological cataclysm.”

Nor have we run out of natural resources, been forced to shut down automobile travel, ban luxury items, and wear gas masks in urban areas due to air pollution (though the doomsters among us are happy that we’ve been forced to mask up for a least a year for another reason).

Despite the unbroken string of erroneous predictions, we still get nonsense from the United Nations World Meteorological Organization, which says “time is fast running out” to keep global warming at bay, and drivel from U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres, who insists “we are on the verge of the abyss.”

That these people, including the John Kerrys of the U.S., who are as useful as a broken leg, have not been driven from their positions of influence and authority is a near tragedy. To the extent that we need political leaders, our country and our world deserve serious, sober-minded people leading our institutions, not the pretenders, narrative-pimps, self-seekers, virtue-signalers, mindless agitators, think-they’re-still-in-high-school attention-seekers, power-hungry louts, and batty alarmists who currently dominate. It’s discouraging to think that maybe soon we’ll have our last chance to rid ourselves of these malign characters, because they have a way of settling in like a distant family member who makes a surprise visit and then won’t leave. We need to start kicking them out now.

Monica Showalter at American Thinker quotes John Kerry’s “Net zero is not enough. We need to remove CO2 from the atmosphere”, to which Ms. Showalter responds:

Too bad about the plants.

# # #

 

Irrelevant Dinosaurs

image credit: Daily Kos

At American Greatness, Liz Sheld takes aim at the GOPe, a/k/a establishment Republicans, including those addressing the Democrat convention this week:

“Democrats electrify party base with showcase of irrelevant dinosaurs 
(i.e., Bill Clinton and John Kerry)”

. . . Politics is first and foremost about who has power (elected officials, deep pocket corporate interests and their influencer flacks) and who doesn’t.  Since Trump is an outsider, the industry and it’s soldiers can’t cash a bank of IOUs they would normally have on a professional politician. It’s better for these fake Republicans and their auxiliaries to be in the minority of a status quo system. In fact it’s better for all the establishment Republicans to be the minority of a status quo system, they would much rather lose the White House and both chambers so they can be king of the losers. It’s easier for them, they don’t have to do anything, they have no responsibility and can always point to their helpless position as a minority as cover for their ineffectiveness.

But the nerve of these traitors, turning on the people who voted for them while pretending to represent their interests is astronomical. How many people who voted for John McCain (59,948,323 votes) also voted for Donald Trump (62,979,879)? I’m guessing a lot and those people probably thought McCain was going to advance mutually held political positions he pretended to have. Alas, it was always just a sham, these Republicans speaking at the DNC were never about conservative or classical liberal positions, they were only using a gimmick to get their power and that’s why the country delivered a throat punch to the political establishment named Donald J. Trump. At the same time it’s sickening to see but also refreshing that voters have an opportunity to see exactly how these politicians play which is for their own power grab, relevancy and the big bucks of their corporate patrons.

Read the rest here.

# # #

SoS John Kerry Commits U.S. to Anti-2nd Amendment U.N. Arms Treaty

During the Bush vs John Kerry election, the Swift Boat Veterans who served with John Kerry in Vietnam, made it very clear how he was a turncoat who could not be trusted to run this country.

Those words now echo as Secretary of State John Kerry committed the U.S. to the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty that would allow our 2nd Amendment rights to be arbitrarily taken away.....

From Investor's Business Daily --

As the world body meets this week to hammer out an agreement to restrict international arms trade, our Secretary of State commits us to pushing a treaty that may also restrict our Second Amendment rights.

Last Friday, the day of the week when unpopular or controversial announcements are traditionally made, Secretary of State John Kerry announced U.S. support for the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), a final version of which is being hammered out in New York beginning this week.

Certainly the ATT is controversial. Touted as a means of getting a handle on an international arms trade valued at $60 billion a year, its stated purpose is to keep illicit weapons out of the hands of terrorists, insurgent fighters and organized crime at an international level.

Its vague and suspicious wording led some 150 members of Congress last June to send a letter to President Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warning that the treaty is "likely to pose significant threats to our national security, foreign policy and economic interests as well as our constitutional rights."

We have noted that a paper by the U.N.'s Coordinating Action on Small Arms (CASA) says that arms have been "misused by lawful owners" and that the "arms trade therefore be regulated in ways that would . .. minimize the misuse of legally owned weapons."

Would defending your home against intruders, or U.S. laws permitting concealed carry, be considered a "misuse?"

"We will not support any treaty that would be inconsistent with U.S. law and the rights of American citizens under our Constitution, including the Second Amendment," Secretary of State Kerry tried to reassure us — even as he represents an administration that seeks to ban weapons on their scary appearance rather than their genuine lethality, thinks the Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment with deer-hunting rather than British tyranny in mind, and would be happy if the entire U.S. were a "gun-free zone."

As the Heritage Foundation notes, imported firearms, considered part of the "arms trade" to be regulated, constitute about 35% of the new firearms market in the U.S.

"Under the guise of adopting what it deems to be 'appropriate measures,' an Administration could restrict imports by redefining what qualifies as a 'sporting' firearm — the definition of which is left completely to the discretion of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives," Heritage reports.

The ATT, Heritage warns, "could create a national registry (initially) limited to imported firearms. It could impose new requirements on importers of firearms, or parts and components of firearms, for example, by requiring them to provide the identity of the final end user.. ."