Green Energy / Climate Issues - Failures - Lies and Falsehoods

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member

Air conditioning is a climate disaster and Bill Gates is investing in this startup to fix it



Air conditioning has the potential to keep people cool as climate change keeps making the planet hotter. At the same time, conventional air conditioning technology uses a lot of energy, meaning it’s contributing to climate change — and will have a bigger effect as more people need air conditioners to stay comfortable or even survive.

Currently, air conditioning is responsible for nearly 4% of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to an analysis by scientists from the Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory and Xerox’s Palo Alto Research Center released in March. Those emissions are expected to get worse as more people install air conditioners, especially in India, China, and Indonesia, according to a joint statement from the NREL and Xerox PARC.

“It’s a good and a bad thing,” Jason Woods, an NREL senior research engineer and co-author of the new study, said in a statement about the research. “It’s good that more people can benefit from improved comfort, but it also means a lot more energy is used, and carbon emissions are increased.”

Conventional air conditioner technology uses a vapor compression cycle to cool the air. In that system, refrigerant is used to do the cooling.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member

World Economic Forum calls to reduce private vehicles by eliminating 'ownership'


"More sharing can reduce ownership of idle equipment and thus material usage," the group argued, pointing to statistics that show the average vehicle in England is driven "just 4% of the time."

Vehicle sharing initiatives like "Getaround" and "BlueSG" have become increasingly popular around the world and are key in reducing the number of cars and electronics needed globally, the forum argued.

Though it did not address how car sharing could be more effectively utilized in a nation like the U.S. where cars are heavily relied on and public transportation is lacking in both rural and urban communities.

The report also pointed out that most people around the world already have personal phones or computers but 39% of global workers are also provided laptops and mobile phones.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member

Rigging the War on Fossil Fuels



In a July 2019 interview with The Washington Post, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s chief-of-staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, acknowledged that the Green New Deal had not been devised to protect the environment, but rather, to inject discredited socialist “solutions” into the American economy. “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal,” he said with great candor, “is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all. Do you guys [reporters] think of it as a climate thing? Because we really think of it as a ‘how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy’ thing.” We don’t say this, but rather conceal it, because if we did we would have to explain why the epic failures of socialist regimes in our lifetimes should not be a red flag against repeating them.

The Shadow Party behind this campaign to replace America’s incomparably productive free market economy with a socialist travesty has been made possible by the failure of the Internal Revenue Service to enforce its own guidelines, which allow taxpayer subsidies only to non-partisan, non-political, charitable organizations. Beginning with its vast subsidies to universities that have been purged of conservatives and transformed into indoctrination and recruitment centers for the radical left and the Democrat Party, the I.R.S. has enabled the formation of the socialist juggernaut behind the Green New Deal and its war on fossil fuels. In its newest version, it is a war, by the way, which stops at the water’s edge, since Russian pipelines, and increased oil production by the totalitarian regimes in Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, are apparently okay with the Biden administration.

The foundations of this Shadow Party of tax-exempt institutions were laid in the 1970s, when the political left launched a campaign inspired by the Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci to build a revolution based on seizing control of the “means of cultural production” – universities, schools, philanthropic foundations and the like. A key component of 501(c)(3) nonprofit entities dedicated to promoting the Green New Deal and its leftwing agendas are the vast majority of colleges and universities across the United States. As the American Association of Universities explains, nearly all public and private institutions of higher learning “are tax-exempt entities as defined by I.R.C. Section 501(c)(3) because of their educational purposes — purposes that the federal government has long recognized as fundamental to fostering the productive and civic capacity of its citizens — and/or the fact that they are state governmental entities.”

So much for the boilerplate, not a word of which is true any longer. The movement to purge universities of conservative faculty and influences has been so successful over the last 50 years that universities have, and as far as social theory and policy are concerned have ceased to be educational institutions in any reasonable sense of the word. The total dominance of leftist narratives and values in virtually every academic discipline is as self-evident as it is disgraceful and dangerous. How this took place is the subject of a book by one of the authors of this article – The Professors (2014) by David Horowitz. A 2020 study of more than 12,300 professors by the National Association of Scholars found that professors nationwide donate money to Democratic political figures rather than Republicans by a ratio of 95 to 1. Even Moscow University probably has more diversity than that. In a 2018 study of nearly 8,700 tenure-track, Ph.D.-holding professors from 49 of America’s top 66 liberal arts colleges as ranked by U.S. News, the professors were 12.7 times more likely to self-identify as Democrats than as Republicans. In the field of environmental science specifically, the ratio of Democrats-to-Republicans was greater than 25 to 1. There is no way to describe this intellectual monolith than as a partisan political training and research center.
 
Last edited:

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member


The reported overall spending for the climate and clean energy provisions is $369 billion. Here are just some of the bill’s lowlights:

It spends $9 billion for promoting electric appliances and energy-efficient retrofits.

Do you like your natural gas stove or fireplace? Well, this bill is part of a broader effort to make these appliances relics of the past. If that seems like an exaggeration, there are already left-wing cities and states banning new hookups for natural gas appliances.

It creates tax credits to have homes run on “clean energy” and for the purchase of “clean vehicles.”

If American consumers demand those types of products and features, that’s one thing. The creation of this tax credit is a recognition that Americans don’t desire the products and, therefore, Washington politicians must induce Americans to “do the right thing.”

An important point to bear in mind: All of this new spending will come on top of the federal government’s voluminous regulations. Americans will be getting the worst of both worlds. There was already the Biden regulatory avalanche, and now this proposed bill would force taxpayers to use their hard-earned money to subsidize wasteful spending.

For example, as Washington politicians spend money to try to induce people to buy the appliances the government wants you to buy, there are currently proposed new conservation regulatory standards at the Department of Energy for commercial water heating equipment; consumer furnaces; walk-in coolers and freezers; commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-freezers; packaged terminal air conditioners and packaged terminal heat pumps; dehumidifiers; dedicated-purpose pool pump motors; general service fluorescent lamps; clothes dryers; and distribution transformers.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member

“GREEN” IS UNSUSTAINABLE


The administration’s “green” energy proposals, like those that have been adopted in Europe, are leading this country toward an economic, social and strategic disaster. It is hard to think of any set of policies, adopted by any government at any moment in history, that rival our “green” mania for sheer destructiveness. Although, that said, Sri Lanka’s brief commitment to “sustainability” comes to mind.


Speaking of sustainability, this piece by Stuart Gottlieb in today’s Wall Street Journal, titled “Biden’s Climate Plans Are Unsustainable,” makes some great points.

[T]he greatest threat to [environmental] progress—particularly in the critical realm of climate—comes not from such emerging mega-emitters as China and India, although they certainly play a role. It comes from the energy and climate initiatives promoted by the Biden White House, which are themselves unsustainable—so aggressive and unduly optimistic that they risk a backlash that would set back the cause of environmental sustainability for generations.

This is true for at least three reasons.

To begin with, the agenda is economically unsustainable. According to the federal Energy Information Administration, global demand for energy will rise nearly 50% by 2050, with fossil fuels still accounting for roughly 75% of world supply. Though many Democrats insist this simply proves the urgency of making the transition, there are no economic models showing how that could occur without causing massive harm to the underlying economy. A McKinsey & Co. report shows that achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 would require nearly $6 trillion in new spending globally every year for the next 30 years—roughly equal to one-third of all tax receipts by every government in the world.

My experience with energy-related studies by companies like McKinsey causes me to think that this estimate is probably low by a factor of several times, if not orders of magnitude. But McKinsey’s numbers are bad enough. It simply isn’t going to happen.

The current agenda is also geostrategically unsustainable. It is increasingly clear that both Russia and China view aggressive Western climate commitments as an opportunity to increase their power and influence. We have already witnessed what Europe’s reliance on Russian natural gas has wrought: unacceptable dependence on one of the world’s vilest governments.
Meanwhile, China is seeking to dominate Western markets for renewables (wind turbines, solar panels, lithium batteries) while enjoying its own right as a developing country, conferred by international conventions, to keep burning cheap fossil fuels as it powers its rise toward passing the U.S. as the world’s largest economy.

Is the Biden administration deliberately trying to sell us out? Is Joe Biden a paid agent of the Communist Chinese, or perhaps of the Putin regime? I have always assumed that the answer is no, but the troubling question is, if Biden were a Chinese agent, what, exactly, would he be doing differently? The answer: nothing.

And the current agenda is politically unsustainable. Without committed action by the Group of Seven nations—the U.S., Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the U.K.—there is little hope for real climate progress in coming decades. Yet these are also the world’s leading democracies, accountable to their publics. There is a real danger that voters in these countries will rebel against climate policies that ramp up energy prices, hinder economic growth and even lead to rationing and blackouts.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member

It’s Not About Climate, It’s About Control​

One comment on Jenner’s Instagram post hit the nail on the head: “Why do I limit my meat consumption and use paper straws while the 1% gets to pump tons of carbon into the atmosphere for a day trip to Palm Springs?” Substitute “Wilmington” or “Rehoboth Beach” for Palm Springs, and you have Joe Biden’s behavior—and example—in a nutshell.

In many respects, the answer is as simple as it is infuriating: Lefty politicians, just like lefty celebrities, think they’re better than you, and don’t have to follow the rules they set out for others. They want others (meaning you) to pay the price for their climate “sins.” And climate groups have shown themselves willing to play along, and give Biden a pass for his hypocritical example, so long as he enacts the policies they want.

But the fact that the left has little interest in practicing what it preaches shows that the “climate crisis” isn’t really about climate; it’s a grab for power. As Rahm Emanuel famously noted, “You never let a serious crisis go to waste.” That’s why the left dubs anything and everything a “crisis”—because to them, “crisis” functions as code for “government power grab.”


 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member

Climate Activists Are Using Kids To Wage A Legal War Over Fossil Fuels










The endless “catastrophizing,” as it has been described by Alex Epstein, who outlines the years of hysteria in his book “Fossil Future,” has left today’s young people crippled with “climate anxiety.”

In December, The Lancet published a study from a team of nine researchers including psychologists, environmental scientists, and psychiatrists who surveyed 10,000 people aged 16 to 25 about their anxiety related to climate change and their governments’ response. Seventy-five percent of those surveyed across 10 different countries reported feeling the “future is frightening.” Researchers reported nearly half of all participants said their “feelings about climate change negatively affected their daily life and functioning.”

The study also showed fewer and fewer young people willing to reproduce, reportedly out of fear of climate change. Nearly 40 percent reported that their anxiety about the climate made them “hesitant to have children.” According to a 2020 survey from the Morning Consult, 1 in 4 adults cited climate change as their reason to remain childless. While children are often depicted as environmental burdens, including by current Bureau of Land Management Director Tracy Stone-Manning in her graduate thesis, population decline itself is a major long-term problem facing future generations.

But now, today’s kids inundated with incessant catastrophizing by reporters who themselves grew up with prophetic warnings about the “climate crisis” are launching lawsuits.

In February, the first youth-led lawsuit over climate change will go to trial as 16 plaintiffs sue Montana over the government’s promotion of fossil fuels. The Oregon-based environmental legal group “Our Children’s Trust” co-opted Montana teens in Held v. State of Montana to strong-arm Helena into eliminating fossil fuels as a centerpiece of the state’s energy policy.

Coverage of the lawsuit has been predictable cheerleading with a spotlight on the anxieties young people face from weather. An April write-up from the Guardian headlined “Fossil fuels v. our future: young Montanans wage historic climate fight,” was published under the “Climate crimes” section of the British paper.

“The 16 young people, who were between the ages of two and 18 when they filed the lawsiut in March 2020, have already felt the impacts of climate change,” the Guardian reported. “As these environmental consequences mount, young people have emerged as a leading force in the climate activism movement.”

Their lawsuit seeks to undermine Montana’s lucrative fossil fuel industry, asserting that emissions violate the right to a clean environment guaranteed in the state constitution. According to the Energy Information Administration, Montana is home to the “largest estimated recoverable coal reserves among the states” and provides 30 percent of the nation’s coal. Even with six operating coal mines and four private coal plants, the state is also already a top 10 state when it comes to the use of renewables. Fifty-two percent of the electricity provided by Montana’s power grid was generated by renewable energy.

This summer, however, the Montana attorney general’s office lost a motion before the state Supreme Court to dismiss the case now headed to trial this winter.

“Our Children’s Trust is a special interest group that is exploiting well-intentioned kids — including a 4-year-old and an 8-year-old — to achieve its goal of shutting down responsible energy development in Montana,” said Kyler Nerison, a spokesman for the attorney general’s office, in a statement to The Federalist. “Unable to implement their policies through our normal processes of representative government, these out-of-state climate activists are trying to use Montana’s liberal courts to impose their authoritarian climate agenda on us.”
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member

Why We Lost Trust in the Expert Class



For years, European policymakers had assured the world that the relatively rapid “transition” to “green” energy was the world’s preordained future — regardless of the costs.

Accordingly, many European Union governments followed the advice of green experts. They eagerly shut down coal, natural gas, and nuclear power plants to transition immediately to “renewable energy.”

Most citizens were afraid to object that in cloudy, cold Germany solar panels were not viable methods of electrical generation — especially in comparison to the country’s vast coal deposits and its large, model nuclear power industry.

As a result, German government officials warn that this winter, in 19th-century fashion, families will have to burn wood — the dirtiest of modern fuels — to endure the cold. And there is further talk of “warm rooms,” where like pre-civilizational tribal people, the elderly will bunch together within a designated heated room to keep alive.

Sri Lanka may be the first modern nation to adopt deliberate policies that have led to mass hunger and bankruptcy. The government, for a variety of reasons, listened to foreign advocates of back-to-nature organic farming, specifically outright abandonment of highly effective synthetic fertilizers and pesticides.

The result was endemic crop failure. Cash crops for export failed. Widespread hunger followed. Without foreign exchange, it became impossible to import key staples like food and fuel.

Sri Lanka once had a per capita income twice that of nearby India. Now it cannot feed or fuel itself.

Unfortunately, its incompetent government trusted radical environmental advisors, many of them foreign experts. Sri Lanka believed it could become the woke darling of the “Environmental, Social, Governance” movement, and in that way draw in unlimited Western woke investment.

Instead, it has embraced a policy of national suicide.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member

'Dirty ol' coal' is making a comeback and consumption is expected to return to 2013′s record levels





  • Coal prices are soaring and global coal consumption is expected to return to record levels reached almost 10 years ago as the global energy supply crunch continues.
  • While investors in coal stocks are having a field day thanks to high coal prices, curbs on carbon emissions are taking a backseat as markets and governments scramble to stock up on traditional energy supply amid bottlenecks caused by the Ukraine war, analysts say.
  • Worse, slowing investments in new coal-powered energy facilities have tightened the supply of coal even further, Shaw and Partners senior analyst Peter O'Connor told "Squawk Box Asia" on Friday.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member

Lights out, cold showers in Europe


We still see news coverage coming out of Europe issuing “warnings” about a possible energy crisis, spurred in part by the removal of Russian oil and natural gas from the European market. Concerns are being raised in the United States that the same thing “might” happen here. But this story is much bigger than just the Biden energy crisis. And these aren’t hypothetical discussions about power grid issues that are complex and difficult to explain. The reality is that it’s already upon us. It’s happening right now. In several European countries, the lights are already being dimmed if not extinguished in places. People are being asked to take cold showers or, in some places, not having any choice because there is no hot water. And it’s all being done in an effort to squirrel away any amount of energy they can before winter arrives. The President of the European Commission warned people this week that the time to start conserving and building stockpiles of oil and natural gas was yesterday. And it’s not just going to be Germany and Italy that are suffering. It will be the entire continent. (Associated Press)



The stakes are high. If Russia severs the supplies of gas it has already drastically reduced, authorities fear Europe risks becoming a colder, darker and less-productive place this winter. It’s imperative to economize gas now so it can be squirreled away for burning later in homes, factories and power plants, officials say.
“Europe needs to be ready,” said European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. “To make it through the winter, assuming that there is a full disruption of Russian gas, we need to save gas to fill our gas storages faster. And to do so, we have to reduce our gas consumption. I know that this is a big ask for the whole of the European Union, but it is necessary to protect us.”
And although Europe is scrambling to get energy from elsewhere, any difficulties this winter could be a harbinger of worse to come if Russian gas supplies are completely severed and stay off through 2023, said France’s minister overseeing energy, Agnès Pannier-Runacher.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member

The Unintended Consequences of Declaring 'Climate Emergency'


Why not aluminum can replacement of plastic? Aluminum is sourced from bauxite mines while coating nearby cities in toxic dust. Those airborne particles lead to everything from farmland destruction to cancer in those who breathe in the dust. Aluminum can production also generates twice as much carbon dioxide as a plastic bottle and is a significant source of global perfluorocarbon (PFC) emissions, which have 9,200 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide.

Unlike glass, aluminum, and plastic, boxed water cartons are nearly impossible to recycle because they are made from glued layers of plastic, aluminum foil, and paper. A study from the Danish Environmental Protection Agency found that it is better for the planet to incinerate cartons than to recycle them.

It’s not just bottle alternatives. A report in the New York Times found that the local governments’ rush to switch out plastic bags for cotton totes is yet another unmitigated and unintended environmental disaster caused by a rush to judgment. Emissions from producing one cotton tote are 20,000 times greater than the emission production of a single plastic bag.
 
Last edited:

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member

Senate Climate Bill Incentivizes Electric Cars We Can't Afford With Subsidies We Can't Use


Passing this provision of the climate bill only makes sense if you have no knowledge of what the electric vehicle industry is currently going through — which is about par for the course when it comes to Congress taking action on just about anything. One of the best ideas in the EV provision is the focus on buying “America first,” so we aren’t propping up problematic regimes when we are buying the vehicles and components of said vehicles.

Just one problem, though: None of the cars on the market seem to fall into that category.

In order to receive a tax credit for buying an electric vehicle, the budget deal Democrats are working to enact requires battery minerals to be at least 40 percent sourced from North America or a U.S. trading partnerstarting in 2024 and rising from there. And by 2029, battery components would have to be 100 percent made in North America.
Perhaps the most difficult bar, though, considering China’s dominance when it comes to lithium-ion batteries and other minerals and componentsthe vehicles need, is the deal’s stipulation that the credit won’t apply to a vehicle that has any battery components made from an “entity of concern,” such as China, by 2024, and no critical minerals from those sources by 2025.
Not a single electric vehicle currently on the market would qualify. It’s not surprising, considering that the United States accounts for just 8 percent of global lithium-ion battery production, compared to China’s 76 percent.
In some cases, companies may not even be able to trace the source of minerals or subcomponents of their own products.

Absolutely incredible.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member

The Democrats' New Inflation Bill Includes Tax Credits for Electric Vehicles That Don't Exist



Not that any of this was news: Last week, Reuters reported that multiple automakers were complaining about the feasibility of meeting the bill's timeline. Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D–Mich.), whose state includes the U.S. auto capital of Detroit, called it "a very cumbersome, unworkable credit once the full restrictions set in."

Last year, an earlier version of President Joe Biden's Build Back Better bill included a provision that would increase the EV tax credit by $5,000 if the vehicle and battery were both manufactured in a unionized U.S. factory. At the time, only the Chevrolet Bolt qualified for the extra incentive. Now, not one single vehicle qualifies for the full rebate.

Politico suggests that the government can simply get around these strictures by issuing waivers, much as it has done for steel tariffs. In practice, steel waivers incentivized cronyism, with Washington bureaucrats picking and choosing which companies received waivers and which did not. And if a law has problems, surely the best place to deal with that is in the text of the legislation itself, not an unstated hope that the administrative state will fix the issues when they arise.
 
Last edited:

glhs837

Power with Control

The Democrats' New Inflation Bill Includes Tax Credits for Electric Vehicles That Don't Exist



Not that any of this was news: Last week, Reuters reported that multiple automakers were complaining about the feasibility of meeting the bill's timeline. Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D–Mich.), whose state includes the U.S. auto capital of Detroit, called it "a very cumbersome, unworkable credit once the full restrictions set in."

Last year, an earlier version of President Joe Biden's Build Back Better bill included a provision that would increase the EV tax credit by $5,000 if the vehicle and battery were both manufactured in a unionized U.S. factory. At the time, only the Chevrolet Bolt qualified for the extra incentive. Now, not one single vehicle qualifies for the full rebate.

Politico suggests that the government can simply get around these strictures by issuing waivers, much as it has done for steel tariffs. In practice, steel waivers incentivized cronyism, with Washington bureaucrats picking and choosing which companies received waivers and which did not. And if a law has problems, surely the best place to deal with that is in the text of the legislation itself, not an unstated hope that the administrative state will fix the issues when they arise.

So the details that exclude virtually anyone are a feature to allow the favored ones to get waivers.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member

Researchers Suggest Americans Should Work Less To Help The Climate


Academics and economists say working only four days a week benefits the climate because people will consume 20% less energy and produce a 12.1% lower ecological footprint by reducing their day-to-day activities, according to The Washington Post. They use European work standards as an example for Americans to follow, and cite COVID-19 lockdowns as an example of people benefiting the environment by not working.

A University of Massachusetts Amherst study predicts that if work hours were reduced by 10%, ecological footprint, carbon footprint and carbon dioxide emissions could drop by 12.1%, 14.6% and 4.2% respectively. This is because an extra day off work will give people more free time to adopt “environmentally friendly” habits and “get used” to a lower consumption lifestyle, suggested Mark Weisbrot, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, in an interview with The Washington Post.

“The one thing we do know from lots of years of data and various papers and so forth is that the countries with short hours of work tend to be the ones with low emissions, and work time reductions tend to be associated with emission reduction,” added Boston College economist and sociologist Juliet Schor. She credited the need to travel less for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
 
Top