Apologies to all, I had thought to be back to The Smokey Wire sooner. I spent some time with the Public Lands Foundation in Cheyenne Wyoming, meeting many BLM folks and others dealing with access issues to public lands in Wyoming. Then the next week, I was off to the Salamander Resort in Middleburg, Virginia, with The Breakthrough Institute, to experience how the other 1% lives and mix with admitted coastal wonky elites...here’s the agenda of that session. I’ll post some of the videos once they are up. The next week I was back West to Rapid City, South Dakota with field trips to Wall, South Dakota to see efforts dealing with dispersed recreation and the restoration of black-footed ferret with the Rocky Mountaineers retirees’ group. I hope to upload presentations on the latter so that you all can enjoy a virtual field trip.
What the three trips had in common was some amazing young people working on the problems of the day. From getting minerals from seawater and enhanced rock weathering at TBI to restoring ferrets at the Wall Ranger District, to research at the Rapid City Forest and Grassland Research Laboratory, to regulating pore space for CO2 sequestration at the BLM. Perhaps these are stories that are too much “in the weeds”, so to speak, for media to pick up on, but they’re out there.
So that’s one commonality that I observed on these trips. The other was the omnipresence of gasoline and diesel-powered vehicles (and trains, in the case of Cheyenne and Rapid City). Even in urbanized places in Northern Virginia and the District, I noticed many vehicles, and in fact, ended up in the DC morning rush hour from Middleburg one morning. Even with excellent public transportation, as there is in NoVa, there are many, many, cars and trucks. And of course recreationists coming from the Midwest to recreate in South Dakota and Wyoming.. cars and RV’s. This seems obvious.
And yet, when I look at my news outlets, such as Center for Western Priorities, or others, there are frequent articles on the badness of oil and gas production when it is done domestically. In fact, there was a major environmental group push against the Biden Admin for the Willow Project. Who knows what random goodies will be thrown by the Admin (perhaps some MOG treats?) in attempts to placate these groups?
But what is that really about? Do these groups think that outsourcing to say, Iran and Venezuela is environmentally more desirable? Not to think like an economist, but reducing supply does tend to raise prices, and we care about poor or even middle-class people not being able to get to work or not affording food because of high gas prices. And we are shipping lots of military stuff abroad which runs on.. fossil fuels.
Some of us remember the oil embargo of 1973..this from an interview with Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of RI:
“One in five gas stations in the country had no fuel to sell whatsoever,” Colgan said. “By January 1974, oil prices worldwide had quadrupled, and that led to a whole bunch of economic and political consequences” that are still present today.
When asked what it was like living through the oil crisis, Whitehouse shared that there were odd and even days to get gas, decided based on the last number of each person’s license plate. For example, if your license plate ended with a seven and it was an odd day, you could get gas, but if it ended with a six and was an odd day, you could not.
Whitehouse outlined the dilemma faced by oil companies at this time: “Do you keep your prices level because you have an obligation to your country and your customers, or do you follow the international cartel and take advantage of its price gouging?”
“Of course, they chose the latter,” Whitehouse said, explaining that oil companies chose to take advantage of their customers, rather than make gas affordable.
So O&G companies have not always acted well. Perhaps that’s a reason for hate. OTOH some of us also remember the financial crisis and banks being too big to fail and all that. And yet.. we don’t see daily in the press the need for better regulation of them. In fact, our friends in the financial industry do things like naming the CEO of Aramco to their board of directors.
The Biden Admin is all on domestic production of strategic minerals.. but not O&G. Or maybe DOE kind of is, but DOI is not. It’s all puzzling to me.
Meanwhile there are people working every day, human beings, citizens of our country, whom I don’t think deserve this scapegoating. Union jobs, paying a family wage, diverse folks working that bring us what we are using every day. So what is all this really about, and how do we “un-hate” ourselves out of it?
In fact, many of the folks most against fossil production use more than the average person, as in this article on Robert Bryce’s Substack.
Of course, Bloomberg can spend his vast fortune however he wants. According to Forbes, he’s the 11th-richest person on the planet, with assets worth $96.3 billion. (Bloomberg.com doesn’t include Michael Bloomberg in its rankings of the world’s richest people.) And the former mayor of New York City does not live modestly. As I noted in these pages in March, Bloomberg owns about a dozen houses. He’s also one of the biggest users of private jets. As I explained:
According to ClimateJets.org, Bloomberg, or people connected to him, used five aircraft which emitted about 3,197 tons of CO2 in 2022. That number puts Bloomberg in the top 10 of all private jet owners in terms of emissions. For comparison, the average American is responsible for about 16 tons of CO2 emissions per year. In other words, Bloomberg’s fleet of jets is emitting about 200 times more CO2 per year than what’s emitted by the average American.
Recall in announcing his $500 million grant to Beyond Carbon, Bloomberg claimed he wants to move “beyond fossil fuels” and replace them with renewable energy. Last year, Bloomberg, or people connected to him, flew on his private jets to New York, New Jersey, Florida, Bahamas, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Bermuda, Switzerland, France, Costa Rica, Brazil, Israel, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. All that flying required burning about 328,000 gallons of jet fuel. For comparison, that’s about 670 times more than the volume of gasoline consumed by an average American motorist in a year.
Also, recall that in 2021, Bloomberg said, “We’re in a race to save Earth from climate change.” It’s unclear to whom Bloomberg referred when he used the royal “we.”But given his predilection for far-flung houses and private jets, it seems that the media mogul and near-centibillionaire is a lot like the rest of us when it comes to using hydrocarbons.
How can we both use something- in fact it’s vital to our economy- and say at the same time, that the (domestic only?) folks that produce it are bad and need to be shut down? Or is it simply that it’s easier to shut down things here than other countries (the policy equivalent of logging the flat ground).
Aside from obvious potential class issues related to workers. I wonder what that does to people internally to live with that contradiction if they really believe what they say about production. To me, it’s a bit as if the Deuteronomic food laws said “you can eat shrimp, but only if the Canaanites produce it for you .” I find it all very puzzling.
I haven’t seen this discussed anywhere, and I am curious about what TSW readers think.
I’ve mentioned this more than a few times on lefty web sites. There are a few things going on here.
It’s not just Bloomberg. Carbon emissions tend to increase with income, dramatically so when you reach the top decile in the US. If Bloomberg went to live in a cave tomorrow it wouldn’t make a dent. I’d be willing to bet much of the carbon isn’t even counted. The well to do have lots of servants, how do they fit in the equation.
Long ago I figured out that any realistic demand side reduction has to come via government regulation. If Al Gore was charged a much higher tax rate for his fifth house he might rent it out cheaply to the homeless.
Outdoorsy urban refugees do not like the locals. Oil field workers are the epitome of the type of person they hate. It’s much better to heap scorn on someone you don’t like. Besides no one wants to share multi use lands with ATVs, hunters, RVs, oil rigs, etc.
Our basic need actually use very little carbon. Warmth, some food, the company of friends and family, even the internet.
And remember, we’re only part of the equation, the rest of the world would like AC too.
“Long ago I figured out that any realistic demand side reduction has to come via government regulation.” I think that is a big part of the answer to Sharon’s question. Bloomberg would be happy if the government would incentivize downscaling his travels, but voluntary individual sacrifices are hard when nobody else is doing it (especially if you are Bloomberg and think your trips have a long-term payoff in carbon reduction because of the work you are doing).
I also continue to question whether there is much overt hostility toward the non-policy workers at fossil fuel companies. Does anybody expect them to make the extreme personal sacrifice of giving up their jobs.
You’ve astutely pegged some of the key issues we face. That fact that fossil fuels are “vital to our economy” underlies the hypocrisies and anger you observe and describe. I would change that to “vital to our political economy.”
But never fear, peak fossil fuel is here or at least peak EROEI is. short of some difficult to see scientific and engineering miracle in the near future we are at peak surplus energy per capita. (Que up for comments by techno-utopians/cornucopians who don’t want to understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics.) It’s a good thing demographic projections are looking at a decreasing global population soon.
Toby.. what’s the difference between “economy” and “political economy”… what I meant was really “way of transporting, heating and cooling, and feeding ourselves” which I guess may be either or both?
Here’s one way to think of it: Martin Luther King spent his entire adult life fighting for racial justice (“civil rights”). Initially his focus was on politics: access to schools, access to buses, access to the voting booth. Over time, he increasingly realized that civil rights also includes economics: equitable access to material resources and money (good jobs and intergenerational wealth). To this day, Blacks have on average 10% of the wealth as White people. MLK realized that without economic equity, access to buses and schools doesn’t mean much.
Under our current political economy the “way of transporting, heating and cooling, and feeding ourselves” is not equitably accessible. We have deep divisions by race, class, and gender. By many measures we do not live in a very democratic society because of these inequities. [And I acknowledge that in many ways we are better than much of the rest of the world, but lots of that “better” has to do with the fact that as the global hegemon we were able to extract ownership or control over a large portion of the world’s wealth through the 20th Century. Another subject but needs to kept in mind when considering the political economy at the global level.]
That’s why I do not use “politics” or “economics” separately or singularly when discussing governance unless we’re discussing specific elements or processes. The essence of economics is how access to transport, heating & cooling, food, education, *and capital* is allocated. “Politics” is the system used to manage those allocations decisions, prevent harmful decisions (including environmentally damaging) by those who own the most wealth (“the 1%” who make many or most capital allocation decisions), and hopefully impose some equity (“democracy”).
I use “political economy” because politics and economics do not operate independently; they are inextricably linked.
I came across a very good summary of the “political-economics” issue in a book deconstructing the Neoclassical economic model (think “Chicago School”, Nordhous, Friedman—Milton, not Thomas). The book is The New Economics by Steve Keen (2020). Here’s the extract (pp. 142-3):
“…economics is necessarily political. With a class-based analysis, the consequences for different social classes of different economic policies must be confronted. The distributions of income, wealth and power matter, and economics can no longer hide behind aggregate cost-benefit analyses when debating policy.
“The New Economics [which author Keen argues needs to replace Neoclassical economics] must also be grounded in the actual dynamics, complexity and chaos of capitalism. Though there is nothing political about this—it is simply a case of using the tools of analysis that suit the dynamic, evolutionary system that capitalism itself is—I expect that will be as progressive as the equilibrium foundation of Neoclassical economics proved to be reactionary. [Keen challenges the equilibrium foundation because it is incompatible with the non-equilibrium dynamics inherent in reality as a result of the laws of thermodynamics.]
“The preceding chapters have sketched out essential elements of a post-Neoclassical economic paradigm; the need for a monetary foundation, the need to understand complexity, the need to be grounded in the biophysics of production using energy and matter, to be integrated with a proper understanding of ecology…”
This extract explains again why I use “political-economy” instead of either separately whenever the subject is allocation or “distribution of income, wealth, and power.”
Toby.. I wonder whether academic economists, like other economists, sometimes overthink things, to the extent that their products lack utility in the real world? Of course, I took intermediate micro from a UCLA laissez faire prof.. who smoked during class. And behavioral economics didn’t exist..
Sharon wrote:”How can we both use something- in fact it’s vital to our economy- and say at the same time, that the (domestic only?) folks that produce it are bad and need to be shut down?
My take on this:
One way to detect what is really going on is to follow the money.
* The anti fracking video/”film” included at least on Middle east oil producer in its credits.
* The mainstream media has carried some articles about russian money financing some of the anti-pipeline protests
* Several European sources have carried similar stories about Russian money in the groups opposing domestic energy production.
* Before Putin’s folly, Russian energy exports was a very significant source of russian income.
* Financial markets have been looking a a TRILLION dollar market for carbon emissions trading.
* Many large corporations are making money (or trying to!) off of wind and solar energy and their massive government subsidies. Of course some of this money finds it way back to politicians through campaign donations and, as we are finding out – outright bribes.
* News media, daily, carries false accusations of global warming being caused by fossil fuels.
References:
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/russia-articles.html
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/trillion_dollar.html
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/bigmoneyscaring.html
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/green-money.html
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/paid%20by%20the%20fossil%20fuel%20industry.html
And the main page of DebunkingClimate.com
Here are more links for Russian/foreign money opposing our energy production:
“An international campaign known as “Keep It in the Ground” has been pushing an anti-fossil fuel agenda that advances Russia’s geopolitical interests at the expense of the U.S. and America’s allies. The campaign claims support from more than 400 organizations across the globe, with a sizable percentage operating inside the U.S. The campaign is opposed not just to the extraction of fossil fuels, but to any fossil fuel-related project including pipelines, rail transportation, refineries, and energy exploration.
These groups include Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, 350.org, the Center for Biological Diversity, WildEarth Guardians, the Rainforest Action Network, Earthworks, and the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, to name just a few. Some of the larger environmental advocacy groups in the U.S., such as the Natural Resources Defense Council and the League of Conservation Voters, don’t appear on the list of 400, yet do support the same anti-fossil policy aims and draw from the same pool of financial supporters.
The common denominator here between many of these groups is the San Francisco-based Sea Change Foundation, which has been identified as the incubator for Russian funding of environmental groups. Another key player is the Energy Foundation, which is also based in San Francisco and appears to be an offshoot of the Sea Change Foundation.” washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/russian-funded-environmental-group-gave-millions-to-anti-fracking-groups
—-
Also: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/environmental-group-may-have-to-register-as-foreign-agents
Russian meddling in Canadian oil pipelines uses old Soviet ‘useful idiots’ ploy
https://financialpost.com/commodities/energy/russian-meddling-another-worry-for-canadian-energy-exports
Putin’s Ties to the Keystone XL Pipeline
https://www.ecowatch.com/putin-keystone-xl-pipeline-2260807144.html
Rep. Bill Huizenga (R-Mich.) is sounding the alarm about links between China and an organization that has advocated against the continued use of gas stoves in the United States.
…
Huizenga sent a letter (pdf) to Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Jennifer Granholm on Monday, alleging the Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI)—an organization that has advocated for increased restrictions on gas stoves—has “considerable documented ties to the Chinese government.”
https://www.theepochtimes.com/rep-huizenga-raises-alarm-over-chinese-links-to-group-pushing-gas-stove-ban_5089777.html?
Russian meddling in Canadian oil pipelines uses old Soviet ‘useful idiots’ ploy
Russian-linked accounts targeted ‘highly visible tension points’ in America, including protests against pipelines and over climate change
Author of the article:Claudia Cattaneo, Published Mar 02, 2018 • Last updated Mar 05, 2018 • 3 minute read
The alleged new “troll factory” in St. Petersburg, Russia, where the Internet Research Agency is said to be housed.
The alleged new “troll factory” in St. Petersburg, Russia, where the Internet Research Agency is said to be housed. PHOTO BY MSTYSLAV CHERNOV / AP FILE PHOTO
Article content
An investigation by United States lawmakers that links Russian-sponsored agents to manipulation of U.S. energy markets — including activism against pipelines such as TransCanada Corp.’s Keystone XL pipeline — is a wake-up call to Canadian governments that foreign interests have a big hand in campaigns to block Canadian oil and gas exports.
Article content
By designing energy and environmental policy to appease that inflated activism — for example, regulatory reforms that are expected to further discourage energy investment in Canada — Canadian governments are accommodating competitors prepared to do whatever it takes to protect and grow their global oil and gas market share, not Canada’s best interest.
According to the report by the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology, made public Thursday, Russian agents have been exploiting U.S. social media platforms to influence opinions about U.S. energy and environmental policy.
https://financialpost.com/commodities/energy/russian-meddling-another-worry-for-canadian-energy-exports
Putin’s Ties to the Keystone XL Pipeline
https://www.ecowatch.com/putin-keystone-xl-pipeline-2260807144.html
Russia trying to throw German elections to stop Ukraine aid: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/kremlin-tries-to-build-antiwar-coalition-in-germany-documents-show/ar-AA1a7LPj
Russian’ money: http://www.debunkingclimate.com/russia-articles.html
——————
The foundation passed those millions along to some of the nation’s most prominent and politically active environmentalist groups. The Sierra Club, the Natural Resource Defense Council, the League of Conservation Voters, and the Center for American Progress were among the recipients of Sea Change’s $100 million in grants in 2010 and 2011.
https://freebeacon.com/issues/foreign-firm-funding-u-s-green-groups-tied-to-state-owned-russian-oil-company/
———–
a law firm that tries to block development … Worldwide Fund for Nature… the Natural Resources Defense Council …World Resources Institute…Energy Foundation … Extinction Rebellion
https://unherd.com/2021/12/does-the-ccp-control-extinction-rebellion/
————
The credits on Gasland say it partly financed by one of the Middle East oil producers.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2012/09/28/matt-damons-anti-fracking-movie-financed-by-oil-rich-arab-nation/
————————————————————
How US keeping fossil fuel in the ground helps Russia:
1. Fossil fuel is a necessity for modern life. (Nuclear is the ONLY viable alternative and the eco fanatics have put this off the table)
2. Therefore there is NO WAY we can eliminate fossil fuel until a LOW COST alternative comes along. Solar & Wind are several time more expensive than fossil fuels.)
3. Russia WILL NOT reduce its production
4. Russia will get a bigger share of the world market if US & Europe quit producing fossil fuels.
More money related
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/06/15/myth-of-big-oils-funding-of-climate-scepticism-vs-reality-of-big-greens-billions-driving-climate-alarmism/
World Now Wasting $1 Trillion Or More Per Year Investing In Useless “Renewables”
https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2023-6-29-world-now-wasting-more-than-1-trillion-per-year-on-investing-in-useless-renewables
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/07/01/world-now-wasting-1-trillion-or-more-per-year-investing-in-useless-renewables/
But there’s more!
Rep. DeSantis reported that the FBI started gathering evidence in 2009, including recordings, emails, and witnesses. The witnesses they talked to said that Russian nuclear industry officials used bribes, kickbacks, money laundering, and other illegal tactics to expand Russia’s influence over America’s uranium market.
Suspicions of the Clintons’ involvement ran high as Bill had recently received $500,000 for a speech presented to the bank in Russia that was working on the Uranium One deal, and all told, the Clinton Foundation reportedly collected $145 million from people linked to Uranium One.
Hillary admitted that she approved and signed off on the Uranium One transaction, and the Obama DOJ under then-Attorney General Eric Holder chose not to act in pursuance of FBI evidence.
Which brings to mind a special irony of Hillary’s Trump-Russia collusion canard that dogged President Trump throughout his presidency and even got him impeached.
Now flash forward — back to the present — to our current president who has worked to kill U.S. fossil energy — now uranium as well.
Meanwhile, as the Wall Street Journal board points out, “Progressives want to block all mining in the U.S., including for critical minerals such as lithium and nickel that are needed to power their green-energy transition. But that means mining will occur in countries with fewer environmental protections.”
In short, this latest land grab is but another monumental act of far-left fraud on America.
https://www.newsmax.com/larrybell/uranium-mining-nuclear-energy/2023/08/11/id/1130464/
Nice copypasta.
Please try for original thoughts and actual dialogue, instead of agenda next time. You and Toby are 1000% the same.
Here are more links for Russian/foreign money opposing our energy production:
“An international campaign known as “Keep It in the Ground” has been pushing an anti-fossil fuel agenda that advances Russia’s geopolitical interests at the expense of the U.S. and America’s allies. The campaign claims support from more than 400 organizations across the globe, with a sizable percentage operating inside the U.S. The campaign is opposed not just to the extraction of fossil fuels, but to any fossil fuel-related project including pipelines, rail transportation, refineries, and energy exploration.
These groups include Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, 350.org, the Center for Biological Diversity, WildEarth Guardians, the Rainforest Action Network, Earthworks, and the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, to name just a few. Some of the larger environmental advocacy groups in the U.S., such as the Natural Resources Defense Council and the League of Conservation Voters, don’t appear on the list of 400, yet do support the same anti-fossil policy aims and draw from the same pool of financial supporters.
The common denominator here between many of these groups is the San Francisco-based Sea Change Foundation, which has been identified as the incubator for Russian funding of environmental groups. Another key player is the Energy Foundation, which is also based in San Francisco and appears to be an offshoot of the Sea Change Foundation.” washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/russian-funded-environmental-group-gave-millions-to-anti-fracking-groups
—-
Also: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/environmental-group-may-have-to-register-as-foreign-agents
Russian meddling in Canadian oil pipelines uses old Soviet ‘useful idiots’ ploy
https://financialpost.com/commodities/energy/russian-meddling-another-worry-for-canadian-energy-exports
Putin’s Ties to the Keystone XL Pipeline
https://www.ecowatch.com/putin-keystone-xl-pipeline-2260807144.html
Rep. Bill Huizenga (R-Mich.) is sounding the alarm about links between China and an organization that has advocated against the continued use of gas stoves in the United States.
…
Huizenga sent a letter (pdf) to Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Jennifer Granholm on Monday, alleging the Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI)—an organization that has advocated for increased restrictions on gas stoves—has “considerable documented ties to the Chinese government.”
https://www.theepochtimes.com/rep-huizenga-raises-alarm-over-chinese-links-to-group-pushing-gas-stove-ban_5089777.html?
Russian meddling in Canadian oil pipelines uses old Soviet ‘useful idiots’ ploy
Russian-linked accounts targeted ‘highly visible tension points’ in America, including protests against pipelines and over climate change
Author of the article:Claudia Cattaneo, Published Mar 02, 2018 • Last updated Mar 05, 2018 • 3 minute read
The alleged new “troll factory” in St. Petersburg, Russia, where the Internet Research Agency is said to be housed.
The alleged new “troll factory” in St. Petersburg, Russia, where the Internet Research Agency is said to be housed. PHOTO BY MSTYSLAV CHERNOV / AP FILE PHOTO
Article content
An investigation by United States lawmakers that links Russian-sponsored agents to manipulation of U.S. energy markets — including activism against pipelines such as TransCanada Corp.’s Keystone XL pipeline — is a wake-up call to Canadian governments that foreign interests have a big hand in campaigns to block Canadian oil and gas exports.
Article content
By designing energy and environmental policy to appease that inflated activism — for example, regulatory reforms that are expected to further discourage energy investment in Canada — Canadian governments are accommodating competitors prepared to do whatever it takes to protect and grow their global oil and gas market share, not Canada’s best interest.
According to the report by the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology, made public Thursday, Russian agents have been exploiting U.S. social media platforms to influence opinions about U.S. energy and environmental policy.
https://financialpost.com/commodities/energy/russian-meddling-another-worry-for-canadian-energy-exports
Putin’s Ties to the Keystone XL Pipeline
https://www.ecowatch.com/putin-keystone-xl-pipeline-2260807144.html
Russia trying to throw German elections to stop Ukraine aid: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/kremlin-tries-to-build-antiwar-coalition-in-germany-documents-show/ar-AA1a7LPj
Russian’ money: http://www.debunkingclimate.com/russia-articles.html
——————
The foundation passed those millions along to some of the nation’s most prominent and politically active environmentalist groups. The Sierra Club, the Natural Resource Defense Council, the League of Conservation Voters, and the Center for American Progress were among the recipients of Sea Change’s $100 million in grants in 2010 and 2011.
https://freebeacon.com/issues/foreign-firm-funding-u-s-green-groups-tied-to-state-owned-russian-oil-company/
———–
a law firm that tries to block development … Worldwide Fund for Nature… the Natural Resources Defense Council …World Resources Institute…Energy Foundation … Extinction Rebellion
https://unherd.com/2021/12/does-the-ccp-control-extinction-rebellion/
————
The credits on Gasland say it partly financed by one of the Middle East oil producers.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2012/09/28/matt-damons-anti-fracking-movie-financed-by-oil-rich-arab-nation/
————————————————————
How US keeping fossil fuel in the ground helps Russia:
1. Fossil fuel is a necessity for modern life. (Nuclear is the ONLY viable alternative and the eco fanatics have put this off the table)
2. Therefore there is NO WAY we can eliminate fossil fuel until a LOW COST alternative comes along. Solar & Wind are several time more expensive than fossil fuels.)
3. Russia WILL NOT reduce its production
4. Russia will get a bigger share of the world market if US & Europe quit producing fossil fuels.
More money related
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/06/15/myth-of-big-oils-funding-of-climate-scepticism-vs-reality-of-big-greens-billions-driving-climate-alarmism/
World Now Wasting $1 Trillion Or More Per Year Investing In Useless “Renewables”
https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2023-6-29-world-now-wasting-more-than-1-trillion-per-year-on-investing-in-useless-renewables
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/07/01/world-now-wasting-1-trillion-or-more-per-year-investing-in-useless-renewables/
But there’s more!
Rep. DeSantis reported that the FBI started gathering evidence in 2009, including recordings, emails, and witnesses. The witnesses they talked to said that Russian nuclear industry officials used bribes, kickbacks, money laundering, and other illegal tactics to expand Russia’s influence over America’s uranium market.
Suspicions of the Clintons’ involvement ran high as Bill had recently received $500,000 for a speech presented to the bank in Russia that was working on the Uranium One deal, and all told, the Clinton Foundation reportedly collected $145 million from people linked to Uranium One.
Hillary admitted that she approved and signed off on the Uranium One transaction, and the Obama DOJ under then-Attorney General Eric Holder chose not to act in pursuance of FBI evidence.
Which brings to mind a special irony of Hillary’s Trump-Russia collusion canard that dogged President Trump throughout his presidency and even got him impeached.
Now flash forward — back to the present — to our current president who has worked to kill U.S. fossil energy — now uranium as well.
Meanwhile, as the Wall Street Journal board points out, “Progressives want to block all mining in the U.S., including for critical minerals such as lithium and nickel that are needed to power their green-energy transition. But that means mining will occur in countries with fewer environmental protections.”
In short, this latest land grab is but another monumental act of far-left fraud on America.
https://www.newsmax.com/larrybell/uranium-mining-nuclear-energy/2023/08/11/id/1130464/
Anon wrote: “Nice copypasta.”
Please try real hard to understand that it ONLY a list of articles in major news sources.
Why don’t you post something with meaningful content? Or do you prefer just being nothing more than an anonymous irritant?
Jim, I’m agnostic on all this “who and why”.. but I would like if our government had a coherent message that we could understand. As it is, I think most of the folks say NRDC really believe what they say, and are not shills for Russian oligarchs or the Saudis.. but I think that’s a conversation there is currently no place to have in depth. That’s what I would like to see (obviously by higher ranking and more important people than ourselves).
Sharon: “As it is, I think most of the folks say NRDC really believe what they say, and are not shills for Russian oligarchs or the Saudis.”
There is so much money to be made by so many people, it would be a huge task to sort it all out.
We do know, from climategate, that some top climate “scientists” are corrupt. http://www.debunkingclimate.com/SelectedEmails.html
We do know that millions are being made selling selling alternative energy equipment.
We do know that large amount of money is going into climate research, with many claims that is goes mainly to alarmists. http://www.debunkingclimate.com/green-money.html
We do know that NOAA keeps using climate data as if we know world historical temperature to an unrealistic level of accuracy, even though there is no real worldwide ocean data before satellites and little africa and south American data before WWII. http://www.debunkingclimate.com/lack_of_data.html
We also know that NOAA has made many “adjustments” to historical data that many claim have made the past look cooler. http://www.debunkingclimate.com/data-tampering-superbowl.html In any case that raises the question of which revision is the most accurate? The latest. Or the last one which was thought accurate at the time?
I can personally attest that when I first started looking at climate, NOAA showed 1998 as equal to the 1930s – now they show it significantly warmer.
Recent papers show that much of the ground data warming is likely due to uncorrected heat island effect. Anthony Watts showed that most temperature measuring sites were not up to accuracy standards.
Finally, many notable people say is it OK to lie because it is a good cause: http://www.debunkingclimate.com/oktolie.html
thanks
JK
“We do know that NOAA keeps using climate data as if we know world historical temperature to an unrealistic level of accuracy, even though there is no real worldwide ocean data before satellites and little africa and south American data before WWII.”
This source (a meteorologist who I have no reason to think is motivated by money to say this), says something different:
https://www.news8000.com/news/national-world/climate-change-glaciers-paleo-warming-sediments/article_325dbc66-a5a1-5629-88e3-b8dc448670a4.html
Nor do I suspect this of the director of Science, Sustainability and the Media at the University of Pennsylvania, who he is quoting here:
“It’s not so much how warm the planet is or what the CO2 levels are,” Mann said. “It’s what climate are you adapted to and how rapidly are you moving away from that climate… It turns out, global temperatures were remarkably stable for six, seven, eight thousand years, during which we developed all of this infrastructure that supports eight billion people. And we are dependent on the stability of that climate and its ability to continue to support that infrastructure which we’ve created,” he said.
(Kind of like NRV.))
Jon, we’ve seen quite a few changes in climate even in last 2000 years so I don’t know where Mann is coming from in this case. Remember hearing about the Little Ice Age?
Mann’s “hockey stick” graph of his politics has been a point of ridicule by a number of actual scientists for many years. Mann is just another politicized prophet of doom with his hand out for contributions from his followers and from unsuspecting taxpayers by all appearances. His ability to turn tree rings into “global temperatures” is truly magical. If you don’t think he’s being influenced by money and ego, then you should become more familiar with his history and reputation. The man is a complete charlatan according to many, and I’m inclined to agree with that assessment
Jon Haber wrote: “Nor do I suspect this of the director of Science, Sustainability
You should dismiss anyone with “sustainability” in their title or work description because they are engaged in a fraud. Even a small child knows that man cannot predict the future, yet the definition of sustainability requires knowing what the future requirements of man will be. for instance in the late 1800s a major issue was finding new sources of horse feed. Ford came out of nowhere and solved the problem. Also if you are planning for the future in 1943, you had to plan for airports with longer runways for the new jet planes. Of course jet power was top secret at the time.
Jon Haber wrote: “Mann said.
You cannot rely on anything from this guy who fabricated the famous “hockeystick” graph from misusing statistics, using an alogrythim that creates hockey sticks where there are none, uses trees widely known as unsutiable for climate and MOST OF ALL “hid the decline” which undermines the credibility of his data. BTW he didn’t happen to notice that few of his data sources showed a hockeystick BEFORE he processed them.
See: http://www.debunkingclimate.com/michael_mann.html
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/manns_book.html
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/Wegman.html
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/styn_vs_mann.html
So, i dismiss your entire post as being based on fatally flawed information.
thanks
JK
And I dismiss your posts because you regularly make outrageous inflammatory statements based on nothing but your biases: “You should dismiss anyone with “sustainability” in their title or work description because they are engaged in a fraud.” Give me a break.
I don’t pretend to know anything about hockey sticks or the scientific definition of “stable” (how that relates to the Little Ice
Age), but this is all deflection. The question is whether you can tell anything about temperature from isotopes, and if so whether the rate of change is outside of the ability to adapt without severe societal consequences.
Jon Haber wrote (starting with q quote of me): “You should dismiss anyone with “sustainability” in their title or work description because they are engaged in a fraud.” Give me a break.
Naw, just explain to us how the sustainability cult knows the future to a sufficient degree to justify the use of government force against its citizens.
Jon Haber wrote: “I don’t pretend to know anything about hockey sticks or the scientific definition of “stable” (how that relates to the Little Ice Age),
YOU should know those things to become informed enough to make useful comments on the climate issue:
1. “Hockeystick” refers to the scary (and fraudulent) historical graph fabricated my YOUR cited guy, Michael mann. It is exposed by ClimateAudit.org. DebunkingClimate.com has several entries on mann – I suggest you brush up on his misdeeds:
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/Wegman.html
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/michael_mann.html
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/manns_book.html
http://www.debunkingclimate.com/styn_vs_mann.html
Jon Haber wrote: “The question is whether you can tell anything about temperature from isotopes, ”
They are pretty widely accepted.
Jon Haber wrote: “and if so whether the rate of change is outside of the ability to adapt without severe societal consequences.”
That is NOT A QUESTION it is a diversion brought up the the Climate Scare Industry and is TOTALLY UNSUPPORTED by the facts.
Sustainability is the law for national forest management. Maybe you are in over your head here.
Apparently the hockey stick is fine (but may have actually underestimated the risks), as of yesterday (Time Magazine): https://ca.news.yahoo.com/beyond-hockey-stick-were-missing-195814326.html
“The millennial hockey stick, published on the dawn of a new millennium, conveyed clearly the unprecedented nature of the warming taking place today… That made it a threat to carbon polluters, and it was subject to a crescendo of attacks by fossil fuel companies and those doing their bidding. The hockey stick has nonetheless stood up to the scrutiny; indeed, other teams of scientists have even extended it back two millennia.”
“The hockey stick emphasizes the relative stability of the global climate over the common era, the period during which much of our civilizational infrastructure was developed. But evidence is growing that suggests we are rapidly leaving this era of climate stability—we find now ourselves in what I’ve termed our “fragile moment.”
Far from being debunked, Mann seems to still be widely referred to as “renowned.” So your facts appear (again) to be “alternative.”
Jim, so much of your comment sounded suspicious to me and your sources are well known for putting out misinformation. Rather than factcheck all of them, because I won’t take the time to do that, I factchecked two of them.
First, your accusation about Sea Change being a conduit for Russian funding of environmental groups doesn’t seem to hold up to scrutiny: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/17/bogus-allegation-that-putin-is-funding-california-environmental-charity/
Then I checked on your accusation that Rocky Mountain Institute advocates for increased restrictions on gas stoves and has considerable documented ties to the Chinese government. Also doesn’t hold up or is at least misleading https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2023/mar/09/nicholas-langworthy/claim-about-energy-department-gas-stoves-china-exa/
I try to understand and be respectful of people’s opinions, but your accusations, at least the two I checked, seem to be misinformation.
Mike, Please try REAL HARD to understand that those are excerpts from WELL KNOWN news sources, with links to the sources.
Please take up you beefs with the sources.
Of course you should follow your own advise when you choose to use a newspaper that has spent three years covering up Biden’s bribery, lying about, Russian Collusion,
Muller report, Ukrainian phone call, Russian bounty on US troops, Alpha Bank, Charletsville, Racism, an d the Phony Climate crisis
And, of course politifact has a long history of using unreliable sources for their so-called fact checks.
Having said that, what do you say about reports in the other many sources: Hillary, NYT, US Congress, several foreign papers?
thanks
JK
Of course this is all about Hillary. These are “well known” ALTERNATIVE news sources, with their alternative facts. Thanks to Mike for debunking a couple of those. It shouldn’t take more than a couple of debunks to make it clear to TSW readers that they can’t trust you or your sources. But here’s one more:
You: “Solar & Wind are several time more expensive than fossil fuels.”
Forbes (4 years ago): https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesellsmoor/2019/06/15/renewable-energy-is-now-the-cheapest-option-even-without-subsidies/?sh=3db8bb505a6b
But Mike’s cites didn’t actually “debunk” them.. it’s a lot more complicated than that.. I don’t trust the WaPo’s analysis which I translate as “barely disguised op-ed”. Since last week was a major error for the NYTimes this is probably a bad time to defend the Coastal Press as definitive sources of info.
So I looked into it.. here’s what Open Secrets says about Sea Change. https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/sea-change-foundation/ and the Russian connection with links.
Also the piece Mike cited from Politifact..said
“The institute is working with the Chinese government to reduce carbon emissions, but experts say that characterizing this as “ties” to the Communist Party lacks important context.” Hmm. I’m starting another post on this topic more generically.
Yes it is a lot more complicated – it seems to get to the question of how to you define reality. Whom is gaslighting whom? I look forward to your answer.
I think I used “debunk” in the same way that http://www.debunking.climate.com does.
Do you mean “debunk” has no meaning whatsoever?
[The link goes nowhere, and a search for “debunking climate” turns up nothing similar.]
I take that back. My browser blocked http://debunkingclimate.com/ because it’s not secure. I have to “accept the risk” to open it.
No need to be secure because it does not collect any data or ask for private information.
too bad about your crappy browser.
It is merely an accurate source of climate information with numerous links to quality information.
That was me accidentally posting as anonymous. Debunk has a meaning, but “debunkingclimate” doesn’t seem to.
Jon wrote: “These are “well known” ALTERNATIVE news sources, with their alternative facts.”
Yeah, the sources that, unlike the mainstream media, tell the truth about climate – there is no climate crisis. Wind & solar have NEVER been proven to supply 100% of needed energy in any city, state or country at reasonable cost.
But, you are so well informed that you must be able to prove me wrong with an real example of 24/7/365 100% renewables at lower cost that fossil fuels. and don’t try to pawn off hydro as a practical source because the eco-nuutters are trying to rip out our current dams and hydro cannot be expanded much due to lack of new locations (and the econutters).
AND please show us actual evidence that we are in a man caused CO2 “climate crises” keeping in mind that step one is to show that today’s climate is outside of historical norms. Please don’t try to pawn off garbage like Pages2K or anything from OSU as credible. Likewise Mann.
Jon wrote: “It shouldn’t take more than a couple of debunks to make it clear to TSW readers that they can’t trust you or your sources.”
Thanks for proving me correct by insulting me, instead of showing my claims to be wrong. Note that you are criticising a list that includes
financialpost.com
justice.gov
salon.com
washingtonpost.com
newsweek.com
theguardian.com
investors.com
financialpost.com
washingtonexaminer.com
msn.com
That pretty much destroys YOUR credibility.
thanks
JK
“there is no climate crisis. Wind & solar have NEVER been proven to supply 100% of needed energy in any city, state or country at reasonable cost.”
Aside from the argument over your claim about climate change, whether or not non-fossil fuel primary sources of energy‡ have ever been able to “supply 100% of needed energy” is not *directly* a climate issue. (It is indirect due to the largely accepted—in deference to your adamant denialism I’ll not claim “proven”—linkage between use of fossil fuels for energy and an increase in global heat retention.)
What your statement does do—at least for me—is bring into focus an underlying motive behind your climate denialism: You are afraid of the potential loss of the energy supply that fossil fuels provide.
Your fear is understandable and I share it. Our high consumption economy and associated lifestyles are not capable of continuing much longer, and it’s not solely a climate issue. The question I have—and have I believe posted here before—is whether you and deniers in general believe that we are going to see a reduced flow of net energy from fossil fuels over the next few decades.
In short: A large percentage of qualified experts in the field of energy production and supply agree that the quantity of net energy available to humans is destined to peak and then decline through the rest of this century. There is a great deal of work on this topic, including the well known analyses by Hubbert starting in 1956. If you disagree with this conclusion, I’d like see citations to credible work supporting your position.
‡ It is not possible to develop and maintain wind and solar energy sources without the use of some fossil fuels, and in some cases, a lot. Hard rock mining and metals production at scale require diesel or similar. If you think this claim is wrong, please post those references also.
Toby wrote: “…agree that the quantity of net energy available to humans is destined to peak and then decline through the rest of this century. … Hubbert starting in 1956. …I’d like see citations to credible work supporting your position.”
Not something I’ve paid much attention to because Hubbert and thus the people who fell for his non-logic have been proven wrong by recent history.
AFaIK, his claims ignored the FaCT that oil production reflects demand, not availability. IOW, one does not produce to put in storage and one does not search for more when you know where to find a 20 year supply.
People who believed his hypothesis showed their ignorance of economics, chemistry and history. IOW they were not very well informed.
Since you are apparently ignorant of those fields too, I will briefly elaborate:
1. Basic economics includes this: shortage increases price which brings in more supply.
2. Chemistry sshows oil to be a hydrocarbon – hydrogen & carbon, both elements in plentiful supply. Fisher/tropez showed one can make hydrocarbons from coal & water. Look it up: coal to liquid, Fischer–Tropsch, Sasol.
3. History shows that Germany got 1/2 of its oil from the process during the last years of WWII.
I recall the first time I heard of Hubbert and bothered to look it up (something you should learn to do) I found something like this:
EXCEPT FOR shale and other unconventional sources we are running out of oil.
You have to be pretty illogical to fall for that whole running out of oil thing. But the media is full of illogical scare stories like this. I put climate crisis on that list because NO ONE HAS EVER SHOWN ACTUAL EVIDENCE that man’s CO2 is causing serious global warming. (That includes YOU)
Many people fail to understand the meaning of “the stone age didn’t end due to a lack of stones”. It is actually a statement of human progress finding better ways of improving our well being.
Recent examples include Henry ford solving the predicted shortage of horse feed problem by eliminating the need for horses.
Nuclear eliminates the need for coal, oil & gas to make electricity except for the eco nuts that are incapable of looking at real world safety data.
Fact is that as population increases, supply increases faster because there are more smart people solving problems.
Food supply. Electronics. Poverty rapidly decreasing.
I’m not the ignorant one here, aside from your repeated denialism.
“Hubbert and thus the people who fell for his non-logic have been proven wrong by recent history.” (After admitting you “don’t pay much attention.”)
Do you have any idea what “net energy” means? This is a good recent literature review and analytical summary: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/am/pii/S0306261921011673 (“Peak oil and the low-carbon energy transition: a net-energy perspective” Delannoy, et al. 2021)
“Fact is that as population increases, supply increases faster because there are more smart people solving problems.” This is not a fact, but a shallow but comforting philosophy (which could explain a lot of denialism). “Past is not prologue.” Nonrenewable resources are finite, so even maintaining supply can’t go on forever. It’s especially risky to rely on this strategy today if the rate of change in climate conditions exceeds the pace at which humans can adapt (and they’ll have a harder time producing the smartness they’ll need to solve increasingly difficult problems if more and more of them have to focus more on basic survival). (But if you deny climate change, this solves that problem, doesn’t it?)
Jon and Toby: I sincerely wish you two would stop using the cheap shot and offensive word “denier” in your arguments. It’s a stupid put-down better left to nitwits than to serious discussion. I am not at all in agreement with some of Jim’s put-downs and seemingly arrogant statements, either, but this term grates on me and many others — given both it’s history and gross lack of accuracy. You can do better. Please do.
According to the Oxford Dictionary, a denialist is “a person who does not acknowledge the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence.” If you’ve got a synonym you like better, I’ll consider it.
Speaking of deniers. Why do you & your sock puppets deny these facts:
1. Our current climate started warming 200 years BEFORE man’s CO2 emissions started to rise .
2. Previous Holocene warm periods were warmer than now.
3. Solar fits climate better than CO2
4. There is nothing unusual about today’s climate compared to before man emitted CO2.
5. Recent warming is a same rate as the late 1800s but now with much more of man’s CO2. (More of a cause should cause more effect.)
6. Man’s CO2 has never been proven to cause dangerous warming.
7. Man emits only 5% of annual CO2. Plus CO2 only causes 9-26% of greenhouse effect.
8. Human CO2 release warms the climate less than 0.03◦C https://arxiv.org/pdf/2304.01245.pdf
See DebunkingClimate.com for evidence
Jon wrote: “According to the Oxford Dictionary, a denialist is ..”
In other words, you are accusing people on not following the crowd, without regard to whether the crowd is correct.
A better definition is “people who deny the truth.”
That means you because you deny:
1. Our current climate started warming 200 years BEFORE man’s CO2 emissions started to rise.
2. Previous Holocene warm periods were warmer than now.
3. Solar variations fit climate variations better than CO2.
4. There is nothing unusual about today’s climate compared to before man emitted CO2.
5. Recent warming is a same rate as the late 1800s but now with much more of man’s CO2. (More of a cause should cause more effect.)
6. Man’s CO2 has never been proven to cause dangerous warming.
See DebunkingClimate.com for evidence
GET LOST DAVID
Hi Jon: According to fact, “denier” is also a pejorative term for people who deny the Holocaust. Pretty offensive choice of words, and apparently not an accident.
The better word — and more accurate — is “skeptic.” Your cherry-picked Oxford Dictionary definition is insulting — as likely intended — and does not conform to the reality of questioning authoritative statements claimed to be held by a majority,
People used to think that the earth was flat, too, and likely had some insulting names for others who questioned them. Maybe I should start calling your faction “gullible” or “arrogant?” See what Oxford says about those terms. They fit nicely, too, from my perspective.
Am I the only one who noticed that posts by two of the posters in this thread “feel” like they really came from david Appell and that David, is absent from this thread?
thanks
JK