Eco-Fascists

Eco-Disasters: Paper Straws and Masks

Published by Papa Giorgio

PAPER STRAWS

Paper straws are more toxic than plastic straws?

LEGAL INSURRECTION has this perfectly times story to throw in the face of the world Western “do-gooders.”

A new study from Europe suggests those paper straws may contain “forever chemicals” that are harmful to both humans and the environment and were observed more often than in a sample of plastic straws.

Belgian researchers tested 39 straw brands from restaurants and retailers for synthetic chemicals known as poly and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The study found that the majority of straws contained those chemicals, but they were most common in those made from paper and bamboo.

The chemicals are referred to as “forever chemicals” as they can remain for thousands of years in the environment. The chemicals have been associated with health issues including thyroid disease, increased cholesterol, liver damage and kidney and testicular cancer and can harm the environment as well.

Of the brands tested, 90% of the paper straws contained PFAS, compared to 80% of bamboo straws, 75% of plastic straws and 40% of glass straws. None of the steel straws contained the chemicals.

I had a perfectly lovely “Lava Flow” cocktail ruined by a paper straw that disintegrated on me during my last vacation. I, for one, will encourage a return to sanity and plastic straws.

Next, a new study suggests substituting single-use plastic cups with their paper counterparts is not the environmentally friendly solution that was once believed.

Findings from the University of Gothenburg published in Environmental Pollution reveal that paper cups, once discarded in the environment, can cause harm due to toxic chemicals. In their study, researchers examined the impact of disposable cups crafted from various materials on butterfly mosquito larvae, discovering that paper and plastic cups exhibited comparable levels of toxic damage.

…The researchers explained that paper used in food packaging lacks resistance to fats and water, requiring the application of a surface coating to enhance its performance. This coating, typically made of plastic material, safeguards the paper from contact with substances like coffee.

In contemporary packaging, this plastic film is frequently composed of a bioplastic known as polylactide (PLA). Unlike conventional plastics derived from fossil fuels, bioplastics like PLA are sourced from renewable materials, such as corn, cassava, or sugarcane. While PLA is often considered biodegradable, indicating its ability to break down more rapidly than traditional oil-based plastics under specific conditions, recent research suggests that it can still possess toxic properties.

“Bioplastics do not break down effectively when they end up in the environment, in water. There may be a risk that the plastic remains in nature, and resulting microplastics can be ingested by animals and humans, just as other plastics do. Bioplastics contain at least as many chemicals as conventional plastic,” said lead researcher Bethanie Carney Almroth, professor of Environmental Science at the Department of Biology and Environmental Science at the University of Gothenburg.

Personally, I find plastics greatly contribute to my quality of life. I am very skeptical of the dangers associated with “microplastics,” especially when such analysis fails to consider the benefits of plastic…..

MASKS

An article titled, “The world is throwing away 3 million face masks every minute — and the growing mountain of waste is a toxic time bomb” explains the impact on our environment from masks:

…Scientists and environmental advocates expressed alarm about this tsunami of waste from the jump. They foresaw the dire ecological ramifications of our mask waste — especially once those masks made their inevitable way into the earth’s waterways. Elastic loops pose entanglement hazards for turtles, birds, and other animals. Fish could eat the plastic-fiber ribbons that unfurl from a discarded mask’s body. Then, there is the untold menace to human health that would likely present, at the microscopic level, once masks began to disintegrate.

Now, two years into the pandemic, governments have had ample time to grapple with this serious conundrum: How do we keep people safe from a highly communicable pathogen without unleashing an environmental catastrophe? But instead of heeding the chorus of expert warnings and pouring money into biodegradable and reusable alternatives, world leaders have ignored the problem. And once the immediate public-health emergency superseded ecological concerns — the heads of Big Plastic made sure it stayed that way.

“The plastics industry saw COVID as an opportunity,” John Hocevar, the oceans campaign director at Greenpeace USA, told me from his office in Washington, D.C. “They worked hard to convince policymakers and the general public that reusables were dirty and dangerous, and that single-use plastic is necessary to keep us safe.” 

Stateside, Big Plastic’s PR campaign may have hit its apex in July 2020, when the president and CEO of the Plastics Industry Association testified before Congress to argue that single-use plastic was a pandemic health necessity, stating that “plastic saves lives.”

The fear-mongering worked. The global consumption of single-use plastics has increased by up to 300% since the pandemic began, according to a 2021 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report. The plastic industry’s canny COVID strategy also provided a plausible cover for government inertia in funding sustainable solutions to disposable masks. 

[….]

The need to address the growing pile of discarded masks has only grown over the course of the pandemic. A December 2021 study reported a 9,000% rise in mask litter in the UK during the first seven months of the pandemic. And as more transmissible variants like Delta and Omicron led public-health officials to promote the use of heavy-duty disposable masks and respirators like KN95s and nonsurgical N95s — instead of the less-protective reusable cloth models that were encouraged earlier in the outbreak — it is clear that companies will be cranking out disposable masks for months to come. 

As we enter our third year of COVID-19, research not only supports environmentalists’ early fears surrounding mask pollution in waterways but has introduced new concerns. Sarper Sarp, a professor of chemical engineering at Swansea University in Wales, led a contamination study that tested nine readily available single-use masks. After submerging the masks in water and letting them sit, Sarp and his team discovered both micro- and nanoplastic particles released from every single one. The leachate from those masks — that is, the particles they emitted into fluid — amounted to a sort of toxic tea.

The masks were also found to expel nanoparticles of silicon and heavy metals like lead, cadmium, copper, and even arsenic. Sarp says that he was astonished by what he and the team found after a relatively brief period of submersion, and by the quantity of particles released by each mask. The masks released hundreds, and sometimes thousands, of toxic particles — particles that can potentially disrupt entire marine food chains and contaminate drinking water.

The presence of silicon nanoparticles was of particular concern. Silicon is a common material in healthcare products, easy to sterilize and maintain. “But when it comes to nano size,” said Sarp, “it’s a whole different story.” 

Microplastic particles are shed by all sorts of single-use plastics, from water bottles to grocery bags. While hardly ideal for marine ecosystems, Sarp explains that these particles can be filtered to a significant extent by our digestive systems and lungs. But nanoparticles — of plastic, silicon, or other materials — are so minute in size that they can breach cell walls and damage DNA, affecting both human and nonhuman life-forms at the cellular level. Recent research on silicon nanoparticles, in particular, has shown that if a particle is very small in nano scale, it can act almost as a tiny, carcinogenic bomb. Multiply that by a minimum of several hundred per mask, at a rate of 50,000 masks disposed per second, and the scope of the dilemma grows vivid. 

“I think this is a bit of an urgent situation, as both a scientist and as an environmental expert,” Sarp said….

A few recent studies have revealed that there are toxic chemicals in paper straws and N-95 masks that are unsafe for humans and the environment. My advice is simple: just be normal. Fox News contributor Dr. Marc Siegel reacts to a South Korean study in mice finding that N-95 masks could cause cancer and says mandates could cost more lives than COVID.

On my Facebook I linked a story from LIFE SITE quoting a DAILY MAIL article about harmful chemicals from masks worn to “combat” covid.

Here is the gist of my Facebook post:

New study finds extended use of ‘best’ COVID masks may cause cancer, liver damage

South Korean researchers found that KFAD and KF94 disposable masks, South Korea’s equivalent of N95 masks made out of the same material, release eight times the EPA’s recommended safety limit of toxic volatile organic compounds.

As some institutions in the United States begin to reimpose COVID-19 mask mandates, a new study suggests that the types of masks billed as most effective may actually contain dangerous and potentially even cancer-inducing chemicals.

The Daily Mail reports that according to a study by researchers from South Korea’s Jeonbuk National University, published in the journal Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety and on the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH’s) website, KFAD and KF94 disposable masks release eight times the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) recommended safety limit of toxic volatile organic compounds (TVOCs).

It was immediately “fact-checked“, and this is the reason for this post.

What does the “fact-check” say?

Misleading check

This is the Facebook FACT CHECK

The study also wasn’t published by the NIH, but by a scientific journal unaffiliated with the NIH.

[….]

In the wake of this news, a Daily Mail article published on 27 August 2023 claimed that a “mask study published by NIH suggests N95 Covid masks may expose wearers to dangerous level of toxic compounds linked to seizures and cancer”. 

[….]

Finally, the study was published in the journal of Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, not by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), as the Mail claimed. The journal is part of the MEDLINE database, which is maintained by the U.S. Library of Medicine. That the study is made available on the NIH website doesn’t mean the NIH published it, just as a book being part of a lending library’s collection doesn’t mean it’s published by the library.

Firstly, all the articles I have seen clearly state the NIH wasn’t the author of the study, but merely shared it. Here is this portion of the “fact-check”

What did the DAILY MAIL article say?

But a study quietly re-shared by the National Institutes of Health in spring

[….]

The study was published in the journal Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety and on the NIH’s website. 

[….]

The NIH said: ‘Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health.’

N o w h e r e in the Daily Mail article do they say the NIH was the origin of the study, nor did they even hint at it.  Everything the “fact check” said the Daily Mail article said. On to the next part. No matter the link you post on Facebook, you get the same dumb “check”:

  • But a study quietly re-shared by the National Institutes of Health in spring [….] The study was published in the journal Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety and on the NIH’s website, but the NIH pointed out that didn’t mean they accepted its conclusions: The NIH said: “Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health.” — RED STATE
  • …published in the journal Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety and on the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH’s) website [….] The NIH website contains a disclaimer that it does not necessarily endorse studies it publishes… — LIFE SITE

So the “fact-check” misses the truth embedded in all these articles.

Another point they note is this regarding the study the “check” says:

  • While KF94 and N95 masks are considered to be functionally comparable, it’s important to note that the study’s results suggest that VOC levels differ depending on the material used to make the mask. Based on the study’s Table 5, the KF94 masks tested in the study were composed primarily of polypropylene and polyurethane nylon. Most N95 masks use polypropylene, according to Meedan’s Health Desk. The study didn’t test any N95 mask, so it doesn’t offer data about N95 masks that allows us to objectively compare VOC levels between N95 and KF94 masks.

What is laughable is that the “check” acts like this is a big difference. That is between the materials used in KF94 (polypropylene and polyurethane nylon) and the N95 (polypropylene). NEW YORK MAGAZINE below that both “are made of the same synthetic material and [also] filter out and capture 95 percent of particles in the air”. And REUTERS also likewise says, “[t]hese masks and their international counterparts known as KN95s and KF94s are often made of multiple layers of polypropylene, a synthetic fiber.”

KF94

N95

They are essentially the same exact mask, one has an extra layer, almost like a second mask, across the front. It is disingenuous for this “fact check” to say “we don’t know because this exact mask “model number” wasn’t tested.

At any rate, the conclusion of study everyone is talking about has this… I will emphasize the part that caught my eye:

As the number of problems that require mask wearing (including air pollution and COVID-19) grows, masks are increasingly important. Now that masks are all but required, the harmful chemicals that can be released from them must be evaluated. In this study, VOCs generated from various types of masks, including commonly used KF94 disposable masks, were assessed. The types and concentrations of VOCs that humans are likely to be exposed to from these masks under various conditions (i.e., emission time, temperature, and mask types) were calculated and compared. This study demonstrated that disposable masks (KF94) released higher concentrations of TVOCs in comparison to cotton masks, with values of 3730 ± 1331 µg m–3 for KF94 and 268 ± 51.6 µg m–3 for cotton masks. The concentrations of TVOCs in KF94 masks are high enough to pose a concern based on indoor air quality guidelines established by the German Federal Environment Agency. However, when KF94 masks were opened and left undisturbed for 30 min at room temperature, TVOC concentrations significantly decreased to 724 ± 5.86 µg m–3 (a 78.2 ± 9.45% reduction from levels measured immediately upon opening). It is clear that particular attention must be paid to the VOCs associated with the use of KF94 masks their effects on human health. Based on our findings, we suggest that prior to wearing a KF94 mask, each product should be opened and not worn for at least 30 min, thereby reducing TVOC concentrations to levels that will not impair human health.

FLASHBACK | Old Posts

August 2nd, 2018

In light of the moonbat jihad against drinking straws (see here, here, and here) having reached the point that providing customers with straws is now punishable with jail time in Santa Barbara, see if you can guess whether this is a legitimate story or fake news from the Babylon Bee…. (MOONBATTERY)

MOONBATTERY has more on the origin of this “500-million” number:

You may have heard that Starbucks — ever at the vanguard of moonbattery — has proclaimed that it will eliminate all single-use plastic straws by 2020. You may also have heard that the lids it will use that allow drinking without a straw require more plastic than if they just stuck with the straws. You may be aware that the liberal jihad against plastic straws is reaching critical mass:

In July, Seattle imposed America’s first ban on plastic straws. Vancouver, British Columbia, passed a similar ban a few months earlier. There are active attempts to prohibit straws in New York City, Washington, D.C., Portland, Oregon, and San Francisco. A-list celebrities from Calvin Harris to Tom Brady have lectured us on giving up straws. Both National Geographic and The Atlantic have run long profiles on the history and environmental effects of the straw. Vice is now treating their consumption as a dirty, hedonistic excess.

But did you know that the anti-straw jihad is the brainchild of a little kid?

It began with a 9-year-old boy named Milo Cress and his 2011 campaign, “Be Straw Free,” which launched to raise awareness about plastic waste.

His big finding? Americans use more than 500 million drinking straws daily, enough to fill 125 school buses. That figure has become highly touted since, referenced in straw ban coverage from The New York Times and National Geographic to reports from the National Park Service (and USA TODAY).

Young Milo came up with the outlandishly improbable 500 million straws per day stat himself. Adult moonbats ran with it…..

August 26, 2018

I combine two different segments of John and Ken discussing California’s #FakeNews regarding straws and the environment. (The first segment is from Thursday’s show, the second is from Wednesday’s show [starts at the 7:15 mark]) Some funny and frustrating stuff.

FUNNIES

Most of these are from the 2018 straw ban… as a quick background to the AR-15 “bayonet” one, USA Today ran a story about assault weapons where they literally had a chainsaw modification in their graphics. So someone added the straws. Lol.

Nuclear Power – Still Our Best Hope

Published by Papa Giorgio

While I disagree with the points regarding the “Climate Crisis,” this video is solid in it’s dealing with the fears of nuclear power safety issues and how many are frightened by misinformation. They link to two other videos that are worth a watch as well. They are:

  • Worst Nuclear Accidents in History (YOUTUBE);
  • The Economics of Nuclear Energy (YOUTUBE).

The Truth About Nuclear Energy

How Dangerous Is Nuclear Waste?

Even environmentalists concede that nuclear power is a clean source of abundant, reliable energy. But they stop short of supporting it. Why? Because of the “waste problem.” But how real are their concerns? James Meigs, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, answers this question.

Nuclear Energy: Abundant, Clean, and Safe

If you truly want to save the planet from global warming, there’s one energy source that can do it. It’s not wind or solar. It’s not coal, oil or natural gas, either. So what is it? Michael Shellenberger, founder of Environmental Progress, has the answer in this important video.

The above video mentioned Will Siri, the President of the Sierra Club a few decades ago. Here is an excerpt from Michael Shellenberger’s article from FORBES (via CLIMATE DEPOT):

…In the mid-1960s, the Sierra Club supported the building of the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant to replace fossil fuels. “Nuclear power is one of the chief long-term hopes for conservation,” argued Sierra Club President Will Siri in 1966.

“Cheap energy in unlimited quantities is one of the chief factors allowing a large, rapidly growing population to set aside wildlands, open space and lands of high-scenic value,” added Siri, who was a biophysicist, mountaineer, and veteran of the Manhattan Project….

* THE BONUS BELOW WILL EXPLAIN THE FRUITION OF WILL SIRI’S POSITION – JUMP

And there is a letter the ANS is floating around as well that many are signing:

The letter: Already signed by such notables as James Hansen, Ken Caldeira, Richard Muller, Meredith Angwin, and James Hopf, the Generation Atomic letter notes that, in its early years, the Sierra Club supported nuclear technology.

“Early in the technology’s history, the Sierra Club recognized nuclear energy’s power-dense and emission-free environmental benefits,” the letter states. “Many of the Sierra Club’s members at the time were strong advocates for the energy source. Among them were Will Siri, the club’s president at the time, and the photographer and Sierra Club board member Ansel Adams.”

(AMERICAN NUCLEAR SOCIETY)

The Big Lie About Nuclear Waste

Nuclear waste is scary. Maybe you’ve seen it as glowing green goop in The Simpsons, or as a radioactive threat on the news. Either way, you likely know it has been a major block to the use and improvement of nuclear power. Over the last few decades, experts, politicians and the public have had heated debates over what to do with this radioactive material created by nuclear power plants.

But what if there were a way to not just store nuclear waste, but actually USE it?

This video is about the effort to make electricity out of nuclear waste. Really. It turns out, we developed the tools to do this decades ago. This story is about a technology we left behind and the people who want to bring it back.

This Environmentalist Says Only Nuclear Power Can Save Us Now

Michael Shellenberger believes The Green New Deal’s focus on wind and solar is a waste of time and money.

Calling climate change an existential threat to humanity, congressional Democrats introduced a policy proposal in February called the Green New Deal, which would mandate that 100 percent of U.S. energy production come from “clean, renewable and zero-emission energy sources” like wind and solar by the year 2050.

But some environmentalists say Green New Dealers are neglecting one obvious source of abundant clean energy already available: Nuclear power, which an accompanying Green New Deal FAQ explicitly states should be phased out alongside fossil fuels like oil, gas, and coal.

“If you want to save the natural environment, you just use nuclear. You grow more food on less land, and people live in cities. It’s not rocket science,” says Shellenberger. “The idea that people need to stay poor… that’s just a reactionary social philosophy that they then dress up as a kind of environmentalism.”

Watch the above video to learn more about the history of nuclear energy and to hear more from Shellenberger about his case for nuclear, as well as his response to concerns about radiation, nuclear weapons, and the economic viability of nuclear energy. The video also features solar energy advocate Ed Smeloff, who served on the Sacramento Municipal Utilities District board during the shutdown of California’s Rancho Seco nuclear plant and who makes the argument that nuclear power simply can’t compete in the marketplace.

PANDORA’S PROMISE:

This documentary film is about nuclear energy and other energy sources. Its central argument is that nuclear power, which still faces historical opposition from environmentalists, is a relatively safe and clean energy source which can help mitigate the serious problem of anthropogenic global warming. The film emphasize that more deaths is caused by coal powered power plants than nuclear power plants.

— PART ONE —

— PART TWO —

— PART THREE —

The below deals with the broken promises and the amount of land in the United States in order to reach a “net zero” dream. This is actually merely a combining of a few of my past posts under one umbrella.

* BONUS *

“Apocalypse Never” – Michael Shellenberger Talks With Dennis Prager

Dennis Prager had Michael Shellenberger on his show to discuss his new book entitled “Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All” (Amazon: ). In an article by Michael, you see him transitioning into a “Bjorn Lomborg” type of category. Here is the opening paragraph of that article:

  • On behalf of environmentalists everywhere, I would like to formally apologize for the climate scare we created over the last 30 years. Climate change is happening. It’s just not the end of the world. It’s not even our most serious environmental problem. (ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRESS)

Facts through reason and common sense have made it through to this gentleman, and this is nice to hear. In another review of the book, it is noted that Mr. Shellenberger is a long time environmentalist and contributed “rationalism [that] is in woefully short supply in present day environmental discourse. Michael Shellenberger’s Apocalypse Never succeeds in providing a welcome boost” Here is the opening of that review:

The way to a cleaner, sustainable planet is not to eliminate fossil fuels and nuclear power, but rather to expand their use, especially in developing countries to bring economic growth and prosperity, the way such sources did for the developed world.

This is one of the primary themes in the new book, Apocalypse Never, written not by a “climate denier” or “corporate shill.” Instead, author Michael Shellenberger is a 30-year environmental activist with street cred in various causes including saving California’s redwood forests and co-founding a “progressive Democratic, labor-environment push” in 2002 for the New Apollo Project, a renewable energy initiative that long predated the Green New Deal. He also is a Time magazine “Hero of the Environment.”…..

(PA PUNDITS – Peter Murphy)

Do We Have to Destroy the Earth to Save It?

Do wind turbines and solar farms hold the keys to saving the environment? Michael Shellenberger, founder of Environmental Progress and noted climate activist, used to think so. Now he’s not so sure. He explains why in this important video. (See my previous Prager audio with Michael)

The West’s Green Delusions Empowered Putin | Shellenberger

  • “It was the West’s focus on healing the planet with ‘soft energy’ renewables, and moving away from natural gas and nuclear, that allowed Putin to gain a stranglehold over Europe’s energy supply.” — Michael Shellenberger

Armstrong and Getty read some of Michael Shellenberger’s article titled, “The West’s Green Delusions Empowered Putin“. An article of similar nature is found over at THE FEDERALIST, and it is titled: “Stop Letting Environmental Groups Funded By Russia Dictate America’s Energy Policy“.

Both are must reads.

State Sized Chunks Land for a Zero-Carbon Economy

Why were federal tax subsidies extended for wind and solar by Congress? Again. For the umpteenth time! We are against subsidies because they distort markets. Those politicians who support these market-distorting policies should at least be forced to answer the question: “How much is enough?” Taxpayers have been subsidizing wind and solar corporations for more than 40 years! These companies have gotten fat and happy on your money, and Congress keeps giving them more of it. This video is based on a Texas Public Policy Foundation report that explains why it’s long past time to stop wind and solar from stuffing their bank accounts with your tax dollars.

  • To give you a sense of scale, to replace the energy from one average natural gas well, which sits on about four acres of land, would require 2,500 acres of wind turbines. That is a massive amount of land. You would have to cover this entire nation with wind turbines in an attempt to replace the electricity that we generate from coal, natural gas, and nuclear power, and even that would not get the job done. (CFACT)

This is from a recent BLOOMBERG article:

At his international climate summit in April, President Joe Biden vowed to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2030. The goal will require sweeping changes in the power generation, transportation and manufacturing sectors. It will also require a lot of land.

Wind farms, solar installations and other forms of clean power tend to take up more space on a per-watt basis than their fossil-fuel-burning brethren. A 200-megawatt wind farm, for instance, might require spreading turbines over 13 square miles (36 square kilometres). A natural-gas power plant with that same generating capacity could fit onto a single city block.

Achieving Biden’s goal will require aggressively building more wind and solar farms, in many cases combined with giant batteries. To fulfill his vision of an emission-free grid by 2035, the U.S. needs to increase its carbon-free capacity by at least 150%. Expanding wind and solar by 10% annually until 2030 would require a chunk of land equal to the state of South Dakota, according to Princeton University estimates and an analysis by Bloomberg News. By 2050, when Biden wants the entire economy to be carbon free, the U.S. would need up to four additional South Dakotas to develop enough clean power to run all the electric vehicles, factories and more.

Earth Day 2021 is April 22nd. Therefore, eco-activist groups will be preaching the gospel of wind & solar power and the importance of biodiversity. What those trying to “save the planet” fail to understand (or more likely ignore) is that these two priorities are in direct conflict. Wind & solar require far more land than nuclear, natural gas and coal power. They are also far more destructive to regions of high biodiversity as well as large birds, bats and endangered species. As we celebrate Earth Day, let’s consider the significant environmental consequences of attempting to provide electricity through low density, unreliable sunshine and breezes.

Vice President Joe Biden aims to be the most progressive president on the issue of climate change. The man who spent most of 2020 hiding in the basement believes the future of energy is renewable energy like wind and solar. Biden should go back to the basement, watch Michael Moore’s “Planet of the Humans,” and rethink his advocacy for renewable energy. Wind and solar are not the answer, and the idea of converting our fossil fuel-based economy into renewables could be a devastating take-down to society.

Are we heading toward an all-renewable energy future, spearheaded by wind and solar? Or are those energy sources wholly inadequate for the task? Mark Mills, Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute and author of The Cloud Revolution, compares the energy dream to the energy reality.

Remember when Google joined the common sense era?

FLASHBACK

We came to the conclusion that even if Google and others had led the way toward a wholesale adoption of renewable energy, that switch would not have resulted in significant reductions of carbon dioxide emissions. Trying to combat climate change exclusively with today’s renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.

[…..]

“Even if one were to electrify all of transport, industry, heating and so on, so much renewable generation and balancing/storage equipment would be needed to power it that astronomical new requirements for steel, concrete, copper, glass, carbon fibre, neodymium, shipping and haulage etc etc would appear. All these things are made using mammoth amounts of energy: far from achieving massive energy savings, which most plans for a renewables future rely on implicitly, we would wind up needing far more energy, which would mean even more vast renewables farms – and even more materials and energy to make and maintain them and so on. The scale of the building would be like nothing ever attempted by the human race.”

Google Joins the Common Sense Crew On Renewable Energies ~ Finally! (RPT)

  • What It Would Really Take to Reverse Climate Change: Today’s renewable energy technologies won’t save us. So what will? (SPETRUM)
  • Shocker: Top Google Engineers Say Renewable Energy ‘Simply won’t work’ (WATTS UP WITH THAT)
  • Polluting the Beauty and Cleanliness Of Our World With Renewable Energy (RPT)
  • Wind and Solar More Harmful To Environment Than Helpful (RPT)

Heavy EV Batteries Are Posing Deadly Problems

Published by Papa Giorgio

Dennis Prager reads from an article regarding concerns over the increased weight of EV vehicles:

Here is the AXIOS article Dennis was reading from:

EVs Are Much Heavier Than Gas Vehicles, And That’s Posing Safety Problems

  • For example, the 2023 GMC Hummer EV, a full-size pickup, weighs more than 9,000 pounds, sporting a 2,900-pound battery. In comparison, the 2023 GMC Sierra, also a full-size pickup, weighs less than 6,000 pounds, according to Kelley Blue Book.
  • The average weight of U.S. vehicles has already increased from about 3,400 pounds to 4,300 pounds over the last 30 years as Americans have ditched passenger cars for pickups and SUVs, according to Evercore ISI analysts.

Threat level: Safety watchdogs are raising concerns after the recent deadly collapse of a parking garage in New York City called attention to the challenge of creaking infrastructure.

  • Traffic safety is particularly concerning. In crashes, the “baseline fatality probability” increases 47% for every 1,000 additional pounds in the vehicle — and the fatality risk is even higher if the striking vehicle is a light truck (SUV, pickup truck, or minivan), according to a 2011 study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research.
  • “Since we’re seeing pedestrian and roadway fatalities at record levels, the introduction of more weight into crashes via EVs will complicate any attempts to reduce the ongoing fatality crisis that has showed no signs of abating,” Center for Auto Safety acting executive director Michael Brooks tells Axios in an email.

Flashback: In a speech in January, National Transportation Safety Board chair Jennifer Homendy praised the effort to reduce carbon emissions by switching to EVs but warned of the “unintended consequences” being “more death on our roads,” the AP reported…..

(AXIOS)

MORE:

Study: Heavy Electric Vehicles Cause TWICE the Road Damage than Their Petrol Equivalents

A UK study led by the University of Leeds found the average electric car puts 2.24 times more stress on roads than a similar petrol vehicle – and 1.95 more than a diesel. Larger electric vehicles can cause up to 2.32 times more damage to roads.

(BREITBART)

Heavy EVs Pose Threat of Parking Structure Collapses

The safety concern is now front and center in the UK, where, as in the U.S., many older parking structures exist. “I don’t want to be too alarmist, but there definitely is the potential for some of the early car parks in poor condition to collapse,” structural engineer Chris Whapples told The Telegraph. “Operators need to be aware of electric vehicle weights, and get their car parks assessed from a strength point of view, and decide if they need to limit weight.”

If maintenance has not been kept up at these older parking structures, structural flaws are “baked in” according to building supply company Sika’s senior technical manager Steve Holmes. Many Ford F-150 Lightnings come close to 7,000 lbs, while gas-powered F-150s range between 4,000 and 5,700 lbs. So all EVs pose added stresses when combined into one stacked car park…..

(MOTOR BISCUIT)

Electric Vehicles May Be Too Heavy For Old Parking Garages: Report

The collapse of a parking garage in New York City on Tuesday that killed at least one person has put a new spotlight on aging structures used for vehicle storage.

The five-level building, which has several active violations listed with the city, dates back to 1925 and was first licensed as a garage in 1957 for five or more vehicles per floor, WNBC reported.

The exact cause of the structure’s failure has not been determined, but updates have been made to it in the years since and it is currently licensed to accommodate 276 vehicles.

[….]

The incident occurred after a recent study raised concerns that many older parking garages may need to be re-evaluated due to the increasing average weight of vehicles, particularly electric models.

The report from the British Parking Association noted that some electric cars weigh more than double what popular models in the same segments did in the 1960s, due in part to their heavy battery packs. This also often applies to contemporary cars.

For instance, a Tesla Model S weighs over a thousand pounds more than a gas-powered Mercedes E-Class, while a 9,000-pound GMC Hummer EV is 2,400 pounds heavier than the similarly-sized Hummer H2 that was last sold in 2009…..

(FOX)

EVs Are Too Heavy for Current Road Weight Limits, Car Haulers Say

The car hauling industry is lobbying various departments of the federal government to increase weight limits on U.S. highways in order to accommodate the transportation of electric vehicles.

According to Reuters, the industry says current weight limits on trucks roaming around U.S. roads are outdated and not equipped for the imminent pivot to battery-heavy EVs. Currently, federal highway safety standards restrict trailers to 80,000 pounds gross vehicle weight. This standard was set back in 1975, back when a Honda Civic weighed 1,570 pounds, or roughly half what one weighs now.

Per EPA figures, the average car or truck on U.S. roads has swollen from 3,200 to 4,200 pounds over the last 40 years. EVs carrying very heavy batteries—the 9,000-pound GMC Hummer EV attributes almost one-third of its weight to just its cells—stand to raise that figure even higher. And while electric cars are a relative minority today, the government aims to have half of all new vehicle sales be of electric vehicles by 2030…..

(THE DRIVE)

Climate Activist Hypocrites Hurt Environment by Using Super Glue

Published by Papa Giorgio

I use some examples of these “climate activists” using Super Glue as part of their “statement.” Here are as few examples:

  • The Just Stop Oil campaign said 35 of its members blocked roads near Trafalgar Square on Thursday afternoon by sitting down with banners and gluing themselves to the road. (LONDON WORLD)
  • Activists Glue Themselves To Capitol Hill Sites To Urge Climate Action (AXIOS)

Climate Activists Defile Van Gogh’s Sunflowers at the National Gallery

Climate Change Cultists Latest Eco-Terrorist Act: Mashed Potatoes Tossed on $110 Million Monet

See other examples:

SKY NEWS AUSTRALIA notes the hypocrisy:

Here is the hypocrisy of the matter via THE SUN:

….Superglue used by the eco mob could even be HARMING the environment by pumping a huge amount of toxic greenhouse gasses into the air during production and rendering anything it touches un-recyclable.

The main ingredient in most of the super-strength adhesives is cyanoacrylates, a group of harsh, sticky chemicals.

Green-expert Rachel Watkyns, who has 14-years of experience crafting environmentally friendly packaging – including eco-friendly adhesive – branded superglue “just not eco-friendly”.

Rachel, who starred in a 2007 episode of Dragons’ Den, winning investment from Theo Paphetis and Peter Jones, said: “The main problem with superglue is the actual process when it’s made.

“In the first stage of reaction to making it, toxic chemicals are by-products – one of them is cyanide.”

[….]

Rachel, 50, added that depending on how the by-products are disposed of, the toxic chemicals could end up in Brits’ water supplies.

She said trying to get hold of information on how they are are disposed of is “probably nigh-on impossible”.

“But it’s not just the by-product, it’s the greenhouse gasses emitted in the production of it,” she said.

The businesswoman, owner of eco-packaging firm Tinybox, explained: “It’s like most things where you know it’s not environmentally friendly, the data is kept so private.”

She explained another of the chemicals released, formaldehyde, has been shown to make animals sick and reduce their life-span.

Rachel also said because the glue is an acrylic resin anything it touches can’t be recycled.

She insisted: “The fact activists are using superglue, it’s just not an ideal scenario.”……

Volkswagen let this activist stew…. in his pants:

It “all went bad” after protesters glued themselves to the floor at Volkswagen in Germany, according to Sky News host Cory Bernardi. “All the rage in the green world today is actually getting one of those pesky fossil fuel-based glues and sticking yourself to something as a form of protest, but what happens when that goes wrong?” Mr Bernardi said.

These activists discover French Police don’t use solvent to un-stick hands from pavement:

Simpson’s Prediction

(12-years ago) “We are here to come up with the next phony-baloney crisis to put Americans back where they belong – in dark rooms, glued to their televisions, too terrified to skip the commercials”

Gov. Ron DeSantis Moves Florida to Counter ESG

Published by Papa Giorgio

TUCKER

Gov. Ron DeSantis announces his plan to fight back against ESGs:

  • “We want to stop these kind of masters of the universe from trying to do through economic power what they cannot achieve at the ballot box.”

GLENN

Stu explains what ESG is,

  • Glenn has warned about ESG scores — environment, social, and governance — for months now. They’re a key tenet to the Great Reset and could be used to control YOUR finances. If you have a low ESG score — due to certain purchases or investments the far-left deems ‘un-woke’ — then you could face major difficulties securing loans or other services from the world’s biggest banks. Now, Citi just announce its latest decision to move this plan one step further. Per Bloomberg, ‘Citigroup Inc. will eventually expect borrowers to have a credible plan for measuring and reducing their carbon footprint as part of the bank’s pledge to achieve net-zero greenhouse-gas emissions.’ ESG IS HERE!

CNBC (MSM)

An ESG “strategist” sounds off…. it seems the host wants more of it in order to really “make a dent”

  • ESG has become a buzzword on Wall Street as companies face pressure from investors to be more transparent. Christian McCormick, Allianz Global Investors senior ESG strategist, and Hal Lambert, founder and CEO of Point Bridge Capital, join “Squawk Box” to discuss.

 

 

Biden Admin: Green “Transition” Must Be Censored On Social Media

Published by Papa Giorgio

Censorship is the only way for the Democrats to try and win. President Joe Biden advisor Gina McCarthy said content critical of the green “transition” must be censored on social media, during a segment on Axios’ “The Infodemic Age” on 6/9/2022. Be sure to like, subscribe, and comment below to share your thoughts on the video.

 

The Buffalo Shooter was an “Authoritarian Left Winger” (Updated)

Published by Papa Giorgio
  • Buffalo shooter Payton Gendron is a far-left activist who vowed to ‘seek justice for Ukraine’ and expressed hatred for conservatives opposed to war, according to his leaked manifesto. (bottom line!)

Sigh, people are often surprised to find out that many racist (almost all) ideologies are socialist in their make-up (see HERE and HERE). This shooter is no exception — see one example (in-depth… sorry, I am not known for my brevity on certain topics) from my long series of covering shooters the media say are right wing: “Right-Wingers Kill More Than Islamists or Leftists? (Bios)“

So here we are, after another shooting but one seemingly that truly targets minorities.

Three additional POINTS/UPDATES I believe are worthy via TWITCHY and the LIBERTY DAILY. And the first is made by CHICKS ON THE RIGHT, and is made often by common sense thinkers. Which is, if everything is racist, nothing is racist:

  • We have reached peak absurdity.  The word means nothing anymore.  The left has devalued the term to the point that it has no power — and those wielding it are worthy only of ridicule. (AMERICAN THINKER)
  • When everything is racist, nothing is. When every single thought, act, landmark, cultural touchstone, and tradition are defamed as “white supremacy,” regardless of origin or context and irrespective of fact, the term “racism” has lost all meaning. (RED AS HELL)
  • If you think everything you don’t like is racist, then of course the election of a president you don’t like has to be racist. (NEW YORK POST)
  • The word “racism” is no longer a description, and hasn’t been for some time. Now it’s simply a political tool with no meaning. The word doesn’t need context to be used, and you need not worry about dissecting nuance in order to toss it around. Just find something you don’t like and apply liberally. No pun intended. (RED STATE)

And so, even though this was a young man in his boredom influenced by white supremacism and socialism… meh. People like Chicago Mayor think they are changing the world with stunts like these, while, her fellow brothers and sisters die in droves. Sad.

And here is another wonderful observation made as well:

(Mr. Martin’s thinking and common sense skills are to be read, BTW) And here is another “counter-narrative” Common sense gentleman that should be at the center:

So here are the early discussions of his manifesto (CD MEDIA):

The Buffalo shooter published a manifesto which showed support for the same symbols used by the Nazi Azov Battalion in Ukraine. He also expressed hatred for those against US military involvement in the Ukraine conflict.

In other words, he supported the globalist agenda in Ukraine and showed sympathy for Nazi elements in-country.

He also expressed hatred for Fox News, which is opposite what mainstream reporting is putting out.

“On the political compass I fall in the mild-moderate authoritarian left category…”

In other words…. what CD MEDIA is pointing out flies in the face of comments like these:



Three things. One, Joe Lockhart (and others) either “a” doesn’t know tucker Carlson’s position on this issue… or “b” is saying because Tucker opposed the U.S. financial support of the war in Ukraine — THIS opposition drove the shooter to kill people? At any rate, the Left often does not know that which it speaks of. Or “c” people like this just see an opportunity to attack conservative’s and FOX NEWS that they use lies to do it.

Here for instance is some input on Tucker’s position from the LEFTIE site, Crooks and Liars headline:

  • Tucker Wants Republicans Who Voted For Ukraine Aid Primaried: Continuing his support of Russia, the Fox News host denounced all Republicans that vote and will vote to approve aid to Ukraine.

Of course Crooks and Liars misapply Tucker’s position… but the point is that Tucker (and FOX NEWS) was hated by the shooter because of their position of skepticism about the monies spent there and not domestically in our country.

Many conservatives I follow disagree with the funding of the war in Ukraine. For instance, Daniel Horowitz notes the reason in one of his bullet points as follows:

  • Where are the money and arms going, and how are they not going toward the neo-Nazi Azov brigade that will, in the small chance they defeat the Russians, continue persecuting the ethnic Russians and fuel an intermittent conflict with Russia in perpetuity? (THE BLAZE)

Back to Fox and the MSMs position on this tragedy. The shooter created or used a large infographic that had people marked as Jews from CNN, the New York Times… and… wait for it… FOX NEWS. The largest Star of David was on 21st Century FOX infographic of Rupert Murdoch.

Soo, as any National Socialist, he see Jews EVERYWHERE. And much like the Left, hates Mr. Murdoch.

And the shooter also said he was influennced, not by TV, but by the interwebs:

  • Before I begin I will say that I was not born racist nor grew up to be racist. I simply became racist after I learned the truth.  started browsing 4chan in May 2020 after extreme boredom…. From there, I also found other sites, like worldtruthvideos […] dailyarchives […] dailystormer…

The “boredom” thing caught my attention. DENNIS PRAGER:

Just as physicists look for equations to explain the natural world, I have always thought it useful to look for equations to explain human nature. For example, in my book on happiness, I offer this equation: U = I – R. Unhappiness = Image – Reality. The difference between the images we have for our life and the reality of our life is one way of measuring how much unhappiness we experience.

Here, I offer another theorem, this time to help explain leftism.

A + S = B = L

Affluence + Secularism = Boredom = Leftism

The search for an equation to help explain leftism (as distinguished from traditional liberalism) emanates from these facts:

Most leftists come from the upper and upper-middle class. This was true for the two founders of leftism, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Marx was supported by his family and by Engels, who was a wealthy businessman and the son of a very wealthy businessman. All the Western spies for the Soviet Union were economically secure. And the great funder of radical causes today is a billionaire — George Soros.

Nearly all leftists are irreligious people. And the breeding place of leftism, the university, is the most secular institution in modern society.

These two facts produce a problem: Many people lack meaning in their lives. And lack of meaning is another way of stating “boredom” — a boredom of the soul.

People need meaning. After food, that is the greatest human need. As important as sex is, there are happy people who go without sex (loss of a partner, never having found a partner, vows of chastity), but there are no happy people who go without meaning (no matter how much sex they have).

This need for meaning has traditionally been met by four things: religion, family, providing for oneself and one’s family, and patriotism. And all are fading…..

Even Michael Cernovich (also hated by the Left) was noted by the killer to be a “Jew troll”

But as with our other shooters the Left claims to be right=-wing… they hold very far Left positions and politics. CHRISTINA PUSHAW notes after Cernovich’s Tweet:

  • “Authoritarian left wing” = National Socialist = Nazi.

(Click on graphic for an excellent, excellent article)

(See HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE)

Stolen from a TWEET that made me laugh:

  • Means of production/exchange to be regulated by the central government. That sounds right-wing to you? (w/ The Dude)

Yep, which is why I pointed out how 3 of the 4 largest white supremist orgs told their voters to vote for Obama:

  1. Tom Metzger: Director, White Aryan Resistance; Career Highlights: Was Grand Dragon of Ku Klux Klan in the 70s; won the Democratic primary during his bid for Congress in 1980…
  2. Ron Edwards: Imperial Wizard, Imperial Klans of America; Career Highlights: Sued in 2007 by the Southern Poverty Law Center for inciting the brutal beating of a Latino teenager; building the IKA into one of the nation’s largest Klan groups by allowing non-Christians to join.
  3. Erich Gliebe: Chairman, National Alliance; Career Highlights: Turning white-power record label, Resistance Records, into a million-dollar-a-year business juggernaut; an 8-0 record as a professional boxer under the nickname, “The Aryan Barbarian.”
  4. Rocky Suhayda: Chairman, American Nazi Party; Career highlights: Being widely quoted bemoaning in the fact that so few Aryan-Americans had the cojones of the 9/11 hijackers: “If we were one-tenth as serious, we might start getting somewhere.”

Because they are Authoritarian Left Wing.

PJ-MEDIA sums up their post as follows:

….Later in the manifest, the shooter insists, “I would prefer to call myself a populist. But you can call me an ethno-nationalist eco-fascist national socialist if you want, I wouldn’t disagree with you.” He also repeatedly attacks capitalists, and rejected the conservative label because, he wrote, “conservativism is corporatism in disguise, I want no part of it.”

But let’s not pretend that, assuming the manifesto is legitimate, the rhetoric espoused in its pages means the shooter cannot be legitimately aligned with either major political party or political movement. While I would argue that the views expressed in the manifesto echo rhetoric of radical leftism, the manifesto is full of nonsense and garbage that is at times inconsistent. The people who were quick to exploit the situation to attack Fox News and conservatives were wrong and should be ashamed of themselves.

And RED STATE’S end to their post on this is good as well:

…Further in the manifesto, the person who wrote that manifesto claims that he considered himself a communist but has since moved further right to be a “mild-moderate authoritarian left category.”

But hey, why wait for facts? The left never cared about facts in the past, why would they begin caring now? They don’t care about the tragedy and the people who died–except how they can use it to attack their political enemies, and that is despicable.

PJ-MEDIA puts the nail in the coffin:

….That didn’t stop them from blaming Fox News, of course. Leftist narratives never get tripped up by pesky things like facts.

As we all know, Tucker Carlson has replaced Sean Hannity as Public Enemy Number One at Fox News for the left, so he was getting a lot of the blame too. In their telling, this kid’s warped brain was fully formed by Carlson.

More bad news on that from the manifesto:

A search of the entire manifesto also yields no mentions of Tucker Carlson and specifically mentions “the internet” as where he got his beliefs.

Putting the final nail in the “right-wing extremist” narrative coffin, Cray-Cray says he got into communism young, uses a variety of leftist labels to describe himself, and rejects conservatism.

Oops……

BLACK SUN

See more at my NAZI OCCULTISM post:

The Black Sun has been symbolized and used by various alchemists and occultists for well over 500 years. As I explained in my article, Black Sun Rising, this symbol is also known as the “Invisible Sun” and called by its Latin name, Sol Niger, and the German Schwarze Sonne, and the Sonnenrad German for Sun Wheel.

High-ranking Nazi officials eventually chose the symbol of the Black Sun to symbolize the force or energy they would channel to spread their ideologies around the globe and conquer their enemies.

However, the Nazis would use a modified version of the symbol of the Black Sun (German: Schwarze Sonne), adding twelve radial sig runes rather than the Traditional symbology, which did not contain the sig runes up until that time.

It has been theorized that the development of the Nazi Black Sun symbology was due to several SS leaders who were very much deep into the occult and esoteric studies. People like Rudolph Hess, Wilhelm Landig, and Karl Maria Miligut whose research influenced Hitler’s #1 man, Heinrich Himmler, and the German National Socialist ideologies who used this unseen force to fuel their war campaigns.

The NAZI Black Sun first appeared in Nazi Germany during World War II in 1933 when Heinrich Himmler created the central meeting place and spiritual home for the Schutzstaffel (SS) at the Wewelsburg Castle…..

I haven’t posted these in a while, but I think in regard to the shooter’s manifesto where he calls himself an “authoritarian left winger and green nationalist” — I think Melanie Phillips (see her SUBSTACK for the latest in really good writing) seems appropriate right about now:

The Biden Administration Is Responsible For The Energy Crisis

Published by Papa Giorgio

‘Unfiltered’ host Dan Bongino slams President Biden for campaigning on ‘destroying’ the domestic oil industry, and his administration is following through on it.

The West’s Green Delusions Empowered Putin | Shellenberger

Published by Papa Giorgio
  • “It was the West’s focus on healing the planet with ‘soft energy’ renewables, and moving away from natural gas and nuclear, that allowed Putin to gain a stranglehold over Europe’s energy supply.” — Michael Shellenberger

Armstrong and Getty read some of Michael Shellenberger’s article titled, “The West’s Green Delusions Empowered Putin“. An article of similar nature is found over at THE FEDERALIST, and it is titled: “Stop Letting Environmental Groups Funded By Russia Dictate America’s Energy Policy“.

Both are must reads.

State Sized Chunks Land for a Zero-Carbon Economy

Published by Papa Giorgio

Why were federal tax subsidies extended for wind and solar by Congress? Again. For the umpteenth time! We are against subsidies because they distort markets. Those politicians who support these market-distorting policies should at least be forced to answer the question: “How much is enough?” Taxpayers have been subsidizing wind and solar corporations for more than 40 years! These companies have gotten fat and happy on your money, and Congress keeps giving them more of it. This video is based on a Texas Public Policy Foundation report that explains why it’s long past time to stop wind and solar from stuffing their bank accounts with your tax dollars.

  • To give you a sense of scale, to replace the energy from one average natural gas well, which sits on about four acres of land, would require 2,500 acres of wind turbines. That is a massive amount of land. You would have to cover this entire nation with wind turbines in an attempt to replace the electricity that we generate from coal, natural gas, and nuclear power, and even that would not get the job done. (CFACT)

This is from a recent BLOOMBERG article:

At his international climate summit in April, President Joe Biden vowed to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2030. The goal will require sweeping changes in the power generation, transportation and manufacturing sectors. It will also require a lot of land.

Wind farms, solar installations and other forms of clean power tend to take up more space on a per-watt basis than their fossil-fuel-burning brethren. A 200-megawatt wind farm, for instance, might require spreading turbines over 13 square miles (36 square kilometres). A natural-gas power plant with that same generating capacity could fit onto a single city block.

Achieving Biden’s goal will require aggressively building more wind and solar farms, in many cases combined with giant batteries. To fulfill his vision of an emission-free grid by 2035, the U.S. needs to increase its carbon-free capacity by at least 150%. Expanding wind and solar by 10% annually until 2030 would require a chunk of land equal to the state of South Dakota, according to Princeton University estimates and an analysis by Bloomberg News. By 2050, when Biden wants the entire economy to be carbon free, the U.S. would need up to four additional South Dakotas to develop enough clean power to run all the electric vehicles, factories and more.

Earth Day 2021 is April 22nd. Therefore, eco-activist groups will be preaching the gospel of wind & solar power and the importance of biodiversity. What those trying to “save the planet” fail to understand (or more likely ignore) is that these two priorities are in direct conflict. Wind & solar require far more land than nuclear, natural gas and coal power. They are also far more destructive to regions of high biodiversity as well as large birds, bats and endangered species. As we celebrate Earth Day, let’s consider the significant environmental consequences of attempting to provide electricity through low density, unreliable sunshine and breezes.

Vice President Joe Biden aims to be the most progressive president on the issue of climate change. The man who spent most of 2020 hiding in the basement believes the future of energy is renewable energy like wind and solar. Biden should go back to the basement, watch Michael Moore’s “Planet of the Humans,” and rethink his advocacy for renewable energy. Wind and solar are not the answer, and the idea of converting our fossil fuel-based economy into renewables could be a devastating take-down to society.

Are we heading toward an all-renewable energy future, spearheaded by wind and solar? Or are those energy sources wholly inadequate for the task? Mark Mills, Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute and author of The Cloud Revolution, compares the energy dream to the energy reality.

Remember when Google joined the common sense era?

FLASHBACK

We came to the conclusion that even if Google and others had led the way toward a wholesale adoption of renewable energy, that switch would not have resulted in significant reductions of carbon dioxide emissions. Trying to combat climate change exclusively with today’s renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.

[…..]

“Even if one were to electrify all of transport, industry, heating and so on, so much renewable generation and balancing/storage equipment would be needed to power it that astronomical new requirements for steel, concrete, copper, glass, carbon fibre, neodymium, shipping and haulage etc etc would appear. All these things are made using mammoth amounts of energy: far from achieving massive energy savings, which most plans for a renewables future rely on implicitly, we would wind up needing far more energy, which would mean even more vast renewables farms – and even more materials and energy to make and maintain them and so on. The scale of the building would be like nothing ever attempted by the human race.”

Google Joins the Common Sense Crew On Renewable Energies ~ Finally! (RPT)

  • What It Would Really Take to Reverse Climate Change: Today’s renewable energy technologies won’t save us. So what will? (SPETRUM)
  • Shocker: Top Google Engineers Say Renewable Energy ‘Simply won’t work’ (WATTS UP WITH THAT)
  • Polluting the Beauty and Cleanliness Of Our World With Renewable Energy (RPT)
  • Wind and Solar More Harmful To Environment Than Helpful (RPT)

California Destroying Supply Chain and Causing Inflation

Published by Papa Giorgio

(Hat-tip LARRY ELDER) Larry reads from this article: “Confronting the Supply Chain Crisis“

Later in the show he also reads from this post via THE CONSERVATIVE TREE HOUSE titled:

  • The California Version of The Green New Deal and an October 16, 2020, EPA Settlement With Transportation is What’s Creating The Container Shipping Backlog – Working CA Ports 24/7 Will Not Help, Here’s Why

The trucking issue with California LA ports, ie the Port of Los Angeles (POLA) and the Port of Long Beach (POLB), is that all semi tractors have to be current with new California emissions standards.  As a consequence, that mean trucks cannot be older than 3 years if they are to pick up or deliver containers at those ports.  This issue wipes out approximately half of the fleet trucks used to move containers in/out of the port.  Operating the port 24/7 will not cure the issue, because all it does is pile up more containers that sit idle as they await a limited number of trucks to pick them up.  THIS is the central issue.

On October 16, 2020, the EPA reached a settlement agreement [DATA HERE] with California Air Resource Board (CARB) to shut down semi tractor rigs that were non-compliant with new California emission standards:

[….]

In effect, what this 2020 determination and settlement created was an inability of half the nation’s truckers from picking up anything from the Port of LA or Port of Long Beach.  Virtually all private owner operator trucks and half of the fleet trucks that are used for moving containers across the nation were shut out.

In an effort to offset the problem, transportation companies started using compliant trucks (low emission) to take the products to the California state line, where they could be transferred to non-compliant trucks who cannot enter California.   However, the scale of the problem creates an immediate bottleneck that builds over time.  It doesn’t matter if the ports start working 24/7, they are only going to end up with even more containers waiting on a limited amount of available trucks…….