Miscellaneous Stories

People for the West Feb 2018 newsletter now online

The People for the West newsletter for February, 2018, is now online at https://wryheat.wordpress.com/people-for-the-west/2018-archive/2018-02-February/

The lead article is titled “Climate Craziness, Politics, and Hypocrisy.” It begins:

In my opinion, the greatest danger we face from global warming is that politicians think they can stop it. Politicians decree that we must reduce carbon dioxide emissions from use of fossil fuels even though there is no physical evidence that those emissions play a significant role is controlling global temperature. (See: Evidence that CO2 emissions do not intensify the greenhouse effect)

Some items from that article:

The elites of the world used 1,000 private jets to attend the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, where they told us to cut our “carbon footprints.”

Back in the year 2000, Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, predicted that within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event.” Davos attendees had to contend with six feet of newly fallen snow.

Researchers at The University of Manchester have carried out the first ever study looking at the carbon footprint of sandwiches, both home-made and pre-packaged.

Researchers at the University of Arizona set out to learn more about how people’s perception of the threat of global climate change affects their mental health.

And now there is the threat of mutant transgender turtles caused by global warming.

 

Enjoy,

Jonathan

Advertisements

People for the West newsletter for January, 2018 now online

The January, 2018, issue of the People for the West newsletter is online here:

https://wryheat.wordpress.com/people-for-the-west/2018-archive/2018-01-january/

This issue begins with several articles on the often adversarial relationship between property rights, the Endangered Species Act, and conservation.

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) should be repealed because it provides no positive incentive for conservation, it tramples on property rights, it destroys industries, it is very expensive, and it is ineffective. The ESA should be replaced with a voluntary, non-regulatory, incentive-based act. Make conservation profitable. The fundamental political problem with the act is that its incentives don’t match its ethics. Conserving endangered species benefits everyone in society, but a small number of people bear the cost , usually the landowners whose property use could be restricted if a protected species turns up.

We also look at the “Core of climate change is in the real-world data” and show that carbon dioxide is definitely not a principal driver.

Finally, we look at Rights vs Benefits – What’s the difference.

Enjoy,

Jonathan

 

Cost of Mexican Wolf Recovery

[Photo from Arizona Governor’s Office]

The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has issued a draft recovery plan for the Mexican Grey Wolf which inhabits parts of Mexico, Arizona, and New Mexico. You can read the entire plan here.

FWS is soliciting public comments which must be submitted before August 29th. You can comment here. Ranchers are generally against any recovery plan because Mexican Wolves prey upon sheep and cattle, see articles here.

Here is a quote from the plan:

We expect the status of the Mexican wolf to improve such that we can downlist to threatened status in approximately 16-20 years. We expect to achieve delisting criteria in approximately 25-35 years for a total estimated cost of $262,575,000. These timeframes are based on expectation of full funding, implementation as provided for in the recovery plan and implementation strategy, and full cooperation of binational partners.”

Can you think of any better way to spend that money? Or just not spend it at all? Why not just delist the wolf and let Nature take its course?

Original post at the Arizona Daily Independent

People for the West June 2017 newsletter now online

Stop Unconstitutional Federal Spending

The total federal deficit is almost $20 trillion. Although the President submits or suggests budgets, it is the duty of Congress to appropriate the money. In my opinion, a large part of federal spending is unconstitutional.

The Constitution of the United States grants certain powers to Congress and Executive Branch. Over the years, Congress has greatly exceeded its Constitutional authority. Federal agencies have created thousands of regulations and spent trillions of dollars of taxpayers’ money on things for which they had no authority to do so. These regulations have the force of law, but only Congress can make law. There is a movement to change the constitution with a balanced budget amendment. Such an amendment would be unnecessary if only Congress and the President would enforce the Constitution.

Read full newsletter here:

https://wryheat.wordpress.com/people-for-the-west/2017-archive/2017-06-june/