Politics

How Greenpeace Games the System

This is a summary of a talk by Dr. Willie Soon presented at the Doctors for Disaster Preparedness conference on July 20, 2019.

This analysis can be applied to many radical environmental organizations.

You can download the PDF – 75 pages- of the full paper upon which the talk is based. One of the authors of the paper is Dr. Patrick Moore, a founder of Greenpeace. Moore has dis-owned Greenpeace because of their policies.

Some excerpts from The Greenpeace Business Model:

Although Greenpeace relies heavily on marketing, advertising, and free market principles, they promote socialist and anti-capitalist ideals in their messaging.

Greenpeace has successfully created a public perception that they are fighting to protect humanity, nature and the environment from the evils of corrupt industries and vested interests. This perception is so popular and wide-spread that whenever Greenpeace speaks out on an issue it is automatically assumed to be true, and anybody who questions Greenpeace’s claims is assumed to be corrupt. However, as we will discuss in this report, the reality is almost exactly the opposite…

Greenpeace is a very successful business. Their business model can be summarized as follows:

1) Invent an “environmental problem” which sounds somewhat plausible. Provide anecdotal evidence to support your claims, with emotionally powerful imagery.

2) Invent a “simple solution” for the problem which sounds somewhat plausible and emotionally appealing, but is physically unlikely to ever be implemented.

3) Pick an “enemy” and blame them for obstructing the implementation of the “solution”. Imply that anybody who disagrees with you is probably working for this enemy.

4) Dismiss any alternative “solutions” to your problem as “completely inadequate”.

At each of the four stages, they campaign to raise awareness of the efforts that they are allegedly making to “fight” this problem. Concerned citizens then either sign up as “members” (with annual fees) or make individual donations (e.g., $25 or more) to help them in “the fight”. This model has been very successful for them, with an annual turnover of about $400 million. Although technically a “not for profit” organization, this has not stopped them from increasing their asset value over the years, and they currently have an asset value of $270 million– with 65% of that in cash, making them a cash-rich business. Several other groups have also adopted this approach, e.g., Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, WWF and the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Although their business relies heavily on marketing, advertising, and free market principles, they promote socialist and anti-capitalist ideals in their messaging. As a result, their campaigning efforts appear to resonate strongly with left-leaning parties and liberal media. By draping themselves in “moral clothing”, Greenpeace has been very effective at convincing these progressive organizations that anything Greenpeace says is “good” and “true”, and whatever they criticize is “bad” and “corrupt”. However, as we discuss in this report, Greenpeace is not actually helping to protect the environment, or exposing real problems. Instead, they are:

1) Creating unnecessary feelings of guilt, panic and frustration among the general public. Greenpeace then make money off this moral outrage, guilt and helplessness.

2)Vilifying the innocent as “enemies”. Once you have been tarred by Greenpeace’s brush, any attempts to defend yourself are usually treated with suspicion or even derision.

3) Deliberately fighting honest attempts by other groups to tackle the “environmental problems” that Greenpeace claim need to be tackled.

4) Distorting the science to generate simplistic “environmental crises” that have almost nothing to do with the genuine environmental issues which should be addressed.

Conclusions about Greenpeace from the full paper:

1. They are intentionally fooling the public about the “vested interests” associated with each of their campaigns.

2. In order to create the impression that “the science is settled” on their campaign issues, they oversimplify the often quite-nuanced views of the scientific community, and simultaneously try to shut down any further scientific enquiry into the topic.

3. They are intentionally shutting down genuine discussion on implementing solutions on the environmental “crises” they claim to have identified.

4. They are distracting public attention away from genuine environmental concerns.

Related:

Book Review: The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert, an IPCC Exposé (link) In this book, Canadian journalist Donna LaFramboise exposes the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as a fraud. LaFramboise spent two years investigating the IPCC. She says it acts like a spoiled teenager, hence the title of the book.

Advertisements

Climate Madness 13 – Climate Emergency Scam and other nonsense

Former EPA scientist and economist Alan Carlin opines, “Climate alarmism is probably the most insidious, largest, and most dangerous scam ever perpetrated on the American public and most of the developed world. Unless brought down by reality, it is now reaching such dimensions that it could even end the position of the current developed countries as the primary engine for economic and technological progress. Instead, the dictates of climate alarmism may eventually consume as much as half of the resources available and yield nothing but climate virtue signaling.” (Source)

The following are news stories concerning global warming and the quest to stop climate change, a natural process that has been happening for about four billion years. There is no physical evidence that carbon dioxide plays a significant role in controlling global temperature. There are several lines of physical evidence showing that it doesn’t, see: Evidence that CO2 emissions do not intensify the greenhouse effect

Here are the latest bits of climate madness:

The craziest: Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) are pushing Congress to declare a “climate emergency.” “The global warming caused by human activities, which increase emissions of greenhouse gases, has resulted in a climate emergency…requiring a national, social, industrial, and economic mobilization of the resources and labor of the United States at a massive-scale.” (Read story in the Washington Times)

But Sanders and AOC are not alone: Universities to declare ‘Climate Emergency’ – Seek ‘drastic societal shift’ to help shape ‘young minds’ [i.e. brainwashing]

As institutions and networks of higher and further education from across the world, we collectively declare a Climate Emergency in recognition of the need for a drastic societal shift to combat the growing threat of climate change. The young minds that are shaped by our institutions must be equipped with the knowledge, skills and capability to respond to the ever-growing challenges of climate change. We all need to work together to nurture a habitable planet for future generations and to play our part in building a greener and cleaner future for all. (Read more at Climate Depot).

AOC’s Green New Deal would boost gas tax $10-$13, ‘destroy economy’

by Paul Bedard, Washington Examiner

The socialistic Green New Deal, pushed by New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and winning broad support from Democratic presidential candidates could lead to a $10 increase on a single gallon of gas, according to a new study of the so-called “carbon tax” and the liberal bid to rid vehicles that burn fossil fuels. (Read moreSee also: AOC’s Top Aide Admits Green New Deal Not About The Climate; it is more about drastically overhauling the American economy.

Prince Charles: 18 Months To Fix Climate Change Or Humans Will Go Extinct

by James Delingpole

The Prince of Wales has warned global leaders that “I am firmly of the view that the next 18 months will decide our ability to keep climate change to survivable levels and to restore nature to the equilibrium we need for our survival.” (Read more)

Pop Star will not have children due to climate anxiety

“Pop star turned Planned Parenthood activist Miley Cyrus will not consider having a child due to global warming-related anxiety, vowing not to reproduce until she is confident her offspring can ‘live on an earth with fish in the water.’” (Fact check: fish currently exist in bodies of water all over the planet). (Source)

Climate Extremists Offering Lessons to Activists on How to Use Super Glue

An Aussie climate activist group is worried that their supporters can’t read the instructions on tubes of super glue, so they are holding training sessions to ensure activists know how to glue themselves to pavements and miscellaneous landmarks. (Read more).

A Debate Over Whether Air Conditioning Should Be Banned Has People Fired Up

The New York Times recently published an op-ed titled “Do Americans Need Air-Conditioning?” which makes the argument that our dependence on air conditioning and intolerance of the heat is a First World learned behavior. Yet, the author also acknowledges that women tend to have more of an aversion to chilly offices than men. It’s not difficult to see things from both perspectives, however the debate took on a whole new life when Atlantic writer Taylor Lorenz weighed in. “Air-conditioning is unhealthy, bad, miserable, and sexist,” she wrote, tweeting the article. “I can’t explain how many times I’ve gotten sick over the summer because of overzealous AC in offices,” adding the hashtag “#BanAC.” (Source)

Predictions are hard, especially about the future:

Coffee Bean Apocalypse Called Off As Surplus Sends Prices Tumbling

For years, the mainstream media was predicting a coffee bean apocalypse caused by climate change. Now we’re drowning in too much coffee (must be all that CO2 that plants love) while demand for anything with caffeine surges. Even in Central America, where pandering Democrats tell us climate change is decimating the area, they’re overproducing too much coffee. (Source)

See some other failed predictions:

Earth Day predictions

Predictions of an ice-free Arctic Ocean

Global temperature continues divergence from model predictions

‘Climate Emergency’: Ireland Set to Ban Private Cars While Planning Mass Third World Migration

Drivers will be forced off the roads in Ireland and the population packed into “higher density” cities under a long-awaited climate plan which will ‘revolutionize’ people’s lifestyle and behaviours, according to local media. “Nudge” policies such as huge tax hikes, as well as bans and red tape outlined in the plan, will pave the way to a “vibrant” Ireland of zero carbon emissions by 2050 according to the government, which last year committed to boost the country’s 4.7 million-strong population by a further million with mass migration. In order to avert a “climate apocalypse”, the government plans to force people “out of private cars because they are the biggest offenders for emissions”, according to transport minister Shane Ross whose proposals — which include banning fossil fuel vehicles from towns and cities nationwide — are posed to cripple ordinary motorists, local media reports. (Read more)

New York Virtue Signaling:

New York’s climate change solution: Harm regular people for no noticeable benefit

By Gregory Wrightstone

Last week, the New York City Council approved a resolution declaring a climate emergency that it hopes will mobilize efforts to forestall the devastation of purported global warming from greenhouse gas emissions. While entirely symbolic and not even needing presidential hopeful Mayor Bill de Blasio’s signature, the council said its action could make America’s largest city a global leader “by organizing a transition to renewable energy and climate emergency mobilization effort.” (Source)

New York to Ban Hot Dogs Because Climate Change

by Eric Worrall

New York’s famous hot dogs could soon be a thing of the past. NYC considering banning hot dogs and other processed meats over climate change. Read more

The Man-Made Natural Gas Shortage Just Hit NYC

Following moves by Gov. Andrew Cuomo and New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy to nix a pipeline that could deliver vital gas supplies to the city and Long Island, National Grid can no longer offer new gas hookups or additional service for current customers. The govs nixed the pipelines in a pander to climate-change radicals. Yet the shortage won’t only hit well-off developers and businesses: It’ll also threaten projects meant for low- and middle-income New Yorkers. (Source)

Back to the Dark Ages: German Greens Look to Ban All Industrial Farming

The Daily Telegraph

The Green party in Germany has said it intends to ban industrial farming as part of a wide-ranging and costly package to combat climate change should they come to power. (Source)

Bad timing:

A new climate modeling study from the University of Wisconsin-Madison claims that ice fishing, hockey, skating and skiing on frozen lakes are endangered by global warming. The study states that such “iconic cold-weather past-times could become a rare winter treat” due to global warming. The report was released in Janurary during an historic cold spell that is shattering low-temperature records across the USA. See: NEARLY 90% OF US BELOW-FREEZING Chicago’s record for coldest temperature ever could fall.

Streaming online pornography produces as much CO2 as Belgium

From The NewScientist

The transmission and viewing of online videos generates 300 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year, or nearly 1 per cent of global emissions. On-demand video services such as Netflix account for a third of this, with online pornographic videos generating another third. This means the watching of pornographic videos generates as much CO2 per year as is emitted by countries such as Belgium, Bangladesh and Nigeria. That’s the conclusion of a French think tank called The Shift Project. (Source)

 

See also: Problems with wind and solar generation of electricity – a review

 

Previous Climate Madness posts:

 

Climate Madness 1

Climate Madness 2

Climate Madness 3

Climate Madness 4  

Climate Madness 5

Climate Madness 6

Climate Madness 7

Climate Madness 8

Climate Madness 9

Climate Madness 10

Climate Craziness, Politics, and Hypocrisy

Climate madness 12 – California is the craziest

Problems with wind and solar generation of electricity – a review

This post consolidates the main points of many of my articles on wind and solar generation of electricity. The [ir]rationale behind the renewable energy campaign is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions which are alleged to be the main cause of global warming despite the lack of any supporting physical evidence. We will see that replacing electricity generation from fossil fuels with wind or solar will have no significant effect on global warming; that it significantly raises the cost of electricity; that it destroys wildlife and wildlife habitat; that wind generation has deleterious effects on human health; and that because wind and solar generation is intermittent and unpredictable, fossil fuel generation or nuclear generation will still be necessary. At the end of this post are links to some of my articles on the subject.

1. Reduction of carbon dioxide emissions by switching to wind and solar will have almost no effect on global warming.

Carbon dioxide (which makes up just 0.04% of the atmosphere) is continually being emitted into the atmosphere and absorbed by the oceans, plants, formation of limestone, etc. According to the U.S. Department of Energy annual emission reports, humans are responsible for about 3% of total CO2 emissions; the rest is from natural sources. Carbon dioxide constitutes about 3% to 4% of total greenhouse gases by volume (water vapor is the main greenhouse gas); therefore anthropogenic CO2 represents just over one-tenth of one percent (0.12%) of total greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere each year. The U.S. is responsible for about 18% of global emissions, so elimination of U.S. emissions will make a difference of about 0.02% of total emissions.

The American Enterprise Institute estimates that eliminating all carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel generation of electricity would cut the global increase in temperature by 0.083 to 0.173 degrees Celsius, by 2100.

Dr. Bjorn Lomborg (president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center and author of the book: The Skeptical Environmentalist) estimates that U.S. climate policies, in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global temperatures by 0.031°C (0.057°F) by 2100. (Source)

2. Cost of transition to 100% renewables

An analysis from Scottish consulting firm Wood Mackenzie estimates the cost of transitioning the United States to 100 percent renewable energy by 2030, as recommended by the “Green New Deal” and other overzealous climate change plans, would cost at least $4.5 trillion over that time period. The American Action Forum estimates the costs of moving the entire country to 100 percent renewable sources would be $5.7 trillion, or $42,000 per household. The several states that have imposed Renewable Energy Mandates (requiring a certain percent of electricity be produced from wind and solar) have already raised electricity prices by 11percent, which has cost us $125.2 billion. (Source)

Experience from Europe shows that the more installed solar and wind capacity per capita a country has, the higher the price people pay for electricity. In the graph below the vertical scale is Euro cents per kilowatt-hour, the horizontal scale is the installed capacity of renewables (solar and wind) per capita. (For reference, the U.S. average residential cost is 12 cents/kwh which is about 9.6 euro cents/kwh, lower than all European countries on the graph.) (Source)

3. Enormous land footprint of wind and solar destroys wildlife habitat

According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, for the contiguous U.S.:

If all electricity were to be supplied by solar generation it would require 11,674 solar farms with a total footprint of 525,312 square miles.

If all electricity were to be supplied by wind generation, it would require 6,954 wind farms with a total footprint of 1,808,166 square miles.

If all electricity was supplied by nuclear generation, it would require 3,553 nuclear stations with a total footprint of 4,619 square miles. (Source)

 

4. Destruction of wildlife:

“The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and American Bird Conservancy say wind turbines kill 440,000 bald and golden eagles, hawks, falcons, owls, cranes, egrets, geese and other birds every year in the United States, along with countless insect-eating bats.

“New studies reveal that these appalling estimates are frightfully low and based on misleading or even fraudulent data. The horrific reality is that in the United States alone, ‘eco-friendly’ wind turbines kill an estimated 13 million to 39 million birds and bats every year.” (Source)

Many birds are also killed by concentrating solar installations: see Avian mortality from solar farms.

5. Human health problems from wind turbines:

Wind turbines produce low-frequency sound, called infra-sound, which may cause many health problems. Infra-sound affects the vestibular system, causing symptoms resembling seasickness, accompanied by headache, dizziness, and “deep nervous fatigue.” It can affect ocular reflexes, causing nystagmus; spinal reflexes, causing tremors; and autonomic reflexes, causing shortness of breath. Infra-sound can lead to well known consequences such as tumor development, cardiac infarcts and/or the need for cardiac bypass surgery.

6. Wind and solar generation makes the electric grid unstable.

Wind and solar generation are unpredictably intermittent. Adding an unpredictable supply to the mix makes grid management very complex and increases the danger that the grid will become unstable and fail. The problem is multiplied as wind and solar generation become a larger percentage of the total power sources.

7. Renewable energy is not as green as advertised

PV solar panels rely on polysilicon being manufactured in large quantities and at high quality. A byproduct of polysilicon production is silicon tetrachloride, a highly toxic substance that poses a major environmental hazard. Wherever silicon tetrachloride is dumped, the land becomes totally infertile. A major environmental cost of photovoltaic solar energy is toxic chemical pollution (arsenic, gallium, and cadmium) and energy consumption associated with the large-scale manufacture of photovoltaic panels. (Source)

8. Wind farms decrease weather radar ability to track storms – puts people in danger

A new report from the National Weather Service says that wind farms have some unfortunate negative impacts on the ability of Doppler radar to track storms.

“Wind farms affect … radars in several ways; first, the turbines can block a significant percentage of the radar beam and decrease the radar signal power down range of the wind farm, particularly if the wind farm is within a few miles of the radar. Second, the wind farm can reflect energy back to the radar system and this appears as clutter or false reflectivity data. This reflectivity can create false precipitation estimates and disrupt precipitation algorithms used by the radar and other software programs. Finally, wind farms can significantly influence velocity and spectrum width data, which can cause bad data sampling of rotating storms and false storm motions, along with impacting algorithms used by the radar to process this data. Since the wind turbines have motion and produce reflectivity, schemes designed to filter out the clutter do not work properly.”

 

Former EPA scientist and economist Alan Carlin opines, “Climate alarmism is probably the most insidious, largest, and most dangerous scam ever perpetrated on the American public and most of the developed world. Unless brought down by reality, it is now reaching such dimensions that it could even end the position of the current developed countries as the primary engine for economic and technological progress. Instead, the dictates of climate alarmism may eventually consume as much as half of the resources available and yield nothing but climate virtue signaling.” (Source)

References on  Wryheat:

Six Issues the Promoters of the Green New Deal Have Overlooked

The high cost of electricity from wind and solar generation

Avian mortality from solar farms

Big Wind gets “get out of jail free card” from Obama Administration

Wind turbines versus wildlife

Wind turbines killed 600000 bats last year

Health Hazards of Wind Turbines

How infrasound from wind turbines can cause cancer

Why alternative energy is not a viable alternative for electrical generation

Winds farms decrease weather radar ability to track storms

Solar energy cannot economically compete in electricity generation

Vote NO on Arizona proposition 127 the renewable energy mandate

Why you should vote NO on Arizona proposition 127

Winds farms decrease weather radar ability to track storms

 

Evidence that CO2 emissions do not intensify the greenhouse effect

The Broken Greenhouse – Why CO2 is a minor player in global climate

How much global warming is dangerous?

What keeps Earth warm – the greenhouse effect or something else?

 

Grijalva’s Proposed Change to Mining Law Would Be Disastrous for America

Congressman Raul Grijalva is at it again with his proposed H.R. 2579 Hardrock Leasing and Reclamation Act of 2019 which would probably make future mining in America uneconomic. Among other things, the law would impose a 12.5% royalty on productions and eliminate valid mining claims after 20 years (read full text). The royalty is extremely punitive to an industry that already pays over 45 percent of its earnings to federal, state and local governments, in the form of taxes, fees, royalties and other assessments. Currently, the U.S. is 100% import-reliant for 18 minerals – 14 of which have been deemed “critical” by the departments of defense or interior.

The American Exploration & Mining Association (AEMA) notes that:

The sweeping changes in Rep. Grijalva’s legislation are unnecessary and a disaster in the making for the domestic mining industry and for America.

The fact is, hardrock mining is fundamentally different than oil, gas, and coal because it is much more difficult to find and develop hardrock mineral resources. This bill ignores these differences and seeks to force-fit royalty and leasing programs for coal, oil, and gas on hardrock mining. Without question, the Grijalva bill, if enacted, would substantially chill private-sector investment in exploring for and developing minerals on federal land and dramatically increase our already extensive reliance on foreign sources of minerals.

This bill poses a significant threat to our Nation’s economic security and to our defense, technology, manufacturing, infrastructure, and renewable energy sectors, all of which rely on minerals from mining. The country will suffer as high paying family-wage jobs are exported, and our rural communities will experience disproportionately severe economic hardships.

Geologist Ned Mamula (adjunct scholar in Geosciences at the Center for the Study of Science, Cato Institute) opines that:

Mining is a long-term investment process and, although two decades is a long time, some hardrock mines now take 10 years or more just to get approved. What company would be willing to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in a new mine only to see its mining claims suddenly revoked?

Remarkably, the timing of this “reform” is just as bad as the substance. U.S. demand for minerals is climbing steadily: for hundreds of defense, aerospace, electronic, energy, medical, computing, transportation and other applications. Yet, our dependence on China for minerals is at an all-time high and growing, despite increasingly tense diplomatic relations. (Read full article)

Matthew Kandrach, President of Consumer Action for a Strong Economy notes:

The taboo against hard-rock mining in the United States is nonsensical and should be abandoned. Instead, America should embrace a far wiser policy of ensuring greater access to minerals on our public lands, since it’s in our national and economic interest. This would help reduce our heavy dependence on foreign nations for minerals that are needed in the production of advanced weapons systems and a multitude of consumer technologies.

The current problem stems from America adhering to a highly duplicative and inefficient system of regulatory permits and oversight that governs domestic mining. Over all, the mining industry is struggling with a regulatory system that forces them to wait seven to 10 years to obtain a mining permit, in contrast to Canada and Australia where the process takes two to three years.

The permit system was set up during a very different era when the U.S. dominated the production and use of minerals. But those days are long past. China is now the world’s leading producer and exporter of minerals and metals, supplying many that are critical to U.S. manufacturing, our technology and energy sectors, and national defense. Our ongoing dependence is not only a potential vulnerability during a time of increased global tensions, but greatly limits our nation’s ability to capitalize on our mineral wealth. (Read more)

See also:

A Short History of Mining Law 

Observations on the new Santa Cruz Valley National Heritage Area

In March, 2019, President Trump signed legislation creating the 3,600 square mile Santa Cruz Valley National Heritage Area in parts of Pima and Santa Cruz Counties, Arizona. This has long been a pet project of Congressman Raul Grijalva. The proposed boundaries of the heritage area encompass major copper mines, sources of construction aggregate, and many ranches.

According to the Arizona Geological Survey, the mines in the area have produced 65 percent of the nation’s copper. (Maps in this article are from AZGS.) It remains to be seen whether establishment of an NHA will impact mining and mineral exploration.

The heritage area will be managed through the National Park Service which will contract management to a “local coordinating entity” which in this case is the Santa Cruz Valley Heritage Alliance. The Alliance will receive $1 million per year up to a maximum of $15 million for its services.

According to the House version of the legislation (link 3 below):

The purposes of this Act include:

(1) to establish the Santa Cruz Valley National Heritage Area in the State of Arizona;

(2) to implement the recommendations of the Alternative Concepts for Commemorating Spanish Colonization study completed by the National Park Service in 1991, and the Feasibility Study for the Santa Cruz Valley National Heritage Area prepared by the Center for Desert Archaeology in July 2005;

(3) to provide a management framework to foster a close working relationship with all levels of government, the private sector, and the local communities in the region and to conserve the region’s heritage while continuing to pursue compatible economic opportunities;

(4) to assist communities, organizations, and citizens in the State of Arizona in identifying, preserving, interpreting, and developing the historical, cultural, scenic, and natural resources of the region for the educational and inspirational benefit of current and future generations; and

(5) to provide appropriate linkages between units of the National Park System and communities, governments, and organizations within the National Heritage Area.

The Act also gives these reassurances:

Nothing in this Act:

(1) abridges the rights of any property owner (whether public or private), including the right to refrain from participating in any plan, project, program, or activity conducted within the National Heritage Area;

(2) requires any property owner to permit public access (including access by Federal, State, Tribal, or local agencies) to the property of the property owner, or to modify public access or use of property of the property owner under any other Federal, State, Tribal, or local law;

(3) alters any duly adopted land use regulation, approved land use plan, or other regulatory authority of any Federal, State, Tribal, or local agency, or conveys any land use or other regulatory authority to any local coordinating entity, including but not necessarily limited to development and management of energy, water, or water-related infrastructure;

(4) authorizes or implies the reservation or appropriation of water or water rights;

(5) diminishes the authority of the State to manage fish and wildlife, including the regulation of fishing and hunting within the National Heritage Area; or

(6) creates any liability, or affects any liability under any other law, of any private property owner with respect to any person injured on the private property.

That sounds good in theory, but experience with other National Heritage Areas is not so good.

The Heritage Foundation (link 5 below) opines:

There are three key reasons why Congress should not create any new NHAs and why existing NHAs should become financially independent of the federal government, as their enabling legislation requires.

1) NHAs divert NPS resources from core responsibilities. NPS advocates and staff have long complained about the limited resources that Congress provides in comparison to its extensive responsibilities. Both the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Congressional Research Service estimate that the cost of NPS’s maintenance back-log exceeds several billion dollars and is rising despite increased annual appropriations.

2) Federal costs for NHAs are increasing at a rapid rate.

3) NHAs threaten private property rights. On the surface, most of the legislation designating an NHA, and the subsequent management plans that guide them, include explicit provisions prohibiting the NPS or the management entity from using eminent domain to acquire property. They also prohibit the use of federal funds to acquire private property by way of a voluntary transaction with a willing seller.

Nonetheless, NHAs pose a threat to private property rights through the exercise of restrictive zoning that may severely limit the extent to which property owners can develop or use their property. Termed “regulatory takings,” such zoning abuses are the most common form of property rights abuse today. They are also the most pernicious because they do not require any compensation to owners whose property values are reduced by the new zoning. (Read full article for details.)

The American Policy Center (link 4 below) opines:

Specifically, what is a National Heritage Area? To put it bluntly, it is a pork barrel earmark that harms property rights and local governance. Let me explain why that is. Heritage Areas have boundaries. These are very definite boundaries, and they have very definite consequences for folks who reside within them. National historic significance, obviously, is a very arbitrary term; so anyone’s property can end up falling under those guidelines.

The managing entity sets up non-elected boards, councils and regional governments to oversee policy inside the Heritage Area.

In the mix of special interest groups you’re going to find all of the usual suspects: Environmental groups; planning groups; historic preservation groups; all with their own private agendas – all working behind the scenes, creating policy, hovering over the members of the non-elected boards (perhaps even assuring their own people make up the boards), and all collecting the Park Service funds to pressure local governments to install their agenda. In many cases, these groups actually form a compact with the Interior Department to determine the guidelines that make up the land use management plan and the boundaries of the Heritage Area itself.

Now, after the boundaries are drawn and after the management plan has been approved by the Park Service, the management entity and its special interest groups, are given the federal funds, typically a million dollars a year, or more, and told to spend that money getting the management plan enacted at the local level.

Here’s how they operate with those funds. They go to local boards and local legislators and they say, Congress just passed this Heritage Area. “You are within the boundaries. We have identified these properties as those we deem significant. We have identified these businesses that we deem insignificant and a harm to these properties and a harm to the Heritage Area. We don’t have the power to make laws but you do. And here is some federal money. Now use whatever tools, whatever laws, whatever regulatory procedures you already have to make this management plan come into fruition.”

This sweeping mandate ensures that virtually every square inch of land within the boundaries is subject to the scrutiny of Park Service bureaucrats and their managing partners. That is the way it works. It’s done behind the scenes – out of the way of public input.

True private property ownership lies in one’s ability to do with his property as he wishes. Zoning and land-use policies are local decisions that have traditionally been the purview of locally elected officials who are directly accountable to the citizens that they represent.

But National Heritage Areas corrupt this inherently local process by adding federal dollars, federal mandates, and federal oversight to the mix. Along with an army of special interest carpet baggers who call themselves Stake Holders. (See the article for much more.)

References:

1) P.A. Pearthree and F.M. Conway, 2019, Preliminary evaluation of mineral resources

of the Santa Cruz Valley National Heritage Area, Arizona, Arizona Geological Survey, Open-file Report OFR-19-03 (link)

2) Southwestern Minerals Exploration Association (SMEA), 2001, Mineral Potential of Eastern Pima County, Arizona, Arizona Geological Survey Contributed Report 01-B (link) (Note: I am one of the co-authors of this report.)

3) Text of House version of establishing legislation: H.R. 6522 (115th): Santa Cruz Valley National Heritage Area Act (link)

4) Tom DeWeese, American Policy Center, 2012, National Heritage Areas: the Land Grabs Continue (link)

5) Cheryl Chumley and Ronald Utt, 2007, National Heritage Areas: Costly Economic Development Schemes that Threaten Property Rights, The Heritage Foundation (link)

The People for the West newsletter for April, 2019

The People for the West newsletter for April, 2019 is now online:

https://wryheat.wordpress.com/people-for-the-west/2019-archive/2019-14-April/

Earth Day is recognized in April each year. In view of recent predictions that the world will end in 12 years unless we get rid of fossil fuels and completely revise our economic system, it is well to review the track record of past predictions.

Other subjects include:

Brainwashing children to shill for bad science

Why Fossil Fuels Are Good for U.S. National Security

Why Renewables Can’t Save the Planet

Green New Deal Would Barely Change Earth’s Temperature. Here Are the Facts.

The unintended consequences of New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s global warming crusade are hitting close to home—literally.

 

Enjoy,

Jonathan

A Petition From Southern Arizona Ranchers on Border Security

A group of Southern Arizona ranchers are exercising their First Amendment rights in seeking a redress of grievances from their senators and congressman.

The following is a petition to the federal government written by several ranchers on the Arizona-Mexican border. These ranchers have to deal everyday with illegal crossings and lack of proper infrastructure that would make our southern border more secure. Unlike politicians spouting talking points, these ranchers have first hand knowledge of what is really going on along our southern border. The federal government is failing to adequately protect the private property rights of these ranchers.

One of the ranchers, Jim Chilton, is a friend of mine and I have been on his ranch which lies south of Arivaca, AZ, and extends to the Mexican border. On the ranch, the Mexican border is marked by a four-strand barbed wire fence. That’s all. There are many trails from the border through the ranch. Two years ago Jim set up cameras on two of the trails. During that time the cameras captured approximately 500 trespassers going both north and south. Jim suspects he has recorded drug smugglers. The ranch headquarters has been burglarized twice and often water supply pipes to stock tanks have been broken. The smugglers have free run of the ranch because there is no real barrier.

The Petition:

Whereas, one of the most active drug smuggling and human trafficking corridors in the Nation is the international boundary between Nogales and Sasabe, Arizona;

Whereas, 25 miles along the border area south of Arivaca is marked by only an old four-strand barbed wire cattle fence;

Whereas, the Sinaloa Cartel has control of this 25-mile international boundary and of the thousands of square miles of minimally patrolled ranchland adjacent to it inside the United States, due to lack of adequate border infrastructure, the Border Patrol has been largely restricted to a “Defense in Depth” strategy which is inefficient due to rough terrain and inadequate access and allows the presence of well- equipped cartel scouts on top of our mountains to successfully direct drug and human trafficking;

Whereas, although the Tucson Station Patrol Agent-in-Charge and Border Patrol agents try their best to do their job, the lack of access and infrastructure, cartel scout presence, and rough terrain and inefficient “Defense in Depth” strategy creates a de facto “no man’s land” in which border ranchers live and work;

Whereas, the national Border Patrol Council Vice President, Art del Cueto, has asserted on national television that under the present situation, no more than 50% of illegal crossers are apprehended;

Whereas, Border Patrol agents are headquartered in Tucson, eighty miles and three hours from the border on our ranches and there are no roads paralleling the border and no efficient north-south access for the Border Patrol to respond to incursions; and

Whereas, current “defense in depth” strategy means the Tucson Station Border Patrol agents are dispersed across the 4,000 square miles of area of responsibility and are operating in the “backfield” instead of operating on the 25 linear miles of the actual border;

Therefore be it resolved, Border ranchers petition our government to construct an adequate security barrier such as a Bollard-style fence at the border, good all-weather, well-maintained roads leading to the border and along it, adequate, modern flood gates at water crossings, appropriate surveillance technology to monitor Border Patrol personnel and border status, air mobile support, and reliable communications for Border Patrol agents to call for back-up, and forward operations bases near the border barrier to effectively secure the international boundary between Nogales and Sasabe, Arizona.

The petition is signed by these ranchers: Jim Chilton, Chilton Ranch; Tom Kay, Jarillas Ranch; John R. Smith, Arivaca Ranch; Ted Noon, Oro Blanco Ranch; and Lowell Robinson, Tres Bellotas Ranch.

 

This post was first published in the Arizona Daily Independent where it received more than 100 comments.

The Dangerous Ignorance of the Green New Deal

The energy portion of the utopian “Green New Deal” would require the U.S. to shift to 100% renewable energy by 2035. Such a proposal shows a profound and dangerous ignorance of how things work. Let’s examine just one aspect of this. Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts is quoted as saying: “Our energy future will not be found in the dark of a mine but in the light of the sun.”

Some simple questions for you Ed: Where will we get all the materials needed to construct the solar panels and wind turbines? Might they have to be mined? Might the metals and other materials used to build the equipment to manufacture the solar panels and wind turbines have to be mined? Might the copper for distribution lines have to be mined? By the way, electric cars use five times more copper than traditional fossil-fuel powered cars.

Manufacture of solar panels and wind turbines require mining minerals that currently are unavailable in the quantities required for this transition to 100% renewable energy. The U.S. is 100% dependent on imports from China, Russia and other countries of rare-earth elements used in the manufacture of solar panels and wind turbines. (Note: many of these elements do occur in the western states of the U.S. on federal land, but environmentalists and federal regulations prevent mining.)

Solar and wind are not as “green” as advertized. For instance:

Solar panels create 300 times more toxic waste per unit of energy than do nuclear power plants. (Source) PV solar panels rely on polysilicon being manufactured in large quantities and at high quality. A byproduct of polysilicon production is silicon tetrachloride, a highly toxic substance that poses a major environmental hazard. Wherever silicon tetrachloride is dumped, the land becomes totally infertile. A major environmental cost of photovoltaic solar energy is toxic chemical pollution (arsenic, gallium, and cadmium) and energy consumption associated with the large-scale manufacture of photovoltaic panels. Nitrogen trifluoride, used in the manufacturing of solar panels, is a powerful greenhouse gas with a “global warming potential” of 17,200 times that of carbon dioxide. (Source)

Wind turbines chop up birds and bats and also affect human health due to the low frequency vibration.

Both utility-scale solar and wind installations use much more land than do similar capacity fossil-fuel generation stations, and thereby degrade the local environment.

The utopian “Green New Deal” if implemented, may become the dystopian green deal.

 

Related articles:

The “Green New Deal” Will Send US Back to the Dark Ages

Health Hazards of Wind Turbines

Why Replacing Fossil-fuel Generation of Electricity with Solar or Wind Is Dangerous

Evidence that CO2 emissions do not intensify the greenhouse effect

 

Note to readers:

The “Green New Deal” Will Send US Back to the Dark Ages

“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.” -Bertrand Russell

The “Green New Deal” promotes an energy policy and tried-and-failed social programs that will, by some estimates, cost $49 trillion during the first 10 years. (Cost estimate source) The National Review estimates that 5.8 million jobs would be eliminated under the Green New Deal. (Source)

The energy portion of the deal is based upon a profound ignorance and misunderstanding of how the climate system works. For example, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez claims: “The world is gonna end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change…” Promoters of utility-scale renewable energy, which probably would not exist without government mandates and subsidies, take advantage of that ignorance. (See Renewable Energy Subsidies Costly to Taxpayers, Benefit Big Companies)

Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute gives us the “highlights” of energy policy under the Green New Deal:

First, keep it in the ground by halting all fossil fuel leasing on federal lands and offshore areas; halting all permitting of fossil-fuel power plants, pipelines, and other infrastructure projects; banning fossil-fuel exports; and ending “massive, irrational subsidies” for fossil fuels and nuclear energy, waste incineration, and biomass energy.

Second, “the United States must shift to 100% renewable power by 2035 or earlier.” Large-scale hydro-electric power, biomass, and waste-to-energy do not qualify.

Third, public transport using renewable power only must be vastly expanded; sales of vehicles powered by gas and diesel engines must be banned as quickly as possible; and all such vehicles must be off the roads by 2040 at the latest. Of course, “federal credits for electric vehicles must be expanded.”

Fourth, Congress should “harness the full power of the Clean Air Act.” I’m not sure what more can be done to turn the economy upside down, but I may be missing something.

 Fifth, this must be a “just transition.” This will require “support for communities who (sic) have historically been harmed first and most by the dirty energy economy,” as well as “retrofitting millions of buildings to conserve energy” and “actively restoring natural ecosystems.”

 Sixth, the rights of indigenous peoples must be fully protected, although it’s not clear whether Native Americans will be allowed to develop coal, oil, and natural gas resources on their lands. My guess is they’ll be able to apply for compensation.

 Finally, the Green New Deal must not protect fossil fuel producers from legal liability and cannot include “market-based mechanisms and technology options such as carbon and emissions trading and offsets, [or] carbon capture and storage.”

 It should be called the Back to the Dark Ages Manifesto. (link to original article)

All aspects of living require energy, and hydrocarbons provide 80% of America’s energy, more for the rest of the world. A government-mandated transition to 100% renewable energy would completely destroy the U.S. industrial base and cause lights to go out in millions of households across the country. This energy transition alone could cost $5.2 trillion, while greatly increasing your energy costs.(Source)

Read these articles to see why the energy portion of the Green New Deal is so stupid:

The Broken Greenhouse – Why CO2 is a minor player in global climate

Evidence that CO2 emissions do not intensify the greenhouse effect

An examination of the relationship between temperature and carbon dioxide

Why Replacing Fossil-fuel Generation of Electricity with Solar or Wind Is Dangerous

The high cost of electricity from wind and solar generation

 

The Green New Deal is not just about energy, it contains most of the old (and failed) socialist utopian policies such as free education through college, guaranteed jobs, free medical care. Read the list as complied by the Green Party.

All this free stuff will put the government in full control of your life, and cost only $49 trillion for the first 10 years. (Source)

According to Justin Haskins, Fox News:

The Green New Deal would dramatically reshape the U.S. economy and add tens of trillions of dollars to the national debt.

The radical plan would force families to pay more to heat, cool and provide electricity to their homes. It would raise the same costs for businesses, farmers, government and organizations, driving up their operating costs – and raising the prices for just about all the good and services Americans buy.

Under the Green New Deal, Americans would have to power their homes with renewable energy, such as wind and solar power. Every home and business in the United States would have to be “upgraded” for “state-of-the-art energy efficiency, comfort and safety.” And a slew of massive government social programs and mandates would be created.

In addition to the energy provisions of the Green New Deal that have received the most attention from left-wing pundits and radical environmentalists, there is a lot of important information related to this proposal that proponents have deliberately kept out of the spotlight.

Here are five of the most important things you need to know about the Green New Deal.

1. It includes many radical programs that have nothing to do with so-called “green” energy.

2. It would do nothing to curb global warming.

3. Renewable energy costs significantly more than fossil fuels.

4. The Green New Deal would empower and give handouts to left-wing special interest groups and industries.

5. It would run up the national debt by tens of trillions of dollars. Read more

 

“The same prudence which in private life would forbid our paying our own money for unexplained projects, forbids it in the dispensation of the public moneys.” —Thomas Jefferson (1808)

“If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretense of taking care of them, they must become happy.” —Thomas Jefferson (1802)

A Cautionary Tale from Great Britain

Green Deal fiasco:

By Tom Kelly, Investigations Editor for the Daily Mail

Thousands of homeowners face rip-off energy bills for decades after being ‘scammed’ into joining a state-backed £400million eco-energy scheme that ‘utterly failed’.

The Green Deal – which ministers trumpeted as the ‘biggest home improvement programme since the Second World War’ – was abandoned after two years as MPs admitted it had been a ‘complete fiasco’ that brought almost no environmental benefits.

But more than three years after its collapse, families remain trapped repaying loans of up to £21,000 which they unwittingly took out for solar panels, replacement boilers and insulation. The repayments are added to monthly utility bills which in some cases have quadrupled once the loans were added to the cost of their usual fuel and will take more than 20 years to pay back.

In some of the worst cases, the scheme was allowed to be ruthlessly exploited by Government-approved ‘gangster companies’ who conned the elderly and vulnerable, including those with dementia, MPs told the Commons. Read more

‘Green New Deal’ Relies on Minerals Environmentalists Won’t Allow Us to Mine
By Ann Bridges, The Heartland Institute
The Green New Deal proposes a massive expansion in the use of renewable energy technologies that rely on critical minerals we are not allowed to mine in the United States.

FACTS: Green renewable energy requires literally tons of minerals that currently are unavailable in the quantities required for this transition. Of course, the GND includes no plan for additional mining to supply this broad initiative.

FACTS: The Green New Deal’s website also says one of its goals is ending wars, which will supposedly “become obsolete” when fossil fuels are no longer used. If the advocates of the GND wish to limit the threat of war, then the United States needs to become mineral-independent in the same fashion it is now energy-independent.

FACTS: Another goal of the Green New Deal is to electrify U.S. transportation. Electric vehicles (EVs) use up to five times more copper than traditional, fossil-fuel-powered vehicles. California’s new edict to have five million EVs on the road by 2030 will require 750 million pounds of copper. Read more

Another Thing: 

Green New Deal Strengthens Russia and China

By hitting the U.S. military with deep cuts, “saving the planet” could have a dangerous result. Read article

The Supreme Court can fix a major mistake and deal a blow to federal corruption

The following is an opinion piece from the Falen Law Offices in Cheyenne, Wyoming. (Read the original here.)

For any American who is tired of a faceless bureaucrat controlling your life, the United States Supreme Court gave you an early Christmas present when they announced that they will hear a case that could drastically scale back the power of federal agencies.

The case deals with Mr. Kisor, a Marine veteran, who sought disability benefits for his service-related post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Although this case is a compelling story of a Marine veteran trying to receive benefits he was entitled to, this case has far reaching implications that affect every American, especially businesses and property owners. The reason this case is so important is that it is an opportunity for the Supreme Court to eliminate Auer Deference. Auer Deference is a rule the Supreme Court made in the 90s that federal agencies use to create a cocoon of unlimited and unsupervised power for themselves. These agencies can then use that power to control the lives of every American without any real oversight from the court systems or elected officials.

Auer Deference essentially requires a court to enforce an agency’s interpretation of its own rules, unless that interpretation is “plainly erroneous.” To understand how Auer Deference works it is important to understand how regulations are made.

Essentially regulations are made when Congress decides in a law that they want an agency to be in charge of a certain issue. For example, Congress in the 70s knew that it wanted to take steps to protect the environment, but it did not want the political ramifications of sometimes choosing to protect the environment by harming landowners and businesses. So instead of passing laws that clearly laid out how it wanted to protect the environment, Congress passed laws like the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Clean Water Act, that were intentionally vague, and gave agencies like the EPA, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and the US Forest Service the power to interpret and create regulations to protect the environment.

When Congress gives an agency the power to regulate something, they then have the authority to draft regulations laying out the rules and standards for the particular issue. Auer Deference incentivizes those agencies to draft obscure regulations which they will then be able to interpret. Then, if someone challenges the agency’s interpretation of a regulation, the court will automatically rule in the agency’s favor, unless the person can prove that the rule is “plainly erroneous.” Having to prove that a rule is “plainly erroneous” is nearly impossible. So an agency could create an absurd interpretation of a regulation it intentionally left vague, and there would be no recourse or protection against the agency enforcing that interpretation. Essentially, Auer Deference allows the people writing the rules to also interpret the rule (or in other words, the patients are running the rulemaking asylum).

Although there are numerous examples of how Auer Deference harms the rights of Americans daily, a practical example of an agency using Auer Deference can be found in the Endangered Species Act. When deciding what areas should be designated as critical habitat, the US Fish and Wildlife Service created a regulation stating, “the Secretary shall focus on the principal biological or physical constituent elements within the defined area that are essential to the conservation of the species.” The regulations however do not define “essential to the conservation of the species.” Due to the ambiguity as to what is actually “essential to the conservation of the species,” the Fish and Wildlife Service has used the ambiguity to unilaterally designate critical habitat wherever they want, even stating that critical habitat did not have to actually be habitable by the endangered species.

The Fish and Wildlife Service’s liberal use of “critical habitat” was the primary issue in the Dusky Gopher Frog case. In that case the agency interpreted its own rules as to what can be designated as critical habitat and determined that certain land in Louisiana, that the dusky gopher frog could not viably live on, was listed as critical habitat for the species. Since the Fish and Wildlife Service were the “experts” the district court and the Fifth Circuit both used Auer Deference to rule in favor of the Fish and Wildlife Service that critical habitat did not have to be habitable. Although the Supreme Court luckily reversed the Fifth Circuit and ruled that critical habitat had to actually be habitable, the decision was sent back to the Fifth Circuit. Due to Auer Deference, the Fifth Circuit could conceivably rule in favor the Fish and Wildlife Service and designate uninhabitable land as critical habitat.

In the end, Justice Scalia best described the problem with Auer Deference when he wrote, “Auer deference… contravenes one of the great rules of separation of powers: He who writes a law must not adjudge its violation.” Or in other words, the greatest harm that Auer Deference creates is that it gives the power of interpreting the law to the very same people who write the law. Such power naturally can create corruption. This corruption manifests in federal agencies creating intentionally vague regulations that nobody can follow in order to allow government bureaucrats to write the laws themselves on a case-by-case basis. Thankfully, it appears that the US Supreme Court recognizes the dangers of Auer Deference and will hopefully eliminate it.