Biden Unveils Costly Oil And Gas Rules To Cut Methane Emissions At COP26
by Jeff Mordock, Washington Times
The Biden administration presented sweeping regulations targeting the oil and gas industry in an effort to cut back on the emission of methane. (Read more)
Biden claimed that methane “amounts to half of the global warming we’re experiencing today.” Both Biden and the author of the story above ignore some facts. Most atmospheric methane come from rice cultivation, termites, and cattle. Rice growing produces methane gas by feeding microbes that live under the rice paddies. Termites and cattle produce methane during their digestive process.
About the hypothetical greenhouse effect:
Solar radiation, mostly short-wave radiation, passes through the atmosphere and warms the surface. In turn, the heated surface re-radiates energy as long-wave infrared radiation back to the atmosphere and eventually, back to space.
Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere intercept some of the long-wave infrared radiation and transfer some of the energy to excite (warm) other molecules in the atmosphere, some of the radiation goes back to the surface, and some of the radiation is radiated into space.
The major greenhouse gas is water vapor which absorbs almost all wavelengths of infrared radiation. Carbon dioxide absorbs four specific wavelengths of infrared radiation, three of which are also absorbed by water vapor. Other minor greenhouse gases are oxygen and ozone, methane, and nitrous oxide.
Once a particular wavelength becomes saturated, i.e., almost completely absorbed, additional quantities of greenhouse gases have no effect.
According to an article by Dr. Tom Sheahen:
Methane is only 0.00017% (1.7 parts per million) of the atmosphere. Moreover, both of its absorption bands occur at wavelengths where water vapor is already absorbing almost all of the radiation. Hence, any radiation that methane might have absorbed has already been absorbed by water vapor. The ratio of the percentages of water to methane is such that the effects of methane are completely masked by water vapor. (Source)
Methane is just another global warming boogeyman because it has almost no effect on global warming.
Report on Civil Asset Forfeiture Aimed at Helping People Avoid Government Injustice
by Dan Greenberg, Competitive Enterprise Institute
A new Competitive Enterprise Institute report calls attention to a government injustice impacting too many Americans: civil asset forfeiture. The report offers advice to citizens on how to reduce risk of property seizure by law enforcement officials, such as during traffic stops, and explains how government succeeds in seizing and keeping personal property even without a criminal conviction. (Read full report– 66 pages)
Here is the executive summary:
Law enforcement officers in the United States seize billions of dollars in cash and other personal property from members of the public every year. Most of this seized property is eventually forfeited to state and federal governments. These seizures and forfeitures rarely require proof of criminal conduct; rather, they often rest merely on the suspicion that the property in question is related to a crime. As critics of these practices have noted, seizure and forfeiture sometimes result in confiscation of the property of innocent, law-abiding civilians. Furthermore, because the proceeds of forfeiture typically go straight to law enforcement budgets, this creates perverse incentives that make it more likely that law enforcement officers and prosecutors might devote disproportionate effort to this endeavor.
This paper explains how seizure and forfeiture work. More precisely, it contains an account of the relatively minimal legal protections that law-abiding civilians have against both seizure and forfeiture. The paper also provides strategies that the law-abiding civilian can use to reduce the chance of having property seized while traveling.
The Biden administration thinks they can stop global warming (aka climate change) by eliminating carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels and switching electrical generation to wind and solar installations. Biden says “follow the science.” If he did follow the science he would realize that there is no physical evidence that carbon dioxide plays a significant role in controlling global temperature (see posts at the end of this article).
Biden wants 80% hydrocarbon-free electricity generation by 2030, 100% by 2035 and elimination of fossil fuels from all sectors of the U.S. economy by 2050.
According to Paul Driessen (senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow), “ this would send the nation’s annual electricity requirement soaring from about 2.7 billion megawatt-hours (the fossil fuel portion of total U.S. electricity) to almost 7.5 billion MWh per year by 2050. Substantial additional generation would be required to constantly recharge backup batteries for windless, sunless days, to safeguard society against blackouts, cyberattacks and wholesale collapse. Generating all that electricity without new nuclear and hydroelectric plants would require tens of thousands of 850-foot-tall offshore wind turbines, hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of somewhat smaller onshore turbines, and billions of photovoltaic solar panels. All these turbines, panels, batteries and power lines would require tens of billions of tons of non-renewable iron, copper, aluminum, cobalt, lithium, rare earth elements, plastics, limestone and other materials. That would necessitate mining, crushing, processing, refining and transporting tens of billions of tons of ores – from thousands of mines and quarries, using gigantic gasoline and diesel equipment – followed by smelting and manufacturing, all with fossil fuels. None of this is clean, green or sustainable.”
So, how is “global warming” doing. We can consult with Dr. Roy Spencer who manages the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. This satellite system measures global atmospheric temperature daily. The latest results are seen here:
You should notice that global atmospheric temperatures in April, May, and June, 2021, were below the 1991-2020 average and similar to temperatures in 1983. According to the Global Monitoring Laboratory of NOAA at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, atmospheric carbon dioxide was about 340ppm in 1983 versus about 418ppm now. Although there has been deviation from the average due to things like the El Nino-La Nina cycles, there has not been any overall warming in spite of the increase in carbon dioxide.
Biden and other climate alarmists have swallowed the climate “Kool-Aid” and claim that reducing just one, small, insignificant factor will be the panacea in controlling global temperature, but it’s not that simple:
“The forcings that drive long-term climate change are not known with an accuracy sufficient to define future climate change.” — James Hansen, “Climate forcings in the Industrial era”, PNAS, Vol. 95, Issue 22, 12753-12758, October 27, 1998.
“In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the prediction of a specific future climate state is not possible.” — Final chapter,Third Assessment Report, IPCC 2000.
While controlling CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels may have some beneficial effects on air quality, it will have no measurable effect on climate, but great detrimental effects on the economy and our standard of living. The greatest danger of climate change is that politicians think they can stop it. But the climate has always been in a state of flux. In my opinion, the debate over global warming is truly a scam designed to control (and tax) production and use of energy from fossil fuels.
The alleged “climate crisis” is just a scam perpetrated for political gain. “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” —H. L. Mencken (1880-1956)
(Note to younger readers: The term “Kool-Aid” used in this context refers to cult leader Jim Jones who, on November 18, 1978, instructed all members living in the Jonestown, Guyana compound to commit an act of “revolutionary suicide,” by drinking poisoned punch. Link )
For the real science, see these articles from my blog:
In my opinion, President Biden’s Executive Orders and policies will result in more federal regulations and actions impacting Pima Natural Resource Conservation District farmers, ranchers and other resource users. The following are three examples of President Biden’s anti-production initiatives:
The Biden 30 by 30 project advocates that 30% of the nation’s land be “protected” by 2030. Does the Biden policy mean additional government land purchases, new wilderness designations or just control of private and public property through forceful regulation by multiple government agencies? It is probable that all of the above will adversely affect production on private and federal land. Ranchers and farmers have traditionally been conservation leaders; however, there is a danger that the 30 by 30 environmental agenda will promote further moving the Nation, which was founded on private property principles, to an administrative state.
Expansion of the Endangered Species Act. Animal and plant endangered listings can adversely impact farmers’ and ranchers’ future productivity and sustainability. New species listings and the naming of critical habitat have in the past harmfully impacted farmers and ranchers on private, state and federal land. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s new listing process and changes in rules and regulations must be carefully monitored.
Rewriting the Navigable Waters Protection Rule to expand federal jurisdiction over land use will undeniably cause some farmers, ranchers, miners and other landowners a problem.
The current Navigable Waters Protection Rule recognizes that, in our area, a significant nexus with the navigable Colorado River does not exist. Very infrequent Altar Valley Wash and Santa Cruz River flood water spreads out and disappears in the flats south of Eloy approximately 68 miles distant from any possible confluence with the generally dry Gila River and about 150 miles more from the Colorado River.
In reality, Pima Natural Resource Conservation District lands do not have a “significant nexus with a navigable water.” An expansion of the Corps of Engineers’ and EPA’s current regulatory jurisdiction back to the 2015 Rule or beyond can result in limitless control over dry washes and an expansion of federal bureaucracy.
This post by my friend Barney Brenner suggests a solution to our education system. As Barney opines: “The Left is openly flaunting their grip on our kids and has changed education’s three Rs into racism, reparations and revolution.” Below are the first three paragraphs of the article followed by a link the the whole article.
There’s a window of opportunity and realization which is closing on America’s parents and their school-aged kids. For well over a year, families have had video glimpses of the drivel and anti-American evil being foisted in America’s government-run classrooms. They’ve also gotten a feel for what it takes to educate their children at home. But unless they make their move this summer to exercise their authority in deciding where, what and how their kids are taught, this unprecedented chance will likely be lost.
Despite many parents not believing that they can educate their own kids, those naysayers are not appreciating the fact that all parents are teachers by definition and necessity. Additionally, Proverbs tells us to train our children in the way they should go, and Deuteronomy says we should diligently teach our children. And that wasn’t just the simple ABCs, but the laws of Moses!
In truth, the biggest problem for most is money, both in the associated costs as well as the possible lost employment involved in staying home. But there’s a simple solution which can mitigate both drawbacks: state funding. There’s no good reason why parents, or even neighborhoods or other organizations, should not be paid well for taking over the government school mission.
On April 22, 2021, the Democrat-led House of Representatives passed a bill paving the way to grant Washington, D.C. statehood. This has long been a Democrat party goal in order to gain two more Democrat Senators. The touted reason for this change is to grant citizens of Washington D.C. the same representation and voting rights as citizens of states.
Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution established a federal district independent of any state. The Founders established such a federal district because they didn’t want states interfering with the seat of federal government. It would probably take a constitutional amendment to change the situation and that is not likely.
There is a simpler processes to provide residents of the federal district the same representation and voting rights as citizens of states. That is to redraw the boundaries of the federal district which Congress can do. Residential and business areas of the District of Columbia could be ceded back to the state of Maryland. Washington, D.C. residents would then become citizens of Maryland with all the voting and representation rights enjoyed by other citizens of Maryland. Only the two to three square miles that contain federal buildings and the National Mall would remain as an independent federal district. That, of course, would frustrate Democrat goals of power. Perhaps the citizens of Washington, D.C. could take a vote on whether to take this alternative or to remain as is.
A new study, published by Cambridge University Press, “A systematic review of potential habitat suitability for the jaguar Panthera onca in central Arizona and New Mexico, USA,” claims that large areas of Arizona and New Mexico may be suitable habitat for wild jaguars.
From the study abstract:
“Here we present a systematic review of the modelling and assessment efforts over the last 25 years, with a focus on areas north of Interstate-10 in Arizona and New Mexico, outside the recovery unit considered by the USFWS. Despite differences in data inputs, methods, and analytical extent, the nine previous studies found support for potential suitable jaguar habitat in the central mountain ranges of Arizona and New Mexico. Applying slightly modified versions of the USFWS model and recalculating an Arizona-focused model over both states provided additional confirmation. Extending the area of consideration also substantially raised the carrying capacity of habitats in Arizona and New Mexico, from six to 90 or 151 adult jaguars, using the modified USFWS models. This review demonstrates the crucial ways in which choosing the extent of analysis influences the conclusions of a conservation plan. More importantly, it opens a new opportunity for jaguar conservation in North America that could help address threats from habitat losses, climate change and border infrastructure.” (Link to full paper)
The study has 17 authors, 14 of which (in my opinion) belong to radical environmental groups.
As stated in the abstract, the researchers did no on-the-ground research, but instead used models to “cherry-pick” previous publications. Reports of this study appeared in the Arizona Republic and in the March 19, 2021 print edition only of the Arizona Daily Star.
This study renews a very controversial topic. My take on the study is that the authors are campaigning for establishment of more critical habitat. Even if larger areas of Arizona and New Mexico could support Jaguar habitat, there is still no reason to formally establish “critical habitat” which would have many bad effects on property rights and natural resource production. The natural habitats in Mexico, Central America, South America are sufficient to provide for the species.
In my previous article on this subject Proposed Jaguar Habitat in Arizona and New Mexico Is Scientifically and Legally Indefensible, I provide a report from the Pima Natural Resource Conservation District (PNRCD): which “shows that the proposal by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) to designate Critical Habitat for the jaguar under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is scientifically indefensible because it is based on flawed data, and it violates laws such as the Data Quality Act.”
PNRCD requested that FWS withdraw its proposed rule “because habitat ‘essential’ to the conservation of the jaguar as a species does not exist in either Arizona or New Mexico under any scientifically credible definition of that term, because designation of critical habitat therein cannot possibly help save jaguars, and because the economic consequences of adding yet another layer of regulation and restriction on national security, resource production, water use, hunting and recreation during the worst recession on record since 1929 far outweigh any possibly discernible benefit to jaguars as a species that might be gained by designating critical habitat for them north of the Mexican border where they are but rarely transient…”
“For Critical Habitat to be established under ESA, the FWS must show that the area in question is essential to the jaguars conservation and survival as a species, not merely whether the area in question could host or has hosted individual, transient jaguars.”
[Wryheat note, the brochures linked to below were intended to be posted on the White House website, but since they are politically incorrect, the new administration has banned them. If the original links don’t work, click the “alternate link.”]
[UPDATE: Jan. 13, 2021:
These briefs demonstrate that climate science has glaring deficiencies as a science when it is used to declare that carbon dioxide is causing dangerous global warming. These deficiencies are unacceptable to any student of the scientific method.
Legates and Ryan Maue, an author of one of the briefs, were promptly removed from their positions by OSTP director and Trump’s science advisor Kelvin Droegemeier was fired. They returned to their positions at NOAA. Applying the scientific method to climate science is not permitted in Washington, regardless of political party. It is clear that conformity conquers all.]
January 8th, 2021 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
Late last year, several of us were asked by David Legates (White House Office of Science and Technology Policy) to write short, easily understandable brochures that supported the general view that there is no climate crisis or climate emergency, and pointing out the widespread misinformation being promoted by alarmists through the media.
Below are the resulting 9 brochures, and an introduction by David. Mine is entitled, “The Faith-Based Nature of Human Caused Global Warming”.
Wryheat note: These brochures never made it to the White House website and have been removed from Dr. Spencer’s website as well. Fortunately, I saved the originals. Note that these brochures are no longer official White House publications.
As I wrote in a previous article, Comments On Tucson City Council’s Plan On Recycling Glass, the City of Tucson plans to stop collecting glass in the recycle bins. Instead the City will provide sites around the city for residents to drop off glass. The glass will be ground to sand and used to fill sandbags or as an aggregate for construction projects. That plan has drawn the ire of glass recycling companies.
In response to that article, I recently received an email from Laura Hennemann, Vice President, Strategic Materials, the largest glass recycler in North America. The email contained three attachments, all letters to the Tucson City Council, that show the folly of the City plan.
Ms. Hennermann writes, “We are saddened to also learn the City’s glass will be pulverized and used as aggregate, ending the life of glass. Glass is 100% recyclable, endlessly. Glass does not belong in the ground or the landfill.” Read her full letter (click back arrow to return): View Fullscreen
The second letter is from Angus E. Crane, Executive Vice President, General Counsel, NAIMA (North American Insulation Manufacturers Association). His main point is that recycled glass is necessary to manufacture fiberglass insulation. Since 1992, when NAIMA started collecting recycled data, 61.8 billion pounds of recycled material have been diverted from the waste stream.
The third letter is from Scott DeFife, President of the Glass Packaging Institute. His 4-page letter goes into detail on the flaws of Tucson’s plan. “The glass reuse plan is missing several key points in the underlying facts and analysis concerning removal of glass from curbside recycling, including its positive impact on carbon emissions, versus the proposed alternative, downcycling glass for sand substitute.” Read his letter: View Fullscreen
Tucson City Council members should rethink their plan. As I wrote before, I am skeptical that most residents will bother to find one of the city’s planned drop-off bins. I think that under the proposed plan, most glass will wind up in the landfill.