water

SCIENCE, CLIMATE, ENERGY AND POLITICS NEWS ROUNDUP 2023 MAY

A monthly review of climate, energy, and environmental policy issues

Articles compiled by Jonathan DuHamel

The climate crazies are still at work. They are after your gas stoves, refrigerators, AC units, automobiles and more.

In case you missed it, see these Wryheat posts:

The Nonsense of “Net-Zero”

Tucson Electric Power Should Dump Wind and Solar Generation of Electricity – Go Nuclear

Comments on Tucson’s Climate Action Plan

Problems with wind and solar generation of electricity – a review

CLIMATE SCIENCE BACKGROUND:

by Jonathan DuHamel

Geologic evidence shows that Earth’s climate has been in a constant state of flux for more than 4 billion years. Nothing we do can stop that. Much of current climate and energy policy is based upon the erroneous assumption that anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions, which make up just 0.1% of total greenhouse gases, are responsible for “dangerous” global warming/climate change. There is no physical evidence to support that assumption. Man-made carbon dioxide emissions have no significant effect on global temperature/climate. In fact, when there is an apparent correlation between temperature and carbon dioxide, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been shown to follow, not lead, changes in Earth’s temperature. All efforts to reduce emissions are futile with regard to climate change, but such efforts will impose massive economic harm to Western Nations. The “climate crisis” is a scam. U.N officials have admitted that their climate policy is about money and power and destroying capitalism, not about climate. By the way, like all planetary bodies, the earth loses heat through infrared radiation. Greenhouse gases interfere with (block) some of this heat loss. Greenhouse gases don’t warm the Earth, they slow the cooling. If there were no greenhouse gases, we would have freezing temperatures every night.

03-Antropogenic contribution to greenhouse effect

CLIMATE NEWS

More Carbon Dioxide Is Good, Less Is Bad

by Gregory Wrightstone, CO2 Coalition

People should be celebrating, not demonizing, modern increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). We cannot overstate the importance of the gas. Without it, life doesn’t exist.

First, a bit of history: During each of the last four glacial advances, CO2’s concentration fell below 190 parts per million (ppm), less than 50 percent of our current concentration of 420 ppm. When glaciers began receding about 14,000 years ago – a blink in geological time – CO2 levels fell to 182 ppm, a concentration thought to be the lowest in Earth’s history.

Why is this alarming? Because below 150 ppm, most terrestrial plant life dies. Without plants, there are no animals.

In other words, the Earth came within 30 ppm in CO2’s atmospheric concentration of witnessing the extinction of most land-based plants and all higher terrestrial life-forms – nearly a true climate apocalypse. Before industrialization began adding CO2 to the atmosphere, there was no telling whether the critical 150-ppm threshold wouldn’t be reached during the next glacial period.

Contrary to the mantra that today’s CO2 concentration is unprecedentedly high, our current geologic period, the Quaternary, has seen the lowest average levels of carbon dioxide since the end of the Pre-Cambrian Period more than 600 million years ago. The average CO2 concentration throughout Earth’s history was more than 2,600 ppm, nearly seven times current levels.

Beneficial CO2 Increases

CO2 increased from 280 ppm in 1750 to 420 ppm today, most of it after World War II as industrial activity accelerated. The higher concentration has been beneficial because of the gas’s role as a plant food in increasing photosynthesis.

Its benefits include:

— Faster plant growth with less water and larger crop yields.

— Expansion of forests and grasslands.

— Less erosion of topsoil because of more plant growth.

— Increases in plants’ natural insect repellents.

A summary of 270 laboratory studies covering 83 food crops showed that increasing CO2 concentrations by 300 ppm boosts plant growth by an average of 46 percent. Conversely, many studies show adverse effects of low-CO2 environments.

For instance, one indicated that, compared to today, plant growth was eight percent less in the period before the Industrial Revolution, with a low concentration of 280 ppm CO2.

Therefore, attempts to reduce CO2 concentrations are bad for plants, animals and humankind.

Data reported in a recent paper by Dr. Indur Goklany, and published by the CO2 Coalition, indicates that up to 50 percent of Earth’s vegetated areas became greener between 1982-2011.

Researchers attribute 70 percent of the greening to CO2 fertilization from of fossil fuel emissions. (Another nine percent is attributed to fertilizers derived from fossil fuels.)

Dr. Goklany also reported that the beneficial fertilization effect of CO2 – along with the use of hydrocarbon-dependent machinery, pesticides and fertilizers – have saved at least 20 percent of land area from being converted to agricultural purposes – an area 25 percent larger than North America.

The amazing increase in agricultural productivity, partly the result of more CO2, has allowed the planet to feed eight billion people, compared to the fewer than 800,000 inhabitants living a short 300 years ago.

More CO2 in the air means more moisture in the soil. The major cause of water loss in plants is attributable to transpiration, in which the stomata, or pores, on the undersides of the leaves open to absorb CO2 and expel oxygen and water vapor.

With more CO2, the stomata are open for shorter periods, the leaves lose less water, and more moisture remains in the soil. The associated increase in soil moisture has been linked to global decreases in wildfires, droughts and heat waves. (Read more) ☼

Does More CO2 Warm or Cool the Planet?

by Ron Clutz

There are various answers to the title question. IPCC doctrine asserts that not only does more CO2 induce warming, it also triggers a water vapor positive feedback that triples the warming. Many other scientists, including some skeptical of any climate “emergency,” agree some CO2 warming is likely, but doubt the positive feedback, with the possibility the sign is wrong. Still others point out that increases of CO2 lag temperature increases on all time scales, from ice core data to last month’s observations. CO2 can hardly be claimed to cause warming, when CO2 changes do not precede the effect. Below is a post describing how CO2 warming is not only lacking, but more CO2 actually increases planetary cooling. The mathematical analysis reveals a fundamental error in the past and only now subjected to correction. (Read more) ☼

Solar Variability Linked To Climate Change…CO2 Not ‘The Primary Driver For Nearly All Of Earth’s History’

By Kenneth Richard

A new study exposes the uncertainty in solar activity reconstructions, but suggests solar models explain climate changes far better than atmospheric CO2 concentrations. CO2 changes lag behind temperature changes by hundreds of years in paleoclimate reconstructions, and CO2 variations “significantly depend on the surface temperature of the oceans.” If the CO2 variations are dependent upon temperature variations, the CO2 cannot be the driver of temperature variations. (Read more) ☼

The Role of Sulfur Dioxide Aerosols in Climate Change

by Buel Henry

In 2007, the Nobel Prize for Peace was awarded to Albert Gore and the IPCC for their work in promoting the theory that global warming was caused by greenhouse gasses, and that, based upon computer simulations, increasing amounts of these gasses in the atmosphere would cause runaway warming, with disastrous consequences for the planet.

At the time, this appeared to be a plausible explanation for the warming, since CO2 levels in the atmosphere were clearly rising. However, for the past 15 years or so, there has been a “Pause” (no statistically significant warming) in the warming trend, leaving scientists around the world scratching their heads for an explanation, since this was not predicted by any of their models.

However, it can be proven, from published data, that the observed warming was actually a “side effect” of the American Clean Air Acts (1963, 1979, 1990 ) and similar efforts abroad, and had nothing to do with greenhouse gasses..

Just as the global cooling caused by a large volcanic eruption ends after its stratospheric Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) aerosols have settled out of the atmosphere, warming will naturally occur when anthropogenic SO2 aerosols are likewise removed from the troposphere.

As the Clean Air Act efforts were implemented, warming naturally occurred, as it was expected to, but the warming was wrongly attributed to greenhouse gas emissions rather than simply to the cleaner, more transparent air (fewer dimming SO2 aerosols to weaken the sun’s rays).

 (Read more) ☼ [The EPA caused global warming!]

See also: Little Ice Age Warming Recovery May be Over 2023 (link) for a detailed explanation of SO2 and its effect on climate history.☼

Ice Cores, Temperatures, And CO2

by Willis Eschenbach

I got to thinking about the ice cores. It’s pretty amazing to realize that the air trapped in the tiny bubbles in the ice is the very air that was trapped there way back when the ice formed. And that air can be hundreds of thousands of years old. Not only that, but we can analyze the trapped air to see the changes in CO2 over time. How accurate are the results? Well, different ice cores drilled and analyzed by different groups of scientists give very similar results. People keep saying that a slight global warming is an “existential crisis”. But in both of the previous interglacials, temperatures were up to 2°C warmer than today. That’s 3.6°C warmer than the “preindustrial temperature”, far above the impending terror temperature of 1.5°C warmer than preindustrial that they keep scaring us with. There were modern humans around for both of those hot spells, along with most modern life forms. It wasn’t an “existential crisis”. It wasn’t a crisis at all. It was a warm time. And humans also existed through the glacial periods. In total, humans have seen a swing of +2°C warmer than today’s temperature to -9°C cooler than modern times … a very wide swing. (Read more) ☼

Related: 1875 was coldest in 10,000 years, Warming A Good Thing

The problem is that we can all agree completely that we have had a global temperature increase in the 20th century. Yes, but an increase from what? It was probably an increase from the lowest point we’ve had for the last 10,000 years. And this means it will be very hard indeed to prove whether the increase of temperature in the 20th century was man-made or it’s a natural variation. That would be very hard because we made ourselves an extremely poor experiment when we started to observe meteorology at the coldest time in the last ten thousand years. (Read more) ☼

Thorough analysis by Clintel shows serious errors in latest IPCC report (Read more) ☼

The Real Climate Science Crisis: The Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) Hypothesis Is Without Scientific Evidence

For a hypothesis to reach the status of being a legit theory, it requires withstanding the onslaught of observed empirical evidence. The CAGW hypothesis is no such animal. Known by its more contemporary aliases, such as ”climate crisis,” “climate emergency,” “climate collapse,” or “existential threat,” the CAGW has zero empirical evidence to support it. (Read more) ☼

New Study: 90% Of Recent Warming Is From Shortwave Cloud Forcing…Humans Contributed 0.03°C (Read more) ☼

Report: Plastic Waste Recycling Could Massively Increase CO2 Emissions (Read more) ☼

CLIMATE MADNESS

The Inhumanity of the Green Agenda

by Joel Kotkin

In recent years, the overused word ‘sustainability’ has fostered a narrative in which human needs and aspirations have taken a back seat to the green austerity of Net Zero and ‘degrowth’. The ruling classes of a fading West are determined to save the planet by immiserating their fellow citizens. Their agenda is expected to cost the world $6 trillion per year for the next 30 years. Meanwhile, they will get to harvest massive green subsidies and live like Renaissance potentates. (Read more) ☼

Joe Biden Wants Every US Military Vehicle To Be Climate Friendly

by Paul Homewood

Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm said she supports requiring the military to have an all-electric vehicle fleet by 2030. (Read more) ☼

War on appliances continues as Biden admin releases new rules for dishwashers

by Anders Hagstrom

The Department of Energy proposed new appliance rules that would cut water and energy use limits for Americans’ dishwashers well below current levels. The proposal would limit dishwashers to using 3.2 gallons of water per cycle, far below the current federal limit of 5 gallons. The rules would also require manufacturers to reduce their products’ energy consumption by nearly 30%. Dishwashers are not the only appliances Biden’s DOE has set its sights on, however, as the regulator is also considering crackdowns on washers, dryers and refrigerators that manufacturers say could reduce performance. (Read more) ☼

Explosion of AP climate change stories following $8 million environmental grant

by Paul Bedard, Washington Examiner

Associated Press from key climate change advocates, the news service has poured out at least 64 stories warning of environmental calamity, according to a new media study.

Media Research Center Business charted the stories and language used following the multimillion-dollar grant and found that AP also used over 500 environmental extremism buzzwords in the stories.

The media giant, which feeds news outlets worldwide, received grants totaling $8 million from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Quadrivium, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Walton Family Foundation in February 2022.

AP said it would hire 20 new environmental writers with the money to create a climate swat team to “enhance the global understanding of climate change and its impact across the world.”

(Read more) ☼

ENERGY NEWS

Nuclear Energy Is The Safest, Most Efficient Energy Source

by Vijay Jayraj

Nuclear energy offers humanity the safest, most efficient approach to harnessing natural resources for its use. As the densest energy source available, nuclear fuel requires the least amount of material and land for electricity production. According to the World Nuclear Association, “Uranium has the advantage of being a highly concentrated source of energy which is easily and cheaply transportable. The quantities needed are very much less than for coal or oil. One kilogram of natural uranium will yield about 20,000 times as much energy as the same amount of coal.” (Read more) ☼

Silence of the Grid Experts

by Planning Engineer (Russell Schussler)

There are many reasons why grid experts within the electric utility industry have not spoken out when unrealistic “green” goals were being developed and promoted over the last 20 years or so. A more open debate during this period might have helped provide a more realistic foundation for future development. This posting describes some reasons as to why at the corporate level electric utilities did not speak out more in defense of grid reliability. Collectively these factors tended to eliminate grid experts from playing any role in the development of policies impacting the grid.

The days of utility-based grid experts who’ve had skin in the game are over. Utility experts are charged with complying with reliability standards rather than maintaining reliability. Where utilities once had variety of tools at their disposal to better foresee and forestall reliability problems, utilities now follow compliance standards and hope for the best. (Read more) ☼

Electrified Compressors and the Great Texas Blackout (a threat to grid reliability everywhere)

by Ed Ireland

Ed Note: “Electric natural gas compressors contributed to the near collapse of the Texas power grid in 2021,” Ed Ireland argues below. “All U.S. power grids face the same risk.” His first-hand knowledge of this instance of ‘deep decarbonization’ politics gets to the why-behind-the-why of the still-debated Texas blackout, the worst electricity debacle in the history of the industry.

“The anti-fossil fuel movement started pressuring North Texas cities and towns to require electric compressors on natural gas pipelines based on arguments that the air pollution from natural gas-powered compressors was causing increased asthma and other health problems…. I said that electrifying natural gas pipeline compressors was a terrible idea that could affect the availability of natural gas when it was needed most, such as during bad weather events. Unfortunately, I lost that debate….” (Read more) ☼

Prepare for a Jolt to Your Power Bill

Joe Biden’s latest energy regulations are shaping up to be his costliest yet.

by Douglas Andrews

President Biden’s administration is poised to announce limits on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants that could compel them to capture the pollution from their smokestacks, technology now used by fewer than 10 of the nation’s 3,400 coal and gas-fired plants.

Why, you ask, are fewer than 10 of our nation’s 3,400 fossil-fuel power plants using this technology? Answer: because it’s ungodly expensive. And guess who’ll be on the hook for that added expense? Yep, you. The regulations would increase the overall cost of electricity in the United States by at least 50 percent. (Read more) ☼

The Push for ‘Net Zero Emissions’ is Climate Hoax Fiction, Not Energy Reality (Read article) ☼

Net Zero grid batteries alone would bankrupt America (Read more) ☼

Biden’s Avalanche Of Regs Hits Consumers With Higher Costs, Worse Performance (Read more) ☼

Electric Vehicles Are Not Emissions Free

by Diana Furchtgott-Roth

Come 2032, if President Joe Biden has his way, most Americans who want new cars may have to buy electric vehicles. While the administration insists that such a mandate will reduce climate change, the fact is, when adding up the emissions required to produce and power the batteries of electric vehicles, EVs can create more carbon emissions than gas-powered cars. (Read more) ☼

Wind and Solar Facilities Produce a Lot of Hard to Manage Waste

by H. Sterling Burnett

Those who designed wind turbines and solar panels, the developers erecting them, and the federal and state governments pushing their use, largely failed to consider how to manage the large amounts of waste produced when turbines and panels fail prematurely or are decommissioned and replaced at the end of their useful lives. This already amounts to millions of pounds of waste annually. (Read more) ☼

Biden Ignores Runaway Wind-Farm Killing Of Protected Birds, Other Species

by David Wojick

That rapidly growing wind power development kills birds in ever-increasing numbers is clear. That it also kills whales and other marine mammals is becoming clear.

So the policy question is how much killing is enough before we stop killing more? This question seems not to be asked. [emphasis, links added]

The stampede to build huge amounts of wind power, on land and at sea, is potentially devastating to a great many species. (Read more) ☼

PROPERTY RIGHTS

Conservation and Landscape Health

Letter from Congressman Paul A. Gosar to Bureau of Land Management”

“I write to express my strong opposition to your recently proposed rule titled “Conservation and

Landscape Health.” I have been contacted by many constituents with grave concerns about this

proposed rule that exceeds any Congressional authority. This proposed rule would significantly

and negatively change the way the Bureau manages the 245 million acres of land it oversees, most of it in Western states.” (Read full letter) ☼

Biden-Appointed Bureau Of Land Management Zealot Targets American Ranchers

by Milt Harris

Biden’s legacy is being cemented with not just incompetence, but willful destruction. By continually appointing these radical zealots, he is destroying every level and aspect of American tradition and morality.

The left has now set their sights on a land grab in the American west, and they will use their puppet to try and use executive orders to circumvent what congress put in place decades ago. Essentially, Biden wants to change public lands from “multiple use” to a very vaguely defined “conservation” status.

Last month, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), let it be known that their intentions, without Congressional approval, is to radically change how public lands are managed. The changes will place a priority on preservation, which is vastly different from the “multiple use mandate” that was implemented by Congress for the BLM in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), of 1976. (Read more) ☼

Supreme Court Rules Against the Epa on Wotus

May 25, 2023

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court limited the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over wetlands in a decision that will have a broad impact on mining. With a unanimous decision in Sackett v. EPA, the court ruled the agency does not have the power to regulate discharges into wetlands unless they are connected to navigable waters.

The ruling was a victory for the Sackett family, who wanted to build on their land near Priest Lake in Idaho. The EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers determined their land was a wetland and they were told they would need a federal permit to build on their land.

The decision will more narrowly define what constitutes a wetland for the EPA’s jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act (CWA), which prohibits the discharge of pollutants, including rocks and sand, into navigable waters. The EPA has maintained a broad interpretation of the CWA to include all waters of the U.S. (WOTUS).

“The Supreme Court today showed there are clear limits to the federal government’s reach when it comes to jurisdiction over water and land features,” said Rich Nolan, President and CEO of the National Mining Association. “Working together, the federal government and the states can effectively protect water resources while allowing responsible projects to move forward. The Biden administration must now recognize its own overreach in the introduction of the latest WOTUS rule, which has already been stayed in half the country, and should act immediately to rescind it.” (Source) ☼

STATE OF THE UNION

“A society that puts equality—in the sense of equality of outcome—ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom. The use of force to achieve equality will destroy freedom, and the force, introduced for good purposes, will end up in the hands of people who use it to promote their own interests.” –Milton Friedman

The Dark Side Of Biden’s ‘Climate Justice’ Agenda

by Paul Driessen

President Biden recently issued a 5,400-word executive order directing all federal agencies to emphasize “environmental justice” in every decision they make. In plain English, the order enables each agency to implement this infinitely malleable “justice” concept to justify whatever policies and regulations it is implementing in the name of abating the “climate crisis” and “fundamentally transforming” America’s energy and economic systems. It also allows agencies to ignore any “justice” issues that might interfere with their plans. The Environmental Protection Agency quickly issued a press release citing justice and “equity” rationales for eliminating coal and gas power plants, internal-combustion vehicles, and gas stoves, ovens, furnaces, and water heaters – all of which it says contribute to global warming. (Read more) ☼

The Problem With Biden Banning Cars That Don’t Run on Batteries

By Travis Fisher

President Joe Biden’s Environmental Protection Agency has announced an aggressive new auto tailpipe emissions rule that would ban most new cars and trucks that don’t run on batteries. In exchange for reductions in CO2 and other tailpipe emissions, the EPA plans to take away Americans’ freedom to choose our cars.

It also touts the benefits of supposedly lower consumer costs stemming from the regulation, which means the federal government—the same entity that saddled us with over $31 trillion in national debt—thinks it knows better than us how to be responsible with money.

The Biden administration is openly pushing that, by 2032, the share of new gasoline vehicles sold versus electric vehicles should be just one in three. This type of central planning has no place in a free country, and the federal government has no right to intervene in such an aggressive way in our transportation choices. (Read more)

See also: Electric Vehicles Are Not Emissions Free (link) and:

Stephen Moore: Who Turned the Lights Out? Joe Biden (link) and

Biden’s Expensive, Unrealistic Push for Electric Vehicles (link) ☼

EPA’s Appliance Regulations Considerably ‘Lower Performance’

by H. Sterling Burnett

It’s not just your gas stove that the Biden administration is seeking to regulate in the name of combating climate change — it’s coming for your entire home.

President Biden’s green energy goals have resulted in an array of new efficiency rules for a slew of household appliances, including microwaves and toothbrush chargers. The effort is forcing manufacturers to produce more costly products that they say reverse innovation by decades and potentially eliminate thousands of U.S. jobs. (Read more) ☼

Biden Federal Government Goes Full Suicide Bomber Against America

by Francis Menton

From his first days in office, President Biden has promised — threatened — to activate the administrative state at every level to address and solve the “climate crisis.” In the orthodoxy of the Biden/Democrat climate cult, this is to be accomplished by reducing U.S. carbon emissions into the atmosphere.

Now, even if you believe that a little more CO2 in the atmosphere is some kind of a problem (it isn’t), there is nothing that the United States can do to have any meaningful impact on that situation, given that countries with populations a large multiple of ours (China, India, Africa) are building coal-fired power plants as fast as they can. Even if we closed our economy entirely and reduced ourselves to eating grass and bugs, the effect on the climate would be zilch.

Meanwhile we have waited through the first two plus years of Bidenism to find out exactly what punishments the administrative state has in mind for us for our sins of prosperity and enjoyment of life. In the last few weeks, we have learned at least part of the answer, in the form of a series of gigantic new regulatory proposals emanating from EPA and other agencies. The answer is, the federal government will become a suicide bomber seeking to blow up and destroy the American economy and the well-being of the American people.

Here are three major regulatory initiatives from the past few weeks, each one supposedly somehow addressing this “climate crisis” thing: (Read more) ☼

What do reparations repair?

By Robert Arvay

Racial reparations, in the form of taking money from one race of people and giving it to another, will repair nothing. It will do the opposite. It will create a class of ungrateful recipients and resentful donors. On the other hand, cultural reparation will be fruitful if it means such things as promoting true equality — equality of opportunity, not outcome; equality of responsibility; and equality of freedom, including the freedom of speech. (Read full post) ☼

The Green Movement Is a Jobs Killer. Are Unions Finally Figuring This Out?

by Stephen Moore

What a shock that a union that makes automobiles would have second thoughts about endorsing the reelection of a president who, just a few weeks ago, announced new regulations that are intended to end production of all gas cars within a decade. Could it be that union bosses are finally waking up to the cold reality that the greatest threat to steel workers, the United Auto Workers, miners, machinists and the Teamsters is the radical climate change agenda of the environmentalists? The green movement has taken the Democratic Party hostage – and President Joe Biden’s all-in embrace of far-left green policies is wreaking havoc on rank-and-file union jobs. (Read more) ☼

5 Areas Where Congress Could Cut Billions in Wasteful Spending (Read more) ☼

“Man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such persons, gullibility, which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason and the mind becomes a wreck.” —Thomas Jefferson (1822)

For more on climate science, see my Wryheat Climate articles:

The Nonsense of “Net-Zero”

Climate Change in Perspective

A Review of the state of Climate Science

The Broken Greenhouse – Why Co2 Is a Minor Player in Global Climate

A Summary of Earth’s Climate History-a Geologist’s View

Problems with wind and solar generation of electricity – a review

The High Cost of Electricity from Wind and Solar Generation

The “Social Cost of Carbon” Scam Revisited

ATMOSPHERIC CO2: a boon for the biosphere

Carbon dioxide is necessary for life on Earth

Impact of the Paris Climate Accord and why Trump was right to drop it

New study shows that carbon dioxide is responsible for only seven percent of the greenhouse effect

Six Issues the Promoters of the Green New Deal Have Overlooked

Why reducing carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuel will have no effect on climate ☼

END

SCIENCE AND POLITICS NEWS ROUNDUP 2023 JANUARY

A monthly review of climate, energy, and environmental policy issues

Eating bugs, atmospheric rivers, our turbulent climate past, and bad energy policies are just a few of the subjects we cover this month.

Articles compiled by Jonathan DuHamel

CLIMATE ISSUES

A note on climate alarmism:

by Jonathan DuHamel

Climate alarmists claim that if Earth’s temperature rises more than 2°C, life will perish. However, most people do not realize that we are in an interglacial period of an ice age and that it is much cooler than normal. Geologic evidence shows that for much of the past 600 million years, global temperature was as much as 13°C warmer than it is now and life flourished.

“Finding the occasional straw of truth awash in a great ocean of confusion and bamboozle

requires intelligence, vigilance, dedication and courage. But if we don’t practice these tough

habits of thought, we cannot hope to solve the truly serious problems that face us, and we risk

becoming a nation of suckers, up for grabs by the next charlatan who comes along.” —Carl Sagan (1934-1996)

Climate & Human History

from the CO2Coalition

There exists a fascinating relationship between the rise and fall of temperature and the rise and fall of great civilizations and empires. We find that the facts are opposite to the prevailing “consensus” predictions of apocalyptic doom from modest warming.

Nearly all great advances occurred during warm periods. Before climate science became politicized, the warm periods were called “climate optima” by those studying such things because both the Earth’s ecosystems and humanity benefited from the blessed warmth.

Conversely, the human condition declined during cold periods–and markedly so.

Wolfgang Behringer, in his book A Cultural History of Climate, reveals that “even minor changes in climate may result in huge social, political and religious convulsions.”

“Cooling has always resulted in major social upheavals, whereas warming has sometimes led to a blossoming of culture. If we can learn anything from the history of culture, it is that, even if humans were ‘children of the Ice Age,’ civilization was a product of climatic warming.” ☼

What Climate Crisis? A Primer On Earth’s Turbulent Climatic Past

by Ian Plimer

“For more than 80 percent of the time, Earth has been a warm wet greenhouse planet with no ice. We live in unusual times when ice occurs on continents. This did not happen overnight.”

In this essay professor Plimer examines climate history on a large scale and examines plate tectonics and the position of Earth relative to the sun. He notes: “No past warming events have been driven by an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. No past cooling events were driven by a decrease in atmospheric carbon dioxide.”

“On a scale of tens of millions of years or more, the Earth’s climate is driven by plate tectonics. On a scale of hundreds of thousands of years, the Earth’s climate is driven by orbital cycles which bring Earth closer to or more distant from the Sun. On a scale of thousands of years to decades, the Earth’s climate is driven by variations in energy emitted from the Sun.”

He concludes the essay this way: “We are putting all our efforts and wasting trillions of taxpayers’ dollars into trying to prevent mythical human-induced global warming, yet we still don’t prepare for the inevitable annual floods, droughts, and bushfires, let alone longer-term solar – and orbitally–driven global cooling.

We have a crisis of single-minded stupidity exacerbated by a dumbed-down education system supported by incessant propaganda, driven by financial interests and political activist authoritarianism.” (Read full article) (See also Plimer’s book “Green Murder”)☼

Scientist: ‘There Is No Climate Crisis’ And ‘No Particular Correlation Between CO2 And Temperature’

By Kenneth Richard

The modern notion that human CO2 emissions are equivalent to a “deadly poison” may one day be viewed as “the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world.”

In a new paper published in the Journal of Sustainable Development, Manheimer (2022) summarizes some of the evidence for the lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature in the paleoclimate as he rips apart the claim that humans are driving a changing climate.

About 4000 years ago the limit of Northern Hemisphere tree growth extended 322 km (200 miles) farther north than it does today, as it was much warmer back then.

During Medieval times the Vikings were able to grow barley for centuries. Today Greenland is too cold to grow this crop.

The Romans grew wine grapes in northern Britain, indicating the climate was much warmer than today about 2000 years ago. Wine vineyards cannot flourish at these latitudes today (unless the new “hybrid” grapes, bred to survive in colder climates, are used).

Observing paleo temperature and CO2 concentration charts for the last hundreds of millions of years, it can be affirmed there is “no particular correlation between CO2 and temperature.”

In the paper abstract, Manheimer writes: “The emphasis on a false climate crisis is becoming a tragedy for modern civilization, which depends on relible, economic, and environmentally viable energy. The windmills, solar panels and backup batteries have none if these qualities. This falsehood is pushed by a powerful lobby which Bjorn Lomborg has called a climate industrial complex, comprising some scientists, most media, industrialists, and legislators. It has somehow managed to convince many that CO2 in the atmosphere, a gas necessary for life on earth, one which we exhale with every breath, is an environmental poison. Multiple scientific theories and measurements show that there is no climate crisis.” (Read more) ☼

The Case Against Human Caused Climate Change

by David Robb

[This is an excerpt from a much longer article.]

There is no question that climate change is happening. What is still open is whether the change is due to human use of fossil fuels, or is it something natural? Climate activists and even government authorities have tried to claim that the science is settled, and there is consensus that human activities are the cause. Aside from the fact that science doesn’t rely on consensus, there is considerable evidence that the change is natural.

Consider, …just two bits of evidence. First, in the mid 1600s, Europe was in the depths of the Little Ice Age. It was so cold that the Thames river froze over – something that has not happened since. About 1650, temperatures began to rise, and that rise has continued at about the same rate until just recently. Use of fossil fuels didn’t begin until about 1850 when coal began to replace wood for heating, cooking, and industrial applications such as steam power. In other words, the temperature rise began two hundred years before the use of fossil fuels and the corresponding rise of CO2. The rise in CO2 followed the temperature rise; how can the effect precede the cause?

A second bit is that the historical record is clear. Carbon dioxide levels in prehistory were over 20 times the level we have today, yet there was no catastrophic heating or runaway greenhouse effect. Indeed, all the evidence points to that period as one of lush forests, a benign climate across all the continents, and no tipping points.

Part of the evidence is found in the massive limestone deposits found across the world. Close examination of limestone shows it to be the fossil remains of uncountable creatures who thrived in the warm seas, drew dissolved carbon dioxide from the water around them, used it to form calcium carbonate for their shells, which then fell to the ocean floor to form the limestone we see today. All that prehistoric CO2 is now found locked up in limestone, and we are left with dangerously low levels in our atmosphere today. (Read more) ☼

What are atmospheric rivers?

In Janurary, California and other parts of the west coast were inundated with heavy rain and snowfall. Alarmists blamed “climate change.” However, the weather was produced by an “atmospheric river” which is a common phenomenon.

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), “Atmospheric rivers are relatively long, narrow regions in the atmosphere – like rivers in the sky – that transport most of the water vapor outside of the tropics. These columns of vapor move with the weather, carrying an amount of water vapor roughly equivalent to the average flow of water at the mouth of the Mississippi River. When the atmospheric rivers make landfall, they often release this water vapor in the form of rain or snow. A well-known example is the “Pineapple Express,” a strong atmospheric river that is capable of bringing moisture from the tropics near Hawaii over to the U.S. West Coast. Atmospheric rivers are a key feature in the global water cycle and are closely tied to both water supply and flood risks — particularly in the western United States.” (Read more from NOAA) ☼

IPCC Climate Models Grossly Exaggerate ‘Global Warming’

By Jerome Corsi

Several recently published studies have provided methodological objections to alarmist IPCC global climate models that predict catastrophic global warming will result from anthropogenic CO2 atmospheric concentrations from burning hydrocarbon fuels. These studies indicate that a more accurate reading of the earth’s surface temperatures suggests global climate warming over the next few decades will be moderate. The studies further indicate that more precise surface temperature readings would seriously dampen the hysterical mass media demand for radical public policies requiring radical decarbonization to achieve Net Zero Emissions (NZE) as quickly as possible.

In November 2022, meteorologist Roy Spencer, Ph.D., a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, published a ground-breaking study demonstrating that 36 climate models used to guide national policy may have exaggerated “global warming” over the last 50 years by as much as 50 percent. Spencer’s research shows that increased urbanization, not increased CO2, is responsible for exaggerating the temperature measurements recorded in the NOAA homogenized surface temperature dataset.

In August 2022, meteorologist Anthony Watts found that 96 percent of the temperature stations in the United States used to measure global warming and climate change did not “meet what the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) considers to be ‘acceptable,’ uncorrupted placement.” (Read more) ☼

To End Climate Lunacy, Stop Treating Warming & C02 Hysterically

by David Simon

Those who oppose economically destructive “climate” policies – like those promoted by the Biden administration and at the recent United Nations COP27 conference – will continue to fail to stop the advance of these policies so long as they continue to accept the false claim that warming of the planet and carbon dioxide emissions are harmful.

They are not. On balance, global warming and CO2 emission are beneficial.

Before getting to why that is, however, it is crucial to understand why accepting the false climate claim is so harmful.

When the destructiveness of climate policies is shown, the response is that the policies nevertheless are necessary to address what President Biden refers to as the “existential threat” of global warming and increased CO2 emissions.

When it is noted that these climate policies will at most microscopically and insignificantly reduce temperatures and CO2 emissions, climate policy mandarins push for even more draconian policies.

The result has been that since the 1990s, climate policies have become increasingly destructive and wasteful. Even worse, their continued intensification appears unlikely to be stopped until the public and policymakers are persuaded that global warming and CO2 emissions are not harmful. To win this argument, it is necessary to focus on the scientific facts. (Read more) ☼

Antarctica Has Not Warmed For Over 70 Years

By Kenneth Richard

New studies affirm Antarctica has not been cooperating with either the global warming or “polar amplification” narratives. The Antarctic continent has not warmed in the last seven decades, despite a monotonic increase in the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases. (Read more) ☼

Top Ten 2022 Media Climate Stories – Fact Check

This summary serves as a fact check on the top ten disasters that mainstream media attributes to climate change. (link) ☼

According to media reports, 2022 was the Hottest coldest driest wettest year ever (link) ☼

Despite Media Hype, 2022 Global Wide Hurricane Season Ends with Weakest Storm Levels of the Last 42 Years

According to NOAA, measured worldwide hurricane season science data for all year 2022 tropical storms shows that global wide storms were at their lowest strength levels in the last 42 years. Additionally, NOAA’s science measured tropical storm data through year 2022 clearly demonstrates that global hurricanes are not trending stronger in numbers, duration or intensity. The number and strength of tornados were also below average. (Read more) ☼

Record Agricultural Yields Should Allay Climate Fear

by Vijay Jayaraj

Countries all over the world are surpassing previous records for production of food crops. This is good news that stands in stark contrast to the apocalyptic picture that the media paints daily in reports on climate and weather. (Read more) ☼

CLIMATE MADNESS

Let Them Eat Bugs!

By Janet Levy

Give up cheeseburgers, and eat bugs instead. That’s what the Davos elite want you to do, while they dine on $50 burritos and slabs of steak. They would even have you feel good about being a meat- and diary-free insectivore. To this end, they have carefully manufactured the cult of environmental alarmism, whose virtue-signaling adherents have been duped into thinking an ecological disaster is at hand. The cult’s latest scapegoat is agriculture. The wise global leaders of the World Economic Forum (WEF) have decreed that farming must be restricted to “save the planet.” By 2030, they dictate, plebs must adopt the ecologically sound practice of entomophagy, or insect-eating. (Read more) ☼

A Rebuttal From Doctors for Disaster Preparedness

Eating bugs can be dangerous

Using insects as a main source of animal protein is a big part of the World Economic Forum’s plans for us. But that may have some bad side effects on your body (Read report) ☼

ENERGY ISSUES

NRC Certifies First U.S. Small Modular Reactor Design

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has certified NuScale Power’s small modular reactor (SMR). The company’s power module becomes the first SMR design certified by the NRC and just the seventh reactor design cleared for use in the United States. The design is an advanced light-water SMR with each power module capable of generating 50 megawatts of emissions-free electricity. (Read more) ☼ [Note: these installations should be used to replace wind and solar generation which is unreliable and require huge land footprints.]

The Gas Stove Gambit

by Ron Clutz

Is it really a “bait and switch” gambit so that government can monitor indoor air quality and/or get rid of fossil fuels? (Read more) ☼

Biden admin quietly admits canceling Keystone XL Pipeline cost thousands of jobs, billions of dollars

by Thomas Catenacci

The Biden administration published a congressionally mandated report highlighting the positive economic benefits the Keystone XL Pipeline would have had if President Biden didn’t revoke its federal permits.

The report, which the Department of Energy (DOE) completed in late December without any public announcement, says the Keystone XL project would have created between 16,149 and 59,000 jobs and would have had a positive economic impact of between $3.4-9.6 billion, citing various studies. A previous report from the federal government published in 2014 determined 3,900 direct jobs and 21,050 total jobs would be created during construction which was expected to take two years.

But immediately after taking office in January 2021, Biden canceled the pipeline’s permits, effectively shutting the project down. (Read more) ☼

China to accelerate approval of new coal projects to ensure energy supply

By Global Times

China reiterated its focus on energy security, vowing to ensure the supply of energy and electricity, coordinate resources and accelerate approval of new coal projects, while asking coal enterprises to expand production as peak season approaches. Power generation companies should store more high-quality coal to ensure power generation during peak times. (Read more) ☼

Let’s Take the Final Step to Reshore U.S. Mining for Battery Metals

By Danny Ervin

The U.S. depends on China for more than half of the minerals and metals deemed critically important for our nation’s economic health and military readiness. While China has made mineral production and processing a strategic priority, the U.S. has done the reverse. Mining in the U.S. has been pushed to the margins.

As recently as the 1990s, the U.S. was the world’s largest producer of rare earth minerals. Today we have just one rare earth mine remaining and the U.S. must ship its ore to China for processing. Demand for rare earths is massive and growing. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology says a wind turbine rated at 3.5 megawatts of electricity contains 1,300 pounds of rare earths.

There is just one lithium mine left in the U.S., one for nickel, one for cobalt, one for manganese. These raw materials are vital to the manufacture of batteries used in electric vehicles and the transmission of solar and wind power on the nation’s electricity grid.

The problem isn’t a lack of mineral resources in the U.S. The National Mining Association says the U.S. is home to $6.2 trillion worth of mineral reserves.

Despite the enormous stakes, nothing has been done to make America’s own minerals on public lands more accessible to mining companies. A complex permitting process is the problem, requiring companies to wait 10 years or more to get government approval to mine in public lands. This is shackling the transition to EVs and clean energy technologies with huge, growth-killing costs. (Read more) ☼

Green Energy Failed To Meet Power Demand During Winter Storm

by Jack McEvoy

Renewable energy was unable to generate sufficient power to meet elevated energy demand during Christmas Eve snowstorms, forcing utilities in the northeastern U.S. and Texas to burn more fossil fuels to prevent outages.

Although wind turbines, solar panels and other forms of green energy have been consistently touted by the Biden administration as reliable alternatives to fossil fuels like coal and natural gas, renewables accounted for a small percentage of grids’ power output after snowstorms and a “bomb cyclone” nearly caused power outages in New England and Texas. Grid operators in both areas were forced to burn oil, a fuel that is significantly less efficient than natural gas, to avoid power outages as renewable energy sources were stymied by the harsh weather. (Read more) ☼

A Quiet Refutation of ‘Net Zero’ Carbon Emissions

Two energy reports show the U.S. is burdening and dismantling its grid to achieve an impossible goal.

By Steve Milloy

‘Net zero by 2050” is more than a slogan of climate activism. It has become a chief organizational principle for multinational corporations and the BlackRock-led cartel pushing environmental, social and corporate governance investing.

In September, the Electric Power Research Institute, the research arm of the U.S. electric utility industry, released a report titled “Net-Zero 2050: U.S. Economy-Wide Deep Decarbonization Scenario Analysis.” The EPRI report concludes that the utility industry can’t attain net zero. “This study shows that clean electricity plus direct electrification and efficiency . . . are not sufficient by themselves to achieve net-zero economy-wide emissions.” In other words, no amount of wind turbines, solar panels, hydropower, nuclear power, battery power, electrification of fossil-fuel technologies or energy-efficiency technologies will get us to net zero by 2050.

The other recent report is “2022 Long-Term Reliability Assessment” from the North American Electric Reliability Corp., a government-certified grid-reliability and standard-setting group. NERC concluded that fossil-fuel plants are being removed from the grid too fast to meet continuing electricity demand, and that is putting most of the country at risk of grid failure and blackouts during extreme weather. The U.S. just got another taste of this during the Christmas electric grid emergency. So there you have it: We are dangerously dismantling our electric grid while burdening it with more demand in hope of attaining the goal of “net zero by 2050,” which the utility industry has admitted is a fantasy. (Read full article) ☼

ENVIRONMENT

The Recycling Religion Is Garbage

by John Stossel

For decades, we’ve been told: recycle! “If we’re not using recycled paper, we’re cutting down more trees!” says Lynn Hoffman, co-president of Eureka Recycling. Recycling paper (or cardboard) does save trees. Recycling aluminum does save energy. But that’s about it. The ugly truth is that many “recyclables” sent to recycling plants are never recycled. The worst is plastic.

Even Greenpeace now says, “Plastic recycling is a dead-end street.” Most of the material ends up in landfills. (Read more) ☼

ECONOMY

How to tell that the climate alarmists aren’t serious

By Maker S. Mark

[The “globalists” want western nations to decrease/eliminate carbon dioxide emissions, but are okay with China increasing emissions.]

“….allowing China to increase emissions at a time that you are asking other countries to sacrifice with proposed reductions is a totally ridiculous and unserious solution to the man-made climate change problem. The real question then becomes, why are Western nations being asked to sacrifice in this way? I think we have to “follow the money” to find out. China increases manufacturing capability to produce the green products needed by the West. It increases this capacity while significantly increasing emissions of the very gases the rest of the world are trying to cut. Cutting Western energy consumption will hurt Western economies, and allowing China to increase energy consumption will allow its economy to expand. This solution to man-made climate change is nonsensical, unless this solution is really a financial reordering. China seems to be the only country truly benefitting from the current green plans.” (Source) ☼

THE EPA

EPA Reinstates Dubious Waterway Regulation

Joe Biden’s bureaucrats bring back an Obama-era power grab just for fun. The Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers effectively resurrected the dubious redefinition of the “waters of the United States” found within the 1970 Clean Water Act. The EPA broadly expanded the definition of “waters of the United States” to include nearly any body of water — virtually down to the size of a puddle. (Read more) ☼

The Supreme Court Case That Could Upend the Clean Water Act

If SCOTUS finds in favor of a small-town Idaho couple in Sackett v. EPA, it could end the federal government’s jurisdiction over millions of acres of land. (link) ☼

State Attorneys General, Other Groups, File Petition Opposing U.S. EPA Greenhouse Gas Rule

by Bethany Blankley, Heartland Institute

Sixteen state attorneys general, 15 state associations, and multiple organizations are fighting against another Environmental Protection Agency rule they argue jeopardizes American energy and national security. The AGs, led by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, filed a brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to halt the EPA from implementing “radical climate regulations.” At issue is the EPA’s “Revised 2023 and Later Model Year Light Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards.” (Read more) ☼

PROPERTY RIGHTS

Environmental Groups Deal Another Blow To Key Alaska Mine, Undermining Biden’s Green Energy Dreams

by Jack Mcevoy, Daily Caller

Two environmental groups spent $20 million to make lands and waters close to Southern Alaska’s Bristol Bay off-limits to economic development, a move that will hinder the construction of a mine that produces minerals that are needed to expand renewable energy production. Pebble Mine sits on top of 80.6 billion pounds of copper and 5.6 billion pounds of molybdenum, highly conductive metals which are crucial to producing solar panels, wind turbines and geothermal energy facilities.(Read more) ☼

WATER

Desalination of Sea Water Can Augment Our Water Supply Without Harming Sea Life

by Jonathan DuHamel

Desalination of sea water can produce the freshwater we need to augment our natural supplies. The most common method is reverse osmosis where the sea water is forced through a semi-permeable membrane which removes the salt. However, the process is energy intensive which some environmentalists claim will put more dread carbon dioxide into the atmosphere if the electricity comes from fossil-fuels. That can be solved by powering the plants with small, dedicated nuclear generators. The other claim by some environmentalists is that the effluent from the desalinization process, very salty brine, is harmful to wildlife. A new study shows this concern is overblown. A seven-year study, jointly conducted by Southern Cross University and the University of New South Wales at the Sydney (Australia) desalination plant found that when the plant was in operation, fish population in the area almost tripled. (Read more) The state of Arizona is currently considering building a desalination plant in Sonora, Mexico.☼

California’s Mega Water Wasters

by Edward Ring

Californians are squandering millions of acre-feet of storm runoff at the same time as they face permanent water rationing. (Read more) ☼

STATE OF THE UNION

“Stability in government is essential to national character and to the advantages annexed to it, as well as to that repose and confidence in the minds of the people, which are among the chief blessings of civil society.” —James Madison (1788)

The Economic Cost Of The Pandemic: State By State

by Eric Hanushek, Hoover Institution

Abstract: Data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) now shows the significant impact of the pandemic on learning. The abstract nature of test score declines, however, often obscures the huge economic impact of these learning losses. NAEP results indicate large differences in learning losses across states, and this analysis provides state-by-state estimates of the economic impacts of the losses. Students on average face 2-9 percent lower lifetime incomes depending on the state in which they live. By virtue of the lower skilled future workforce, the states themselves are estimated to face a GDP that is 0.6 to 2.9 percent lower each year for the remainder of the 21st Century compared to the learning expectations derived from pre-pandemic years. The present value of future losses for states depends directly on the size of each state’s economy. At the extreme, California is estimated to have lost $1.2 trillion dollars because of learning losses during the pandemic. These losses are permanent unless a state’s schools can get better than their pre-pandemic levels. (Read full paper, 12 pages)

How Green Investors Pay the Media to Promote ‘Climate Change’

by Daniel Greenfield

The Associated Press revealed last year that it had scored $8 million to promote claims of global warming. The AP impartially described this massive conflict of interest as an illustration of “how philanthropy has swiftly become an important new funding source for journalism”.

“This far-reaching initiative will transform how we cover the climate story,” its executive editor claimed. That is no doubt true. And an incredibly damaging admission.

The philanthropic quid-pro-quo saw five organizations fund the AP’s dedicated team of “more than two dozen journalists” to cover “climate issues” that the wire service would then plant in papers around the country to terrify Americans into supporting ‘green’ taxes and subsidies.

The Associated Press did not bother to explain to its readers or the newspapers that run its stories why these organizations were impelled to throw millions at it except sheer benevolence.

Nor did it explain why they might be particularly interested in convincing Americans that the climate sky is falling and that our economy must be dismantled and ‘greened’: raising energy prices and putting millions out of work. (Read more) ☼

Citizens! The Declaration of Independence: Now Read It, and Learn

By Frederick Melchiorre

The Declaration of Independence makes clear points regarding tyranny, points now particularly applicable to the Biden administration given the current state of the federal government.

The very first American document reads:

All men… are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness; that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security. The sole role of the government, to secure our unalienable rights, is no longer the goal. Our “civil servants” show no concern for our safety, they trod on our civil rights and decry human rights for the most vulnerable, and desecrate our economic rights for affordable property-ownership. Where is “the pursuit of happiness?” There remains no vestiges of the ideals the founders created, especially that pertaining to “the laws of nature and nature’s God.” God is an anachronism and anathema to modern society; especially to progressive Democrats. (Read more) ☼

Biden Throwing Taxpayer Dollars Down The Climate Change Rathole

by James Rogan

President Joe Biden pledged to the United Nations in 2021 that the U.S. would give $11.4 billion annually to international climate change funds. Biden repeated that pledge at the recent COP27 climate conference. Biden’s climate change pledges are hot air, and he knows it.

Under the Constitution, Biden does not have the authority to commit U.S. funds to overseas development projects. In fact, under the Constitution, only Congress can commit such funds and only Congress has the authority to make binding international agreements. (Read more) ☼

5 Infuriating Ways People Got the First Amendment Wrong in 2022

As free speech becomes an increasingly important part of the culture war, people won’t stop misinterpreting—and outright violating—the First Amendment.

by Emma Camp, Reason Magazine

1. Yes, you can yell “fire” in a crowded theater.

2. The Stop WOKE Act stops speech.

3. No, it is not a First Amendment right to shut down your critics.

4. Filming police is a First Amendment right.

5. Heckler’s vetoes are not protected speech.

Read an explanation of each point. ☼

ESG’s Perverse, Narrow, Fraudulent Ethical Principles

by Paul Driessen

Warning: Your retirement fund may have been Shanghaied by BlackRock or other Wall Street asset managers who’ve unilaterally decided that the tens of trillions of dollars of other people’s money they control should be used to advance political causes they favor – to “make the world a better place.”

As most people know, ESG stands for Environmental protection, Social justice, and Governance of corporate and societal affairs. They’re all noble-sounding causes.

However, under ESG they’re centered around progressive, woke agendas, with the prevention of “man-made climate cataclysms” uppermost. Fund assets are used to drive “net zero” climate agendas and punish or de-fund fossil fuel companies.

That narrow focus creates serious problems. (Read more) ☼

The War Against We the People

By Jeff Crouere

In the preamble of the U.S. Constitution, our Founding Fathers declared that the brilliant centerpiece of our government was created by “We the People of the United States.” It was clearly not, “We the Politicians” or “We the Bureaucrats.”

Unfortunately, our federal government has utterly abandoned “We the People.” It was never more apparent than in the disgusting spectacle of the recently passed $1.7 trillion monstrosity known as the omnibus spending bill. (Read more) ☼

INTERESTING EDITORIALS

Under Wokeism, Animal Farm Comes to Life (link) ☼

The Globalist Scourge (link) ☼

Our government ‘protectors’ are releasing savages onto our streets! (link) ☼

A Mandate for the GOP House (link) ☼

TUCKER CARLSON: World Economic Forum exists to ‘destroy national economies’

Tucker Carlson compares attendees of the World Economic Forum to ‘supervillains’ (link) ☼

CLIMATE SCIENCE BACKGROUND:

by Jonathan DuHamel

Geologic evidence shows that Earth’s climate has been in a constant state of flux for more than 4 billion years. Nothing we do can stop that. Much of current climate and energy policy is based upon the erroneous assumption that anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions, which make up just 0.1% of total greenhouse gases, are responsible for “dangerous” global warming/climate change. There is no physical evidence to support that assumption. Man-made carbon dioxide emissions have no significant effect on global temperature/climate. In fact, when there is an apparent correlation between temperature and carbon dioxide, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been shown to follow, not lead, changes in Earth’s temperature. All efforts to reduce emissions are futile with regard to climate change, but such efforts will impose massive economic harm to Western Nations. The “climate crisis” is a scam. U.N officials have admitted that their climate policy is about money and power and destroying capitalism, not about climate. By the way, like all planetary bodies, the earth loses heat through infrared radiation. Greenhouse gases interfere with (block) some of this heat loss. Greenhouse gases don’t warm the Earth, they slow the cooling. If there were no greenhouse gases, we would have freezing temperatures every night.

For more on climate science, see my Wryheat Climate articles:

Climate Change in Perspective (30 pages)

A Review of the state of Climate Science

The Broken Greenhouse – Why Co2 Is a Minor Player in Global Climate

A Summary of Earth’s Climate History-a Geologist’s View

Problems with wind and solar generation of electricity – a review

The High Cost of Electricity from Wind and Solar Generation

The “Social Cost of Carbon” Scam Revisited

ATMOSPHERIC CO2: a boon for the biosphere

Carbon dioxide is necessary for life on Earth

Impact of the Paris Climate Accord and why Trump was right to drop it

New study shows that carbon dioxide is responsible for only seven percent of the greenhouse effect

Six Issues the Promoters of the Green New Deal Have Overlooked

Why reducing carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuel will have no effect on climate ☼

END

Comments on the alleged megadrought

During the past few weeks, media have been hyping alarm about a new study  that claims that the Southwestern US is entering a megadrought and that the drought is made more severe by human-caused global warming. That claim is based on tree-ring analysis and computer modeling speculation.

Droughts have occurred due to natural cycles, but there is no physical evidence that carbon dioxide emissions play a significant role is controlling global temperature or precipitation. The new paper presents no evidence that alleged “human-caused” global warming is making the drought worse, it is just speculation. In fact, many droughts are associated with cooler periods.

Let’s put things in perspective. Here are the data for the past 1,200 years. It seems that “megadroughts” have occurred naturally, without any human influence.

These data show that the 20th century was wetter than normal. However, the next graph shows that there have been droughts. But, rather that entering a megadrought, we seem to be emerging from a dryer period according to NOAA.

The graph above comes from a 4-minute video posted by Tony Heller, on his “Real Climate Science” blog. This video destroys claims that the western United States is currently experiencing a nearly unprecedented megadrought. Video: https://youtu.be/W9xCWDZmUT4

 

Related:

Evidence that CO2 emissions do not intensify the greenhouse effect

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

A Review of the state of Climate Science

Drought in the West

Desalination of Sea Water Can Augment Our Water Supply Without Harming Sea Life

Since the Colorado River may not supply us with all the water we need, we should turn to the oceans.

Desalination of sea water can produce the freshwater we need to augment our natural supplies. The most common method is reverse osmosis where the sea water is forced through a semi-permeable membrane which removes the salt.

However, the process is energy intensive which some environmentalists claim will put more dread carbon dioxide into the atmosphere if the electricity comes from fossil-fuels. That can be solved by powering the plants with small, dedicated nuclear generators. (Powering such plants with wind or solar energy will make freshwater production intermittent and unpredictable.)

The other claim by some environmentalists is that the effluent from the desalinization process, very salty brine, is harmful to wildlife. A new study shows this concern is overblown.

A seven-year study, jointly conducted by Southern Cross University and the University of New South Wales at the Sydney (Australia) desalination plant found that when the plant was in operation, fish population in the area almost tripled. Fish populations decreased to normal when the plant was not operating. The Sydney plant has a capacity of producing 74,000 acre-feet of water per year.

Lead researcher Professor Brendan Kelaher said, “At the start of this project, we thought the hypersaline brine would negatively impact fish life. We were surprised and impressed at the clear positive effect on the abundance of fish, as well as the numbers of fish species. Importantly, the positive effects on fish life also included a 133 per cent increase in fish targeted by commercial and recreational fishers. As to why fish like it so much, we think they might be responding to turbulence created by dynamic mixing associated with the high-pressure release of the brine. However, more research is needed.” (Source) The report mentions no detrimental effects on fish or other sea life. The research was published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.9b03565

I did try to find information on negative impacts to marine life of concentrated brine being pumped into the ocean, but all I could find was speculation, no actual physical evidence. Apparently harm is minimal. As noted by marine biologist Daniel Cartamil of Scripps Institution of Oceanography, intake water may contain tiny organisms (plankton), including the eggs and larvae of marine life. None of these organisms survive their journey through the plant. However, this entrainment typically accounts for only about 1 percent or 2 percent of plankton mortality in a given area. Cartamil says this about the salty brine discharge: “In theory, marine life (particularly plankton) could be harmed by prolonged exposure to salinity levels higher than those they normally cope with. The most common solution to this problem is to mix the brine back into the seawater with high-speed jets, a process so efficient that salinity levels are effectively back to normal within 100 feet of the release point.” (Source)

Perhaps Arizona, California, and Mexico will take heart and build more modern desalination plants near the Sea of Cortez and the Pacific Ocean to help ease our dependence on the Colorado River. Some of the salt could be recovered for industrial applications. There is a desalination plant in Yuma, built in 1992 to treat agricultural runoff and conserve water in Lake Mead. But its technology is outdated. There is also a desalination plant just north of San Diego with a capacity of 56,000 acre-feet per year. Building more and bigger desalination plants powered by nuclear generators is technologically feasible but politically problematic.

Articles on small nuclear reactors:

A New Type of Molten Salt Nuclear Reactor

Small Modular Reactor by Westinghouse

What are small modular nuclear reactors, and why are three provinces uniting to build them?

Advanced Small Modular Reactors

Water and Irrigated Agriculture in Arizona

The Water Resources Research Center of the University of Arizona has just published “Arroyo 2018″ which is devoted to the title subject. You can download the 16-page report at:

https://wrrc.arizona.edu/sites/wrrc.arizona.edu/files/attachment/Arroyo-2018-revised.pdf

Here are some excerpts and highlights:

Archeological evidence suggests that irrigated agriculture first arrived along the Santa Cruz River in southern Arizona around 1200 BCE. During this time, irrigation canals were constructed along the river near the current Interstate-10 corridor just west of Tucson. These early farmers irrigated corn, tobacco, and squash.

Between 300 BCE and 1450 AD, native people constructed a network of canals near the Salt and Gila Rivers in South Central Arizona, where they developed a distinct culture known as “Hohokam”. Evidence of these canals exists today near the sites of the Pueblo Grande Village on the east side of Phoenix, and the Casa Grande village west of Florence. The disappearance of this civilization may have been due to changes and variability of the local climate.

Following the demise of the Hohokam, the Xalychidom Piipaash (Maricopa) and Onk Akimel O’odham (Pima) tribes became established in southern and central Arizona. These tribes continued using irrigated agriculture, but with simpler canal systems.

By the mid-19th century, when American and Europeans made the trip across the deserts of the Southwest to reach the California gold fields, the Gila River people diverted water from the river to agricultural fields in the valley of the Middle Gila, creating a virtual breadbasket in Arizona. They supplied large quantities of wheat to the U.S. military and traded farm products, such as beans and squashes, to travelers and newcomers.

By the late 1800s, American settlers had diverted much of the water of the Gila and Salt Rivers that supported native agriculture, causing the Pima and Maricopa tribes to lose their livelihood and ushering in an era of extreme hardship for the tribes.

According to the Arizona Department of Water Resources, agriculture accounts for 68 percent of water use in Arizona. A 2017 study by University of Arizona economists estimated that agriculture contributes $23.3 billion to the Arizona economy.

Arroyo 2018 discusses the milestones in water use and development:

The Reclamation Act of 1902 allowed the federal government to fund construction of dams and other irrigation projects.

The Central Arizona Project (CAP), initiated in 1968, diverts water from the Colorado River for use in agriculture and municipalities.

The Groundwater Management Act of 1980 regulated extraction of groundwater. Southern Arizona was divided into Active Management Areas where extraction of groundwater for agricultural use is limited. Agriculture has transitioned to more CAP water. By 2014, groundwater accounted for 40 percent of the state’s annual water use.

Arroyo 2018 notes that farmers have been able to reduce water use, while increasing yields, by making improvements to irrigation systems. Several of those improvements are discussed.

Also, the introduction of genetically modified crops that are resistant to herbicides has made possible the adoption of no-till farming in Arizona. With no-till agriculture, farmers can leave biomass from harvested crops on fields, which lowers soil temperature, reducing soil evaporation and soil salinity. It can also prevent soil erosion.

Arizona farmers are also exploring new crops which use less water: Agave can be marketable for tequila, fiber, and biofuel. Industrial hemp can provide fiber. Guayule can yield rubber and biofuel.

The report concludes:

The agricultural industry has a significant impact on Arizona’s economy, and it is a dominant force in many rural communities across the state. Because different regions have different water conditions, farmers must consider location-specific factors in their water management decisions. Along the Colorado River and Lower Gila River, growers hold some of the oldest and most secure water rights in the state. With this water they have developed a nationally important region for vegetable production. In Central Arizona, CAP water has alleviated groundwater overdraft problems, but the potential for shortage in CAP’s supply is increasing uncertainty in this region. Here, farmers and irrigation districts face the real possibility of being forced to go back to the groundwater pumps or to take lands out of production. Beyond the reach of the CAP, agriculture reliant on groundwater is watching water levels fall as communities struggle to find acceptable regulatory solutions to the threat of depletion.

Growing demands for water, food, and fiber, coupled with near-term likelihood of Colorado River shortage, have led to increased focus on Arizona’s agricultural water use. Water efficiency gains have been substantial in recent decades, reducing total water use while increasing agricultural production statewide. There is still room for efficiency improvements, with the help of science and technology and financial assistance. As they continue to grow, cities and other water users will continue to look for ways to supplement their water supplies through voluntary water transactions with farmers that include attention to impacts on rural communities. Although sometimes contentious, this process can yield mutual benefits. The need for food and fiber will grow locally and globally; and because it is more reliable and productive than dryland farming, irrigated agriculture will supply this need. Finding the right balance among competing water demands in Arizona will take continued collaborations among growers, government, the scientific community, and concerned citizens.

Related articles:

Tucson transitioning to a renewable water supply

Guayule, a desert rubber plant

USGS claims that mercury and selenium are accumulating in the Colorado River

A study conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) claims to have found “relatively high -compared with other large rivers” concentrations of mercury (Hg) and selenium (Se) in the food web along the Colorado River between Glen Canyon Dam and the Grand Canyon, The study was done in the summer of 2008, but curiously, results were just published in the journal Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry in August 2015. Perhaps they were taking advantage of publicity associated with the toxic spill from the Gold King mine in Colorado earlier this month.

USGS Hg Se study map

Some excerpts from the press release:

“The study, led by the U.S. Geological Survey, found that concentrations of mercury and selenium in Colorado River food webs of the Grand Canyon National Park, regularly exceeded risk thresholds for fish and wildlife. These risk thresholds indicate the concentrations of toxins in food that could be harmful if eaten by fish, wildlife and humans. These findings add to a growing body of research demonstrating that remote ecosystems are vulnerable to long-range transport and bioaccumulation of contaminants.”

“The study examined food webs at six sites along nearly 250 miles of the Colorado River downstream from Glen Canyon Dam within Glen Canyon National Recreation Area and Grand Canyon National Park in the summer of 2008. The researchers found that mercury and selenium concentrations in minnows and invertebrates exceeded dietary fish and wildlife toxicity thresholds.”

“Although the number of samples was relatively low, mercury levels in rainbow trout, the most common species harvested by anglers in the study area, were below the EPA threshold that would trigger advisories for human consumption.”

See full paper: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/etc.3077/epdf

From the paper:

“Sampling occurred from 12 to 28 June 2008. At each site, we collected representative basal resources (organic matter and primary producers), macroinvertebrates, and fishes. Basal resources included fine benthic organic matter, seston (suspended organic matter), epilithon (benthic biofilm), attached algae (Cladophora sp.), and epiphyton (diatoms attached to Cladophora). We collected fine benthic organic matter from sandy depositional habitats using a Ponar dredge (0.052 m2 ) deployed from a boat.”

As far as I can determine, the study analyzed fewer than 25 samples of each group along 250 miles of river. That is indeed a very low number upon which to form conclusions.

“In the present study we found no significant differences in Hg and Se accumulation among sites throughout the Grand Canyon.”

“There is a well-documented antagonistic interaction between Se and Hg, whereby Se protects animals from Hg toxicity when Hg:Se molar ratios are approximately 1 or less. The Hg:Se molar ratios were typically much lower than 1 in the present study, ranging from 0.04 (rainbow trout) to 0.38 (fathead minnow) among fish species. Assuming that Se and Hg in prey are equally transferred to consumers, this large excess of Se in this system suggests that the risks of Hg toxicity could be considerably lower than the Hg wildlife risk values alone would indicate.”

From the press release:

“The good news is that concentrations of mercury in rainbow trout were very low in the popular Glen Canyon sport fishery, and all of the large rainbow trout analyzed from the Grand Canyon were also well below the risk thresholds for humans,” said one of the study authors.

“We also found some surprising patterns of mercury in rainbow trout in the Grand Canyon. Biomagnification usually leads to large fish having higher concentrations of mercury than small fish. But we found the opposite pattern, where small, 3-inch rainbow trout in the Grand Canyon had higher concentrations than the larger rainbow trout that anglers target.”

Regarding mercury: “Airborne transport and deposition — with much of it coming from outside the country — is most commonly identified as the mechanism for contaminant introduction to remote ecosystems, and this is a potential pathway for mercury entering the Grand Canyon food web.” Selenium is derived from “irrigation of selenium-rich soils in the upper Colorado River basin contributes much of the selenium that is present in the Colorado River in Grand Canyon.”

The paper abstract notes that “consistent longitudinal patterns in Hg or Se concentrations relative to the dam were lacking.” That would seem to cast in doubt the proposed source of selenium from upstream irrigation of agricultural land. The “relatively high” concentrations they were talking about in fish are 0.17–1.59 ppm Hg and 1.35–2.65 ppm Se.

END

How Tucson Water spends Conservation Fund money and a suggestion for a better way

If you are a Tucson Water customer, you may have noticed an item on the back page of your water bill listed as: “CONSRV FEE $.07/CCF.” This means you are contributing seven cents per cubic foot of water used to a conservation fund. That may not sound like much, but according to an article by Tim Steller, that added up to $2.95 million last year. By the way, this “contribution” to the conservation fund will rise to eight cents per CCF on July 15.

So, how is that money being used? The answer to that question is the objective of a Freedom of Information (FOIA) request filed last January by Mark Lewis, one of five members of the City’s Conservation and Education Subcommittee of the Citizens Water Advisory Committee.

Tucson Water has to date refused to provide the information requested by Mr. Lewis. According to Mr. Lewis, the information requested is “to gather the documentation and information necessary to ensure the funds collected from Tucson Water customers under the Conservation Fee program has been properly accounted for, audited, and expensed.” Mr. Lewis has expressed concern, in his role as an appointed advocate for the Rate Payers of Tucson Water, that the millions of dollars which have been spent through this fund have not been properly tracked or audited and that more recent uses of this fund are not consistent with the purpose of the fund: conserving water.

One conservation program promoted by Tucson Water is the replacement of old toilets with new low-flow models. Tucson Water will give you a $75 rebate toward the cost. According to Steller’s article, “water-wasting toilets remain in around 150,000 Tucson homes, and the program to replace them saved almost 11 million gallons in the first eight months of this fiscal year alone.” Mr. Lewis supports this program, but points out that the small rebate may be insufficient, especially for older homes which may have complicated plumbing issues that would make replacement more expensive.

Another conservation program is rainwater harvesting. Tucson Water will provide a rebate of up to $2000 for installing a system. Steller points out that “those rebates have mostly benefitted wealthier residents and so far have resulted in no measurable reduction in water use.” Mr. Lewis notes that the $900,000 in rain water rebates to date saved no water, but had the same money been spent on wasteful toilets it would have saved 173 million gallons of water to date.

You can read about the program in a brochure provided by Tucson Water: http://www.tucsonaz.gov/files/water/docs/Rainwater_Harvesting_Rebate_brochure.pdf

In that brochure, Tucson Water claims that “45% of the water we use goes to outdoor irrigation.” That number surprises me; I wonder if it is true. The brochure also notes that in order to qualify for the rebate, you have to take a free class. And here is where it gets interesting.

The qualifying class is run by Watershed Management Group, a consulting firm that, for a fee, will design a rainwater harvesting system for you. Three board members of Watershed Management Group, Catlow Shipek, Mark Murphy, and Amy McCoy, comprise three of the five members of the City’s Conservation and Education Subcommittee of the Citizens Water Advisory Committee. The classes are also given by a company that sells rain gutters according to Mr. Lewis. This situation has the appearance of crony capitalism and conflict of interest.

There is another scheme afoot. Tucson City Councilwoman Regina Romero has proposed that $300,000 be used to provide interest free loans to low-income residents so they can plant trees and have them watered by rainwater harvesting systems. Romero is concerned about the “unequal distribution of tree canopy in Tucson…” and its effect on the Urban Heat Island Effect (cities are warmer than surrounding countryside because all the asphalt and concrete absorb heat which makes nighttime cooling much slower). I see two potential problems with this scheme. First, we would have to cover a large part of the city with trees to have any significant effect. Second, all those trees will transpire water, losing moisture to the atmosphere rather than conserving water for reuse.

Given the information above, do you think your forced subsidy is being well-spent?

I have a suggestion on how the money could be spent to actually conserve water.

One of the eco-fads promoted by Tucson Water is rainwater harvesting at residences. So far, that program has resulted in no measurable reduction in water use. But perhaps, if that idea was used on a larger scale, it could help recharge our aquifers. Why don’t we collect storm-water runoff from city streets and in ephemeral flows in the Santa Cruz River and pump that water back into the aquifers via dry wells?

That idea is discussed by Chuck Graf, Senior Hydrologist, Arizona Department of

Environmental Quality in a short article in the Spring Issue of Arizona Water Resource Newsletter (link to article).

This idea is not new. Phoenix began recharging storm-water in the 1930s and now has more than 50,000 wells in operation. Many other communities also use this recharge method. Why not in Tucson and Pima County?

The practice of dry well recharge in Phoenix went largely unregulated until 1987 when legislature directed the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) to license dry well installers and establish a registration program for existing and newly constructed dry wells. The law expressly limited the use of dry wells to the disposal of storm water. This limitation was intended to prevent disposal of hazardous chemicals into dry wells, which in the past had caused severe groundwater contamination plumes (some of which are still under remediation).

Graf explains the dry well method as follows:

“The dry well borehole is drilled in alluvial sediments, through any intervening fine-grained and cemented zones, into a permeable layer of clay-free sand, gravel, and cobbles. The permeable layer serves as the injection zone for the storm water. ADEQ requires at least 10 feet of separation between the bottom of the injection zone and the water table. Because groundwater commonly occurs at great depth in Arizona’s alluvial basins, installers often have considerable leeway to find an exceptionally permeable zone above the water table that maximizes dry well performance while maintaining a much greater separation distance than the 10-foot minimum.”

Graf goes on to write:

“Potential adverse groundwater quality impact is the biggest concern about dry wells. Although the definitive water quality study probably remains to be done, a number of studies, including a 10-year study in Los Angeles conducted by the Bureau of Reclamation and others, found little evidence for groundwater contamination. A 1985 study in Phoenix found that dry wells had a beneficial effect on groundwater quality with respect to major chemical constituents”

This idea should be considered. Perhaps then, our involuntary contribution to the “Conservation Fund” would actually conserve some water.

END

Free the Land from the Feds

The federal government owns more than 623 million acres of land, mostly in the western states. The recent defense spending bill included designation of new National Parks, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and National Heritage areas. How much land is enough?

Most federal land is administered by four agencies: the Bureau of Land management, 258.2 million acres; the Forest Service, 193 million acres; the Fish & Wildlife Service, 93 million acres; and the National Park Service, 79 million acres. Other federal land ownership includes military bases and land held in trust for Indian reservations. The map below shows the concentration of federal lands in the west.

Western federa lands

The State of Utah wants 31.2 million acres of its land back. “In an unprecedented challenge to federal dominance of Western state lands, Utah Gov. Gary Herbert in 2012 signed the ‘Transfer of Public Lands Act,’ which demands that Washington relinquish its hold on the land, which represents more than half of the state’s 54.3 million acres, by Dec. 31, 2014.” (Washington Times) We are still awaiting the outcome of this probably quixotic endeavor. But it sets a precedent and more western states should take up the quest.

Besides outright ownership, the feds are wreaking havoc on private property rights through the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act.

In Arizona, for example, the right of Phoenix, the Salt River Project, and the Central Arizona Water Conservation District to divert Colorado River and Salt River water to Phoenix and Tucson is being threatened by the US Fish and Wildlife Service because those diversions allegedly endanger everything from gila topminnows, and chiricahua leopard frogs, as well as willow flycatchers.

The Town of Tombstone was forbidden to fix part of its water supply after it was destroyed in a forest fire because the source is in a wilderness area. (See Tombstone versus the United States)

The EPA and Corps of Engineers are attempting to expand the definitions in the Clean Water Act to include the most tenuous connection to “navigable waters” that would encompass private irrigation ditches, ponds, and puddles in order to gain more control over private property.

Perhaps the new Congress can address some of these abuses of federal regulations and free the land from Big Brother and allow states and private property owners to put the land to productive use.

See also:

Repeal the Endangered Species Act

Endangered Species paperwork to cost $206,098,920

Endangered species act could halt American energy boom

How NEPA crushes productivity

Forest thinning may increase runoff and supplement our water supply

Thinning of southwestern forests, partly to curb devastating forest fires, has long been a controversial subject. In general, forest thinning has been opposed by environmental groups.

Now, however, a new study (“Effects of Climate Variability and Accelerated Forest Thinning on Watershed-Scale Runoff in Southwestern USA Ponderosa Pine Forests” published October 22, 2014) conducted by The Nature Conservancy and Northern Arizona University recommends accelerated forest thinning by mechanical means and controlled burns in central and northern Arizona forests. The study estimates that such thinning will increase runoff by about 20 percent, add to our water supply, and make forests more resilient. You can read the entire study here.

Forest thinning study area

The study abstract reads:

The recent mortality of up to 20% of forests and woodlands in the southwestern United States, along with declining stream flows and projected future water shortages, heightens the need to understand how management practices can enhance forest resilience and functioning under unprecedented scales of drought and wildfire. To address this challenge, a combination of mechanical thinning and fire treatments are planned for 238,000 hectares (588,000 acres) of ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) forests across central Arizona, USA. Mechanical thinning can increase runoff at fine scales, as well as reduce fire risk and tree water stress during drought, but the effects of this practice have not been studied at scales commensurate with recent forest disturbances or under a highly variable climate. Modifying a historical runoff model, we constructed scenarios to estimate increases in runoff from thinning ponderosa pine at the landscape and watershed scales based on driving variables: pace, extent and intensity of forest treatments and variability in winter precipitation. We found that runoff on thinned forests was about 20% greater than unthinned forests, regardless of whether treatments occurred in a drought or pluvial period. The magnitude of this increase is similar to observed declines in snowpack for the region, suggesting that accelerated thinning may lessen runoff losses due to warming effects. Gains in runoff were temporary (six years after treatment) and modest when compared to mean annual runoff from the study watersheds (0–3%). Nonetheless gains observed during drought periods could play a role in augmenting river flows on a seasonal basis, improving conditions for water-dependent natural resources, as well as benefit water supplies for downstream communities. Results of this study and others suggest that accelerated forest thinning at large scales could improve the water balance and resilience of forests and sustain the ecosystem services they provide.

The study also notes that in “ponderosa pine forests of central Arizona, stand densities range from 2 to 44 times greater than during pre-settlement conditions” and all that extra foliage sucks up water and loses it through evapotranspiration, thereby decreasing the availability of water for downstream users and wildlife.

Congress has authorized a program called the Four Forest Restoration Initiative (4FRI) that will accelerate the use of mechanical thinning and prescribed burns across four national forests, treating 238,000 ha (588,000 acres) in the first analysis area over the next 10 years. That program should be expanded.

Tucson transitioning to a renewable water supply

The state of Tucson’s water supply is always a concern. So how are we doing? Recently, Docents at the Arizona Sonora Desert Museum had an update by Wally Wilson, chief hydrologist at Tucson Water. The reason is that we Docents often have to explain to museum visitors what all those rectangular ponds are doing in Avra Valley just west of the museum. The following material is taken from his talk.

Tucson gets water from four sources: pumped groundwater, water transported from the Colorado River via the Central Arizona Project canal (CAP), water reclaimed from sewers, and water treated from former industrial usage (Tucson Airport Reclamation Project, TARP). Water is measured in Acre-feet (AF). One AF is 325,851 gallons and one acre-foot will serve four residences in Tucson for a year. Mr. Wilson presented the following graph on water usage (as of 2011):

Transition-to-renewable-supplies

Notice that total water usage has been declining and has reached the level it was in 1994.  That was surprising to me. Perhaps our conservation efforts are paying off. Mr. Wilson noted that average residential use in Tucson is about 90 gallons per day per capita (versus 200 in Scottsdale). Tucson is conserving groundwater by using more and more CAP water. This graph shows that our groundwater use has declined to what it was in 1959 in spite of our increasing population.

In 2011, CAP supplied 64% of our water while groundwater supplied 20%. The remainder was made up of reclaimed water. Total production in 2011 was 120,350 AF. In 2013, Mr. Wilson expects CAP will supply 80% of our needs allowing us to decrease primary groundwater pumping.

Below is a map of the CAP system. It consists of ponds to recharge the aquifer, wells to pump the water, a treatment plant, and a reservoir which stores 60 million gallons.

Clearwater-map

There are three recharge areas which Tucson Water fondly calls CAVSARP, SAVSARP, and PMRRP. These are the areas featuring recharge ponds filled with CAP water and wells to reclaim the water after it recharges the aquifer.

Why put the water in ponds to sink into the aquifer rather than treating it and pumping it directly to consumers? There are several reasons. When we first began to receive CAP water it was treated and sent to households, but the water wreaked havoc with some of our old plumbing. The current system is plan B and it has several advantages besides being kinder to plumbing.

Water from the ponds sinks into the ground at the rate of about 1.5 feet per day. As it travels 300- to 400 feet to the water table, soil filters out any viruses and bacteria that may be in the water. This filtering method is much less expensive than disinfecting the water in a treatment plant. The water still goes through the Hayden-Udall treatment plant for filtering and chlorination.

Some numbers: CAVSARP recharges 70,000 to 80,000 AF/year and recovers 70,000 AF/year. SAVSARP is permitted to recharge 60,000 AF/year and recovers about 15,000 AF/year. We are still ramping up to use our total CAP allocation. PMRRP is permitted to recharge at the rate of 30,000 AF/year and recovers water at 14,000 AF/year.

Tucson Water claims that it loses about less than 2% of the water due to evaporation from the recharge ponds. The overall CAP system loses about 5% of its water due to evaporation. Most of that occurs in Lake Pleasant which acts as a storage buffer between supply and demand.

Mr. Wilson says Tucson will have plenty of water through 2050 and beyond because we are banking water in the recharge system (and we still have the groundwater). Tucson Water is also pursuing additional sources of renewable water such as water owned by Indian Tribes. For more information see http://cms3.tucsonaz.gov/water .

See also my older posts on our water supply:

Water Supply and Demand in Tucson

How much water is there?

Trends in groundwater levels around Tucson

EPA war on coal threatens Tucson water supply