People for the West -Tucson

Newsletter, September, 2018

PO Box 86868, Tucson, AZ 85754-6868


Real environmentalism can go hand in hand with natural resource production, private property rights, and access to public lands

Arizona Proposition 127, the Renewable Energy Mandate Is Very Bad Policy

by Jonathan DuHamel

California billionaire Tom Steyer is trying to “californicate” Arizona’s electricity production by introducing a ballot measure dubbed “The Clean Energy for a Healthy Arizona Amendment” as Proposition 127 on the November ballot. If this amendment to the Arizona Constitution survives court challenges, it would, if passed, require affected electric utilities to provide at least 50% of their annual retail sales of electricity from renewable energy sources by 2030. The amendment defines renewable energy sources to include solar, wind, small-scale hydropower, and other sources that are replaced rapidly by a natural, ongoing process (excluding nuclear or fossil fuel). Distributed renewable energy sources, like rooftop solar, must comprise at least 10% of utilities’ annual retail sales of electricity by 2030. The Amendment allows electric utilities to earn and trade credits to meet these requirements. (Read full text)

Arizona currently produces half of its renewable energy from hydropower created by the large dams on the Colorado River, but, according to the proposed amendment, this electricity is not counted toward the 50% mandate. According to the Energy Information Administration, power plants in Arizona generate more electricity than the state consumes, and Arizona generating stations supply electricity to consumers throughout the southwest.

In my opinion, this amendment is very bad policy. It is stupid, dangerous, and expensive. In the following summary I explain. More background is available in the references at the end of this article.


The push toward renewable energy, especially wind and solar generation, is based on a false premise: the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are a significant cause of global warming, and that global warming is dangerous. Utility scale wind and solar installations would not exist were it not based on this false assumption, mandates, and subsidies.

This claim is not based on physical evidence but only upon garbage-in, garbage-out computer models, the results of which diverge widely from observations. I have asked several university climate scientists who support the claim to cite supporting physical evidence. Although they are alleged experts in the field, they could not cite any physical evidence. On the other hand there are several lines of physical evidence that show carbon dioxide emissions do not enhance the dread greenhouse effect. (See references 1, 2, 3 & 4)


Utility scale wind and solar installations require vast expanses of land that affect local habitats. Wind turbines chop up birds and bats, including endangered species. Solar installations burn up birds and other flying animals. Low frequency sound from wind turbines causes a variety of human ailments. The manufacturing and disposal of solar panels put dangerous chemicals into the environment. For example, many PV solar panels rely on polysilicon being manufactured in large quantities and at high quality. A byproduct of polysilicon production is silicon tetrachloride, a highly toxic substance that poses a major environmental hazard. Wherever silicon tetrachloride is dumped, the land becomes totally infertile. A major environmental cost of photovoltaic solar energy is toxic chemical pollution (arsenic, gallium, and cadmium) and energy consumption associated with the large-scale manufacture of photovoltaic panels.

new study shows that solar modules cause more greenhouse gas emissions than modern coal power plants. It turns out that because of the emissions of extraordinarily potent greenhouse gases nitrogen trifluoride and sulfur hexafluoride and energy requirements of manufacturing solar modules, solar energy ends up being worse for the climate than burning coal (assuming the greenhouse global warming hypothesis is valid). (See references 5 & 6)

See also the lead article in the August newsletter: The danger of renewable energy.

Arizona Public Service Company (APS), the owner of the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (Palo Verde), warns if voters approve this constitutional amendment, its nuclear plant would have to close in six years instead of continuing to generate electricity for 27 years as its current operating license permits.

Palo Verde is the largest source of electric power in Arizona, providing 36 percent of the state’s electricity. By comparison, non-hydro renewables in Arizona, dominated by solar power, generate about 4 percent of the state’s electricity. Coal produces about 25 percent and natural gas about 30 percent of the state’s electric power.


Although the Steyer group is promoting renewable energy as very affordable, real world experience shows that electricity produced by wind and solar turns out to be much more expensive than electricity produced from coal and natural gas. That is mainly because wind and solar are unreliable, they can’t respond to demand. Therefore they need nuclear or fossil fuel generated electricity as backup which causes the fossil fuel plants to run inefficiently which produces more carbon dioxide.

Europe has been a world leader in using wind and solar energy. The price, however, is high. The more installed solar and wind capacity per capita a country has, the higher the price people pay for electricity. In some European countries electricity prices are triple the average cost in the U.S. Ironically, carbon dioxide emissions in those countries are rising while in the U.S. emissions are decreasing. Also ironically, according to the New York Times, renewables are helping to push nuclear power, the main source of zero-carbon electricity in the United States, into bankruptcy.

Generating more electricity from solar and wind is just a very expensive exercise in political correctness that will have little impact on carbon dioxide emissions, but a big impact on your wallet and an adverse impact on electric grid stability and the environment. Save this article to pass around in October just prior to start of early voting in the November election.


1. A Simple Question for Climate Alarmists

2. Evidence that CO2 emissions do not intensify the greenhouse effect

3. Failure of climate models shows that carbon dioxide does not drive global temperature

4. Health Effects of global warming on humans

5. Avian mortality from solar farms

6. Health Hazards of Wind Turbines

7. The high cost of wind and solar generation of electricity


P.S. On August 21, Tom Steyer called for impeachment of President Trump. (Source) ☼


Here is a good article about the hidden economics of wind and solar generated electricity.

Wind and Solar Energy: Good for Nothing

By Norman Rogers, American Thinker

The defenders of wind and solar claim that subsidies are a minor help to get a new industry going. These defenders counter critics with the fallacious claim that fossil fuels receive huge subsidies. Actually, the fossil fuel industry pays huge taxes.

Focusing on explicit subsidies is the wrong approach for understanding the subsidies provided to wind and solar. The explicit subsidies include such things as a 30% construction subsidy for solar and a 2.3-cent-per-kilowatt-hour subsidy for wind. Both technologies benefit from tax equity financing, a scheme based on special tax breaks and gaming the corporate income tax of a highly taxed corporate partner.

A better way to measure the wind and solar subsidies is to look at the benefits and losses to the economy. A net loss to the economy implies a subsidy. Once it is recognized that a subsidy is present, the next step is to figure out who is paying for it. Invariably, it is either the taxpayer or the consumer of electricity.

For example, if it costs $5 a bushel to produce soybeans, and they are sold in the soybean market for $4 a bushel, there is a net loss to the economy. Someone has to pay for the loss. That someone could be the farmers, soybean speculators, or taxpayers if the government subsidizes the loss. Selling soybeans for $4 that cost $5 makes the economy poorer.

Without subsidies, and in locations with good wind or sunshine, the cost of producing wind or solar electricity is about seven cents per kilowatt-hour. By coincidence, the cost is almost equal for the two technologies. These technologies don’t require fuel. Most of the cost is the amortization of the capital investment. If an installation has a useful life of 20 years, the annual, amortized cost of the electricity produced is essentially the annual payment on a 20-year mortgage to finance the project. Seven cents per kilowatt-hour is competitive with coal or nuclear and more expensive than natural gas. But, unlike conventional generating plants, wind or solar produces erratic electricity, that comes and goes, depending on wind and sunshine.

Wind or solar plants cannot displace conventional plants because the conventional plants have to stay in place as backup plants to supply electricity when the erratic wind or solar is not producing electricity. Although it is often claimed that wind or solar is replacing conventional generation, it only reduces the operating duty cycle of the conventional plants. The backup plants are usually natural gas plants, because natural gas plants are agile and able to follow the rapid ups and downs of wind or solar better than other types.

The economic benefit of wind or solar is fuel savings in the backup plants when backup plant electricity is displaced by wind or solar electricity. The cost of fuel for a natural gas plant is about two cents per kilowatt-hour. The difference, the seven-cent cost of generating wind or solar electricity, less the two-cent benefit for fuel saved, is a five-cent-per-kilowatt-hour subsidy for wind or solar.

Some real-world examples will further illustrate the point. Texas has a huge wind generation system with a capacity of 17,000 megawatts. On August 31, 2016 at noon, output from the wind system fell below 1% of capacity. The Texas wind system frequently has swings of thousands of megawatts within a few hours. It often produces at less than 5% of capacity.

On September 1, 2017, between 4 P.M. and 6 P.M., California experienced a record demand of a bit more than 50,000 megawatts. By 6 P.M., two thirds of solar generation was lost. By 8 P.M., all solar generation was lost, but demand was still 46,000 megawatts.

On August 2, 2017, the normally reliable California summer sunshine was interrupted by tropical monsoon weather in Southern California. Solar generation declined by half, and fossil fuel generation had to be mobilized to replace the lost solar.

Wind or solar is an appendage to the electrical grid rather than an essential part of the system. If all the wind or solar vanished, the grid would continue operation without the slightest problem, because the grid has to be able handle the load without wind or solar. Thus, wind or solar does not reduce capital investment for traditional generating plants. You may read in the press that coal plants have been replaced by wind or solar. That is never true.

Who bears the cost of the five-cent-per-kilowatt-hour subsidy for wind or solar? About three cents is probably accounted for by the explicit government subsidies; the other two cents is paid for by the consumers of electricity. The electricity that costs seven cents to produce has a five-cent subsidy, so approximately 70 percent of the cost is subsidized: 5 cents out of 7 cents.

For residential rooftop solar, the numbers are even more gruesome. Rooftop solar electricity, exclusive of subsidies, costs not seven cents per kilowatt-hour, but about 30 cents. These are small custom installations, and the capital cost is very high. But the benefit is still two cents per kilowatt-hour. The subsidy of 28 cents per kilowatt-hour is close to a 95-percent subsidy. This does not mean that the homeowner is providing the subsidy. Various explicit subsidies and the reality of tiered electric rates over 50 cents per kilowatt-hour, in places like California, can make it profitable for the homeowner to install a rooftop system. Everyone else pays for the homeowner’s special deal.

For solar or wind to be economically viable, either the cost per kilowatt-hour would have to be less than two cents or the cost of fuel in the backup plants would have to rise to seven cents per kilowatt-hour. Solar and wind are mature technologies with only modest prospects, according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, for lower costs in the future. Nor is it likely that the cost of natural gas is going to triple.

Believers in catastrophic global warming may justify the massive subsidies for wind and solar on the grounds that they displace emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel. The trouble with this idea is that wind and solar are expensive methods of reducing CO2 emissions. If you apply the five-cent-per-kilowatt hour subsidy toward reducing CO2 emissions, it turns out that the price paid to reduce a metric ton of CO2 emissions from a backup natural gas plant is about $140. You can buy a carbon offset from many suppliers that reduces CO2 emissions by a metric ton for about $10. The only practical method of greatly reducing CO2 emissions from electricity production is replacing fossil fuel with nuclear. Prominent believers in a future global warming catastrophe are supporting nuclear electricity, including James Hansen, Michael Shellenberger, and Stewart Brand.

The bottom line is that wind and solar are useless – a complete waste of money. (Source) ☼



The Next Ice Age

By S. Fred Singer

While most people still worry about global warming, I am more concerned about the next Ice Age. A glaciation would present a serious problem for survival of our present civilization, akin to a nuclear winter that many worried about 30 years ago.

Natural warming of the Earth reached a peak 65 million years ago. The climate has been generally cooling ever since. Antarctic ice sheets started growing 25 million years ago. In the last 2.5 million years, the Earth entered the period of Ice Ages [the geological name is The Pleistocene] and has been experiencing periodic glaciations where much of the land was covered by miles-thick ice sheets.

There have been about 17 glaciations, each lasting approx. 100,000 years, separated by short inter-glacials lasting about 10,000 years.

We are approaching the likely end of the present warm inter-glacial, called The Holocene. It’s time to prepare for the next glaciation to see how we can overcome it – or at least postpone its onset. Read more ☼

Climate alarmists claim that wildfires will increase due to global warming.

However, real-world evidence shows the opposite:

Reference: Stefan H. Doerr, Cristina Santín, Global trends in wildfire and its impacts: perceptions versus realities in a changing world, Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2016 Jun 5 (read full paper)


Wildfire has been an important process affecting the Earth’s surface and atmosphere for over 350 million years and human societies have coexisted with fire since their emergence. Yet many consider wildfire as an accelerating problem, with widely held perceptions both in the media and scientific papers of increasing fire occurrence, severity and resulting losses. However, important exceptions aside, the quantitative evidence available does not support these perceived overall trends.

Instead, global area burned appears to have overall declined over past decades, and there is increasing evidence that there is less fire in the global landscape today than centuries ago. Regarding fire severity, limited data are available. For the western USA, they indicate little change overall, and also that area burned at high severity has overall declined compared to pre-European settlement. Direct fatalities from fire and economic losses also show no clear trends over the past three decades. Trends in indirect impacts, such as health problems from smoke or disruption to social functioning, remain insufficiently quantified to be examined. Global predictions for increased fire under a warming climate highlight the already urgent need for a more sustainable coexistence with fire. The data evaluation presented here aims to contribute to this by reducing misconceptions and facilitating a more informed understanding of the realities of global fire.This article is part of themed issue ‘The interaction of fire and mankind’. ☼

Risk of increased food insecurity under stringent global climate change mitigation policy



Food insecurity can be directly exacerbated by climate change due to crop-production-related impacts of warmer and drier conditions that are expected in important agricultural regions. However, efforts to mitigate climate change through comprehensive, economy-wide GHG emissions reductions may also negatively affect food security, due to indirect impacts on prices and supplies of key agricultural commodities. Here we conduct a multiple model assessment on the combined effects of climate change and climate mitigation efforts on agricultural commodity prices, dietary energy availability and the population at risk of hunger. A robust finding is that by 2050, stringent climate mitigation policy, if implemented evenly across all sectors and regions, would have a greater negative impact on global hunger and food consumption than the direct impacts of climate change. The negative impacts would be most prevalent in vulnerable, low-income regions such as sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, where food security problems are already acute. (Source) The research finds that using a blanket “carbon tax” to restrict global warming to 2C above pre-industrial levels – which is the limit set by the Paris Agreement – would put an additional 45 million people at risk of hunger by 2050. ☼

Remember when they told us coral bleaching was a sure result of recent man-made global warming? Never mind.

by Anthony Watts

New science shows coral bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef is a centuries-old problem, well before “climate change” became a buzzword and rising CO2 levels were blamed. Read more ☼

The Hothouse Earth Scare

by Jonathan DuHamel

A new paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS) speculates on major warming in our future. It has sent the gullible, alarmist press into a twitter of claiming that we must do something immediately. Trouble is, this very speculative paper says major warming may, might, could, perhaps occur sometime within the next few centuries to thousands of years. Read the real story on my Wryheat blog. ☼

The Cooling Effect Of Historic Wildfires

Science 2.0

Historically, large atmospheric events like fires and volcanic eruptions have had cooling effects. Fires and other events cause the release of soot and other aerosols to be released which can cool the planet by reflecting sunlight back into space and increasing cloud brightness. A new study finds that such a cooling effect on the planet may have been significantly underestimated by previous researchers. Read more ☼

Five New Studies From Around The World Show Today’s Weather Fully Within Range Of Natural Variability!

By P Gosselin

Despite hysterical headlines from the fake media claiming the weather is weirding out due to man-made climate change, recent studies show that it’s mostly superstition and that our modern climate in fact is well within the range of natural climate variability. If one really wants to understand today’s weather and climate, it is essential to keep it in perspective with respect to what has happened over the past 1000 years or more. This is why a number of scientists are busy reconstructing past weather patterns at locations worldwide. Read more ☼

The benefits of warming and increasing carbon dioxide, from CO2Science.org reviews

Another Example of Corals Being Capable of Biologically-Mediating their Calcification to Overcome Ocean Acidification

As concluded by the authors of this new paper, “although the role of calcium concentrations within the coral calcifying fluid in driving calcification has often been neglected, increasing [it] may be a key mechanism enabling more resistant corals to cope with ocean acidification and continue to build calcium carbonate skeletons in a high-CO2 world.” And that great news suggests that horror stories of corals being driven to extinction because of ocean acidification are far from certain — if they contain any truth at all!…

An 810-Year Summer Temperature Reconstruction in Scotland

In placing the most recent warming of the instrumental period in context, the authors of this study write that it “is likely not unique when compared to multi-decadal warm periods observed in the 1300s, 1500s and 1730s.” And that fact suggests there is nothing unusual, unnatural or unprecedented about the current warmth of Scotland, which further suggests that earth’s rising atmospheric CO2 concentration may very well have had no measurable impact on temperature trends there!…

Elevated CO2 Overpowers the Effects of Drought in Wheat

Rising concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide will increase the yield of wheat, even during times of moderate to severe drought (relative to well-watered and ambient CO2 conditions of today). And on those rare instances of extreme drought, wheat yields of tomorrow should still be similar to those observed under well-watered conditions of today, thanks to the incredible molecule — CO2 — that we like to call the elixir of life!…

The Effects of CO2 and Temperature on Rice Yields

Who would imagine that a small, 60 ppm, increase in atmospheric CO2 would be sufficient to significantly boost rice yields and ameliorate growth-reducing effects of elevated temperature?…

The Outer Reefs of Moorea Island: Back From the Dead!

A topic of frequent discussion in the global change debate is that of the vulnerability of coral reefs, as it has been claimed by some that many of these key biological species will become extinct within mere decades in consequence of the so-called anthropogenic-induced disasters of coral bleaching, ocean acidification and more frequent and more intense hurricane activity. Findings reported in a new study by Adjeroud et al. (2018) suggest otherwise.

According to this team of nine researchers, there exists “a critical knowledge gap in the ecological drivers of coral community trajectory, particularly during recovery processes that follow disturbances.” Consequently, predictions of coral demise from disastrous events — be they of natural or human origin — are often based on limited data that fail to properly incorporate information on coral resilience and/or recovery processes, which, if appropriately accounted for, would likely temper estimations of future reef peril.

The Combined Effects of Elevated CO2 and Water Deficit on Cacao

According to the authors of this study, the “positive effect of CO2 may ameliorate growth reductions caused by water limitation in the future,” which “could potentially improve pod yields [of cacao] by supporting a larger number of pods per tree.” And that is sweet news for the farmers who grow — and the consumers who utilize — cacao for its confectionary delights!…

Elevated CO2, Nitrogen Fertilization and Irrigation Regime Impacts on Tomato

It appears that rising concentrations of atmospheric CO2 will enhance not only the quantity, but also the quality, of future tomato yields…

The Impacts of Elevated CO2 on Basil and Peppermint

The results of this study are quite encouraging, demonstrating the ability of rising atmospheric CO2 to not only increase the growth and biomass of these two herbs, but to also improve their medicinal value. Unfortunately, about the only place you will hear or learn about these positive findings is here on our CO2 Science website…☼




The Manhattan Contrarian Guide To Evaluating Environmental Scares can be summarized in four words: Follow The Scientific Method. Unfortunately, almost no journalist knows the basics of the Scientific Method (even though probably all of them were exposed to it somewhere in high school or even junior high school); and therefore, almost everything you read about environmental scares claiming the mantle of science is at the minimum misleading, if not downright wrong. Following the Scientific Method really directs you to looking at only three key questions to lead you to the right answer:

What is the falsifiable hypothesis? The Scientific Method requires a falsifiable hypothesis. A falsifiable hypothesis requires a statement of the proposition at issue that by its nature can be falsified and thereby invalidated by some evidence that it is possible to acquire, and also a recognition by the proponents of the hypothesis as to what evidence, if it emerged, would be sufficient to falsify and invalidate the hypothesis. Without a statement of a falsifiable hypothesis, it is not science, no matter what the proponents may say, and therefore any claims of “scientific” consensus or “scientific” validity are an obvious fallacy.

What is the most damning adverse evidence against the falsifiable hypothesis? The Scientific Method provides that no hypothesis can ever be definitively proved, although accumulation of evidence consistent with the hypothesis can give increasing confidence over time of its correctness. However, one piece of adverse evidence can disprove a scientific hypothesis; and indeed, if an advocate of a scientific hypothesis does not concede that proposition, then you know that this is not real science. In any event, it is always much more important to look to adverse evidence challenging a hypothesis, no matter how little of it there may be, than to whatever reams and reams of evidence there may be allegedly consistent with the hypothesis. That stuff can regularly be used by advocates to mislead and misdirect you.

How do advocates of the hypothesis respond to the most damning adverse evidence? If they have an answer to it, let’s see it! It is particularly telling if advocates just refuse to address the best points of their opponents. If that is going on, you are completely justified in concluding that they have no answers, and that their proposition is false. (Source) ☼

Study: Humans, Not Global Warming, Sparked Almost All Of California’s Wildfires

by Michael Bastasch, Daily Caller

Ninety-five percent of wildfires that ravaged California in the past 100 years were caused by humans, according to a forthcoming study in the International Journal of Wildland Fire.

“In most of California, if we could stop ignition during extremely high winds and drought and heat spells, like now, that will be an effective approach,” lead author and U.S. Geological Survey wildfire expert Jon Keeley told The San Jose Mercury News of his soon-to-be-published study.

While the public debate largely rages around global warming’s role in wildfires, Keeley’s study shows that human interaction with the landscape, no matter the climate, is causing most fires.

Motorized equipment, from gas-powered weed-wackers to lawn mowers and generators, are the main cause of fires, Keeley said. Arson, burning of debris, kids messing around with fire, smoking, vehicles and utility lines are also major causes of wildfires. Read more ☼

Decades of Mismanagement Turned US Forests into ‘Slow-motion Time Bombs’

by Michael Bastasch, Daily Caller

Wildfire experts say poor management, not global warming, is the major reason behind worsening wildfires.

Forester Bob Zybach warned decades ago that environmental regulations and less logging would make fires worse.

The Trump administration is doing more active management of lands, but is it enough?

Mostly fuels were removed through logging, active management, which they stopped, and grazing. You take away logging, grazing and maintenance, and you get firebombs. While bad fires still happen on state and private lands, most of the massive blazes happen on or around lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service and other federal agencies. Read more ☼

Report from Forest Service: California has 129 million dead trees due to drought and bark beetles. (Source) That makes much fuel for fires. The fires are clear-cutting California’s forests. Environmental wackos refuse to allow any dead-forest clearing. The Little Hoover Commission, an independent state oversight agency, explained in a February report that “a century of fire suppression remains firmly entrenched within federal and state firefighting agencies and has left forest floors deep in flammable groundcover.” ☼


Why Democratic Socialists Can’t Legitimately Claim Sweden, Denmark as Success Stories

by Julia Howe&Anthony B. Kim, Daily Signal

Sen. Bernie Sanders and congressional candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are popularizing the philosophy of democratic socialism, especially among younger age groups.

Meanwhile, the Young Democratic Socialists of America (YDSA) are gaining influence on college and high school campuses, claiming to have organizing activities planned at more than 250 campuses across the nation.

The YDSA website describes the group’s vision as “a humane social order based on popular control of resources and production, economic planning, equitable distribution, feminism, racial equality and non-oppressive relationships.”

Many on the right question this vision, pointing to countries such as Venezuela and Cuba as examples of socialist disasters. Democratic socialists claim those countries implemented socialism “incorrectly” or that other factors are to blame.

They prefer to cite Norway, Sweden, and Denmark as examples of socialist success. There are, however, several key problems with that.

First, these countries are not technically socialist. By the YDSA’s definition, socialism entails a centrally planned economy with nationalized means of production. Although these countries have high income taxes and provide generous social programs, they remain prosperous because of their free-market economies.

Denmark ranks as the 10th most economically free country in The Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom, which cites free-market policies and regulatory efficiency as reasons for the high standard of living. Sweden is ranked 15th and Norway 23rd, both with similar descriptions of thriving private sectors and open markets.

These three countries are clearly not operating under centrally planned economies, or their economic freedom scores would be significantly lower.

Second, the success of these countries is clearly based on a capitalist foundation, and it predates the expansion of social programs. Sweden, for example, became a wealthy country in the mid-20th century under a capitalist system with low tax rates.

Social programs and high tax rates were not implemented until the 1970s, which caused the economy to significantly under perform and unemployment to rise.

In recent years, Sweden has been privatizing socialized sectors, such as education and health care, cutting tax rates, and making welfare less generous. Even though tax rates and government spending remains comparatively high, open-market policies generate the revenue to support the spending.

Finally, these countries are largely homogeneous and have a culture that is conducive to a large welfare state. Scandinavians are described as hardworking citizens with extremely high levels of social trust and cohesion.

By contrast, America is a much larger country with lower levels of social trust, and therefore, a comparison is difficult to assess. Norway, Denmark, and Sweden are not democratic socialist countries that the U.S. can be accurately compared with, and could be better described as “compassionate capitalists.”

As such, the “democratic socialists”—as they define socialism—are left with no successful examples of their vision, only disastrous ones. (Source)

The Cost of “Free Stuff”

A study from the Mercatus Center at George Mason University estimates the cost of “medicare for all” would add approximately $32.6 trillion to federal budget commitments during the first 10 years of its implementation. (Source)

Another estimate for all “free stuff:” Total cost: $42.5 trillion in new proposals over the next decade, on top of the $12.4 trillion baseline deficit. (Source)

Free college tuition and better student loan financing would cost at least $750 billion each year. (Source) ☼


Parting thoughts:

“Free markets and free citizens are what create wealth; socialism only rearranges it.” – Barney Brenner

“The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda. Perceiving the truth has always been a challenge to mankind, but in the information age (or as I think of it, the disinformation age) it takes on a special urgency and importance. – Michael Crichton

“During the course of administration, and in order to disturb it, the artillery of the press has been levelled against us, charged with whatsoever its licentiousness could devise or dare. These abuses of an institution so important to freedom and science are deeply to be regretted, inasmuch as they tend to lessen its usefulness and to sap its safety.” —Thomas Jefferson (1805)

“Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an individual — or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country.” —Samuel Adams (1781)

“Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.” —Samuel Adams (1749)

“Foreign influence is truly the Grecian horse to a republic. We cannot be too careful to exclude its influence.” —Alexander Hamilton (1793)

* * *

Our Mission

1) Support private property rights.

2) Support multiple use management of federal lands for agriculture, livestock grazing, mining, oil and gas production, recreation, timber harvesting and water development activities.

3) Support a balance of environmental responsibility and economic benefit for all Americans by urging that environmental policy be based on good science and sound economic principles.


Newsletters can be viewed online on Jonathan’s Wryheat Blog:



See my essay on climate change:



The Constitution is the real contract with America.

* * *

People for the West – Tucson, Inc.

PO Box 86868

Tucson, AZ 85754-6868



Jonathan DuHamel, President & Editor

Dr. John Forrester, Vice President

Lonni Lees, Associate Editor


People for the West – Tucson, Inc. is an Arizona tax-exempt, 501(c)(3) corporation. Newsletter subscriptions are free.


In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.