People for the West -Tucson
Newsletter, September, 2020
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
California Electrical Blackouts – A Result of Political Correctness
by Jonathan DuHamel
During August, 2020, California suffered many electrical blackouts because their solar and wind generation could not generate electricity when it was needed.
Steve Goreham reports:
When high temperatures caused customer demand to exceed the power available, California electrical utilities used rotating outages to force a reduction in demand. The California grid is the worst in the nation, with green energy policies pursued by the state likely furthering reduced grid reliability.
Pacific Gas and Electric, California’s biggest utility, began shutting off power in rolling outages to force a reduction in demand. Southern California Edison also denied power to homes, beginning just before 7 pm. Shutoffs impacted a rotating group of up to two million customers.
For more than a decade, California has been closing coal and nuclear power plants. Recently, the state also began closing natural gas-fired plants as part of a continuing effort to fight global warming. California nuclear plants, though not emitters of greenhouse gases, are also being phased out. (Read more)
These rolling blackouts are entirely the result of dumb political decisions, which adhere to the fantasy that cheap, efficient, and reliable fossil fuel energy (and also nuclear) can be replaced by wind and solar.
Gov. Gavin Newsom, who’s in the middle of this, and probably hearing from his Silicon Valley baron allies, is finally admitting the truth about the failure of green energy to deliver actual energy when it’s needed. (Read more)
“Green” energy is driven by two closely related things: 1) politics, and 2) enormous quantities of money being made by politically-connected wind and solar entrepreneurs.
Nuclear to Replace Wind and Solar
By Norman Rogers
Wind and solar are not remotely competitive with coal or natural gas for generating electricity. The promoters of wind and solar lie about this constantly, claiming that they are close to competitive. The lies have two major components. They ignore or misrepresent the massive subsidies that wind and solar get, amounting to 75% of the cost. Then they compare the subsidized cost of wind or solar with the total cost of gas or coal. But wind or solar can’t replace existing fossil fuel infrastructure because they are erratic sources of electricity. The existing infrastructure has to be retained when you add wind or solar, because sometimes the wind doesn’t blow or the sun doesn’t shine. The only fair comparison is to compare the total cost of wind or solar per kilowatt hour (kWh) with the marginal cost of gas or coal electricity. That marginal cost is essentially the cost of the fuel. The only economic benefit of wind or solar is reducing fuel consumption in existing fossil fuel plants. It is hard to build wind or solar installations that generate electricity for less than 8-cents per kWh, but the cost of the fuel, for either gas or coal, is about 2-cents per kWh. Wind and solar cost four times too much to be competitive.
Wind and solar run into difficulty if they are the source of more than about 25% of the electricity in a grid. Getting to 50% generally involves adding expensive batteries, further destroying the economics and the usefulness for CO2 reduction.
The only justification for wind and solar is the reduction of CO2 emissions, but wind and solar are limited and costly for this purpose. CO2-free nuclear energy can be both economical and practical. That, clearly is the reason why prominent global warming activists are advocating nuclear, rather than wind and solar to alleviate the supposed global warming crisis.
Neither nuclear nor coal is currently cost competitive with natural gas. It’s not that nuclear or coal are so expensive as it is that natural gas, thanks to fracking, is incredibly cheap.
Coal and nuclear have one very important advantage over gas. They have fuel on site to continue operating if fuel deliveries are interrupted. For coal this is around 30 days, for nuclear more than a year. Some gas plants can temporarily use oil from local tanks, but in most cases that won’t last long. Gas deliveries can be interrupted by pipeline failure or sabotage. The pumping stations on natural gas pipelines are increasingly powered by electricity, rather than gas, creating a circular firing squad effect. If you still believe in the global warming hysteria movement, you should face reality and dump wind and solar for nuclear. (Read more) ☼
States that Switch to Renewable Power Suffer High Costs, Lagging Growth
By H. Sterling Burnett
Climate alarmists increasingly claim wind and solar power are cost-effective and will benefit the economy. The truth is exactly the opposite. (Read more) See an interactive map and tables that show electricity rates by state here. These data show that the more a state switches to wind and solar power to cut emissions, the slower that state’s economy is going to grow and the higher electricity rates are. See also: The Fortuitous Link Between CO2 Emissions and Economic Growth. This video segment discusses the proven fundamental link between CO2 emissions and economic growth. As countries have embraced and increased their production of fossil energy, their citizens have been amply rewarded with increased economic development and prosperity.
How Bad Eco-Policies, Weather Are Fueling California’s Wildfires
By Chuck Devore, Forbes
In the past two years, wildfires scorched 2.9 million acres in California, including five of the state’s 20 deadliest fires killing 131 people. This is California’s big secret: it’s not climate change that’s burning up the forests, killing people, and destroying hundreds of homes; it’s decades of environmental mismanagement that has created a tinderbox of unharvested timber, dead trees, and thick underbrush. (Read more) ☼
The Trump Administration Takes a Step toward Better Protecting Endangered Species
By Shawn Regan & Tate Watkins, National Review
Improving incentives for landowners is a more effective way to conserve habitat than imposing burdensome regulatory mandates on them. Words have meaning, or at least they should. And a high-profile legal battle over the Endangered Species Act has prompted the federal government to finally define the meaning of a simple word with potentially big consequences: habitat.
Last week, in response to a 2018 Supreme Court decision, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife and National Marine Fisheries Services proposed a definition of habitat that seems long overdue. Despite criticism of the definition, it could reduce conflicts surrounding the far-reaching and controversial law and pave the way for more effective approaches to protecting endangered species.
The new definition would mandate that “critical habitat” for a species — more or less the areas “essential” to the species’s conservation, must actually be habitat for that species, by stipulating that only “areas with existing attributes that have the capacity to support individuals of the species” are eligible for the designation. Until now, lacking a clear definition of habitat, the federal government could declare private lands “critical habitat” for an endangered species even if the species didn’t or couldn’t live on those lands. And once landowners’ property was so designated, they could be saddled with burdensome red tape and land-use restrictions. (Read more) ☼
Long-term Trends in Global Gross Primary Productivity
Multiple studies have confirmed that global gross primary productivity (GPP) has been increasing in recent decades (reviews of several such studies can be found by following this link). This key measure of ecosystem health has shown that the terrestrial biosphere today is more productive in terms of its ability to produce biomass (plant growth) and support higher trophic levels up the food chain than it was two, three, five, or even ten decades ago. The latest research study to confirm as much comes from the recent study of Schwalm et al. (2020). Rather than declining in vigor as so many climate alarmists falsely claim, the world’s land vegetation is increasing its robustness, and has been doing so for over at least the past eleven decades. (Read more) ☼
The Dirty Secrets of “Clean” Electric Vehicles
By Tilak Doshi
The widespread view that fossil fuels are “dirty” and renewables such as wind and solar energy and electric vehicles are “clean” has become a fixture of mainstream media and policy assumptions across the political spectrum in developed countries, perhaps with the exception of the Trump-led US administration. Indeed the ultimate question we are led to believe is how quickly can enlightened Western governments, led by an alleged scientific consensus, “decarbonize” with clean energy in a race to save the world from impending climate catastrophe. The ‘net zero by 2050’ mantra, calling for carbon emissions to be completely mitigated within three decades, is now the clarion call by governments and intergovernmental agencies around the developed world, ranging from several EU member states and the UK, to the International Energy Agency and the International Monetary Fund.
Yet, if one looks under the hood of “clean energy” battery-driven EVs, the dirt found would surprise most. The most important component in the EV is the lithium-ion rechargeable battery which relies on critical mineral commodities such as cobalt, graphite, lithium, and manganese. Tracing the source of these minerals, in what is called “full-cycle economics”, it becomes apparent that EVs create a trail of dirt from the mining and processing of minerals upstream.
A recent United Nations report warns that the raw materials used in electric car batteries are highly concentrated in a small number of countries where environmental and labour regulations are weak or non-existent. Thus, battery production for EVs is driving a boom in small-scale or “artisanal” cobalt production in the Democratic Republic of Congo which supplies two thirds of global output of the mineral. These artisanal mines, which account for up to a quarter of the country’s production, have been found to be dangerous and employ child labour. If we want the whole world to be transported by electric vehicles, the vast increases in the supply of the raw materials listed above would go far beyond known reserves.
Zero Emissions and All That: Evs produce emissions in the mining and manufacturing process, and in the generation of electricity. (Read more) ☼
NET ZERO problems, see:
Six Issues the Promoters of the Green New Deal Have Overlooked
Problems with wind and solar generation of electricity – a review
Mines, Minerals, and “Green” Energy: A Reality Check
U.N. Agenda 21 is Close to Full Implementation
By Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh
When I first became aware of U.N. Agenda 21, two decades ago, I started reading everything I could find and the more I read, the deeper my searches took me – the large octopus using the environment as an excuse was stretching its tentacles far and wide across the globe. I could hardly believe it myself as I found long documents, conferences, videos of politicians, presidents, and famous people pushing this globalist agenda and passing executive orders to implement it by fiat at all levels of government.
It was shocking that the whole cabal was there in plain sight, yet people accused us of being conspiracy theorists. Even some conservatives spoke of U.N. Agenda 21 in hushed tones and suggested that the only proper mention of it was in context of property rights, yet it is so much more because it encompasses everything we do in our daily lives and in business. (Source)
The globalists have made such huge strides that they have morphed the initial 1992 U.N. Agenda 21 into U.N. Agenda 2030. (Source)
The Democrat [Socialist] Party passed it as the Green New Deal, which is neither green, nor new, nor a deal, on the contrary, it is a total control of our personal and economic lives. (Source)
Using unelected individuals and NGOs tentacles, U.N. Agenda 21 spread across the world at the local, state, and federal government levels like wildfire in the name of green growth, smart growth, with its lynchpin Sustainable Development (SD) and its seventeen goals.
People were caught unaware and suddenly found out that their private property, way of life, development and business models were fundamentally changed by corrupt politicians beholden to these NGOs who devised, developed, and forced communities to adopt their ideas in urban development, real estate, transportation, family, religion, birth rates, housing, food, wealth redistribution, education, welfare, medical care, construction, technology, fuel use, water use, recreation, zoning, agriculture, and everything else that makes our lives and economy what they are, fundamentally transforming societies to fit their environmentalist ideas and Marxist philosophy. (Read more) ☼
For some time I have been hearing about the conspiracy theories of “Q” or Qanon. I had no idea what this was about until I read two articles in American Thinker. I recommend that you check out American Thinker every day to read articles on many subjects of current interest. The material below concerns Q.
See: An Introduction to Q By Deborah Franklin
Q’s followers believe that Q is a military intelligence operation, the first of its kind, whose goal is to provide the public with secret information. Many Q followers think the Q team was founded by Admiral Michael Rogers, the former Director of the National Security Agency and former Commander of US Cyber Command. Some suspect that Dan Scavino, White House Director of Social Media, is part of the team, because the high quality of Q’s writing has the luster of a communications expert. Q is a new weapon in the game of information warfare, bypassing a hostile media and corrupt government to communicate directly with the public. Think of Q as a companion to Trump’s twitter. Whereas Trump communicates bluntly and directly, Q is cryptic, sly and subtle, offering only clues that beg for context and connection. ☼
Efforts to Tie Trump to Q Intensify as Questions Mount on China, COVID, and the Democrats
By Deborah Franklin
Excerpt: The virus’s advantages for the Democrats
“Traitors everywhere. Leadership in joint ops w/China [CCP] in effort to regain power? It was never about the virus,” wrote Q on July 31st.
Q then proceeded to explain the many advantages the virus brought the Democrats: It decimated the booming economy and laid off millions of workers, wrecking Trump’s great economic achievements. It stopped Trump’s huge campaign rallies, which showcased his popularity, and sheltered Biden from public appearances, limiting public exposure of his mental condition.
The lockdown also shifted focus from Biden’s burgeoning Ukraine scandal and offered him an excuse to refuse to debate. It encouraged state bailouts for New York and California, and increased the national debt, placing China in a controlling debt position in which it could regain leverage.
And, of course, the lockdown allowed the Democrats to relentlessly insist on mail-in ballots as the only safe voting option, thereby setting the stage for record-breaking fraud. (Source) ☼
STATE OF THE UNION
President Trump’s Handling of The Virus Was Not a Failure
By David Keltz
Let’s review the facts of Trump’s supposed “failure.”
On January 29th Trump announced the formation of the Coronavirus Task Force, which first began meeting on January 27th.
On January 31, President Trump took the bold and crucial step of banning travel from China, at a time when there were only six known coronavirus cases in the U.S. Dr. Fauci praised the travel ban, saying, “What we’re doing now with the other travel restrictions — so you block infections from coming in.”
On March 13th Trump declared a nationwide emergency, which increased federal support under the “Stafford Act,” and put HHS in charge as the lead federal agency for the COVID-19 pandemic response. He also directed FEMA to assist state, and local governments by building field hospitals, setting up mobile testing sites, procuring PPE, and allocating 350 million dollars to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for construction of alternate care facilities in New York.
On March 15th, the president, in coordination with Dr. Fauci, Dr. Birx, and other task force members, issued guidelines for the country to follow, under the President’s “15 Days To Slow The Spread,” This later became, Thirty Days To Slow The Spread.”
On April 2, Trump authorized the Defense Production Act to ramp up production of ventilators and N-95 respirators.
On April 16th, he issued guidelines for reopening America.
Fifty-seven major disaster declarations were declared in all fifty states, five territories, Washington D.C. and one tribe, and 6.5 billion dollars in funding was allocated in emergency protective measures.
199 airbridge flight missions occurred, to expedite critical medical supplies from overseas.
As of June 5th, 13.9 million face shields, 148.9 million surgical masks, 5.2 million coveralls, 1 billion gloves, 205.6 million cloth masks, 93 million N95 respirators, and 37.6 million gowns were delivered to all fifty states, and two U.S. Navy hospital ships arrived in New York City and Los Angeles.
On May 15th Trump initiated Operation Warp Speed, to accelerate the development, manufacturing, and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics.
So while the media, Pelosi, Biden and other Democrats falsely vilified the president’s handling of the plague that came from China, and told us to “follow the science,” by proclaiming that the virus can distinguish between anti-lockdown protestors, churchgoers, or hair salon owners who want to safely reopen their businesses, but not for “defund the police” protestors, arsonists, looters, vandals and anarchists who destroy property, topple statues, burn courthouses and churches, terrorize civilians, overrun city streets with autonomous zones, and clash with law enforcement officers, one wonders what any of them would have done differently if they had been commander in chief. (Read more) ☼
THOUGHTS TO PONDER
The Woke are convinced that, by eliminating discriminating thought, they will eliminate all of the evils of discriminatory practices. They believe that, by eliminating rational judgment, they’ll eliminate all of the hurtfulness of judgmentalism and all of the harmfulness of prejudices. Their plan is to eliminate all of the wrongs of the world by eliminating the recognition of right and wrong itself. – Evan Sayet in his book: The Woke Supremacy: An Anti-Socialist Manifesto
On Biden’s speech: The speech was a list of every political bromide and cliche ever written, it was “banal” and filled with “inside-the-Beltway” cliches. “What we got from Joe Biden last night was 100% pure, inside-the-Beltway politics. “It’s what people expect of politicians, a bunch of meaningless, banal, open-ended bromides and cliches that don’t commit the politician to anything, they just establish him as a good guy with character and good manners.” – Rush Limbaugh
The Difference between Performance and Effect
By John Cuoco
Performance is “doing things right,” while effect is “doing the right thing.”
America has always been a country where results are more important than credentials. There was an old saying in my father’s generation that went, “If you’re so smart, how come you’re not rich?” In short, what is the effect? In order for our nation to continue to be a land off safety, security, and prosperity, we need to get back to that ethos. President Trump’s recent executive order linking hiring for government positions to skills rather than degrees is most definitely a step in the right direction. In government, as in business, sports, science, and all other walks of life, we need people who can get things done. Otherwise, we’ll find ourselves accepting failure as a matter of course. Then we’ll just be standing around and applauding while the plates come crashing down. (Read article)
“The right to search for the truth implies also a duty; one must not conceal any part of what one has recognized to be true.” – Albert Einstein
“There is nothing so good that politicians can’t make it bad and nothing so bad that politicians can’t make it worse. Compassion is good but politicians have turned compassion into the welfare state. Crime is bad but politicians have made it worse by going easy on criminals.” — Thomas Sowell
“Where there is no law, there is no liberty; and nothing deserves the name of law but that which is certain and universal in its operation upon all the members of the community.” —Benjamin Rush (1788)
An observation: The party that constantly calls the Right racist and sexist just chose their VP based on race and sex.
* * *
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.