Stupid Climate Change People

During this recent cold snap that has much of the nation grabbing for an extra blanket, Canada has one upped the USA in stupidity. As most of you probably know, when it gets cold here, it is often times even colder in parts of Canada.

Due to stupid choices made by tyrannical governments, the folks of Canada are going to experience some dangerous conditions over the next few days. Coal fired plants have been shut down, gas powered are not keeping up with demand, and so-called renewable are rendered almost useless by the extreme cold temperatures. 

At It Again

I was initially going to post this on fakebook, but the post got a little long winded for that platform. So I decided to do something that I have neglected for a while. Post it here on my blog. Surprisingly, it is still in operation despite my recent lack of blogging. Hopefully, somebody will actually read it. I'm sure the fact-checkers and the FbI will.

Just recently (January 2024), the Supreme Court might have put the final nail in the coffin of a proposed copper and gold mine in southwestern Alaska. For the past 2+ decades, Northern Dynasty Mines has attempted to begin mineral extraction operations but has been met with opposition at nearly every step.

This was a unique situation in that the high Court heard arguments for and against an EPA ruling before the suit made its way through the court system. The Supreme Court did not rule for or against the EPA ruling. The suit will now make its way through the courts in the normal manner.

Obviously, environmental groups and native groups were happy with the ruling, feeling the mine posses a threat to a valued watershed.

What Progressives Won't Talk About (EV Edition)

I ran across an article at the PJ Media website that discusses how there are issues with Electric Vehicles (EVs) that progressives are not willing to talk about. Read the article here. (Look below for more links of interest) I am going paraphrase heavily in this blog post and am going to add my own thoughts and additional points. This is in no way a reflection on the author, Mark Tapscott. The article is great and quite illuminating. He covers A LOT of ground in short, concise points. As my dear readers know, I have a tendency to ramble on. In the arena that Mr. Tapscott finds himself, I'd take an educated guess that his word count is limited by his editors. I don't have an editor. I should, but I don't. That gives me much leeway, as I said above, to ramble. 

1. Fossil fuels and nuclear energy account for more than 80% of US power generation. EVs are fueled by Fossil fuels. What is not included here is the power generated by hydroelectric dams. Hydroelectric power creates an additional for 10-12%. That about 8-10% coming from renewable such as windows and solar. No question this is not a trivial amount and it has increased dramatically over the last 15 years or so. But even at this level, renewable energy is no where near ready for prime time. The overwhelming evidence bears this out. Locations that rely heavily on renewables have a difficult time meeting the needs during periods of even higher than “normal” demand.

Towing: Gas vs. Electric

A YouTube channel called The Fast Lane Truck ran a distance test, gas powered against an electric. The vehicles tested was the GMC Denali and Ford F150 Lightning towing a 6,000 ton travel trailer. 

NOTE: I am not going to link directly to their YouTube site. They seem to be apolitical, and probably want to stay that way. BTW: if you do watch the video there will be other videos covering the same subject. They are also worth a watch if you have a few minutes. 

On board distance calculator for the F150 estimated the range at a 100% charge will be 160 miles. The Denali's range was estimated to be around 260 miles. 

It soon became apparent the distance the Lightning was going to be able to travel was going to be much shorter than originally estimated. Just a few minutes down the road the Lightning lost 10 miles of range. 

More Green Energy Stuff

Ran across this article the other day and thought I'd throw on here for your viewing "pleasure". 

Click here. 

As a lede in, I will say there has been plenty of warning from many in the blogoshere and elsewhere that once covid-19 was done or had lost it ability to scare the weak-spirited, the global progressives would move on to the next "thing". Welp, here we are. The so-called climate crisis isn't new by any means. 

The far left have been trying to scare us normal folk with the end of the world as we know it (EOTWAWKI) since the 1960s. I am purposely skipping over Ukraine because it has been/will be short lived. Once this has moved to back burner, something else will take its place. They can't take money from us or attempt to control our actions so it will soon become yesterday's news. 

Electric Vehicles Required

Ran across this article the other day and thought I'd throw on here for your viewing "pleasure". 

Click here. 

Some of you may remember when the governor of Washington State ran for President. If you don't, you are not alone. I think he polled somewhere in the 0.2% range. 

What made him unique was he ran solely on a global cooling, warming, climate change, climate disruption platform. He is big time into having everyone toe the line on his view of climate, by force if necessary. 

As highlighted in the linked article he recently signed a transportation bill that would require all vehicles sold in Washington State to be electric. The bill does grandfather in non electric vehicles built and sold before 2030. It wasn't clear if you can sell an internal combustion engine after 2030 built before 2030. In other words, if you have a gas powered Toyota built in 2029, can you sell it the next year? 

Green Energy Issues

I've been wondering if any of my progressive friends, who support; no, actually demand, most, if not all tenets of the so-called green new deal be implemented immediately are knowingly supportive of getting the rare earth metals necessary for "clean" energy from a government that is hostile to the USA and our rapidly diminishing shared values. 

I'm sure most of you are aware that China uses slave labor to mine these minerals. On top of that, their environmental track record is completely abysmal. Recently, a report on so-called green house gases shows that China emits more detrimental pollution into the atmosphere than all of the other industrialized nations of the world. Combined! 

To counter these issues, mineral extraction must occur in places other than China. But that comes with a cost, both measurable and esoteric. 

We don't have to accept minerals being mined by slave labor. The minerals are available right here, in the USA. But since we did away with slavery over 150 years ago (a very good thing), we will have to pay miners an appropriate wage to dig up the dirt. This alone will drive up the cost significantly, since China pays their miners almost nothing. 

We have almost no infrastructure to refine these minerals due to costs savings and environmental regulations. I don't think there is a smelter left standing in the USA that is capable of processing raw materials. The few companies that do mine rare earth metals (3 at last count), ship the raw materials to China for processing. This process is EXTREMELY dirty. Are progressives, in their zeal to make everything green, willing to allow mining, and the processing of the raw materials, to occur in the USA? Or will this be a case of NIMBY? Are you willing to pay the costs associated with process of resource extraction? Or will you close your eyes and turn their heads to the issues of how China turns the raw material into usable metals? 

Recently it seems that Former VP Biden is willing to let China be our source of these rare earth metals. He has published an EO that will continue to make extremely difficult to mine rare earth metals in the USA. 

When a company wants to mine minerals in the USA the permit process can take 15-20 years. I believe it was in 2017 that the Trump administration attempted to streamline the permitting process. While Trump wanted us to be be energy independent, it seems that he might also been aware electric vehicles (EV) was a movement that could not be ignored. His thinking might have been; if this is where we are going, why not cut ties to hostile regimes and mine what we can here, in the USA. This EO was later overturned by former VP Biden's puppet masters. 

Former VP Biden has said that EV can be cheaper than gas powered vehicles by 2035. Is he, and his advisors looking at the increased costs if we do (and should) cut ties with China. 

Are you willing, to achieve carbon neutrality, to accept salve labor? Are you OK with even more pollution from China as the needed minerals are extracted from the ground? Are you willing to accept these things so you can feel good and pat yourself on the back, saying what a good steward of the environment am l?. 

I ask these questions because so far nobody has been able to answer them. When these valid points are made, there is no rebuttal. Just a superior shake of the head and the smirk. 

Random Thoughts (New)

A couple of comments on the first night democrat virtual convention.

It takes some huge cajones for the DNC to trot out Governor Cuomo and have him speak about how the government (i.e. President Trump) failed regarding Covid-19. While I agree there is blame to be shared, having the dude who put Covid positive folks back into nursing homes lecture us about failure of policy is the height of hypocrisy.

Anyone else find it interesting that Michelle Obama talked about the so-called cages used by the border Patrol but didn't bother mentioning those cages were a result of policies furthered by her husband.

Probably not going watch what happens from here on out. There is only so much BS a person can stand in week, and I had about a month's worth.

An Exchange With A Snowflake

The other day a friend of mine on Facebook posted his displeasure with PDT decision to pull out of the Paris Climate Accords. As you  might gather, I fully agree with this decision. This accord was nothing more than a movement of wealth from rich nations (Like the USA) to poor nations (mostly Africa). Interestingly, it wasn't my friend who decided to exchange thoughts with me, but rather his wife. I have known my friends for 10+ years, he was a junior officer I highly respected during my final few years in the service. But I never had the pleasure of meeting his wife other than just a brief meet and greet several years ago.  So I am going to post the exchange in order of posting. I would like your feedback in how I handled the situation.

This first is the original post. It was a response to a news article that my friend posted notifying that PDT has decided to pull the USA from the Paris Climate Accords.

Friend: Oh no!!!! No no no!!!!!!! Damn it!

ME: I'm glad we're done with this scam. Even reasonable folks who believe in hot/wet/cold/dry should view this agreement with disdain. It was nothing more than a massive transfer of wealth from the USA to other countries. Our financial contributions to the agreement far outstripped our "contribution" to global cooling/warming/climate change. The world will wring their hands over us "backing out". But not because the world will end, but because the greedy little jerks aren't gonna get our money.

Not the wife: I couldn't disagree more.

My Friends Wife (MFW): Is this guy serious?? We come in at 17% only 2nd to China at 20% and followed by India, the next highest at only 4%!! WE ARE THE PROBLEM!!! OF COURSE WE SHOULD PAY MORE!! My god I just can't even understand why any American wouldn't agree with joining forces with other countries to try and limit our negative effects of OUR GREED on the planet. You think it is THEIR greed?? Excuse me while I go apologize to my children for the absolute mess we as a nation are leaving them. (if you don't like the simple break down that Wiki provides, feel free to go to the main site for the Paris agreement- I just figure this one has it condensed)  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement

California Just Doesn't Get It

For those few of you have followed my blog over the past couple of years you are aware that California is a state which is not high on my list of places that I would want to live. There are some places that such as Yreka that catch my eye, but I temper my desires with the knowledge that it is still in the state of California and governed by the boneheads from San Francisco and the LA Basin.

Linked here is an excellent article by Victor Davis Hansen that pretty sums up how the boneheads in San Fran and LA have completely screwed up a state that at one time was the world’s fourth leading economy.

It also highlights, in my opinion, the hypocrisy of the leftist-led environmental movement. The left screamed that water rights to the Central Valley farmers needed to be cut drastically or eliminated completely over a tiny little three inch fish. I am not so heartless that preserving the environment is a worthwhile endeavor; I really do think there needs to be a balance. And we are smart enough to make it happen. But it seems to me that the leftist are never interested in working to achieve this balance; they are only interested in what they want, consequences to humans be danged.

If I Wanted America to Fail

This video has gone viral.

If I Wanted America to Fail

Very powerful!

So powerful that Twitter temporarily closed the organizational account of the folks who produced the video. They blamed some sort of spam filter. Give me a break!

And if you listen closely, you can hear nearly every economic platform of the left and progressives.

At the altar of Obama!

There was a time that the environmental movement was something worthwhile. I think we can all agree that clean water and air are admirable and, as has been proven, achievable goals. But the conservation movement has been hijacked by extremists hell bent on shutting down any form of economic use of lands that could provide plenty.

One of the more interesting moments in the video, from a personal standpoint, was the Spotted Owl. Back when the whole save the spotted owl movement was killing high paying jobs in the PACNW, my father worked for the Forest Service. He was involved with the whole spotted owl issue. He was an advocate of further study as he was concerned that the numbers were being skewed in favor of the environmentalists. While my father was not a biologist by training, he was smart enough to be able to read the reports and study the data. And the data didn’t support the view the public was getting from the media and the “other side.” It showed not only was the spotted owl number declining because of predatory animals (there is always a larger predator), but the spotted owl’s favorite meal actually liked the more open space created by logging. He argued that if had open spaces surrounded by forested land, the spotted owl would thrive. This has turned out to be the case. The spotted owl has thrived, not in the old growth forests, but on lands that get logged.

When he saw that the environmentalists were going to win this battle, he decided to retire. He didn’t quit because he was a quitter, rather, he saw the writing on the wall. When he first joined the FS, it was an organization dedicated to multiple uses for our National Forests. The forest lands could provide jobs, recreation, mining, logging, wilderness areas, and be all things to all people. But the culture of the FS was changing, become less multi-use and more focused on extreme environmental issues. The spotted owl issue was the final straw, so to speak.

Climate Changers Growing Desperate

Signs that the climate change advocators are growing desperate.

(Source for all the links comes via Infowars.com)

1. A Professor sociology and environmental studies at the University of Oregon has called for so-called climate-change deniers to be to be diagnosed as sick and for them to be treated.

Professor Kari Norgaard, who is currently appearing the ‘Planet Under Pressure’ conference in London, has presented a paper in which she argue that “cultural resistance” to accepting the premise that humans are responsible for climate change “must be recognized and treated” as an aberrant sociological behavior.

Norgaard equates skepticism of climate alarmists – whose data is continually proven to politicized, agenda driven and downright inaccurate – with racism, nothing that overcoming such viewpoints poses a similar challenge “to racism or slavery in the U.S. South.” (Source: Prison Planet)

This is a very scary line from the University of Oregon Media page that summarizes the “paper.”

“Climate change poses a massive threat to our present social, economic and political order. From a sociological perspective, resistance to change is to be expected,” she said. “People are individually and collectively habituated to the way we act and think. This habituation must be recognized and simultaneously addressed at the individual, cultural and societal level – how we think the world works and how we think it should work.” (Bold belongs to PACNW Righty)

Anytime we have these self-anointed liberal elites talking about how the world should be changed through behavioral changes scares the snot out of me. It almost seems as if these people are talking about re-education camps or some form of brainwashing. I know these people think they are smarter than us, but taking it to this level, insisting on forced behavioral changes (indoctrination), is taking it too far. And bear in mind, these kinds of people support, with a great deal of vigor, our current President.

(Side Note: Please read this blog post over at Rural Revolution. While it has nothing to do with the climate change issues, it discusses how schools have lost their focus on educating our children and become centers of social change and justice.)

2. The same University of Oregon Professor has also called on President Obama to suspend democracy and public opinion and implement climate change rules through Executive Orders.

“Policymakers should not wait for public opinion to take necessary action,” she writes, adding, “Public opinion does matters in a democracy, but this is a time when following it would be a serious mistake.”

But this isn’t the first time that a climate changer has called for democracy to be ended for the sake of the climate. Back in 2010 James Lovelock said the following in an interview with the Guardian in the UK regarding how to tackle climate change (scroll down):

We need a more authoritative world. We’ve become a sort of cheeky, egalitarian world where everyone can have their say. It’s all very well, but there are certain circumstances – a war is a typical example – when you can’t do that. You’ve got have a few people with authority who you trust who are running it. And they should be accountable too, of course.

But it can’t happen in a modern democracy. This is one the problems. What’s the alternative to democracy? There isn’t one. But even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while. (Source: Guardian UK) (Bold belongs to PACNW Righty)

Quick question for you Mr. Lovelock: who gets to decide who these “few people with authority” are going to be, AND who is going to hold them accountable? A couple more questions: Who gets to decide when we suspend democracy? And when do we come out of this period of tyranny?

3. There are even some who are calling for the removal or SIGNIFICANT reduction of the human population. Keith Farnish has written a book titled Time’s Up where he calls for the reduction of human by causing (or at least doing nothing to prevent) the collapse of civilization as we know it. The Telegraph UK sums it up nicely with a few excerpts from Farnish’s book:

“In short, the greatest immediate risk to the population living in the conditions created by Industrial Civilization is the population itself. Civilization has created the perfect conditions for a terrible tragedy on the kind of scale never seen before in the history of humanity. That is one reason for there to be fewer people, providing you are planning on staying with civilization – I wouldn’t recommend it though.”

…

“Unloading essential means the removal of an existing burden: for instance, removing grazing domesticated animals, razing cities to the ground, blowing up dams and switching off the greenhouse gas emissions machine. The process of ecological unloading is an accumulation of many of the thing I have already explained in this chapter, along with an (almost certainly necessary) element of sabotage.” (Source: Telegraph UK)

Every once in a while I like to remind some of my liberal friends that this is the kind of people that support Barack Obama. When they fire back at me that those racist nutjobs living in the woods espousing the overthrow of our government also support conservative causes, I like to point out that we conservatives tend to run away from these guys as fast as we can. However, the media is often more than willing to gives these leftwing knuckleheads all the press they desire, and most often, it is glowing terms.

California Does it Again

Many on the left is very fond of using the term fascist for those of us who believe in conservative principles like a free market to determine what will sell and what won’t.

Recent news out of California might have a few folks relooking this.

For those who need a refresher the term fascist, when correctly applied, describes an economic structure that is controlled by a heavily centralized government. Private businesses are allowed to operate, but only under government mandated goals such as prices, profit levels, and production numbers. Because of this centralized decision making, the end consumer is also impacted as products they might want are either not available, available at inflated prices, or quality is poor due to companies cutting corners to continue to be profitable.

Last week, the California Air Resources Board passed emission standards that will require every seventh car sold in the state to be electric or zero emission.

…the new state policy mandates that a mix of 1.4 million zero-emission and plug-in hybrid vehicles be on the road by 2025, nearly triple the number begin driven today. Problem is, this increases the cost of these vehicles and limits consumer choices to those they don’t want to make. (Source: Investor.com) (h/t Director Blue)

So here we have a government dictating what can be sold to consumers, the free market be danged. Add to the mix that the California government, especially those in appointed position (unanswerable to the public), is a collection of progressives and liberal agenda-driven folks.

Please tell me again who the Fascists are.

More Taxes to Fund Cali High Speed Rail

There was a time when California alone was something like the 10th largest economy in the world. Abundant and educated workforce, friendly business climate, few places better to live, and other factors all combined to make the California economy vibrant and growing.

This is no longer the case. Heavy taxation for start ups and for heavy industry. A regulatory environment that makes it nearly impossible to get a business up and running or to expand. A state budget that is threaten to collapse under the weight of state employee salaries, benefits, and retirement programs which need higher taxes to pay for. All of these are driving businesses away from the once Golden State.

Now Governor Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown has floated the idea of using the California Cap and Trade law to fund the controversial High-Speed Rail system.

Gov. Jerry Brown told a Los Angeles TV station today that the state’s proposed high speed rail system will cost much less than $100 billion, and will be partly funded by new taxes on major air pollution emitters.

The governor told ABC 7’s :Eyewitness Newsmakers” program that environmental impact fees paid by industries that emit large amount of greenhouse gases will help fund the big train project. California has a “cap and trade” law that will collect fees if businesses do not reduce emissions, the governor said. (Source: Contra Costa Times) (h/t: Soylent Green)

My question to Gov. Brown: How do you expect to pay for this huge project when many of these businesses that you are going to collect from are either considering leaving or have already done so?

Is Gov. Moonbeam going to tax the energy companies that are going to have to be built to produce the electricity to run these trains? Or is he expecting that solar panels and wind farms are going to be built from LA to La Vegas, covering the Mojave Desert? I wonder how the environmentalists are going to like that one.

I also bet these liberals think the only impact of these taxes is going to be on the companies. If they really think the higher costs of doing business in California isn't going to be passed onto the consumer of those products, well they have their progressive little heads buried in the California beach sand..

That is one thing I have noticed about liberals, they tend not to see the forest through the trees.

Tell me dear readers; who’da thought that a democrat would use more taxes to pay for a project that no one wants, no one needs, and no one is going to use?

The Dam Has Been Breached

Here is a quick update to a post I made earlier this week about a dam here in the PACNW being knocked down for a couple of fish.

The Condit Dam on the White Salmon River has been breached.

  

The reservoir behind the dam has already emptied and the river is its channel.

Time lapse of the reservoir emptying:


Also, in the earlier post I questioned how salmon that have never been above the dam will migrate to locations beyond were the dam used to sit. Well, it seems that prior to the breach, fish biologists hand carried salmon to a point above the dam. This was done for two reasons. First, due to the heavy silt that was going to head down stream due to the breach, all river life was going to end. Fish, frogs, water skippers, salamanders, and what-have-you-not were not going to survive the muddy, turbulent flow. Secondly, the salmon were moved in the hopes they would establish themselves upstream from the old dam site. I guess this makes sense. As I mentioned, Salmon return to the place they were hatched. If they are further upstream, then it stands to reason they will return there in a few years. This remains to be seen.

Another PACNW Dam Bites the Dust

At the end of the month, PacifiCorp will be punching a hole in a dam that holds back water on the North Salmon River in SW Washington. This dam has been in place for nearly 100 years and generates power for approximately 8000 homes.

The dam is being removed because the company that runs the Condit Dam and uses it for power generation said it would be cheaper to bring it down rather than retrofit the dam for salmon migration. PacifiCorp figures it would cost over $100 million to build the necessary salmon bypasses, but $32 million to knock it down. Obviously, PacifiCorp decided to go the cheaper route.

Behind the dam removal (and the Elwha Dam near Port Townsend, WA and it’s 14.8 megawatts of power generation) the Endangered Species Act, which has designated the salmon as an endangered species. Because of this, all impediments to salmon migration have to be removed or overcame. As pointed out above, it is cheaper to destroy the dam.