RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2023/04/17/life-after-climate-change/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=top-of-nav&utm_content=hero-module

The global discussion about climate change has become quite hysterical. Some 60 percent of people living in the rich world think it is likely to bring an end to humanity. This is not only untrue; it is also harmful, because fear makes people embrace bad policies and ignore many other urgent challenges facing the world. Consider, for example, how the World Health Organization declared climate change the defining public-health issue of the 21st century in 2014, but perhaps should have been more focused on pandemics, like Covid. Or take the World Economic Forum participants who in January 2020 found the greatest policy risk of the next ten years to be climate-action failure — ignoring the rapid spread of Covid. Or consider how development institutions increasingly focus on helping poor countries with climate-change responses, often at the expense of other things those countries urgently need, such as growth and development, stronger health-care systems, better education, and a more plentiful energy supply.

Climate change is a real and man-made phenomenon, and it will have negative impacts overall. That’s a fact, and it is one that we hear a lot. The “catastrophe narrative,” however, is drowning out many other relevant facts about climate change — for example, that 98 percent fewer people are dying from climate-related disasters today than did a century ago, and that net-zero-emission policies are eye-wateringly costly. The following are eight charts that I think more people should see, to understand that the climate-change data are very different from what we hear in the commonplace narrative.

https://issuesinsights.com/2023/03/28/evs-are-the-yugo-of-the-21st-century/

Way back in the mid-1980s, communist Yugoslavia exported the Yugo, a compact car that sold for around $4,000. It was so poorly made that bumping into a pole at 5 mph could total it.

Fast forward to today, and a new class of cars has a similar problem. A minor accident can cause a total loss, even if the car’s been driven only a few miles. The only difference is that these cars aren’t cheap imports from some godforsaken socialist state. These are state-of-art electric vehicles that come with an average sticker price of $55,000.

Why are insurance companies totaling low-mileage EVs that have been in a fender bender? For the same reason you could total a new Yugo when backing out of a parking spot. The cost of repair is exorbitant.

As Reuters reported recently, “For many electric vehicles, there is no way to repair or assess even slightly damaged battery packs after accidents,” which means the only viable option is to replace the battery, which represents about half the cost of the car.

A replacement battery for a $44,000 Tesla Model 3 can cost up to $20,000.

One expert told Reuters that Tesla’s Model Y has “zero repairability” because its battery is built into the structure of the car.

As a result, drivers are finding that even a minor accident ends up with their shiny new EVs being hauled away to the junkyard.

Reuters’ search of EV salvage sales in the U.S. and Europe found a large number of low-mileage EVs made by Tesla, Nissan, Hyundai, and others being scrapped.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/rick-moran/2023/03/25/the-consequences-of-talking-about-climate-doom-for-30-years-n1681447

They’re called “climate doomers” and the Washington Post says that their belief in the unstoppable and inevitable end of human civilization is even more dangerous than climate “deniers.”

In essence, the doomers have given up on humanity’s ability to survive. Some have become preppers but most appear to be satisfied to feed their paranoia by immersing themselves in the end-of-the-world cult online.

“It’s fair to say that recently many of us climate scientists have spent more time arguing with the doomers than with the deniers,” said Zeke Hausfather, a contributing author to the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

What else is to be expected after more than 30 years of pronouncements that climate change would destroy civilization unless we stop the engines of industry and outlaw automobiles? The fact that these hysterical predictions of doom haven’t come true doesn’t appear to matter. The doomers simply shrug off the errors and make new, even more hair-raising predictions.

One such “climate scientist” is the University of Arizona’s Guy McPherson who said in 2017, “I can’t imagine that there will be a human left on the Earth in 10 years.”  The video has 328,000 views and more than 2,500 comments. A sample:

“I generally feel very lonely as most people don’t understand the situation we are in, nor do they want to know the truth. I find great comfort in your video’s [sic] and I would like to thank you for your work.”

Finding “great comfort” in videos about the end of mankind is pathological. And that describes the climate doomers perfectly.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/03/is_the_mask_of_the_green_cult_finally_coming_off.html

For decades now, you have heard leftist ear sores bloviate endlessly about “climate change.”  The world will end in a decade if we don’t take action now! screams AOC.  However, the more skeptical and rational among us tend to question the true motivation of the environmentalist Green cult.

The best example of a real environmentalist was probably conservationist John Muir, the founder of the Sierra Club.  Muir’s work helped to establish a number of national parks throughout the country, an act that did not regress the progress of society for the sake of nature, but sought to preserve nature while simultaneously allowing industrial society to progress at a steady rate.  Thus, Muir sought to build something, while the modern environmentalist movement seeks only to destroy everything and anything that gets in the way of its climate crusade. 

Just take a look at the Sierra Club’s website today, and see what its goals are for 2030.  Within the next seven years, the Sierra Club hopes to eliminate enough coal and gas in the energy sector to make for 80% carbon “pollution”–free electricity by that time, in addition to decreasing oil used in the transportation sector by 18%, ending the sale of gas appliances, and halting the fossil fuel market by banning oil and gas exports and petrochemical expansion at the same time.  This is an ambitious plan…and also a complete load of BS and magical thinking. 

Although it may not faze most people at first, notice how they call carbon a “pollutant” and claim they want to reduce it by 80% in electricity production.  Since when is carbon a pollutant?  Carbon is an element necessary to all life on earth. No organism can survive without it.  Indeed, the entire process on which all human life depends, photosynthesis, requires carbon dioxide.  In order for plants to produce oxygen for living beings to breathe, they must first collect carbon dioxide dispelled from the living being breathing the air they are producing.  Numerous studies have indicated that areas with higher carbon concentration are more green and more fertile, not less. 

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2023-3-15-countdown-to-new-yorks-rendezvous-with-energy-impossibility

The race is on to see who hits the green energy wall of impossibility first. California, Germany and the UK (the “Poseurs”) might seem to have leapt early into the lead positions. But New York is now making a strong sprint to catch and surpass them, so it can be the first to splatter its citizens’ flesh and blood all over the impenetrable barricade.

The Poseurs accumulate vast green progressive virtue credits for ridiculous promises, but their promises all have dates so far in the future that today’s politicians will be long gone when the crash detonates. Germany promises 100% of electricity from renewables by 2035. Whoopie! Chancellor Scholz will be out tending his unfertilized Spargel gardens long before then. In California they don’t promise 100% renewable electricity until 2045, by which time Governor Newsom will likely be not just retired but dead.

Who has sufficiently pure cult adherence to set firm green energy deadlines with real consequences in the here and now? That task has fallen to the true climate heroes here in New York City.

New York City’s bid to create the first real test of an impossible green energy deadline is found in its Climate Mobilization Act of 2019, the key part of which goes by the name Local Law 97. LL97 (formal name: New York City Administrative Code Sections 28-320 and 28-321) imposes energy efficiency standards on large residential buildings starting in 2024 — next year. Buildings that fail to meet the standards are subject to large and accelerating fines starting right away.

It appears that the owners of these buildings are just now figuring out that the standards that have been set cannot be met, at least not in any remotely reasonable way. What next?

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2023-3-12-germanys-coming-green-energy-economic-miracle

I’m old enough to remember the German post-World War II “economic miracle.” (Their term was “Wirtschaftswunder.”). After more than ten years of government direction of the economy under the Nazis, followed by the devastation of the war, Germany after 1945, under economics minister Ludwig Erhard, adopted the model of low taxes and light regulation. The economy boomed for decades on end.

But Germany then gradually turned away from Erhard’s prescriptions. Today Germany is twenty or so years into the most aggressive green energy “transition” of any country with a large economy, with the government firmly in charge of picking the winners and losers in the energy sector. At this writing, Germany’s consumer electricity rates are in the range of triple the U.S. average. My January 3, 2023 post quoted a German energy market guru named Mirko Scholssarczyk forecasting yet further big increases:

“40 cents per kilowatt-hour [is] likely to be the new normal in 2023 and 2024, and . . . prices could even rise to 50 cents per kilowatt-hour after that.”

That would put German consumer electricity rates at about 4 to 5 times the U.S. average — assuming that the U.S. does not go down the same path and drive rates up the way Germany has.