RUTHFULLY YOURS

“When scientists resort to fantasy instead of observable, repeatable experiment by skeptics, then we have abandoned reason.”

Science and politics used to be very separate institutions. Where they did overlap, science was nonpartisan. The role of scientists was to provide objective evidence — and dispassionate, nonpolitical interpretations of that evidence. Indeed, one rarely if ever could detect the political leanings of any particular scientist. Also, science and religion used to get along, at least for the most part.

Today, that has changed, and the results include significant dangers for society. For example, the topic of climate change has produced the myth of “settled science.” Science is never settled. While we all may agree that the climate does change, there is an anti-capitalist agenda behind the claims of many scientists — that we must radically reduce our standards of living to prevent climate catastrophe. Politics and ideology, not science, promote that so-called scientific view.

But there is an even deeper and darker implication involving the politicization of science. Its first major public confrontation was in a state court case, dubbed the Scopes Monkey trial, which tested a law that forbade the teaching of Darwinian Evolution theory in public schools. On a legal maneuver, Darwinism technically lost that particular trial, but all subsequent federal court rulings since then, have upheld the theory of evolution as accepted fact. Contrary theories are essentially forbidden. Evolution is “settled science.”

It is not the purpose of this commentary to litigate the theory of evolution, or any other particular scientific theory. Rather, it is to examine the cultural fallout from that theory. The late paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson, is quoted as having said that, “Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind. He was not planned.”

What Darwin and Simpson have done, along with others, is to introduce into society the physicalist paradigm, the one that holds that nothing exists except stuff, that is, material reality. According to physicalism, there is no spirit, no God, no eternal afterlife. By extension of that paradigm, you and I are nothing more than stuff, that is, the atoms that make up our physical bodies. If that is to be considered true, then it necessarily must follow, at least eventually, that we have no inherent right to be treated as anything more than protoplasm, nothing more than just another species of animal.

That paradigm is, of course, dangerous. It contradicts not only the Bible, but also the Declaration of Independence, the founding document of our nation, which states that we are endowed by our Creator — repeat, by our Creator — with certain inalienable rights, including life and liberty.

The Keystone XL pipeline cleared its final major regulatory hurdle Monday, but the fight isn’t over as opponents have seized on a spill last week on another TransCanada pipeline. The wonder is that the company still wants to build anything in the U.S. after the way it has been treated.

The good news is that the Nebraska Public Service Commission voted 3-2 to allow TransCanada to build a pipeline traversing the state. The federal government has already given its blessing, and Nebraska was the last state hold-out.

Nebraska officials refused to sign off on the preferred Keystone XL route, approving an alternative that the commission says would better protect water resources and endangered species, adding that it “would have little environmental impact.”

But it also means TransCanada will have to deal with a new set of landowners. So the pipeline is all but certain to face further litigation from property-holders and environmental groups. TransCanada says it will now begin “assessing how the decision would impact the cost and schedule of the project.”

The usual Keystone XL opponents are now claiming that last Thursday’s 5,000-barrel leak in South Dakota is proof that pipelines are inherently dangerous. “These pipelines are bound to spill, and they put communities, precious drinking water, and our climate at risk,” said Rachel Rye Butler of Greenpeace.

Their real agenda is to keep oil and gas in the ground, though Americans still rely on petroleum for 37% of their energy. But in the real world, which is marred by reality and risk, pipelines have an enviable safety record.

More than 99.99% of oil moved by pipeline arrives at its destination safely. Compared to rail, pipelines are 2.5 times less likely to have an accident that results in an oil spill, the Fraser Institute concluded after assessing Canadian government data between 2004 and 2015. A Manhattan Institute report looked at the U.S. Department of Transportation’s annual accident data between 2007-2016. Per billion ton-miles, oil pipelines charted the lowest rate at 0.66. Railways came in at 2.20, and roads at 7.11.

South Dakota’s Keystone pipeline, where last week’s spill occurred, has safely delivered more than 1.5 billion barrels of oil since opening in June 2010. TransCanada had isolated the affected portion of pipeline within 15 minutes. South Dakota’s Department of Environment and Natural Resources said emergency precautions “seemed to work very well,” and the spill didn’t spoil surface or drinking water.

It’s important that we feel that we’re fighting this crisis like our lives depend on it, because in fact they do,” said New York mayor Bill de Blasio, announcing the city’s latest energy mandate, which will require about 14,000 buildings to upgrade their boilers, windows, roofs, and water heaters. Hyperbole on climate change is nothing new to de Blasio or to Governor Andrew Cuomo—and it’s necessary to help justify their claims that New York can cut its greenhouse-gas emissions 80 percent by 2050. Both leaders have signed on to the Under 2 MOU, an agreement between states, cities, and provinces worldwide that commits signatories to slash emissions by 80 percent, or to less than two tons per capita per year.

At his September news conference at Brooklyn Bridge Park, de Blasio made it clear that the new regulations on older buildings are just one part of his “80 x 50” plan. Cuts in carbon-dioxide emissions, he said, “would be achieved either by a voluntary action of the private sector or by mandate.” De Blasio likes mandates. The new ones—subject to city council approval—would require landlords to complete building retrofits by 2030 or face stiff fines.

Even if we stipulate that increased energy efficiency in New York buildings is a good thing, the emissions-reduction targets are financially burdensome and unrealistic. Cuomo’s appointees at the New York State Public Service Commission have mandated that buildings must slash their energy use by 600 trillion BTUs by 2030. But as economist Jonathan Lesser points out in a recent report for the Manhattan Institute, the New York Independent System Operator has projected that those energy savings will be about 51 trillion BTUs—or about one-twelfth the required amount.

Should you ever doubt the importance of the “narrative” to the modern Left, all you need to do is look around you. It’s the in the air we breathe, and the water in which we swim, attached to the products we buy and behind just about every news story we read or see. At every turn, we are admonished, hectored, harangued to get with the cultural-Marxist program.https://amgreatness.com/2017/11/16/the-suicidal-narrative-of-the-modern-environmental-left/

On a plane recently, the attendants handed out complimentary dark chocolates. The brand? Something called Endangered Species Chocolate, a company that bills its products as “the first ever chocolate bars made in America from Fairtrade certified West African cocoa beans that can be fully traced from farm to chocolate bar. ESC has committed that only fully traceable cocoa beans sustainably grown and harvested under Fairtrade standards will be used to make their chocolate.”

In case, like me, you had no idea fluffy chocolate bunnies were an endangered species, or that a guilty nibble at a Hershey bar could lay waste to vast stretches of the veldt, the company offers this helpful explanation:

The cocoa used by ESC is grown by West African farmers who follow rigorous standards for protection of workers’ rights and the environment. When a customer purchases ESC’s Fairtrade certified bars, West African farmers earn a fair price and an additional Fairtrade social premium to invest in business and community projects such as improving education and healthcare, protecting their environment and improving their economic well-being.

Who could be against that? Westerners from Dickens’ Mrs. Jellyby on have sought to improve the plight of sub-Saharan Africans, but this statement of virtue-signaling posits that West African farmers are currently not getting a fair price for their cocoa beans; in our mind’s eye, we picture some nasty Belgian—call him Mr. Kurtz—terrorizing the natives from his Congolese redoubt.

Similarly, on a recent trip to the health-food store I bought a bag of moringa, a currently voguish “superfood” of powdered plant protein. Yum. It’s made by Kuli Kuli (which, like Endangered Species Chocolate, sports a nurturing “green” logo). Here’s what the packaging has to say:

Once eaten by the ancient Greeks and Romans, moringa leaves have been used in traditional medicine for many centuries… our moringa is sustainably sourced from women’s cooperatives in West Africa, where we work to improve nutrition and livelihoods. Nourishing you, nourishing the world.

Good news is hard to find at this year’s United Nations climate conference in Bonn, Germany. Diplomats from nearly 200 countries have gathered to review progress made on the “historic” Paris climate accords, signed two years ago. But as the champagne-fueled self-congratulation of Paris recedes into memory, the agreement’s underlying fraud is becoming obvious.

In theory, international discussions, negotiations, and agreements on climate change aim to reduce global greenhouse-gas emissions and thus lessen the expected warming of the climate. In fact, the Paris accord does not even attempt to achieve this goal, except nominally. Instead, countries can pledge as much or as little climate action as they see fit, and no enforcement mechanism ensures that they deliver on their commitments. A country unhappy with its pledge can simply change it.

Operating in this framework, countries have pledged very little. Back in 2000, before all the clean-energy investments and cap-and-trade programs and carbon taxes and landmark international deals, the UN’s projection for emissions this century pointed toward a planetary warming of 3.4°C by 2100. On the eve of the Bonn summit, the UN acknowledged that, with all pledges, projected warming by 2100 still comes out to 3.2°C—and even that miniscule reduction in warming assumes compliance, which is in short supply. None of the major powers are on track to meet their pledges, and developing countries are failing to even get started. Angela Merkel, “climate chancellor” and host of this year’s conference, has been an outspoken critic of President Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris accord, but her own nation’s emissions are rising. Germany’s environmental ministry believes that the country will miss its targets badly and warns of “a disaster for Germany’s international reputation as a climate leader.”

None of this should be surprising, given what the Paris agreement actually contains, as opposed to how it was advertised. “This agreement is ambitious, with every nation setting and committing to their own specific targets,” President Obama said in 2015. That was then. Now, the New York Times explains, “many of the Paris pledges remain fairly opaque, and most nations have been vague on what specific policies they will take to meet them. There is no official mechanism for quantifying progress.”

In 2015, leaders signing the agreement felt confident that the momentum and good feeling of Paris would surmount the gaps between rhetoric and reality. The agreement, Obama said, “sends a powerful signal that the world is firmly committed to a low-carbon future,” which would help “unleash investment and innovation in clean energy at a scale we have never seen before.” But investors could read the agreement, too. Global clean-energy investment fell by 18 percent in 2016, the worst performance on record; in developing countries, the decline was 27 percent. And First World investment in Third World countries, considered critical to global progress, fell 26 percent.

They have come to Bonn, Germany, some 25,000 diplomats, scientists, and lobbyists from some 200 nations to put flesh on the bare bones of the climate agreement signed two years ago. That’s when members of the congregation, gathered in Paris, pledged to limit further global warming to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels (a target few knowledgeable observers believe is attainable).

It was Fiji’s turn to play host, but the congregation had swollen to a size the small island-nation could not accommodate them all.

The meetings, budgeted to cost $136.3 million and scheduled to run until November 17, began on a high note: a new member was added to the flock. Bashar Assad’s Syria signed on to the non-enforceable agreement, presumably intending to honor his pledge much as he had once promised to abandon the use of chemical weapons. Syria has been prevented by international sanctions from sending representatives to these conferences, and has not yet filed its plans for reducing its emissions. But with Syria becoming an accepted member of the climate fraternity, “the U.S. is now so isolated”, announced Safa Al Jayoussi, executive director of Indyact, a Lebanon-based environmental organization “that works with Arab countries on climate change,” according to the New York Times.

All religions have their rituals, and the believers in global warming have theirs. To offset the enormous carbon footprint created by the jet-setting congregants, Germany’s Angela Merkel has issued bicycles to attendees who must travel from hotel to meeting rooms, and bottles in which to put tap water, thereby making the production of 500,000 plastic cups unnecessary.

Merkel, whose shutdown of her nuclear plants has forced Germany to rely more heavily on coal and lignite (the dirtiest sort of coal), prefers increasing—yes, increasing—her country’s emissions, rather than letting it go dark when the wind don’t blow and the sun don’t shine.