For bee alarmists, Groundhog Day comes in June

Will activists finally admit their sins and break out of their pesticide-blaming time loop?

Paul Driessen

Did you think Goundhog Day only comes in February?

For anti-insecticide zealots and others in the environmentalist movement who’ve been preoccupied for years with bees and “colony collapse disorder,” it actually comes every June.  That’s when the Bee Informed Partnership – a University of Maryland-based project supported by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) – releases the results of its annual survey of honeybee colony losses and health.

In Bill Murray’s 1993 “Groundhog Day” movie, cynical TV weatherman Phil Connors is condemned to relive the same day over and over in a little Pennsylvania town until he learns the right “life lessons.” Each June, eco-campaigners work themselves into a carefully orchestrated lather over bee losses, getting caught in a time loop of endlessly repeating the same false and misguided claims about the BIP report.

Last week’s BIP report predictably garnered the usual hyperventilating headlines, sounding almost as alarming as in recent years. The 38% 2018-19 over-winter colony loss rate was the highest in the 13 years the survey has been taken. Combined with in-season (summer) honeybee colony losses of 20.5% this yielded an overall annual loss rate of 40.7% (computed using a special BIP methodology).

That’s slightly higher than 2017-18’s reported 40.1% overall loss rate and 2.9% higher than the average annual loss rate calculated since 2010. Hit the panic button.

Environmental worrywarts moved seamlessly into their annual spasm of anxiety and dire prognostication.  “Honey bees are no longer disappearing suddenly and mysteriously. They’re dying persistently, and in plain sight,” the Washington Post lamented.

Will there be enough honeybee colonies left to pollinate California’s lucrative almond crop next winter? an environmental “investigative news organization” agonized. (Ironically, but predictably, this story was posted four weeks after the USDA predicted another record almond harvest in the state.)

Is the BIP report further evidence that the hyperventilating media and eco-campaigners were correct about the “bee-pocalypse” they’ve been “documenting” for the last half-dozen years? Hardly!

First, the alarmists who routinely over-react to the annual BIP survey forget (or ignore) its limitations. As the report makes clear, the survey is entirely voluntary, returned by beekeepers who take time to fill it out. It consequently does not even purport to be a scientific sampling of American beekeepers. It is a compilation and analysis of responses from those who voluntarily self-report. The results show this.

The roughly 4,700 beekeepers who responded this year account for only about 12% of all US honeybee colonies. Professor Dennis Van Engelsdorp – founder of the Bee Informed Partnership  – showed in his own research that hobbyist and small-scale beekeepers (who account for the majority of the BIP respondents) have more severe parasite and pathogen infestations of their honeybee hives than large-scale commercial beekeepers. That increases colony loss rates.

Interestingly, while BIP survey results go up and down from year to year, the overall trend line over the survey’s first dozen years has been downward. But that may reflect small-scale beekeeper experiences.

In any case, US honeybee colony numbers aren’t shrinking; they’re growing, regardless of what the latest BIP survey results find. The USDA’s actual census of beekeepers and their colonies – which actually is systematic and scientific – shows that the overall number of US honeybee colonies grew by 4% in 2018.

Indeed, in releasing the latest BIP results, Van Engelsdorp himself said, “We’re not worried about honeybees going extinct.  We’re worried about commercial beekeepers going extinct.” Hive infections, long distance travel and other aspects of the business have driven more beekeepers to other professions.

Second, there’s good news in the latest Bee Informed Partnership survey. Finally, after years of misleading media and activist rhetoric seeking to pin the blame for honey bees’ problems on agricultural pesticides –neonicotinoid insecticides in particular – attention is now focusing where it should have been all along: on Varroa destructor mites. These tiny, nasty critters and the multiple virulent diseases they spread to honeybee colonies are the foremost scourge of our beloved, and vital, insect pollinators.

This year’s BIP survey announcement and most of the resulting press coverage emphasized this point.

It’s about time. Neonics have become the world’s most widely used insecticides because they work – and pose minimal risks to bees. Some are sprayed on fruits and vegetables, but nearly 90% are used as seed coatings for corn, wheat, canola and other crops. They are absorbed into plant tissues as crops grow.

That means they target only pests that actually feed on the crops, particularly during early growth stages. Since they don’t wash off, they reduce the need for multiple sprays with insecticides that truly can harm bees, birds, fish, other animals and non-pest insects. And they are barely detectable in pollen and nectar – which is why neonic residues are well below levels that can adversely affect bees.

That makes it ironic, and outrageous, that relentless anti-pesticide campaigners – especially those who profess to be alarmed about the “plight of the bumblebee” and want to ban neonics – have said virtually nothing about Varroa mites. Nor have they proposed any plan to deal with this scourge.

Thankfully, recent USDA research has identified a promising new approach of using RNA interference (RNAi) to disrupt the reproduction of another bee parasite, Nosema ceranae – the honeybee’s second-worst scourge. USDA is also reporting progress in efforts to breed more Varroa-resistant or Varroa-tolerant honey bees, which somehow have better hygienic habits: removing mites from one other.

Activists and journalists concerned about bees and pollinator health should have focused on this all along – particularly since available Varroa treatments no longer work as well, due to the mite’s uncanny ability to develop resistance to treatments. Instead, years of energy and millions of dollars have been wasted pursuing a wrong-headed crusade against neonic insecticides that are irrelevant to any challenges facing honey bees and other pollinators. 

Phil Connors finally escaped from his time loop after he ended his disdain for small town Punxsutawney, began performing good deeds and told Rita he truly loved her. Maybe now – finally – self-professed bee advocates and environmental crusaders will wake up from their Groundhog-Day-in-June time loop and devote some time, effort and honesty to addressing the real problems that affect honey and wild bees.

Maybe they will also stop treating modern conventional farming like an evil pariah, and organic farming like a planetary savior. Maybe they will stop repeating the organic food industry’s Big Lie: that it doesn’t use pesticides. In fact, as Professor David Zaruk explains on his RiskMonger.com website, organic farmers employ a dozen highly toxic “natural” pesticides and over 3,000 other “approved” pesticides.

Several are highly toxic to bees: acetic acid, copper sulfate, pyrethrins, hydrogen peroxide, azidirachtin, rotenone, citronella oil, eucalyptus oil and garlic extract, and spinosad. Several are very toxic to humans: boron can affect people’s brain, liver or heart; rotenone has been linked to Parkinson’s disease; nicotine sulfate is a neurotoxin that has actually killed several gardeners; and copper sulfate can readily and severely injure a user’s brain, liver, kidneys, stomach and intestinal linings, skin and eyes ... or even kill!

But again, Varroa is the villain, the real, enduring threat to bees – not pesticides, synthetic or organic.

Unfortunately, persuading environmentalists to acknowledge these realities is not likely. They have too much ideology, power and prestige invested in their campaigns against synthetic pesticides and conventional farming – to say nothing of the billions of dollars they’ve gotten from organic interests.

Bottom line? Lies, deception and fraud are unethical, immoral and illegal no matter who engages in it, devises the strategies or finances the campaigns. These environmentalist campaigns have been employed over and over because they work – and because too many legislators, regulators, judges and journalists have repeated, approved and applauded them. It will be an uphill battle to change that dynamic.

Let’s hope a few brave lawmakers start applying the same standards of truth and ethics across the board.

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of many articles on the environment. He has degrees in geology, ecology and environmental law

‘Children killer’ glyphosate found in Cheerios? Experts dismantle Environmental Working Group’s herbicide food residue study

Cameron English, Jon Entine | June 17, 2019

Last week, on June 12 2019, the organic industry-funded Environmental Working Group (EWG) issued a news release that claimed, “Major food companies like General Mills continue to sell popular children’s breakfast cereals and other foods contaminated with troubling levels of glyphosate, the cancer-causing ingredient in the herbicide Roundup.”

EWG’s announcement is the third of its kind focusing on the alleged dangers of glyphosate residues in our food. It was immediately trumpeted by fringe activist groups—that’s par for the course—but was also covered, almost entirely uncritically, by mainstream sources, such as CNN:

What’s the news here?

Like its predecessors, released in July and October 2018, this EWG ‘study’ was based on a “round of tests” that was not peer reviewed by independent experts. Its scientists claimed that they found dozens of instances in which food it tested did not pass its “children’s health benchmark” for assessing potential exposure level hazards.

EWG did not mention that its ‘benchmark’ is entirely made up, has no clear scientific basis and is at odds with historically established and globally recognized benchmarks used by regulators in every country. The EWG “safety threshold” is 100 times lower than even the most conservative cut-off established by oversight agencies around the world, including the EPA. Curiously but not surprisingly considering EWG’s historical willingness to distort science, the threshold it settled upon just ‘happens’ to coincide with the infinitesimally trace amounts of glyphosate it found on Cheerios. ............To Read More....

Science Saves an Old Chestnut

Genetic engineering rescues a tree from a threatening fungus.

By Hank Campbell June 19, 2019

A forest of chestnut trees ravaged by blight in Luray, Va. Photo: Library of Congress

 

A blight-tolerant American chestnut tree is the latest example of what the science community has begun to call a GRO—a genetically rescued organism. In the past century approximately four billion chestnut trees have been lost in the U.S. due to blight that spread when the Cryphonectria parasitica fungus arrived with chestnut trees imported from Asia. A once-dominant hardwood species is now rare.

Nature can be fickle, but using science to engineer solutions allows precise methods to combat natural pathogens. Some species are resistant to the fungus, and that’s why it makes sense to use transgenic tools to help the chestnut tree utilize beneficial genes from other plants—essentially vaccinating against the fungus.

It’s all part of a 28-year effort by the nonprofit American Chestnut Research and Restoration Project, led by the State University of New York’s College of Environmental Science and Forestry. Scientists use a gene from bread wheat that produces an enzyme called oxalate oxidase, which prevents the fungus from forming cankers on plant stems. The enzyme is found in all grain crops, plus bananas, strawberries and more..........To Read More.....

Growing evidence of wind farms’ horrific toll on wildlife: This time from India

Wind Turbines: The New “Apex Predator”

2019-06-19 By Bonner Cohen, Ph. D.|General Information|3 Comments  @ CFACT 
Eagles, hawks, bats – these are among the most prominently cited avian wildlife regularly slaughtered by industrial-sized wind-power facilities that – thanks to taxpayer subsidies and state renewable-energy mandates — continue to spread like wildfire across rural America.

The affliction is by no means restricted to the United States, however. A new study sheds light on the carnage giant wind turbines are inflicting on wildlife in India. Researchers at the Indian Institute for Science at Bengaluru studied bird and lizard populations at three wind turbine sites in Western Ghats. They found that the mass killing of avian predators by wind turbines is having a “ripple effect” across the food chain, with lizards and small mammals adjusting to substantially reduced numbers of predators in the sky

Wind Turbines: The New “Apex Predator”

As reported by the Daily Mail last November (and otherwise largely ignored by the media), researchers in India found almost four times fewer buzzards, hawks, and kites in areas with wind farms – a loss of about 75%. Startled by the data, scientists are now referring to wind turbines as “the new apex predator.”

In areas without wind turbines about 19 birds were spotted every three hours, while in areas with the spinning blades the number dropped to five. Fewer winged predators have been good news for the fan-throated lizard, a species found only in certain areas of the Indian Sub-Continent. The lizard is usually easy pickings for hawks, buzzards, and other birds, but with their numbers reduced by the wind turbines, the lizard’s numbers are multiplying.

“We have known from many studies that wind turbines kill birds and bats. They kill them and disrupt their movement. But we took that one step further and discovered that it affects lizards, too,” study coauthor Maria Thaker told the Daily Mail.

“Every time a top predator is removed or added, unexpected effect trickle through the ecosystem,” she added. “What is actually happening here is that wind turbines are akin to adding a top predator to the ecosystem.”

The study, which was published in Nature Ecology and Evolution, compared populations of raptors and lizards on a plateau that has had a wind farm on it for about 20 years to an adjacent valley that has no turbines.

“Humankind’s Most Pervasive Influence on the Natural World”

A recent study by an international team of scientists found the decline of apex predators is” arguably humankind’s most pervasive influence on the natural world.”

None of this is of any real concern to green groups, such as the World Wildlife Fund, who parrot the party line that the real threat to wildlife is “climate change,” not industrial-scale wind facilities and giant solar arrays they have been supporting for decades.

While India has made great strides in electrification in recent years, much still needs to be done. According to official data, “only 1,417 of India’s 18,452 villages or 7.3% of the total, have 100% household connectivity, and about 31% are still in the dark,” Forbes reported last year.

India’s future should not be dependent on interment, unreliable, unaffordable, and, as we now know, environmentally destructive wind power.

Author

• Bonner Cohen, Ph. D.
  Bonner R. Cohen, Ph. D., is a senior policy analyst with CFACT.

Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!

Environmental Economics: A Missing Discipline

June 18, 2019 Posted by Dr. Jay Lehr & Tom Harris @ America Out Loud                     
                 

Everyone wants the cleanest possible environment. But there are competing problems to solve and scientific issues to resolve. Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels (CCRII-Fossil Fuels), a 780-page report issued last year by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), looked at the variables that should be considered in the development of effective environmental protection programs. In this article, with permission of the editors and the publisher of CCRII-Fossil Fuels, The Heartland Institute, we demonstrate how complex a seemingly simple problem can be.
 

As a family, a town, a state or a nation, all decisions to spend economic resources (money) must be considered in conjunction with all reasonable alternatives to where the money could be used more beneficially. CCRII-Fossil Fuels explains:

“The most valuable concept economists bring is opportunity cost, the value of something that must be given up to acquire or achieve something else. Every choice has a corresponding opportunity cost. By revealing those costs, economics can help policymakers discover cost-effective responses to environmental problems, including climate change (Block, 1990; Markandya and Richardson, 1992; Libecap and Steckel, 2011).”

Those who are convinced global warming will destroy life as we know it are willing to spend anything to stop it, while those who believe it to be a non-problem do not want to spend any money on it at all. With over $1 billion spent every day on ‘climate finance’ across the world, it is clear that the alarmists have been winning so far. 
 

The market plays a huge role in determining the actual costs of what either side wishes to be done. In the case of countering man-caused global warming, were it to exist, carbon dioxide (CO₂) sequestration (i.e., capture and storage) is a major activity alarmists want governments and industry to commit to. But the public only hear it referred to as ‘carbon sequestration,’ which encourages people to think we are eliminating coal dust, lamp black, and the like, while in fact it is getting rid of life-supporting CO₂.
 

The sequestration of CO₂ carries exorbitant costs that has never been affordable, though you may hear Exxon Mobile touting it daily in radio and TV ads to show they are a ‘green company.’ That is apparently a form of ‘virtue signaling,’ which Dictionary.com defines as “the sharing of one’s point of view on a social or political issue, often on social media, in order to garner praise or acknowledgment of one’s righteousness from others who share that point of view, or to passively rebuke those who do not.” In Exxon’s case, it seems to be a cover for the fact that their primary business is the production of fossil fuels. And make no mistake about it, enforced ‘carbon sequestration’ would increase the cost of all fossil fuels, especially inexpensive coal-fired electricity. Indeed, ‘carbon sequestration’ is really a synonym for ‘no coal at all.’
 

The single most overlooked aspect of environmental economics is the unintended consequences of the actions we take. In our homes, there are likely few such consequences, but in towns, states, and countries operating through regulations there are always unintended consequences, most of which are not positive. Predicting how people and markets will react to new environmental laws is as difficult as forecasting the stock market for the very same reasons—there are too many variables and no one can accurately predict the response of the human mind to changes in circumstances.
 

Regardless, regulations often fail to achieve their objectives due to conflicting incentives of individuals and government and the lack of reliable local knowledge. Outlawing both plastic straws in California and the sale of sugared beverages larger than 16 oz. in New York City are cases in point. Government bureaucracies predictably fall victim to what is called ‘regulatory capture’ by special interests benefitting from a regulation, much of which is referred to as ‘rent seeking’ by economists.
 

Government’s ability to promote the goals of some citizens at the expense of others leads to resources being diverted from asset production into political action. Many argue that the real goal of today’s environmentalism is actually worldwide socialism.
 

Another huge worry regarding excessive government environmental regulations are policies that erode the protection of property rights, thereby reducing the incentive and sometimes the ability of owners to protect and conserve their own resources. Paradoxically, this results in a reduction in the ability to protect resources economically. 
 

Mistakes made when the free market controls the protection of the environment on a cost basis tend to be small and quickly self-correcting. Mistakes made by governments tend to be immense and frequently have long term deleterious impacts.
 

The government protection of property rights always wins the day for environmental protection. It is a fact that enables the United States to be superior in environmental protection to other nations, as our property rights are ingrained in our Constitution. We are one of the few nations in which the ownership of land grants ownership to the minerals beneath that land. This is quite different to countries such as Australia and most EU and Latin American countries where mineral rights are exclusively state-owned. 
 

Unfortunately, the public rarely studies the details involved in what they may generally see as “anything to protect the environment must be good.” They have little incentive, therefore, to become knowledgeable about the details of public policy issues. Economists call this Rational Ignorance. It has resulted in governments enabling a great deal of legislation that has done little for the environment while impeding economic progress for the nation. It is these unproductive regulations which President Donald Trump and EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler are attempting to undue for the public benefit without endangering the environment.
 

This is far more important that most people realize. CCR-II-Fossil Fuels shows “how prosperity makes environmental protection a higher public goal and provides the resources needed to achieve it.” The report explains:

“Once basic demands for food, clothing, and shelter are met, people demand cleaner air, cleaner streams, more outdoor recreation, and the protection of wild lands. With higher incomes, citizens place higher priorities on environmental objectives.”

CCR-II-Fossil Fuels details Environmental Kuznets Curves (EKCs), which demonstrate how environmental degradation rises with national per-capita income until a certain critical point is reached, after which the environment starts to improve.
 

---

CCR-II-Fossil Fuels cites Grossman and Krueger (1995) who:

“conducted an extensive literature review of air quality over time and around the world and found ambient air quality tended to deteriorate until average per-capita income reached about $6,000 to $8,000 per year (in 1985 dollars) and then began to sharply improve. Later research confirmed similar relationships for a wide range of countries and air quality, water quality, and other measures of environmental protection.”

Before EKCs were created, many informed people believed that wealthier countries damaged their environment more than poorer ones. The solution was to de-industrialization and reduce incomes, they maintained. But we now know that, while factors such as levels of educational achievement, income equality, and the strength of democratic institutions play a role, environmental protection is strongly linked with prosperity.
 

Indeed, the record shows throughout the world that environmental protection increases and thrives in the strongest economies. Anything that damages prosperity will concurrently damage the environment. Trump was completely correct when he said in his official 2019 Earth Day statement:

“Environmental protection and economic prosperity go hand in hand. A strong market economy is essential to protecting our critical natural resources and fostering a legacy of conservation.“

About Dr. Jay Lehr & Tom Harris

Dr. Jay Lehr is Senior Policy Analyst with the International Climate Science Coalition and former Science Director of The Heartland Institute. He is an internationally renowned scientist, author and speaker who has testified before Congress on dozens of occasions on environmental issues and consulted with nearly every agency of the national government, as well as many foreign countries. After graduating from Princeton University at the age of 20 with a degree in Geological Engineering, he went on to receive the nation’s first Ph.D. in Groundwater Hydrology from the University of Arizona. He later became executive director of the National Association of Groundwater Scientists and Engineers. Tom Harris is Executive Director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition. He has 40 years experience as a mechanical engineer/project manager, science and technology communications professional, technical trainer and S&T advisor to a former Opposition Senior Environment Critic in Canada’s Parliament. He is currently a policy advisor to The Heartland Institute.

It’s the sun stupid

By Dr. Jay Lehr | June 20th, 2019 | Climate | 5 Comments @ CFACT

The Climate of the Earth has been constantly changing during its entire 4.6 billion year history. Variations in our planet’s average temperature due to natural causes have ranged over a span of 60 degrees Fahrenheit. Most of the periodic temperature increases and decreases observed in human history are consistent with variations in the output of energy from our Sun. The mild heating and cooling periods seen since 1900 (each less than 2 degrees Fahrenheit) reflect changes in solar activity. The temperature of the Earth has never been constant.

Continental positions determine the distribution and circulation of heat on Earth and have a major impact on our planet’s long term Climate. As little as 70 years ago if a child or adult made note of the fact that our current continents could be fitted together like a jig saw puzzle, they were laughed at but in the1950s scientists proved that our continents had historically resided in different places on the globe. Sometimes the continents were near the equator, sometimes near the poles, sometimes they merged into a single land mass.

The largest changes take place over time periods of 20 to 100 million years. These changes, both gradual and catastrophic are associated with continental motions due to plate tectonics or continental drift.

Periodic changes in the Earth’s orbit also influence how energy that the Earth receives from the sun is distributed, resulting in our current era of recurring Ice Ages. The Earth is now experiencing the high temperature end of the latest Ice Age cycle. Both deep-sea sediment and ice core samples show that ice ages take place every 22,000 years. The Earth’s axis wobbles around a tilt angle of zero degrees in a cycle that requires 22,000 years to complete. At one end of the cycle the North Pole faces the Sun in the winter, while at the other end, the North Pole faces the Sun in the summer. The tilt angle relative to the sun also varies over a 41,000 year cycle.The annual orbit of the Earth around the Sun cycles between circular and elliptical every 100,000 years. These are called Milankovich cycles for the Serbian scientist who discovered them a century ago. Man’s presence and activities are insignificant as compared to natural cycles.

Most of the warming and cooling trends observed during human history operate on time scales of a ten to a thousand years resulting in temperature shifts spanning a range of about 7 degrees Fahrenheit . They arise from changes in output of energy and radiation from our Sun, according long-term and short-term cycles of solar activity. These cycles, have been documented using the recorded history of sunspots, aurora observations, radio-carbon dating techniques, and changes in solar radiance.

Changes in solar activity affect the stream of electrons, protons, and alpha particles emitted by the Sun which are called the solar wind. These changes have been observable in the form of auroras and more recently in the disruption of radio communications and electromagnetic devices.

Changes in average global temperature since 1900 are much more consistent with oscillations in solar activity and the average amount of energy that we receive from the sun than they are with the exponential increase in fossil fuel emissions. The Earth’s temperature increased from 1880 to 1935 as the Little Ice Age ended. It decreased from 1935 to 1980 and increased from 1980 to 1990 and has since leveled off. The temperature did not continuously and dramatically increase to mirror the increasing CO2 emissions.


Author

• Dr. Jay Lehr
  Jay Lehr is the author of more than 1,000 magazine and journal articles and 36 books. He is an internationally renowned scientist, author and speaker who has testified before Congress on dozens of occasions on environmental issues and consulted with nearly every agency of the national government, as well as many foreign countries. He is a leading authority on groundwater hydrology.

The National Environmental Policy Act Belongs in a Museum

By Kenny Stein June 19, 2019@ Real Clear Energy

Dinosaur lovers and fans of prehistoric titans like the T-Rex eagerly awaited the reopening of the Hall of Fossils in Washington, DC’s Natural History Museum this month. But when children and parents visit the 31,000 square-foot building with 700 different specimens on display, one of the country’s most prominent fossils will be missing. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is not a dinosaur in the animal or reptile sense, but this old relic has certainly earned a rightful place among the frightful remains of long ago.

NEPA is a bureaucratic force of nature that predates even the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Its effect is seen when legislative calls to revitalize America’s infrastructure are treated as a joke, and with little wonder. It’s well known that even if a trillion-dollar infrastructure bill were passed, prospective projects would be held up for years due to NEPA and a host of other regulatory beasts. If America wants to get serious about energy infrastructure, political leaders first must get serious about retiring or significantly reforming NEPA.

Instead of rebuilding our country, Washington has spent decades building a dense thicket of rules, regulations and red tape, President Trump said in his remarks on regulatory relief. He went on, “No longer can we allow these rules and regulations to tie down our economy, chain up our prosperity, and sap our great American spirit.” And he’s right. NEPA is often referred to as the Magna Carta of environmental law. It’s a prime target for deregulation.

NEPA was originally intended as a way to inform federal agencies of environmental concerns and analyze the potential environmental impacts of prospective infrastructure or development projects. But like many regulatory policies, NEPA soon ballooned into a massive bureaucratic mess. What used to be a 12-month review process for larger projects, now takes six years, on average. Ten-page reports transformed into thousand-page long tomes. The exploratory costs exploded to the point where NEPA compliance has an annual price tag of one billion dollars in direct federal expenditures

And it’s not just highways and bridges that are being held up. The costs associated with regulatory overreach are impacting American energy. Natural gas pipelines are facing delays being built despite the advantages they provide in terms of efficiency, safety, and their ability to deliver energy to those who need it at exactly the moment when they need it.

Last year, a cold snap in New England exposed the shortage of pipeline capacity, when a tanker of Russian gas arrived in Boston Harbor to provide life-saving energy to a freezing state. All over the country, developers have been trying to build natural gas pipelines, oftentimes winning federal approval only to be denied permits years later from states citing nonsensical regulations.

NEPA has tied up hundreds of energy and transit projects worth hundreds of billions of dollars that would improve the lives of average Americans.

Despite the temporary media attention around infrastructure with the discussion in Congress of a bipartisan, trillion-dollar infrastructure bill in the future, the reality is that regulations like NEPA will always undercut any progress. Energy and transit projects must be a priority to be planned and built within years, not decades. If the president wants to really build gleaming roads and bridges, he must start by addressing the historic relic that is NEPA.

Kenny Stein is the Director of Policy and Federal Affairs for the  American Energy Alliance

Energy & Environmental Newsletter: June 17, 2019

By John Droz, Jr. -- June 17, 2019

The Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions (AWED) is an informal coalition of individuals and organizations interested in improving national, state, and local energy and environmental policies. Our premise is that technical matters like these should be addressed by using Real Science (please consult WiseEnergy.org for more information).
A key element of AWED’s efforts is public education. Towards that end, every three weeks we put together a newsletter to balance what is found in the mainstream media about energy and the environment. We appreciate MasterResource for their assistance in publishing this information.
Some of the more important articles in this issue are:

The Greens’ Goal has Always Been to Make Renewable Energy Expensive
Combined-Cycle Natural Gas Power Beats Everything Else
The Levelized Cost of Electricity from Existing Generation Resources
Observations on the Alliance for Market Solutions’ ‘conservative’ case for a carbon tax
Economists Have Been “Useful Idiots” for the Green Socialists
Infrasound — a Growing Liability for Wind Energy
Study: Wind turbines kill 75% of nearby buzzards, hawks and kites
Energy solution hinges on better technology
Reforming State Utility Regulations
Farmland Owner (& MD) Encourages People NOT to Lease Wind Turbines
Solar intermittency: upbeat carbon reduction estimates miss the reality
Editorial: Governor Cuomo’s ‘renewable’ fiasco
The CO2 Hockey Stick
Why we do nothing to prepare for climate change
Study: Human CO2 Emissions Have Little Effect on Atmospheric CO2
Calling Climate Change ‘Catastrophic’ Isn’t Backed By Science
The Plan is No Plan: Why the GOP Shouldn’t Do Anything on Climate
Climate change has started to influence our language. Here’s how
Report: Global Sea-Level Rise — An Evaluation of the Data
A fine Letter about inaccurate climate change reporting
Climate security confusion abounds
Report: A Policy Maker’s Guide to Climate Change

Greed Energy Economics:

 

The Greens’ Goal has Always Been to Make Renewable Energy Expensive
Combined-Cycle Natural Gas Power Beats Everything Else
The Levelized Cost of Electricity from Existing Generation Resources
Observations on the Alliance for Market Solutions’ ‘conservative’ case for a carbon tax
Economists Have Been “Useful Idiots” for the Green Socialists
The $100+ billion renewable energy fleecing of America
Fracking Saves Low-Income Americans’ Lives
Hidden Costs of Renewables Hurt the Poor
Green Dole: Renewable Energy Jobs Plunge By A Third
Green energy to cost Navajos tens of millions and 900 good jobs
Public Service Company of New Mexico’s zero carbon math problem
EIA data: wind & solar met 3% of U.S. energy after $50 billion in subsidies
Global Wind Day is coming: should you cheer or cry?
Markets can handle climate change
Shutting down middle and blue-collar America
N.C. has issued $1± billion in solar tax credits
The Cost Of This Net Zero Madness? Even A Trillion Is An Underestimate
Wind PTC Increases to 2.5 Cents per Kilowatt Hour for 2019

Turbine Health Matters:

 

Infrasound — a Growing Liability for Wind Energy
Study: Air Quality & Health in PA Not Impacted by Shale Development
Understanding Fracturing Fluid

Renewable Energy Destroying Ecosystems:

 

Study: Wind turbines kill 75% of nearby buzzards, hawks and kites
Wind projects downing avian visitors

Miscellaneous Energy News:

 

Energy solution hinges on better technology
Reforming State Utility Regulations
Farmland Owner (& MD) Encourages People NOT to Lease Wind Turbines
Solar intermittency: upbeat carbon reduction estimates miss the reality
Editorial: Governor Cuomo’s ‘renewable’ fiasco
Coal to Gas Switching Reduces CO2 Emissions by 15%
The Big Lie: The future is in Battery Electric Vehicles
Oregon puts more farmland off limits to solar
Bipartisan Politicization of EPA
World’s Most Capable Offshore Wind Turbine Installation Vessel
Do wind turbines contribute to Great Lakes flooding?
The World’s Largest Offshore Wind Farm Just Came Online
Horizontally drilled gas wells dominate U.S. tight formation production
New Mexico should fully embrace its energy renaissance
The NYS Green New Deal – Where’s the Plan? There Is No Plan
Commentary: NY Energy report has many flaws
CEO Linked To Failed Wind Project Indicted On Federal Charges
Climate Alarm May Help German Communists To Power, CDU Leader Warns
Welcome to the ‘wild west’ of wind law
The World Returns To Coal
Chill Wind Of Reality Blows Through The Green Power Lobby
Small Modular Reactors: interview with NuScale
Superior Nuclear Presentations given in NC
Short Video: Joe Biden’s Climate Plan Betrays the Working Class
O’Rourke: “Oil will be replaced by wind power“
Zero Emissions Claims Don’t Pan Out for Electric Vehicles
Environmentalists criticize NYC plan to buy hydropower
Safety crackdown after string of fires hit wind and solar batteries
Industrial Wind Goes Low in Western New York

Miscellaneous Energy News— Rare Earths, etc.:

 

China Controls Global Rare Earth Mineral Trade
Reliance on Foreign Minerals Leaves America at Risk
China’s Latest Trade Threat Reignites Concerns Over US Mineral Dependency
Rare Earth Elements Crisis Could End Green Energy Revolution
Short audio: China threatens to cut off US rare earth metal supply

Miscellaneous Energy News— Green Manifesto:

 

Six Issues the Promoters of the Green New Deal Have Overlooked
The Green New Deal’s epic transportation and commerce fail
The Green New Deal: A Grave Threat to America

The UN Extinction Report:

 

The UN’s extinction warning doesn’t add up
Current Apocalypse Forecast
Am I a denier, a human extinction denier?
Short Video: UN Extinction Prediction Exposed
The UN’s species extinction fraud

Manmade Global Warming Articles:

 

The CO2 Hockey Stick
Why we do nothing to prepare for climate change
Study: Human CO2 Emissions Have Little Effect on Atmospheric CO2
Calling Climate Change ‘Catastrophic’ Isn’t Backed By Science
The Plan is No Plan: Why the GOP Shouldn’t Do Anything on Climate
Climate change has started to influence our language. Here’s how
Report: Global Sea-Level Rise — An Evaluation of the Data
A fine Letter about inaccurate climate change reporting
Climate security confusion abounds
Report: A Policy Maker’s Guide to Climate Change
13^th Climate Change Conference (Wash DC: July 25)
Greenpeace’s Ranking of US Presidential Candidates on Climate Change
Democrats Have Banned ‘Climate Change’ as Presidential Debate Focus
The Lockstep March of Professional Societies to Promote the Climate Change Scare
Climate Finding’s Science Fails IQA Requirements
An “Attack On Climate Science”? It’s Nothing Of The Sort
Amazon’s Board of Directors say no to climate change proposal (!)
Study: What Humans Contribute to Atmospheric CO2
Study: Carbon reservoirs on ocean floor caused global warming before — and could do it again
Study: Phytoplankton are much bigger players in CO2 levels than realized
CATO shuts down prominent center that challenged climate change claims
Sea level will rise 3 to 5 meters by 2100 due to the sun, not CO2
Amidst Global Warming Hysteria, NASA Expects Global Cooling
Video: Climate hearing at US Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
The education of Greta Thunberg: climate naivety meets reality
Leading scientists set out resource challenge of meeting net zero emissions in the UK
What This Vatican Climate Change Speaker Is Calling For Is Very Scary
Dirty Rotten Climate Scandal
10 Of 10 Coastal Antarctic Stations Show Zero Warming Over Past Decades. Failed Scientists Need To Resign
Place Blame for Recent Tornadoes Where It Belongs
Scientist proved climate change isn’t causing extreme weather — so politicians attacked
And Finally: Climate Change — What Can’t It Do?
Cycles, not carbon dioxide, control climate
Op-Ed: Climate Change Has Been Politicized
The Paris Agreement Is An Utter Flop
White House might make federal scientists debate skeptics
What If Evangelical Students Heard More than One Side of the Global Warming Debate?
Empirical Evidence Refutes Greenhouse Gas Theory

Science, Education, Politics, and Miscellaneous Related Articles:

 

Coalition Seeks to Expose Communist Infiltration of Democratic Party
Destroy Capitalism to Save the Climate
Elites Have No One to Blame for Populism but Themselves
House Judiciary Committee Hearing on Hate Crimes — Candace Owens
Environmentalism: it Was Always About Achieving World Government
PC insanity may mean the end of American universities
Flooding ourselves with valuable water
The Myth Of The Green Wave
Can Americans ‘Handle the Truth’ About Individual Achievement Differences?
Millennial Attitudes Are Out of Sync with Economic Realities
Politicized Science
Doxxing: The Newest Strategy To Destroy Scientists
Read Hayek as if Your Children’s Lives Depend on It
The European Slide Toward Irrelevance
Mass Attorney General Sued over Use of Bloomberg-Funded Attorneys
US Chamber Leadership Changes Announced
Barr’s Courageous Challenge to the FBI Praetorian Guard
Climate Hysteria Threatens To Split U.S. Democrats
EU hit with political polarization
Short Video: Big Tech is Big Brother
Short Video: Passions and Power
Chemistry Papers Retracted Due To Plagiarism, Data Manipulation

See Prior AWED Newsletters

German Greens look to ban all industrial farming

Jorg Luyken, 16 June 2019 

The Green party in Germany has said it intends to ban industrial farming as part of a wide-ranging and costly package to combat climate change should they come to power.

Katrin Goering-Eckardt, the party’s leader in the Germany parliament, said her party would establish a fund worth at least €100 billion to finance climate projects including dam construction, reforestation and environmentally friendly transportation projects.

Ms Goering-Eckardt did not go into further details on a timeline for the prohibition of intensively reared meat.

But the proposal is likely to stoke up debate over whether the Greens are still Germany’s Verbotspartei (prohibition party), a nickname they gained in 2013 due to a misjudged plan to introduce a weekly “veggie day”.

Last week Christian Lindner, the leader of the pro-business Free Democrats, warned that the Greens “dream of a meat-less country.”...............To Read More....

 

Solar Power to Hit the Wall in Nevada

June 18, 2019 By Norman Rogers

Solar power and wind power are the dominant methods of generating electricity that are acceptable to the extreme left. The left calls its acceptable methods of generating electricity “renewable energy.” The definition of renewable energy, enshrined in renewable portfolio laws in many states, tells us what the left likes and doesn’t like. It is very arbitrary. The general idea of renewable energy is that it doesn’t use fuel that could run out and it doesn’t emit CO2. But the left breaks its own rules as is convenient.

For example, nuclear power doesn’t emit CO2 and running out of fuel is strictly theoretical. Nuclear is also reliable with steady delivery of electricity. The prospects for new technology in the nuclear universe are very bright. Yet, nuclear is arbitrarily banned in renewable portfolio laws. Incredibly, most renewable portfolio laws effectively ban hydroelectric power too, because the environmental left does not like dams.

Geothermal power, utilizing hot rocks underground as a source of energy, is accepted as renewable, even though the “fuel” can and does run out as the rocks cool under the pressure of removing the heat to make electricity. Geothermal only works if rare good sites are found.......... To Read More......

Why Should We Accept Corrupt Government?

June 17, 2019 by George McClellan, Historian, Political Observer

In light of the unraveling of the corruption inherent in the “Administrative Deep State,” it’s past time for a serious rethinking of the need of a giant federal administrative state and reexamine the common sense methods of governing the framers gave us to rule ourselves.

 

Article1, of the Constitution has already laid out the basic outline for such a republican government as the founders created. While taking apart the monstrosity that politicians have engineered over the decades that changed that original form of government might be painful, it’s far less painful then the future that awaits us if we don’t. Who governs, the people or Socialists?

 

The Administrative state and its regulators, a creation of previous congress’s, have grown into a bureaucracy so entrenched that worker’s can’t even be fired. They lurk in the darkness of their own regulations and use their powers to punish those who fail to comply. Regulators are great for making and executing rules and regulations, and taxing, but not so good at designing those regulations to advance unproven political theories, that most often come undone..............The EPA and IRS comes to mind as fascist agency’s. The EPA has been tweaked but the IRS only suffers changes of top leadership. No one gets fired, no one goes to jail.........

 

Trump has thrown a wrench into the gears of socialisms advancement. Socialists are reeling in confusion but don’t count on them staying there. A revolution is coming. The question is, who’s going to lead it, them or us?.....................To Read More....

Coffee will Kill You, Until it Won’t, and Other Fake Health News

Brian Joondeph June 18, 2019

Every week there is another health pronouncement saying what is now good for you and what is going to kill you. Unfortunately, the “what” is often interchangeable -- what was supposed to kill you last week is now suddenly good for you or vice versa.

Foods, supplements, and activities, all studied extensively and determined to be either good or bad, then subject to a new study, with the opposite conclusion. How can this be? Is the science that fickle? Or is this lousy research?

Some studies note an association which they spin as causation, like determining that older ladies who play bingo often have blue hair, an association that has nothing to do with cause and effect. Other studies are based on computer models which like most climate models, fail miserably at predicting future events.

Let’s take a look at some of the settled medical science that quickly became fake news............ To Read More

Cartoon of the Day

Glaciers are Outliving the Environmentalist Who Predicted Their Doom

Won’t someone save the environmentalists?
 

June 12, 2019 Daniel Greenfield 

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

"This August I visited Glacier National Park in Montana," Gianna Kelly, the founder of Climb for Conservation, wrote in the Huffington Post. "I am still stunned to have learned the following fact:  by 2020, no glaciers will exist in Glacier National Park."

Kelly, who had worked for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, wrote that back in the first year of the Obama administration. It might stun her more to learn that Obama is out of the White House and that the glaciers of Glacier National Park are still there and waiting to be visited.
Throughout the Obama era, visitors to Glacier National Park were frequently harangued with false claims that the glaciers would all be gone in a decade. These warnings decorated dioramas and trash cans even as the hysterical propaganda become more ridiculous with every passing year.

The snow lay heavy on Logan Pass, when I arrived in July 2017. Visitors stomped through thick snow to reach the Hidden Lake Overlook. The alpine meadows of the Hanging Gardens didn’t live up to their name. Instead of the wildflowers that most visitors expected, there were nearly endless fields of white. Mountain goats, unaware that they were threatened by the supposed rising temperatures that were warming Glacier’s glaciers into extinction, eyed us suspiciously as we tried not to slip on the ice.

Sperry Glacier, a frequent target for environmentalist doommongers, was still there in the distance........To Read More....

Reality bites Joe Biden’s “Clean Energy Revolution”

Tallying its huge impacts on our energy, industries, living standards and personal freedoms

By Paul Driessen

Presidential candidate Joe Biden recently announced his “Plan for a Clean Energy Revolution and Environmental Justice.” While it might be viewed as a Green New Deal Lite, the plan would inflict enormous economic, environmental and societal pain on most of the nation, for no climate benefits.

First, as I’ve pointed out here and elsewhere, Mr. Biden’s “climate emergency” exists in computer models and alarmist reports, but not in the Real World windows. Tornadoes, hurricanes, droughts, floods, melting ice and rising seas are no more frequent or severe than humanity has experienced many times before.

Before we destroy our energy and economic system, we need to see solid, irrefutable proof that we face an actual climate crisis – and be able to debate and cross examine those who make such claims. So far, instead of a debate, climate crisis skeptics just get vilified and threatened with prosecution.

Second, anytime you hear the term “environmental justice,” you know someone is trying to create a new category of victims, sow more discord along racial and economic lines, and punish someone new in the name of “justice.” While we still have pockets of pollution, America’s cars, air and water have been cleaned up dramatically since 1970. Moreover, the best way to prevent, survive and recover from any disaster is to have the energy, wealth and technologies that fossil fuels continue to make possible.

Third, there’s nothing clean, green, renewable or sustainable about wind, solar or battery power. Those technologies require enormous amounts of land, concrete, steel and other raw materials – and many of their most critical materials are extracted and processed using child labor and near-slave wages for adults, with few or no workplace safety rules, and with horrific impacts on land, air and water quality. 

Fourth, the Biden plan would cost many times the “$1.7 trillion in federal funds over ten years” that his talking points use to entice voters: dollars, lost jobs, lower living standards and fewer freedoms.

The former VP would rejoin the Paris climate treaty; reverse many Trump corporate tax cuts; seek or impose multiple mandates, “enforcement mechanisms” and “legally binding” emission reductions; and at some point demand cap-and-trade schemes and/or taxes on what he likes to call “carbon emissions.”

That term is intended to suggest dirty soot coming out of smoke stacks. The actual emissions are carbon dioxide, the life-giving gas that humans and animals exhale, and plants use to grow and produce oxygen. The more CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere, the better and faster crop, forest and grassland plants grow.

Mr. Biden would also impose tariffs on “carbon-intensive” goods imported from countries that “fail to meet their climate obligations.” That will quickly affect just about everything we eat, drink, drive, do and use – because his plan would soon make it difficult for America to grow or produce much of anything ... and China, India and other rapidly developing countries are not about to reduce their fossil fuel use.

Every Biden Plan provision would increase the cost of living and of doing business. The folks he hobnobs with – who will write, implement and enforce these rules ... and bankroll his election campaign – won’t much notice or mind the soaring prices. But middle and blue-collar classes certainly will.

Other components of the Biden Green New Deal multiply those impacts and costs.

* His ultimate goal is to rapidly replace America’s fossil fuels with industrial wind and solar facilities – to provide electricity for factories, hospitals, homes, offices, data centers, vehicles and countless other uses.

Modern industrialized societies simply cannot function on expensive, intermittent, weather-dependent electricity. As Germany, Britain, Spain, Australia and other countries have shown, that kind of energy eliminates 3-4 times more jobs than it creates – especially in factories and assembly lines, which cannot operate with repeated electricity interruptions ... and cannot compete with foreign companies that get affordable 24/7/365 coal-based electricity and pay their workers far less than $15, $25 or $45 per hour.

* “Rigorous new fuel economy standards” would speed the rate at which 100% of all cars and light trucks become electric.

This program would be supported by “more than 500,000 new public charging outlets by the end of 2030,” to augment private charging stations in homes and neighborhoods – paid or subsidized by taxpayers. It would also require upgrading home and neighborhood electrical systems to provide far more power for rapid vehicle charging, and longer hours of peak demand. Another trillion dollars?

Extending mileage for (much more expensive) electric vehicles would mean lighter, smaller cars ... and thus thousands of additional deaths and millions of additional serious injuries. Dollar costs would soar. But how do we quantify the cost of  injury and death tolls?

* Federal tax and environmental laws, subsidies and other incentives would be used to persuade counties and communities to “to battle climate change” by altering their zoning and other regulations “to eliminate sprawl and allow for denser, more affordable housing near public transit.”

This would significantly impact suburban living and property values. And packing more people into more apartment buildings would likely mean diseases spread more rapidly and to more people.

* Other federal programs would provide subsidies and incentives for home and business owners to reduce “the carbon footprint” of US buildings 50% by 2035. battery disposal?

This could involve retrofitting them for improved energy efficiency and/or replacing gas furnaces with electric heat or heat pumps – or just tearing down and replacing entire buildings. More trillions of dollars.

* The Biden plan would also ban new oil and gas permitting on public lands and waters.

This would lock up vast quantities of valuable, vitally needed fuel. It would replace tens of billions of dollars of annual federal and state government bonus, rent, royalty and tax revenue with tens of billions in subsidies for pseudo-renewable energy. It would eliminate millions of jobs in the petroleum and petrochemical industries, in numerous companies that rely on those industries, and in countless sectors of local and state economies that depend on all that public land energy activity and revenue.

* Finally, a new transcontinental high-speed (electricity-powered) rail system would connect the coasts – or at least a couple of cities on each coast – for a few trillion dollars and with a lot of eminent domain.

This is California’s costly “bullet train to nowhere” on steroids. It would bypass numerous towns and cities, marginalizing many of them and destroying trillions of dollars in property values – especially if his rail system is intended to replace or significantly reduce air travel and long distance driving. 

The cumulative electricity demand for all these Biden Green New Deal programs would be at least double what the United States currently generates. It would mean wind turbines and solar panels on scales that few can even imagine ... especially as they are installed in less and less windy and sunny areas. And if all this power is to be backed up by batteries – since coal and gas-fired backup power generators would be eliminated – we would need billions of batteries ... and thus even more land and raw materials. 

Exactly how many turbines, panels and batteries? On how many millions of acres? Made from how many billions of tons of metals and concrete? Extracted from how many trillions of tons of ore? In the USA or overseas, in someone else’s backyard? Under what child labor and environmental standards?

After banning oil and gas permitting, would Mr. Biden open other federal lands to exploration, mining and processing for the rare earth and other materials these massive “renewable” energy systems will require? That would certainly create new industries and jobs. Or will America just have to be 100% dependent on Chinese and other foreign suppliers for all these technologies?

All of this smells of eco-fascism: state control of companies and production, government control of our lives, and silencing and punishing anyone who challenges climate crisis claims or green energy agendas.

Perhaps Mr. Biden can address all these issues – at his next town hall meeting or press conference. Indeed, the time to discuss these issues is NOW. Before we get snow-jobbed and railroaded into actions we will sorely regret. Or maybe those of us who realize how insane all of this is will just have to opt out -- and establish Biden-free zones and climate sanctuary states where none of his policies and restrictions apply.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of books and articles on energy and environmental science and policy.