Tag: climate change

Categories
free trade & free markets too much government

An Ember of Hope?

EU, European Union, Italy, cars, green new deal, global warming, climate change, bureaucrats

Will the world escape the punishing “green energy” mandates?

The government of Italy is making known its unhappiness with a looming ban on sales of gas-​powered vehicles, supposed to happen by 2035. The mandate has been imposed by the European Union, of which Italy is a member.

The transition is to be attended by formal review of how things are progressing toward the goal of eliminating gas cars. One is scheduled for 2026. Italy wants it to happen sooner.

Italy’s industry minister, Adolfo Urso, has indicated that his government will soon formally request this early review. Everyone understands that this is not because the current government of Italy is in a hurry to stamp its imprimatur on the EU’s plans.

Urso says: “We believe it’s absolutely necessary to modify the direction of EU industrial policy. The automotive sector is the one where a change from the Green Deal is most required.”

Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has called the decision to outlaw gas-​powered vehicles “self-​destructive.”

Meanwhile, demand for electric cars has slumped in Europe and the U.S. as the inconveniences and risks become better known. These include the cars’ still very high cost, their tendency to freeze up in very cold weather, the greater frequency with which their tires must be changed, the difficulties of recharging, the difficulties of putting out the fires when the cars catch fire.

May Italy show the way out of the debacle and let’s hope the rest of the EU follows.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Midjourney and Firefly

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
ideological culture media and media people national politics & policies

Hurricane Algebra

hurricane, climate change, global warming, weather, panic, big government, regulations

Helene is x times worse than Katrina, but receives y less coverage from The New York Times, The Washington Post, etc.

When we finally plug in the numbers, we will likely discover that the coverage difference is best explained by two factors: there are fewer reporters yet more “journalists” than ever before, and (you guessed it) politics.

You see, Katrina coverage helped besmirch George W. Bush and the Republicans.

Covering Helene in the same way, or to similar extent, could hurt the incumbents (FEMA has been especially lame), and the presidential race is too close for the Democrats’ lackeys in the media to do that.

So let’s blame Helene on Trump.

Or, the low coverage on Trump. Trump’s the why of the y!

It’s just as sensible as blaming Helene on man-​made climate change. Nearly every newsperson intones the plausible-​sounding theory that the warmer the climate the more damaging the storms. It’s a great hypothesis. But pre-​Helene studies have shown scant evidence for it.

Further, the oft-​repeated line that “never before” has a hurricane reached so far inland is also untrue. Asheville, North Carolina, was destroyed by a similarly horrific hurricane in July 1916.

These are rare events. Or, perhaps, cyclical, on repeat by century. 

The pity with all this theory and conjecture and political nonsense is: less coverage means less knowledge outside the hurricane zone of how horrible Helene is, and thus less sympathy elicited from the general population of generous Americans. Thus, less aid.

Making major media complicit — with the U.S. Government (FEMA, etc.) — in not helping relieve the suffering. 

So maybe we should thank the climate change agenda. Without that devil to fight, we might get no coverage of Helene at all. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Midjourney

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
crime and punishment folly ideological culture

Spray-​Painting Stonehenge

Last month, members of Just Stop Oil, devoted to “climate activism” — a way of coping with weather that goes way beyond using shelter, culverts, coats and umbrellas — were arrested for an unsolicited paint job. 

They spray-​painted Stonehenge.

The group says that mankind is doomed unless we stop using fossil fuels. Not instantly! That would be crazy. By 2030.

According to a Just Stop Oil spokesman, “Continuing to burn coal, oil and gas will result in the death of millions.” But if we stop, the climate will spare us.

Their website says that fossil fuels are right now “killing millions around the world.” (No mention of any lives saved by, for example, fossil-​fuel-​provided heat in wintertime.)

Worse is to come. The contours of apocalypse are elaborated on a helpful /​genocide/​ page of the site. “Scientists warn of untold suffering and death, of the collapse of whole nations, and the eradication by manmade global heating of entire peoples and cultures.”

I hope I need not stress that not all “scientists” have received this fact-​free revelation.

What will cause the mass slaughter? More weather, sometimes extreme weather? The kind of thing that we use fossil fuels to cope with and protect ourselves from? And for which, barring much wider development and acceptance of nuclear power than we are likely to see any decade soon, there is no reliable substitute?

You can wash the paint off Stonehenge. Bringing irrational fantasists to reason is a much tougher job.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
crime and punishment folly ideological culture

Cold Truth

One of the climatic shifts supposed to be happening to our traumatized planet is the melting of polar ice into huge puddles of slush, with maybe a few polar bears helplessly drifting on the dwindling ice floes of a rising sea.

The alleged calamities of various alleged major climatic changes are allegedly due solely to human civilization. We can render the latter doctrine more plausible if we ignore all the major variations of climate that transpired for millions of years before mankind and industrial civilization showed up.

Anyway, if polar ice were indeed melting away over the long term, we could argue about the causes and effects.

But it doesn’t seem to be happening.

According to research at the University of Copenhagen using photographs and satellite data, the glaciers of Antarctica have been pretty stable over the last 85 years or so. (The SciTechDaily article about the findings calls this stability an “Antarctic Anomaly.”)

With the help of modern computer technology and aerial photographs going back to 1937, the researchers managed to track how the glaciers of East Antarctica have changed over the decades.

They found that “the ice has not only remained stable but also grown slightly over the last 85 years, partly due to increased snowfall.… While some glaciers have thinned over shorter intermediate periods of 10 – 20 years, they have remained stable or grown slightly in the long term, indicating a system in balance.”

Uh oh.

Chicken Little never had it so tough.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
free trade & free markets ideological culture political economy too much government

Sweden’s Electric Sense

Sweden, climate change, nuclear power, energy,regulations, wind power, solar power

Common sense in Sweden! Energy in Sweden!

Under the policy of Sweden’s current government, the Swedish people are to be allowed to illuminate and heat their homes and do all the other things they use electricity for. The Swedish parliament has formally relinquished the government’s former target of somehow reaching “net-​zero” renewable energy by 2045.

Such unreliable means of generating power as erratic wind and erratic sunshine just don’t cut it, says Finance Minister Elisabeth Svantesson.

“We need more electricity production, we need clean electricity, and we need a stable energy system. In substantial industrialized economies … only a gas-​to-​nuclear pathway is viable to remain industrialized and competitive.”

The new energy policy is an about-​face for Sweden, which decided in the ’80s to nuke nuclear power and pursue 100 percent “renewable” energy.

Sweden is now following the lead of Finland. After Finland’s latest nuclear power plant went on line in April, reports Peta Credlin, “wholesale power prices dropped 75%, almost overnight. The Olkiluoto 3 plant is … delivering 15 percent of the country’s power needs. Nuclear now provides around half of the country’s total electricity generation.”

Nuclear power has gotten a bad rap in many countries, including the United States. But if societies and governments are rightly or wrongly determined to retreat from reliance on fossil fuels while also not pulling the plug on industrial civilization, a steady supply of electricity has to be obtained somehow or other.

Nuclear power is one major way to do the job.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with ChatGPT 4o

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
Common Sense national politics & policies regulation subsidy

Electric Class Warfare

Star Trek, electric car, gas car, regulations, climate

Star Trek may have adversely affected American politics. Its techno-​communist utopian militarism was one thing, its attitude towards engineering? Perhaps worse.

In how many episodes did Captain Kirk demand that Scotty push the warp drives further, or decrease the time required for a task — arbitrarily according to his need, not actual possibility?

And, because television: presto, it was done; just in time for the finale!

We see that in the push for electric vehicles (EVs). 

The EV mandates, explains The Epoch Times, “will likely cause a sizable wealth transfer from rural red regions of the United States to urban blue sections, and to wealthy Democrats who reside in them.…”

For while Democrats say they’re trying to “save the planet” from an increase in atmospheric carbon, really, analyst Robert Bryce counters, “it’s a type of class warfare that will prevent low- and middle-​income consumers from being able to afford new cars.”

How? The EPA’s new “rules are the strictest in history and will effectively force carmakers to have one-​third of new car sales be plug-​in EVs by 2027 and more than two-​thirds by 2032.” But according to the Texas Public Policy Foundation, “as much as $48,000 of the cost of the average EV sold in the United States is paid not by the owner but in the form of ‘socialized costs’ that are spread out among taxpayers and electricity consumers over a 10-​year period.”

So the new rules will reduce the supply of gas-​powered vehicles, driving up costs. And the increased number of already-​subsidized vehicles will also be paid by taxpayers at large, while the benefits go to … mostly Democrats in the bluest counties of the bluest states, as statistics show.

In recent years, Democrats have prided themselves that their “blue states” subsidize “red states,” mocking the “rugged individualist” pretensions of the hapless bubbas in flyover country. But now such boasts ring hollow. 

This is the far-​flung future? 

Subsidy and regulation spoil the Star Trek promise.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts