GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

15 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

You are slow to grasp the point, as usual.

I have no problem with a high CO2 future, it makes no sense to me to transition to electric.

Au contrer my friend.  Electric vehicles are simpler, more reliable, and should last longer when all is said and done.  No one cares about what powers their vehicle, all they care about is convenience and CHEAP.  Currently, the convenience factor for EV's is not there unless you have home charging. 

[Rob Plant + 2,605]

On 5/7/2022 at 2:07 PM, Eric Gagen said:

Unless you can prove that ALL the leased vehicles are scrapped at the end of the 3 year leasing program, you haven't made any statement of note here.  The CO2 savings is over the entire life of the vehicle, not over the life of the lease. 

Missing the point entirely!

[Eric Gagen + 713]

3 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Missing the point entirely!

Then what was the point?

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

2 hours ago, Wombat One said:

Anybody read this? 

https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Six-Years-Late-And-250-Over-Budget-Georgias-Newest-Nuclear-Plant.html

 

You can thank government moronic regulations.  Said nuclear reactor has technically been building for 30+ years due to government regulations.  Same reason the USA stopped refining rare earth minerals even though the USA mines enough rare earth minerals for almost the worlds supply of rare earth minerals it currently consumes... Not allowed to process them as MORONIC government regulations treats them as if they are Uranium 238 or U233 instead of what they are ores with Thorium 233. 

[Rob Plant + 2,605]

53 minutes ago, Eric Gagen said:

Then what was the point?

Ive made it twice now so cant be bothered a 3rd time

Re-read ALL what I said

[Boat + 1,315]

Probably nuclear and regulations will never mix with Rednecks.  You boys just don’t have the head for it. Kinda like Putin, not known for brain power. Good on loyality though. Prison or death, yep, a strong man. 

[Ron Wagner + 642]

https://www.theepochtimes.com/small-but-powerful-group-pushing-sec-climate-disclosures-professors_4465593.html

The GOAL of the Establishment is to decide every major issue for the people and to minimize their freedom of ACTION and speech. They choose to use all branches and level of governmental bureaucrats rather than to work through congress which is out in the open. RCW

 

A flag outside the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission headquarters in Washington on Feb. 23, 2022. (Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

ECONOMY

‘Small But Powerful’ Group Pushing SEC Climate Disclosures: Professors

‘The United Nations is neither a business nor an investor’

By Nathan Worcester

 

May 13, 2022 Updated: May 13, 2022

 

biggersmaller 

Print

Law and finance professors from across the country have criticized the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC’s) March 21 proposal to compel climate-related disclosures by public companies, arguing that the move exceeds the SEC’s authority and reflects the outsized influence of “institutional asset managers who are managing other people’s money, not their own.”

“Rather than provide investor protection,’ the Proposal seems to be heavily influenced by a small but powerful cohort of environmental activists and institutional investors, mostly index funds and asset managers, promoting climate consciousness as part of their business models,” the academics wrote in an April 25 letter to the SEC.

“I joined the letter because I believe the SEC is overstepping its authority,” said Jonathan Berk, a professor of finance at Stanford University, in an email interview with The Epoch Times.

“I don’t like the precedent that appears to be set, that now the SEC becomes the arbiter of what risks investors should care about,” he added.

“I have heard confidentially from many law firms, current and former government officials, and professional associations who have said that the issues we identified and explained will be helpful to them as they parse the proposal and formulate their own comment letters on the proposal, or potential lawsuits if the SEC proceeds with the rule,” said Lawrence Cunningham, the lead author of the letter and a law professor at George Washington University, in an email to The Epoch Times.

“I have heard from a dozen scholars in our field agreeing with the thrust of the letter and offering to add their names,” he added.

Authored by 22 academics from major institutions such as Harvard University, Yale University, George Mason University, Northwestern University, and Stanford University, the letter argues that investors lack any meaningful consensus on climate change, raising doubts about claims of uniform “investor demand” for sweeping SEC regulations.

“People’s opinions differ sharply, and investors have varied views on issues associated with the earth’s climate,” the authors note.

“Climate models are imprecise and were not designed for the purpose of measuring risk exposure.  Using them to measure exposure would be irresponsible,” Stanford’s Berk told The Epoch Times.

The letter also takes issue with the proposal’s emphasis on global financial consortia organized by the United Nations, including the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero and the Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative.

“The United Nations is neither a business nor an investor and lacks any relevant expertise in either domain. It is a political institution coordinating international policies on contentious topics, including as an incubator of the concept of ‘ESG’ and climate management that provide the backdrop for the Proposal,” the letter states, referring to the abbreviation for ‘environmental, social, and governance.’

“The Proposal relies heavily on global institutions and institutional investors incorporated outside the U.S. It is not obvious that such institutions share any concern for American competitiveness,” it later notes.

The professors contend that a uniform rule mandating financial disclosures could greatly benefit index fund managers, who may want to market their ESG bona fides while offloading the associated costs on companies subject to the proposed rules.

“The Proposal fails to assess how its rules will affect different segments of the investment industry differently; it also fails to consider alternative approaches that would avoid favoring some sectors at the expense of others,” the letter states.

“The investors demanding climate-related information are overwhelmingly institutional asset managers who are managing other people’s money, not their own.”

The letter argues that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has had statutory authority over climate-related disclosures since the passage of the Clean Air Act in 1974, meaning the SEC’s new rules may overstep its bounds.

Similarly, it contends that the proposal may tread on territory long covered by state corporation law, and it argues the rules could compel speech, thereby violating the First Amendment.

The letter also questions the SEC’s cost-benefit analysis, pointing out that it seems to ignore China’s rapidly increasing greenhouse gas emissions.

“Without a meaningful impact on China’s greenhouse gas emissions, the Proposal, even if implemented, will not have a meaningful impact on climate change,” it states.

The letter concludes with an analysis of the SEC proposal’s citations, saying they “skew heavily toward organizations that are prominent environmentalists, not prominent investors.”

The most cited organizations in the proposal include the EPA, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and UN Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI).

The SEC’s proposal moved forward in March with a 3-1 vote. All three Democratic commissioners voted for it, while the lone Republican currently serving on the SEC, Hester Peirce, voted against it.

In a statement titled “We Are Not The Securities and Environment Commission–At Least Not Yet,” Peirce explained why she found the planned rules so troubling.

“We are here laying the cornerstone of a new disclosure framework that will eventually rival our existing securities disclosure framework in magnitude and cost and probably outpace it in complexity. The building project upon which we are embarking will consume our attention and enrich many, as any massive building project does,” she wrote.

Berk, of Stanford, said he hopes the letter will “make the SEC pause since it is clear from the letter that the legal basis for this action is flimsy, and that if they continue, there is very likely to be a court challenge which I believe is likely to prevail in the end.”

Cunningham, of George Washington University, told The Epoch Times he has only received a handful of comments from opponents of his letter. He characterized those objections as “very disappointing.”

“Rather than engaging with our letter (or reading it) and the question of SEC authority, these comments rail against climate change generally or attack me and the other signatories personally. But while such childish vitriol is annoying, I remain optimistic that at least the SEC staff will engage thoughtfully with the issues we raise,” Cunningham said.

The SEC initiated a 60-day comment period on the proposed rules in late March. That comment period has since been extended to June 17.

The Epoch Times has reached out to the SEC for comment.

 

Nathan Worcester

 

Follow

Nathan Worcester is an environmental reporter at The Epoch Times. He can be reached at nathan.worcester@epochtimes.us. Follow Nathan on Twitter @nnworcester

[Ron Wagner + 642]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-administration-cancels-oil-and-gas-drilling-leases-in-gulf-of-mexico-alaska-coast-11652378410?mod=hp_lead_pos11

Biden and His Leftist Advisors do all they can to discourage oil and gas production and distribution in the United States while promoting wind and soar for the green dream. This policy promotes more expensive energy for everyone. 

 

Biden Administration Cancels Oil-and-Gas Drilling Leases in Gulf of Mexico, Alaska Coast

Interior Department cites challenges to development plans, but decision adds to friction with oil industry

[Eric Gagen + 713]

10 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Ive made it twice now so cant be bothered a 3rd time

Re-read ALL what I said

Well then I guess the conversation is over, because I don’t know what point you made  or how long ago.   My point was that environmental impact of a product is over the life of the product.  Not over the first owner or contractual term. How is that disproved by something you said?  

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,537]

NOAA RESEARCH NEWS

 

Study: Reducing human-caused air pollution in North America & Europe brings surprise result: more hurricanes

Research also finds that increased pollution in Asia may reduce tropical cyclones

Over the last 40 years, Europe and North America have been leaders in reducing particulate air pollution from industry, autos, energy and other sources. The increasing absence of human-caused air pollution in the Northern Hemisphere, estimated to be a 50-percent drop in concentration from 1980 to 2020, has led to surface warming over the tropical Atlantic Ocean, which contributes to more frequent tropical cyclones. Without significant amounts of particulate pollution to reflect sunlight, the ocean absorbs more heat and warms faster. A warming Atlantic Ocean has been a key ingredient to a 33-percent increase in the number of tropical cyclones during this 40-year period, Murakami said. 

https://research.noaa.gov/article/ArtMID/587/ArticleID/2874/Study-Reducing-human-caused-air-pollution-in-North-America-and-Europe-brings-surprising-result-more-hurricanes

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

1 hour ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

NOAA RESEARCH NEWS

 

Study: Reducing human-caused air pollution in North America & Europe brings surprise result: more hurricanes

Research also finds that increased pollution in Asia may reduce tropical cyclones

Over the last 40 years, Europe and North America have been leaders in reducing particulate air pollution from industry, autos, energy and other sources. The increasing absence of human-caused air pollution in the Northern Hemisphere, estimated to be a 50-percent drop in concentration from 1980 to 2020, has led to surface warming over the tropical Atlantic Ocean, which contributes to more frequent tropical cyclones. Without significant amounts of particulate pollution to reflect sunlight, the ocean absorbs more heat and warms faster. A warming Atlantic Ocean has been a key ingredient to a 33-percent increase in the number of tropical cyclones during this 40-year period, Murakami said. 

https://research.noaa.gov/article/ArtMID/587/ArticleID/2874/Study-Reducing-human-caused-air-pollution-in-North-America-and-Europe-brings-surprising-result-more-hurricanes

Fascinating! So human industrial activity can have dramatic impacts on climate change. 

Edited May 14, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,537]

18 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Fascinating! So human industrial activity can have dramatic impacts on climate change. 

Today's news, much more to come. I might ask Mr. Mckinsey, has science become pure analytics? 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

8 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Today's news, much more to come. I might ask Mr. Mckinsey, has science become pure analytics? 

Science strives to be pure analytics.

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,537]

7 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Science strives to be pure analytics.

A question if I may? 

Does carbon increase atmospheric heat or decrease atmospheric heat? Analytics after 40 yrs should well provide a answer.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

14 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

A question if I may? 

Does carbon increase atmospheric heat or decrease atmospheric heat? Analytics after 40 yrs should well provide a answer.

There is a positive correlation between the two. Other green house gases also have a positive correlation but nothing else does, certainly not the Sun. We are trying to eliminate those other green house gases as well.

 

 

Edited May 14, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,537]

33 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

There is a positive correlation between the two

While that sounds like a intelligent well reasoned statement,after 40 yrs of research a simple yes or no would be blatantly obvious by now. Let us stick to carbon, the other green house gases would not be part of the original conversation.

Clouding a topic with moving parts generally is generally a crutch for a poorly reasoned conclusion.

Now if you are saying carbon when introduced to other compounds creates some type of reaction that might be of relevance. But not at this point..

https://theconversation.com/climate-explained-methane-is-short-lived-in-the-atmosphere-but-leaves-long-term-damage-145040

Edited May 14, 2022 by Eyes Wide Open

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

1 minute ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

While that sounds like a intelligent well reasoned statement,after 40 yrs of research a simple yes or no would be blatantly obvious by now. Let us stick to carbon, the other green house gases would not be part of the original conversation.

Clouding a topic with moving parts generally is generally a crutch for a poorly reasoned conclusion.

Now if you are saying carbon when introduced to other compounds creates some type of reaction that might be of relevance. But not at this point..

The blatantly obvious answer is that greenhouse gases are causing the warming. CO2 is the most predominant.followed by natural gas leaks.

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,537]

20 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

The blatantly obvious answer is that greenhouse gases are causing the warming. CO2 is the most predominant.followed by natural gas leaks.

So the blatantly obvious answer would be yes. Yet you will not allow yourself to make such a statement. As to why one can speculate, yet speculation generally is a bad bet... or a good bet perhaps.

Jay are you speculating? That is not bad in itself...well at times that is. And of speaking to carbon and not green house gases.

Edited May 14, 2022 by Eyes Wide Open

[nsdp + 449]

16 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

You can thank government moronic regulations.  Said nuclear reactor has technically been building for 30+ years due to government regulations.  Same reason the USA stopped refining rare earth minerals even though the USA mines enough rare earth minerals for almost the worlds supply of rare earth minerals it currently consumes... Not allowed to process them as MORONIC government regulations treats them as if they are Uranium 238 or U233 instead of what they are ores with Thorium 233. 

Ron anything nuclear is going to need to be built for $500-1000/kw name plate to compete in todys market.. This monster is $320,000/kw.  Company management was too stupid to cut their losses 20 years ago.  I don't think you can hit even $10,000/kw nameplate for any nuclear design. 1980 is the last time I saw anything that would not cause a death spiral for the utility.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

24 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

So the blatantly obvious answer would be yes. Yet you will not allow yourself to make such a statement. As to why one can speculate, yet speculation generally is a bad bet... or a good bet perhaps.

Jay are you speculating? That is not bad in itself...well at times that is. And of speaking to carbon and not green house gases.

There was no speculation in my answer.

 

[specinho + 439]

On 5/10/2022 at 3:49 AM, KeyboardWarrior said:

Nobody is proposing anything that violates thermodynamics. Also, methanogenesis is a dumb solution. Bacteria are a terrible choice for doing anything large scale. The only success story is ethanol plants. 

not too sure if for the love of carbon dioxide, anyone ever tries electrolisis? If they can do it for water, they might be interested to do it on CO2, no? And then, produce hydrocarbon from it................ 😈

[specinho + 439]

On 5/14/2022 at 1:16 PM, Jay McKinsey said:

There is a positive correlation between the two. Other green house gases also have a positive correlation but nothing else does, certainly not the Sun. We are trying to eliminate those other green house gases as well.

 

 

not too sure if there is a full set of measurement of greenhouse gases i.e.

a) concentration of waste water vapour or humidity in the air

b) waste heat content in the air

c) intensity of sun light or radiation

d) etc

Those parameters are deemed necessary from general formula of burning:

fuel + oxygen ------> carbon dioxide + heat + water vapour

 

Partial interpretation could be misleading.

Omitting them by assuming they have no correlation might be the biggest mistake.

Out of those factors, only water has high heat capacity which means, water is capable of keeping heat. Small home experiment to support it: Prepare a metal jar filled with boiled water. Measure initial temperature for the jar. Leave it out at room temperature for 3 to 4 hours. Measure final temperature. Water jar might still feel hot. One may do the same for dehydrated CO2 gas jar for comparison.

Radiation of sun is essential in determining temperature of the surrounding environment. Intensity of sun hence, would have a direct correlation with temperature. Omitting this by assuming it has no correlation might be another mistake.

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

On 5/12/2022 at 11:19 PM, nsdp said:

Do you just make up facts as you go along.  I suggest you use your brain for something other than a hat rack, "his year alone, EV sales have more than doubled, which is great progress. However, this number still only makes up 2.5% of the total automotive market."https://electrek.co/2021/08/24/current-ev-registrations-in-the-us-how-does-your-state-stack-up/  data as of Dec.31 2020

The total vehicle market includes used vehicles, so EVs are less than 1% of the total vehicle market.

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

On 5/14/2022 at 12:26 AM, Jay McKinsey said:

Fascinating! So human industrial activity can have dramatic impacts on climate change. 

You miss the point, as usual, Jay. This study suggests that "pollution" acts counter to global warming.

 

On 5/14/2022 at 1:16 AM, Jay McKinsey said:

There is a positive correlation between the two. Other green house gases also have a positive correlation but nothing else does, certainly not the Sun. We are trying to eliminate those other green house gases as well.

 

 

Other greenhouse gases are thousands of times more potent than CO2, and have not been reduced.

So much for your CO2/greenhouse approach.

And CO2 is negatively correlated with earth temperature. As we saw above.

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

On 5/14/2022 at 1:16 AM, Jay McKinsey said:

There is a positive correlation between the two. Other green house gases also have a positive correlation but nothing else does, certainly not the Sun. We are trying to eliminate those other green house gases as well.

 

 

Again, the temperature graph shows a plateau in recent years, visible to the naked eye, so you need new eyeglasses, Jay.

There is a perfect correlation between solar cycle data and changes in earth temperature, so that is the correlation which matters, not the ephemeral and insignificant CO2 variable.

CO2 is actually negatively correlated with changes in earth temperature.

And the study which you linked earlier showed the phase relation between CO2 and earth temperature is out of phase, and apparently shows that CO2 is a dependent variable in relation to earth temperature.

Remember our discussion above?

"Antarctic temperature and CO2: near-synchrony yet variable phasing during the last deglaciation"

"Yet Variable Phasing", so the phasing is an issue as in the other studies I linked for you.

And another of your links states,

"The values of a temperature proxy, the hydrogen isotopic composition (δD), in the Antarctic EDC ice core1,2 have varied in parallel with CO2 concentrations over the past 800 thousand years (kyr; r2 = 0.82)3. However, δD apparently leads CO2 variations. For example, during the last termination (TI), the start of Antarctic warming has been estimated to be synchronous with CO2 increase4 or to lead CO2 increases by 800 ± 600 years5 on the East Antarctic Plateau. The lead is ca. 2000 years at a West Antarctic site6. Over the past 420 kyr, the Vostok ice core shows that the Antarctic δD temperatures lead the CO2 variations by 1.3 ± 1.0 kyr7. During the lukewarm interglacials (430–650 kyr BP), Antarctic δD leads CO2 by 1900 years, and the correlation between CO2 and δD is weaker (r2 = 0.57), as determined from the EDC core8."

So this complicates finding the direction of causation in these models.

Further, these models do not include solar cycle data, which creates a model specification problem and introduces bias into the coefficients.

Using a random sample size of 39 for a time span of many thousands of years is problematic, it is better to extract maximum and minimum points of long phases to see how the levels of CO2 correlate to temperature change at the extreme points. That was the methodology used by the studies I linked above. Those studies show a negative correlation between CO2 and earth temperature."

Edited May 15, 2022 by Ecocharger