GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[nsdp + 449]

3 hours ago, QuarterCenturyVet said:

Thanks, tips.

Now research H2S. 

It's not like I've worked in these situations around noxious/poisonous gasses for the last 25 years or anything. 

Now, how about that increase of 140ppm of CO2? Pretty insignificant. 

No that is a rash assumption contradicted by science; it puts us two thirds of the way to the level where oxygen starvation caused by permanent  CO2 displacement can interrupt brain function. In prolonged periods of 6 months or more you begin to damage your cortex.  Low CO2 levels are a concern on a manned Mars mission.  Persistent elevated CO2 levels disrupt and reduce mental function to the level of an iguana(takes about 15 years). Read Nasa's medical studies from the  61 years of the manned space flight program.   A large number of the posters here are beyond the point of no return.  You never have spent a day in safety or compliance.

H2S-https://discover.hubpages.com/education/Hydrogen-Sulphide-Danger-in-the-Oilfield

https://stage.rrc.texas.gov/media/34432/6-part-1_statewide-rule-36-h2s_handout.pdf

Fortunately Rule 36 was done by staff born before the present commissioners got out of diapers so these commissioners could not screw it up like they did in February.

One kills you quickly one slowly but either way you are dead.

[nsdp + 449]

3 hours ago, QuarterCenturyVet said:

You're off by about a factor of 10. 600ppm of CO2 doesn't negatively affect you, numpty. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/idlh/124389.html

Basis for original (SCP) IDLH: The chosen IDLH is based on the statements by ACGIH [1971] that a 30-minute exposure at 50,000 ppm produces signs of intoxication, and a few minutes of exposure at 70,000 ppm and 100,000 ppm produces unconsciousness [Flury and Zernik 1931]. AIHA [1971] reported that 100,000 ppm is the atmospheric concentration immediately dangerous to life. In addition, Hunter [1975] noted that exposure to 100,000 ppm for only a few minutes can cause loss of consciousness.

https://space.stackexcha25 years out of date. nge.com/questions/41990/was-the-apollo-13-co2-problem-a-matter-of-capacity-or-of-rate/41991#41991

4.5 mm Hg partial pressure of CO2 is equivalent to 5900 ppm (part per million) of CO2 in air at sealevel. 14.9 is 19,600 ppm. The mean CO2 content of fresh outdoor air is abous. t 400 ppm, low quality room air may have more than 1400 ppm.

 

Do you always use research that is 25 years out of date.?   You had better find the studies done on year long or longer missions.  You had better find the studies done on year long or longer missions. Saturation diving demonstrates the changes caused by changing levels over time. CO2 in creases are not for a few days at most. Not 3-4 days as you have assumed. Try 30-40-80years.

Edited August 6, 2021 by nsdp

[QuarterCenturyVet + 312]

19 minutes ago, nsdp said:

Do you always use research that is 25 years out of date.?   You had better find the studies done on year long or longer missions.  You had better find the studies done on year long or longer missions. Saturation diving demonstrates the changes caused by changing levels over time. CO2 in creases are not for a few days at most. Not 3-4 days as you have assumed. Try 30-40-80years.

I use industry standards that haven't changed in 25 years because CO2 is so benign at low concentrations. Your incorrect assumption that 600ppm will cause impairment, is off by a factor of 10. Cry about it all you like. You were wrong. Laughably wrong, and you're dumb if you don't get the difference between space and on planet IDLH levels. 

[QuarterCenturyVet + 312]

1 hour ago, nsdp said:

No that is a rash assumption contradicted by science; it puts us two thirds of the way to the level where oxygen starvation caused by permanent  CO2 displacement can interrupt brain function. In prolonged periods of 6 months or more you begin to damage your cortex.  Low CO2 levels are a concern on a manned Mars mission.  Persistent elevated CO2 levels disrupt and reduce mental function to the level of an iguana(takes about 15 years). Read Nasa's medical studies from the  61 years of the manned space flight program.   A large number of the posters here are beyond the point of no return.  You never have spent a day in safety or compliance.

H2S-https://discover.hubpages.com/education/Hydrogen-Sulphide-Danger-in-the-Oilfield

https://stage.rrc.texas.gov/media/34432/6-part-1_statewide-rule-36-h2s_handout.pdf

Fortunately Rule 36 was done by staff born before the present commissioners got out of diapers so these commissioners could not screw it up like they did in February.

One kills you quickly one slowly but either way you are dead.

I've worked, masked up, in real situations on critial wells that were upwards of 40% (400,000ppm) H2S. 

CO2 is rather benign even after high exposure, like 5,000ppm. 

Anything over even 400ppm of H2S and your respiratory system starts to shut down. After 1000ppm is immediate cardiac arrest and probable brain damage, not to mention permanent lung scarring and irreparable nervous system, respiratory and ocular damage. 

It's not just that one will kill you slower and one will kill you faster, you idiot. 

Your bedroom, where you plot to kill conservatives with idiotic thoughts, no doubt, is probably sitting around 1500ppm CO2. By your estimation, you should have permanent brain damage by now. I'm inclined to believe you in your specific case. 😉

Edited August 6, 2021 by QuarterCenturyVet

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

6 hours ago, nsdp said:

The point is that the point where CO2 impairs human performance is 600ppm.  About like ,075% blood alcohol.  1000 ppm causes mental functions to begin to shut down. .  Apollo 13 Capsule reading was 700 ppm.  I should not have expected people to be familiar with toxicity curves.

Not according to this, its much higher than you state

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200421/Atmospheric-CO2-levels-can-cause-cognitive-impairment.aspx

Hope this clears it up for you.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

13 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Not according to this, its much higher than you state

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200421/Atmospheric-CO2-levels-can-cause-cognitive-impairment.aspx

Hope this clears it up for you.

From the link:

"They found that if the outdoor CO₂ concentrations do rise to 930 ppm, that would nudge the indoor concentrations to a harmful level of 1400 ppm.

"At this level, some studies have demonstrated compelling evidence for significant cognitive impairment," said Anna Schapiro, assistant professor of psychology at the University of Pennsylvania and a coauthor on the study.

"Though the literature contains some conflicting findings and much more research is needed, it appears that high level cognitive domains like decision-making and planning are especially susceptible to increasing CO₂ concentrations."

In fact, at 1400 ppm, CO₂ concentrations may cut our basic decision-making ability by 25 percent, and complex strategic thinking by around 50 percent, the authors found."

----

So at what level does complex strategic thinking get cut by 5%? That should be the danger level we must avoid. Would that be an outdoor level of maybe 600ppm? We are currently at 420ppm! 

This research puts an end to the debate. CO2 levels are rapidly rising to a level that is harmful to humanity.

Rob, you asked me earlier in this thread about whether I was saying humans could not evolve in higher CO2 regimes. Yes I am. We could not evolve in higher CO2 regimes because the cognitive functions that make us human are not compatible with CO2 levels just slightly above what has been the norm for the past million years. Let alone the many thousands of ppm numbers flaunted around here.

 

Edited August 6, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

On 8/5/2021 at 10:26 AM, turbguy said:

I find nothing wrong with a questioning attitude concerning "climate change", or even the root causes of climate change.  That is how science evolves.

That said, there is little support for competing theories that tend to "brush off", or ignore, the significant rise of human activities that occurred since the "industrial revolution".  The astronomical community certainly has made very strong objections to proposed theories of variance of orbital mechanics and/or solar activity as unsupported by observation or even the JPL ephemeris.

The energy balance of our planet is certainly difficult to simplify, and is influenced by factors difficult to quantify with good accuracy.   We just do the best we can with the science we have.

The "best we can" has shown that we are warming.

The 'best we can" indicates that there will be chaotic, unpredictable results from warming.

The "best we can" indicates that human activities are a contributor to warming.

The "best we can" indicates that humans (and life) will adapt. 

That adaptation will be somewhat "unpleasant". 

More here from a most trustworthy source.  Short reads...

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/greenhousegases/whichgases.html

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/greenhousegases/industrialrevolution.html

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/greenhousegases/sourcesandsinks.html

IPCC is not reliable, they are extremely biased, Good science cannot afford to be biased.

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

18 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Not according to this, its much higher than you state

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200421/Atmospheric-CO2-levels-can-cause-cognitive-impairment.aspx

Hope this clears it up for you.

Nothing clears up anything for this guy, he is on climate-alarm autopilot. 

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

6 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

From the link:

"They found that if the outdoor CO₂ concentrations do rise to 930 ppm, that would nudge the indoor concentrations to a harmful level of 1400 ppm.

"At this level, some studies have demonstrated compelling evidence for significant cognitive impairment," said Anna Schapiro, assistant professor of psychology at the University of Pennsylvania and a coauthor on the study.

"Though the literature contains some conflicting findings and much more research is needed, it appears that high level cognitive domains like decision-making and planning are especially susceptible to increasing CO₂ concentrations."

In fact, at 1400 ppm, CO₂ concentrations may cut our basic decision-making ability by 25 percent, and complex strategic thinking by around 50 percent, the authors found."

----

So at what level does complex strategic thinking get cut by 5%? That should be the danger level we must avoid. Would that be an outdoor level of maybe 600ppm? We are currently at 420ppm! 

This research puts an end to the debate. CO2 levels are rapidly rising to a level that is harmful to humanity.

Rob, you asked me earlier in this thread about whether I was saying humans could not evolve in higher CO2 regimes. Yes I am. We could not evolve in higher CO2 regimes because the cognitive functions that make us human are not compatible with CO2 levels just slightly above what has been the norm for the past million years. Let alone the many thousands of ppm numbers flaunted around here.

 

You are posing questions out of your imagination and answering them out of your imagination.

You should write science fiction, friend.

You and this author are assuming that there is no adequate air circulation, something which every bright school teacher takes measures to ensure.

Anyone knows that we need adequate levels of oxygen to allow our brains to function, my grade school teachers had the windows open when possible.

Here is from your own link Jay, you should actually read what you cite.

"Shelly Miller, professor in CU Boulder's school of engineering and coauthor adds that "building ventilation typically modulates CO₂ levels in buildings,"

The Green folks usually resort to the cheapest of alarm bells to try and avoid serious discussion.

 

Edited August 7, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

11 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

You are posing questions out of your imagination and answering them out of your imagination.

You should write science fiction, friend.

You and this author are assuming that there is no adequate air circulation, something which every bright school teacher takes measures to ensure.

Anyone knows that we need adequate levels of oxygen to allow our brains to function, my grade school teachers had the windows open when possible.

Here is from your own link Jay, you should actually read what you cite.

"Shelly Miller, professor in CU Boulder's school of engineering and coauthor adds that "building ventilation typically modulates CO₂ levels in buildings,"

The Green folks usually resort to the cheapest of alarm bells to try and avoid serious discussion.

 

 

CO2 levels of just 550 start to show measurable declines in high level cognitive functions:

"Systematic relationships were found between most of the cognitive function scores and CO₂ concentration, including from 550–945 ppm and from 945–1,400 ppm. Across the full domain of CO₂ concentrations, the apparent statistical relationships were linear for some declines in cognitive function scores with increasing CO₂ concentration (e.g., overall ability to make decisions), and nonlinear for others, wherein the decline in cognitive score is more pronounced between 945 and 1,400 ppm (e.g., complex strategizing). Not only were such reductions in cognitive function score statistically significant, they were typically rather large—on the order of tens of percent decrease in performance per ~400‐ppm CO₂ increase (equivalent to a doubling of present‐day outdoor CO₂ concentration). " https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7229519/

This is what is called real research and evidence of the poisonous nature of excess CO2 to humanity. We are rapidly approaching the level where being outside will result in detrimental levels of CO2, let alone inside.

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

22 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

 

CO2 levels of just 550 start to show measurable declines in high level cognitive functions:

"Systematic relationships were found between most of the cognitive function scores and CO₂ concentration, including from 550–945 ppm and from 945–1,400 ppm. Across the full domain of CO₂ concentrations, the apparent statistical relationships were linear for some declines in cognitive function scores with increasing CO₂ concentration (e.g., overall ability to make decisions), and nonlinear for others, wherein the decline in cognitive score is more pronounced between 945 and 1,400 ppm (e.g., complex strategizing). Not only were such reductions in cognitive function score statistically significant, they were typically rather large—on the order of tens of percent decrease in performance per ~400‐ppm CO₂ increase (equivalent to a doubling of present‐day outdoor CO₂ concentration). " https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7229519/

This is what is called real research and evidence of the poisonous nature of excess CO2 to humanity. We are rapidly approaching the level where being outside will result in detrimental levels of CO2, let alone inside.

You avoided the issue again, Jay, even after I quoted your own author, wow.

Let me give you another chance, buddy.

"Shelly Miller, professor in CU Boulder's school of engineering and coauthor adds that "building ventilation typically modulates CO₂ levels in buildings,"

If some good school teacher is present, she will open the window and let some good old O2 into the room to enlighten the brain waves.

But you will not get that O2 in adequate levels if the source of O2 production in sea life and plant life is deprived of CO2. In fact, you will get a reduction of global greening if the CO2 levels are reduced, which will cause less O2.

Edited August 7, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

49 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

You avoided the issue again, Jay, even after I quoted your own author, wow.

Let me give you another chance, buddy.

"Shelly Miller, professor in CU Boulder's school of engineering and coauthor adds that "building ventilation typically modulates CO₂ levels in buildings,"

If some good school teacher is present, she will open the window and let some good old O2 into the room to enlighten the brain waves.

Once again you are cherry picking quotes. Let's look at what she actually said:

Shelly Miller, professor in CU Boulder's school of engineering and coauthor adds that "building ventilation typically modulates CO₂ levels in buildings, but there are situations when there are too many people and not enough fresh air to dilute the CO₂."

The issue is what do we do when the outdoor fresh air has an unsafe level of CO2? We are rapidly approaching that level.

In the ongoing scenario in which people on Earth do not reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts outdoor CO₂ levels could climb to 930 ppm by 2100. And urban areas typically have around 100 ppm CO₂ higher than this background.

Edited August 7, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Once again you are cherry picking quotes. Let's look at what she actually said:

Shelly Miller, professor in CU Boulder's school of engineering and coauthor adds that "building ventilation typically modulates CO₂ levels in buildings, but there are situations when there are too many people and not enough fresh air to dilute the CO₂."

The issue is what do we do when the outdoor fresh air has an unsafe level of CO2? We are rapidly approaching that level.

In the ongoing scenario in which people on Earth do not reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts outdoor CO₂ levels could climb to 930 ppm by 2100. And urban areas typically have around 100 ppm CO₂ higher than this background.

No, that is not the issue according to your source. The issue is getting enough fresh air, which is what the statement is about.

Here is the statement,

"not enough fresh air to dilute the CO₂."

What could be plainer, Jay? 

The IPCC is not an unbiased source of info, Jay. Their predictions are routinely off the mark.

The crucial question is, do we have enough O2 to support human life and enough CO2 to support higher levels of agricultural productivity, needed to supply food to your belly and mine.

Edited August 7, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

18 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

No, that is not the issue according to your source. The issue is getting enough fresh air, which is what the statement is about.

Here is the statement,

"not enough fresh air to dilute the CO₂."

What could be plainer, Jay? 

The IPCC is not an unbiased source of info, Jay. Their predictions are routinely off the mark.

The crucial question is, do we have enough O2 to support human life and enough CO2 to support higher levels of agricultural productivity, needed to supply food to your belly and mine.

 

Not enough fresh air occurs when the air has too high a level of CO2.  We are on a clear course to having an insufficient ratio of O2 to continue with high level cognitive function.

Edited August 7, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

15 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

 

Not enough fresh air occurs when the air has too high a level of CO2.  We are on a clear course to having an insufficient ratio of O2 to continue with high level cognitive function.

No, according to your source which you cited, not enough fresh air occurs due to air circulation problems with building engineering and high concentrations of people.

Don't know how you could so persistently misread your own source, Jay. 

If you pull CO2 out of the atmosphere, you will get less production of O2 from sea algae and foliate plant life, and then O2 concentrations will fall. 

Lower O2 levels would be deleterious to cognition levels, and that might reduce the value of Green Dream pleadings even more. I would suggest pumping more O2 into those packed Green Dream conferences.

Edited August 7, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

China is committed to a rapid increase in coal usage, as seen in this current article.

https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news/2241862-china-emissions-prices-trading-volumes-fall-further

"China's installed coal-fired power capacity and coal-based power output is expected to keep increasing in the 14th five-year period covering 2021-25, according to a study by the energy institute of the national power grid planner and operator State Power Grid. The institute projects China will reach peak installed coal capacity of 1.25-1.3TW and peak coal-fired power generation of 5,000-5,500TWh, without saying when the peaks are likely to occur. This is up from 1.08TW and 4,630TWh respectively last year."

Edited August 7, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

EVs are more costly to operate and repair than the standard ICE vehicles. But if you are a committed Green Dreamer, you will not mind the financial pain associated with demonstrating your cause.

https://www.autonews.com/retail/study-evs-cost-more-service-ice-vehicles

"A majority of the repair work centered on EV-specific components, such as wiring problems or charging issues....EVs had a high rate of wheel problems, which the data analysis company attributed to greater wear and tear from carrying bulky batteries and overall heavier vehicles."

 

Edited August 7, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

California wild fires, the ones not started on purpose by humans, are now a serious political problem, which no one wants to handle. The future of electricity is hot in more ways than one.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/The-Electricity-Crisis-Is-A-Major-Problem-For-Californias-Governor.html

"Burying vast portions of an electric utility transmission system is not only expensive. It is much more costly to repair after it is installed and often more difficult to locate line breaks since they are no longer visible to the naked eye. But this would address the safety issue.

Are there reasonable alternatives to this vast transmission line burying program?

The first alternative, which is also expensive, is to dramatically increase tree and brush clearances around power lines. But the utility did not embrace or endorse this approach. Part of maintaining an extensive transmission network through heavily forested areas implies a hefty, annual financial commitment to tree trimming and brush clearance. Current problems suggest that inadequate sums were spent in the past and executives would just as soon avoid scrutiny in this area,"

Edited August 9, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

On 8/2/2021 at 11:03 PM, Ecocharger said:

 

‘Less than 1% probability’ that Earth’s energy imbalance increase occurred naturally, say Princeton and GFDL scientists

Sunlight in, reflected and emitted energy out. That’s the fundamental energy balance sheet for our planet. If Earth’s clouds, oceans, ice caps and land surfaces send as much energy back up to space as the sun shines down on us, then our planet maintains equilibrium. https://www.princeton.edu/news/2021/07/28/less-1-probability-earths-energy-imbalance-increase-occurred-naturally-say

 

 

As far as I can see here, this model does not include solar cycle data as a possible explanatory factor, which would mean that the model is excluding a basic factor in determining planetary warming/cooling. It does, however, include CO2 data, while excluding the solar cycle data. As with many other climate models, this would bias the coefficients for anthropogenic climate change, representing a model specification problem.

Edited August 9, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

The attempt to transition away from coal is much more costly than anticipated.

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Rural-US-Falls-Behind-With-Energy-Transition.html

"...it would be really difficult for co-ops to find the money necessary to invest in wind and solar farms: co-ops do not pay federal income taxes, which makes them ineligible for renewable power tax credits. They also cannot raise equity to finance projects because they are owned by their customers. Incidentally, in some parts of America, these same customers are employed in the coal industry.

“The energy transition has been lagging for cooperatives,” the WSJ quoted Duane Highley, chief executive of Tri-State Generation & Transmission Association, a co-op with more than a million customers in New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, and Nebraska. “But part of that is because we don’t have the same financial tools.”"

Edited August 9, 2021 by Ecocharger

[specinho + 470]

On 8/6/2021 at 9:00 AM, nsdp said:

60,000 you are unconscious in 2 minutes and dead in 5 minutes.https://inspectapedia.com/hazmat/Carbon_Dioxide_Hazards.php

20,000

> 5%

minutes

Toxic, unconsciousness, death [5]

 

you are the reason the greenies and the government officers are so scared of CO2??

[specinho + 470]

On 8/8/2021 at 4:20 AM, Ecocharger said:

.EVs had a high rate of wheel problems, which the data analysis company attributed to greater wear and tear from carrying bulky batteries and overall heavier vehicles."

there are a few new flying EVs coming up on fire........... Do you mean they might become low flying objects, possibly closed to the road surface, if drivers are heavy?

I have an idea of a possibly mechanical car not relying on battery, nor fuel. Who is willing to  help me build a small model?  If any competition with prize still opened for submission? 

p/s: do not believe it.........

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

The current Biden & Co. leadership is split wide open about the oil industry, expected to ramp up demand for oil products in the new omnibus Biden spending bill, and calling for increased world oil production to ease the price increases at the gas pump, which impact Biden voters the most heavily.

Reality is triumphing over empty rhetoric.

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/House-Republicans-Urge-Biden-To-End-Budget-Restrictions-To-US-Oil-Industry.html

"Competitive energy markets will ensure reliable and stable energy supplies, and OPEC+ must do more to support the recovery," Sullivan added, in what was one of the first direct calls from the Biden administration on the OPEC+ alliance. "Higher gasoline costs, if left unchecked, risk harming the ongoing global recovery," he added.

 

Edited August 13, 2021 by Ecocharger

[nsdp + 449]

On 8/9/2021 at 2:11 AM, Ecocharger said:

California wild fires, the ones not started on purpose by humans, are now a serious political problem, which no one wants to handle. The future of electricity is hot in more ways than one.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/The-Electricity-Crisis-Is-A-Major-Problem-For-Californias-Governor.html

"Burying vast portions of an electric utility transmission system is not only expensive. It is much more costly to repair after it is installed and often more difficult to locate line breaks since they are no longer visible to the naked eye. But this would address the safety issue.

Are there reasonable alternatives to this vast transmission line burying program?

The first alternative, which is also expensive, is to dramatically increase tree and brush clearances around power lines. But the utility did not embrace or endorse this approach. Part of maintaining an extensive transmission network through heavily forested areas implies a hefty, annual financial commitment to tree trimming and brush clearance. Current problems suggest that inadequate sums were spent in the past and executives would just as soon avoid scrutiny in this area,"

The reason most transmission lines are not underground is lack of knowledge about change in materials.  Add to that stupidity of the CEC and CPUC keeping the  Paradise line unreplaced (deferred maintenance) for 100 years (25years past NERC replacement standards). Consolidated Ed does 100% underground in Manhattan, Staten Island  and in most parts of the other thre25 e boroughs. 50 years ago the the need to use copper conductor for underground installation drove initial costs. Repairs  and repairs for todays generation of underground are maybe less 10% of overhead costs on life cycle.   With the development of ACCC conductors  it was cheaper for Center Point Energy to replace 100% of down town Galveston and Houston distribution and transmission  with underground after Hurricane Harvey.

You always pay more for deferred maintenance.

[nsdp + 449]

28 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

The current Biden & Co. leadership is split wide open about the oil industry, expected to ramp up demand for oil products in the new omnibus Biden spending bill, and calling for increased world oil production to ease the price increases at the gas pump, which impact Biden voters the most heavily.

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/House-Republicans-Urge-Biden-To-End-Budget-Restrictions-To-US-Oil-Industry.html

 

Short term thinking like what causes California wild fires.