The Environmental Downside of Electric Vehicles

At one time, “Saving the Environment” and “Fighting Climate Change” were synonymous. That is no longer true. The quest for Clean Energy through electric vehicles (EVs) epitomizes “the end justifies the means.”

According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), an electric vehicle requires six times the mineral inputs of a comparable internal combustion engine vehicle (ICE). EV batteries are very heavy and are made with some exotic, expensive, toxic, and flammable materials.

The primary metals in EV batteries include Nickel, Lithium, Cobalt, Copper and Rare Earth metals (Neodymium and Dysprosium). The mining of these materials, their use in manufacturing and their ultimate disposal all present significant environmental challenges. Ninety percent of the ICE lead-acid batteries are recycled while only five percent of the EV lithium-ion batteries are.

Oil has been so demonized that we tend to overlook some of its positive traits as a power source relative to the battery power of EVs. The power for an internal combustion engine, oil, is a homogeneous commodity found abundantly around the world (especially in our own backyard). In 2019, the four top oil producing nations were the United States, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Canada. In contrast, the power for EVs is dependent on a mixture of diverse commodities from just a handful of third world countries.

In spite of the environmental hysteria about oil drilling, the surface area disturbed is relatively small since the oil is extracted from under the ground. In contrast, many of the materials prominent in the clean energy revolution are obtained through open-pit horizontal mining which is extremely damaging to wide areas of the environment.

Keep reading

EPA Ignores Own Science, Plans to Reapprove Deadly Neonicotinoid Pesticides

Recent coverage by The Guardian of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) plan — to extend the registration of several demonstrably harmful neonicotinoid insecticides — compels Beyond Pesticides to identify, once again, the agency’s failures to enact its core mission.

That mission is “to protect human health and the environment,” and to ensure that “national efforts to reduce environmental risks are based on the best available scientific information.”

EPA has undertaken a review of the registration of several members of the neonicotinoid (neonic) family of pesticides and, despite the agency’s own findings of evidence of serious threats to pollinators, aquatic invertebrates, and other wildlife, it issued interim decisions on these neonics in January 2020 that disregard the science on the pesticides’ impacts.

EPA appears to be prepared to finalize these registrations late in 2022; this would, barring further action, extend the use of these harmful compounds for 15 years.

Neonics are used widely in the U.S., both on crops to kill sucking insects, and as seed treatments with the same goal for the developing plant.

These insecticides are systemic compounds, meaning that once applied, they travel to all parts of a plant through the vascular system, and are then present in pollen, nectar, and guttation droplets.

Non-target organisms — such as bees, butterflies, birds, bats, and other insects — feed and drink from those sources and are thus readily and indiscriminately poisoned.

Keep reading

Germany to raze a 1,000-year-old forest in the name of ‘going green’

Germany, as we well know with its Russian gas capers, is a highly industrialized society in need of a lot of energy. 

Fine and dandy. But how they get it presents increasingly bad options.

They got rid of their nuclear power in the wake of the 2011 Fukushima nuclear meltdown after a big earthquake in Japan, (despite Germany not being in a quake zone), driving themselves to dependency on foreign suppliers. That’s presented problems for them what with Russia filling that role, so their other recourse has been the one Joe Biden is touting for America: Green energy — like wind and solar power.

It’s costly, requiring state subsidization, given that Germany is not a big sunshine zone nor particularly windy:

But it’s costlier than just the wasted cash. They also are now looking at the loss of their 1,000-year-old Reinhardswald old-growth forest — known as the Grimm’s Fairy Tale forest.

German authorities, completely ignoring German sentiment about forests, which is quite mystical, have decided to mow down the big one to get some wind power put in, in the name of ‘going green.’ Like the Central Valley of California, which has been turned brown and starved of water in the name of ‘going green,’ Germany is trashing its most beautiful forest in the name of ‘going green.’ Funny how that works.

Reinhardswald is known as the Grimm’s Fairy Tale forest. In a weird conundrum (the Germans probably have a word for this) the greenie industrial complex has morphed into Rumplestiltskin, spinning wind into gold for the state of Hesse’s bureaucrats but demanding Germany’s first child as payment.

Don’t get us wrong: We are all for progress. But to call this ‘progress’ is pretty disgusting. How is it ‘progress’ to trash Germany’s 1,000-year-old irreplaceable forest? Germany has a big population, a lot of ugly postwar urban landscapes, and yucky modern art. It has a few nice traditional places, too, but the big one for Germans is their beautiful ancient forests, the ones that eminent Germans like Goethe and Kant and Durer and Schubert likely walked through, marveled at, and drew inspiration from. Google ‘Reinhardswald’ at Google Images and see what this place looks like. There are also some likely practical reasons to keep the forest in reserve. In France, when the roof of the Cathedral of Notre Dame burned in 2019, what was lost were old-growth beams that could not be replaced easily at all because the old-growth forests were gone. Germany would not have such a problem if it needed to harvest a couple of trees to save, say. the Cologne cathedral if it were, heaven forbid, to endure such a catastrophe. There are always unexpected reasons to want to conserve some unique and irreplaceable natural habitats.

Keep reading

Power Outage? Too Bad. California Just Banned the Sale of Gas-Powered Generators, Lawnmowers, & Leaf Blowers

In an effort to limit greenhouse gas emissions, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) voted this month to ban the sale of new off-road engines such as those found in leaf blowers, lawn mowers and other equipment by 2024. The ruling also bans portable generators by requiring new models to meet more stringent standards in 2024 and meet zero-emission standards starting in 2028.

The decision by the board follows an executive order issued by California Governor and covid tyrant, Gavin Newsom (D) to bar the sale of gas-powered lawn equipment to curb emissions.

“Today’s action by the Board addresses these small but highly polluting engines. It is a significant step towards improving air quality in the state, and will definitely help us meet stringent federal air quality standards,” CARB chair Liane Randolph said in a statement. “It will also essentially eliminate exposure to harmful fumes for equipment operators and anyone nearby.”

The new standards for generator sales for 2024 will reportedly require generator manufacturers to improve their efficiency by somewhere between 40% and 90%, eventually being zero emissions by 2028. The improvements by 2024 are likely unrealistic meaning it will be extraordinarily hard to find a generator in the state by 2024.

The state has set aside $30 million to help landscapers and mowing companies make the transition. But $30 million is a drop in the bucket given the fact that there are hundreds of mom and pop shops currently selling small engines across the state and thousands of landscape and mowing companies.

It is important to point out that folks who currently own a gas powered generator will still be able to use them, however, those who want to get one in a future emergency will soon be out of luck.

Keep reading

Build Back Better’s climate pork will benefit the rich — but not the environment

The irony of the Build Back Better bill passed in the House with Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s brute force last week is that it is called a “reconciliation” bill, since it attempts to straddle so many irreconcilable differences in the Democratic Party.

The whole mess now moves to the Senate, where two things are certain: The final bill, if it passes at all, will be drastically different from the House bill; and the final bill will contain hundreds of billions for “climate-change action” and “clean energy” because this (along with racism) is the central mania of the Democratic Party today.

Aside from the huge price tag, will the climate and energy features add up to a serious and coherent policy? If the House bill is any indication, the answer is a resounding “No.”

The headline is that Build Back Better includes more than $500 billion for climate and clean-energy measures, but keep in mind that the already-passed bipartisan infrastructure bill included $150 billion for clean-energy baubles such as electric-vehicle chargers ($7.5 billion) and electric school buses ($5 billion), so the grand total of both bills would be about $650 billion.

What are we actually getting for that eye-popping sum?

Some of the infrastructure bill targets worthy improvements, such as $65 billion for upgrading our creaky electricity grid and $50 billion for “climate resilience,” which includes common-sense steps such as building more robust defenses against flooding and better managing national forests to reduce wildfire risk.

The bulk of the Build Back Better bill, on the other hand, consists of large tax credits and subsidies for special interests with marginal benefits — and, incredibly, still more tax breaks for the affluent on top of the reinstatement of the state and local tax deduction that will deliver more than 90 percent of its benefits to the top 1 percent of income earners.

Keep reading

New Yorker Amplifies Calls For Pipeline Bombings To Save The Planet

The New Yorker amplified calls for eco-terrorism in the name of sparking action on climate change last week by inviting Andreas Malm, the Swedish author of “How To Blow Up A Pipeline,” onto its podcast.

In the episode titled “How to Blow Up a Pipeline,” Malm explains how it’s time for the climate change movement to “diversify its tactics and move away from an exclusive focus on polite, gentle, and perfectly peaceful civil disobedience.”

Malm stopped his recommendations short of “kidnapping oil workers” but said that “civil disobedience” ostensibly to save the planet should include mass acts of “intelligent sabotage” and property destruction, such as blowing up pipelines.

“I’m not saying we should stop strikes or square occupations or demonstrations of the usual kind. I’m all in favor of that. But I do think we need to step up because so little has changed and so many investments are still being poured into new fossil fuel projects,” Malm said. “So I am in favor of destroying machines, property — not harming people, that’s a very, very important distinction there. And I think property can be destroyed in all manner of ways, or it can be neutralized in a very gentle fashion as when we defeated the SUVs, or in a more spectacular fashion, as in potentially blowing up a pipeline that’s under construction. That’s something that people have done.”

“So you’re recommending blowing up a pipeline,” the host confirmed.

Malm justified such actions by claiming that the supposedly moral pros of combatting the “climate crisis” outweigh the cons.

“I don’t see how that property damage could be considered morally legitimate, given what we know of the consequences of such a project,” Malm said. 

The author also pledged “to be part of any kind of action of the sort that I advocate in the book” before criticizing the climate change movement’s tendency toward nonviolent protest.

Keep reading

Eco-warriors Meghan and Harry return to California in private jet after VIP woke tour of NYC: Duchess’s OTT outfits and Harry’s mystery wire suggest that the real reason for bizarre trip was content for their Netflix series

Harry and Meghan have touched down in Santa Barbara, California to be reunited with their children Archie and Lilibet after their whirlwind tour of New York – after a wire poking out of Harry’s pocket suggests the trip will be part of their multi-million dollar Netflix deal.

Exclusive pictures obtained by show the Duke and Duchess of Sussex returning home Saturday night.

Touching down in their private jet, the virtue signaling couple and fossil fueled ‘eco-warriors’ embraced members of staff who had accompanied them on the pseudo royal tour before heading back to their Montecito mansion.

Landing back in California late Saturday Meghan, 40, ditched the block color power dressing that saw some social media users mock her as a Michelle Obama wannabe.

Instead, she appeared casual and relaxed, dressed in loose camel sweater and black pants as she embraced the members of staff who constitute the retired royals’ neo ‘court’ for the trip that began Thursday morning, with a visit to the World Trade Center memorial and Freedom Tower in the company of New York Mayor Bill de Blasio and the state’s new governor Kathy Hochul.

Meghan look-a-like, and head of the couple’s PR Christine Schirmer was among the staff whom the Sussex fondly hugged goodbye at Santa Barbara’s private airport Saturday.

The former Silicon valley big-wig was recently appointed by the couple having worked at Pinterest until last summer. She is a fellow Northwestern University graduate like Meghan.

Harry, 37, was also low-key when he touched down on the west coast last night, swapping his New York suits for navy jeans, a light casual sweater and buff suede boots as he arrived laden with bags which he loaded into a waiting Jeep.

Earlier, the couple had wrapped up their three-day stint on the East coast with an appearance on stage at Central Park’s Global Citizens Festival, dubbed ‘Wokestock.’

Keep reading