environmentalism

The Green New Deal Threatens to Derail Colorado’s Economy

Oil and gas rigs have been popping up all across Colorado in recent years, as have jobs working the rigs. Colorado’s total oil production is valued at more than $9.9 billion for 2018—an estimated 62 percent higher than 2017, according to the University of Colorado Boulder’s most recent study of the state’s economy. The value of the state’s natural gas production in 2018 was estimated at $5.3 billion. Employment in the Colorado oil and gas industry has grown by more than 23 percent since 2016, now accounting for around 25,700 jobs. This year it is expected to grow another 4.8 percent. But now, the Green New Deal, proposed Thursday by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA), is threatening the state’s energy boom. The plan calls for the U.S. to completely abandon the use of fossil fuels over the next ten years. That would not just derail Colorado’s natural resource and mining sector but also the many businesses and jobs that have grown up to serve the energy boom. “Unexpected economic and political factors can change the trajectory of Colorado’s NRM employment outlook abruptly,” the University of Colorado Boulder study warned. Across the United States, the Green New Deal could threaten such extreme economic disruption that it could put into play states once considered safe for Democrats. That is especially true of Colorado, which accounts for almost 5 percent of the total crude oil produced in the United States and has far more to lose from the Green New Deal than places like New York and Massachusetts. In 2016, Hillary Clinton won 48.1 percent of Colorado’s votes. Donald Trump won just 43.1 percent. Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson took 5.1 percent. A Democrat candidate who embraced a plan that would certainly eliminate 25,000 oil and gas extraction jobs and likely another untold number of jobs indirectly related to the sector could create a political, as well as an economic, earthquake. Of course, the Green New Deal would also create jobs, according to its proponents. But while Colorado’s oil and natural gas jobs cannot be located outside of the state, there is no guarantee the new green jobs would be created there. Making matters worse, wind and solar energy farms can be operated with a far thinner workforce, which means that even if the Green New Deal’s new energy were produced in Colorado, it would employ far fewer workers. Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO) is reportedly considering a presidential bid. This puts him in a political bind: support the Green New Deal program popular with the base of the national party or stand by his state’s economic interest. His office did not respond to a request for comment. Although natural resource drilling and mining employ just 1 percent of the Colorado workforce, the sector pulls above its weight calls in economic impact because the jobs generate some of the highest per worker income levels in the state. Average pay in the sector is 146 percent of the state average. The damage will go beyond just oil and natural gas. Coal jobs too would be killed off. According to a 2015 National Mining Association survey, the coal industry contributed $1.9 billion to Colorado’s economy and directly employed 3,723 workers, plus 12,977 indirect and induced jobs. In the United States, factories that produce equipment for mining and drilling have boomed in recent years on the backs of the technological innovations that have made the U.S. one of the world’s largest energy producers. These factories and the investments in them would go to waste in a Green New Deal that made fossil fuels obsolete or illegal. Investment in Colorado’s traditional energy sector would dry up. Whether investors burned by a government that turned against fossil fuels would willingly support investment in Green-New-Deal-favored energy projects is a risk—and certainly a risk for Colorado’s economy. Ocasio-Cortez portrays the Green New Deal as offering Americans a tremendous opportunity. And no doubt a new national program of green investment, subsidized by cheap government financing, would create many new wealthy entrepreneurs. But it also threatens jobs that Americans already have and depend upon for their livelihoods. Colorado, because it has such a high concentration of good jobs extracting fossil fuels, is one of the states that would be hit the hardest.

Agreed..  Thanks to John Carney for that sobering analysis.  All of us who are tax-paying voters here in the great state of Colorado need to keep this in mind in November of next year when we go to the polls..

Delingpole: Green New Deal Is a Revamped Communist Manifesto

A few years ago at the height of the global warming scare I wrote a book which set out to answer one of the key questions of our time: if climate change isn’t really a problem why do so many people act as though it is? The answer, I discovered, is that environmentalism is just a fashionable mask for the usual leftist obsessions with state control and wealth redistribution. That’s why I called the book Watermelons: green on the outside, red on the inside. Not everyone who believes in man-made climate change is a full on Commie. Some are merely useful idiots. But whatever reason people may have for supporting the scam – greed, stupidity, virtue-signalling, idiot leftist teachers – the net result is the same: bigger government, higher taxes, more regulation, lower standards of living. Exactly like you’d get under communism, in fact. So color me completely unshocked by the Green New Deal. It looks like a revamped Communist Manifesto because that’s exactly what it is. If implemented, the size of government would increase to levels never before seen in a Western economy. The state’s control of everything from wage levels to how businesses are run to your personal freedoms would be total. There’s no mention of gulags or political prisoners or secret police but of course those would inevitably follow because how else would the state have a hope of enforcing measures which freedom loving Americans would naturally resist? The only surprise about the Green New Deal for me is that its proponents are so brazen about their plans.

Indeed..  For more of this outstanding op/ed from James Delingpole, click on the text above.  He really nails it.

Opinion/Analysis: Trump Vindicated as Paris Climate Agreement Unravels

The Paris Climate Agreement is a dead non-binding treaty walking. All the signatories know this, none of them will admit it. So instead, we have to endure the ritual spectacle of UN delegates racking up yet more air miles and dumping their carbon footprint on a new location in order to wail hysterically that much, much more needs to be done to save the planet from the greatest threat evah. This week the UN’s clown caravan has moved to Bangkok, Thailand – the preliminary to an even bigger meeting, COP24, in December in Katowice, Poland. As the South China Morning Post reports, the auguries aren’t good: “Time is running out to save the Paris Agreement, United Nations climate experts warned Tuesday at a key Bangkokmeeting, as rich nations were accused of shirking their responsibility for environmental damage.” That’s because – just as they were in Paris 2015 – the negotiations are caught between a rock and a hard place. Western countries don’t want to stump up for what is essentially an attempted shakedown by poorer countries demanding more handouts in the name of “climate justice.” Developing economies – as they have cunningly managed to designate themselves – like India and China and the rest of the BRICs have absolutely no interest in hampering their economies with carbon emissions cuts, not least because they recognise that “global warming” is just a scam invented by Euro Weenies who want to decide how the world is run. That’s why, as Townhall reports, they are all going mad for coal: “[Climate Justice] was the idea that developed countries should pay developing countries compensation for the slowing down of their economic growth that would result from the mandatory transition from coal to more expensive renewable energy sources, as proposed in the agreement. Despite the approval of such funding, both India and China continued to expand their coal consumption. They continue to import, export, and use coal extensively. At their current pace, neither country will ever achieve their emission targets as mentioned in their respective INDCs. Russia, meanwhile, is quietly developing its coal infrastructure despite its claims of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. In 2015, Russia’s coal production stood at 186.37 million TOE (Tons of Oil Equivalent). It jumped to 206.33 million in 2017. The country is expanding its coal infrastructure to enable more streamlined transport of coal across the country and to meet the increase in exports due to demand from its Asian neighbor China.” Meanwhile, in the other BRIC, the most likely candidate to win Brazil’s next elections – Conservative Jair Bolsonaro – has vowed to pull his country out of the Paris Agreement. So, all in all, President Trump has every right to feel vindicated at his decision to pull the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement. All that is left for his critics to do is wail and gnash their teeth, making impotent demands like this one from a bunch of 200 arthouse luvvies – led by Oscar-winning actress Juliette Binoche. They have written to France’s Le Monde newspaper, claiming that climate change is the “greatest challenge in the history of mankind” and demanding that all necessary measures be taken by governments – no matter how unpopular their decisions may be. The signatories are a Who’s Who of some of the most attractive actresses in French cinema – Binoche; Isabelle Adjani; Marion Cotillard; Catherine Deneuve, plus a few Americans who want to be burnished by association with moody, arthouse French cinema (Tim Robbins, Rufus Wainwright, etc), plus some French rappers no one outside France has heard of. Unfortunately, no one cares.

More like “fortunately..”  lol   The whole Paris Climate Agreement was a con from the get-go.  The absolute worst pollution violators are India, China and Russia…all of whom had no intention of ever agreeing to these accords.  Yet, Obama was hell-bent on tying our hands behind our back economically and unilaterally agreeing to that nonsense.  Ironically, Obama never submitted it to the Senate for ratification, even when the Dems controlled it, because even the Dems wouldn’t ratify it.  So, instead, Obama did what he did throughout his presidency; brazenly violated the Constitution and just signed it anyway.  Then, Trump did the only thing he could do; pull the U.S. out of the accords.  The fact that a federal judge ruled Obama’s actions unconstitutional made the decision academic.

Suckers beware: Your $10 reusable steel drinking straw may be counterfeit

As several cities take aim at reducing their carbon footprint by banning plastic straws, one company says there’s a new problem that could soon plague the U.S.: counterfeit reusable straws. FinalStraw sought to create a collapsible, stainless steel straw that consumers could reuse. The straw even comes with a carrying case. However, Emma Cohen, the company’s co-founder, told BuzzFeed News on Monday that counterfeiters flooding websites like Amazon and eBay are creating an issue. “The whole purpose was to reduce waste,” Cohen said, adding the counterfeit straws created a “bigger waste problem.” Searches across Amazon and eBay found that knockoff stainless steel straws were prevalent, according to BuzzFeed News. While FinalStraw intends to sell its item for $20 apiece, other places were selling theirs for $10. Cohen and co-founder Miles Pepper reported more than 200 listings on Amazon, eBay and Alibaba were using FinalStraw’s promotional photos to advertise the knockoffs. FinalStraw doesn’t have a listing on these websites because its final product won’t be ready until November, according to BuzzFeed News. Those who have bought the counterfeit straws have complained to FinalStraw about their purchases falling apart. “People are just genuinely confused,” Cohen told BuzzFeed News. “Some are angry and upset.” Pepper said the company plans to go after the straw sellers after its trademark and patent applications go through. The race for an alternative straw version was kicked off when cities like San Francisco and Seattle announced plans to reduce the use of plastic straws at restaurants. San Francisco became the largest U.S. city last month to ban restaurants and retailers from providing customers with plastic straws. Businesses in the city will have to meet the new guidelines by January 1, 2020. Disney and Starbucks have also announced plans to ban plastic straws.

If FinalStraw and other similar companies want to market such a product, then we’re all for it!  The free market is the place to address this issue; NOT by the fascist Democrat politicians telling us what we can and cannot use to drink a beverage with.  That said…  This is the insanity that happens when we allow political correctness to take over our lives.  Thankfully, I live in a city that still allows plastic straws.  Unreal..

Analysis: Scott Pruitt Is #Winning, Bans Junk Science from Environmental Protection Agency

Junk science is no longer welcome at the Environmental Protection Agency. Administrator Scott Pruitt has declared war on what he calls “secret science” – the process whereby EPA regulators have been able to craft rules using non-publicly-available science data. Pruitt told Daily Caller: “We need to make sure their data and methodology are published as part of the record. Otherwise, it’s not transparent. It’s not objectively measured, and that’s important.” This decision will correct a longstanding injustice at the EPA, perpetrated against the U.S. taxpayer. For years the EPA has been able to behave as a law unto itself, cavalierly passing regulations which restrict freedoms, hamper business and hold back the U.S. economy for reasons which have much more to do with left-leaning environmentalist politics than with objective science. The problem dates back to the early 1990s when the EPA decided it wanted to regulate fine particulate matter known as PM2.5 but couldn’t find any hard scientific evidence proving it was harmful.

Kudos to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt for trying to bring some sanity to the EPA.  For more on this excellent op/ed from James Delingpole, just click on the text above.    🙂

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Drilling: Trump Parks His Tanks on Sierra Club’s Lawn

There was a lot of good news in President Donald Trump’s new National Security Strategy (NSS) — the document which finally told the truth about climate change: that green activists pose a bigger threat to U.S. security than anything the climate can manage. But nothing in the NSS is likely to provoke quite so much fury among environmentalists as one of the clauses buried among another of the Trump administration’s recent reform measures: the bit in the tax-reform package which permits part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to be opened to oil exploration. Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) has long been a Sacred Polar Bear for environmental campaigners. It’s their line in the snow: the ne plus ultra of pristine wilderness, majesty, and loveliness to be preserved at whatever cost. Democrats have been fighting to prevent it being developed for oil since the 1970s. So Trump’s announcement that soon oil companies will be allowed to explore there is about as a big a provocation as if he’d turned up to the Sierra Club’s summer vegan barbecue, spit roasted a baby manatee, and served it up with a snail darter reduction and spotted owl sauce. The Washington Times reports: “House and Senate Republicans late last week unveiled a final tax-reform package that includes a controversial provision allowing a section of ANWR — which has been one of the highest-profile battlegrounds in the energy vs. environment debate since the 1970s — to be opened to oil exploration. ANWR drilling was left out of the House’s original tax legislation but was included in the Senate’s, and now has found its way into the final version of the bill hashed out by the chambers’ conference committee last week. Green groups are well aware that drilling in ANWR would represent a major blow to their agenda, and they’re pressuring lawmakers publicly and behind the scenes in the hopes of getting a last-minute change to the tax bill. Top environmental organizations also used public-relations moves to galvanize public opinion on their side of the debate.” The greenies are getting so desperate, they’ve even wheeled out Robert Redford. Redford appears in a new National Resource Defense Council (NRDC) ad opposing opening ANWR’s coastal plain to drilling. Alaska lawmakers have pushed for drilling in ANWR’s “1002 area” for decades in the face of environmental opposition. “Republican leaders are saying the refuge needs to be auctioned off to the oil industry to help offset a $1.5 trillion tax giveaway,” Redford said in the ad. “They claim that they can raise $100 million plundering these public lands.” To little avail, it would seem. The Trump administration has made clear that in the war between energy users and environmental campaigners, there can only be one winner. And for the moment, Congress is with him. According to the Washington Times: “In a statement Sunday morning, the office of House Speaker Paul D. Ryan said opening ANWR to drilling will both generate money for federal coffers and promote American energy independence. “The benefits of energy development extend far beyond raising revenue. Energy development creates good-paying jobs. Where? In Alaska, of course, where ANWR is located, but also along the entire energy supply chain,” his office said. “For example, pipes and equipment must be built. Truckers must be hired to drive equipment. That means good jobs for Americans across the country. This also means a major economic boost for our economy.” Republicans estimate ANWR drilling will create at least $1 billion in revenue over 10 years, though it’s unclear exactly when drilling will begin. Despite the authorization within the tax-reform package, it’s still likely to take years for companies to secure the land and go through necessary approval and permitting processes. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, Alaska Republican and longtime proponent of ANWR drilling, said the prospect of energy exploration in her state helps the broader GOP goal of increasing economic growth and creating jobs. “If we can successfully pass this legislation, the ultimate result will be more domestic jobs, larger paychecks, and greater energy security — and that is exactly what Alaska and our country need right now,” she said.

Agreed!!

PBS airs anti- Pruitt documentary funded by environmentalist group backer

A new PBS Frontline documentary that paints Environmental Protection Agency administrator Scott Pruitt as a tool for the fossil fuel industry received major funding from a group that has given hundreds of thousands of dollars to environmentalist activists like the Sierra Club. The documentary, “War on the EPA,” received major support from the Kendeda Fund, an Atlanta-based nonprofit focused on the environment and sustainability. The documentary features interviews with numerous Obama administration backers, including Gina McCarthy, the former EPA administrator, and Betsy Southerland, a former EPA director making $250,000 who claimed earlier this year she resigned in protest because of the Trump administration’s budget. Southerland was eligible for early retirement and told coworkers she was retiring because of family issues. Southerland tells PBS that Pruitt’s EPA is a “clear and present danger to public health and safety in this country.” The documentary calls critics of the Obama administration’s wide-ranging regulatory actions targeting the coal industry and nuclear power plants “climate deniers” and “extreme.” The PBS narrator refers to Sen. James Inhofe (R., Okla.) as “the Senate’s leading climate change denier” and features Jane Mayer, a journalist with the New Yorker, calling the Trump EPA “radical.” “What you see now in the Trump administration is the triumph of the anti-environmental movement,” Mayer says. “They are now in control of the government and in control of the regulatory process in a kind of a brazen way we haven’t seen before.” Obama administration alums are depicted as crusaders against pollution, as they appear in interviews dismayed by President Trump and Pruitt following through on campaign promises to roll back environmental regulations.

If you really want to read the rest of this vomit-worthy article, click on the text above.