By comparison, the USA Gross Domestic Product for 2018 was $20.54 trillion.

E&E Legal Releases Tom Tanton State-by-State “Electrification” Costs ReportFor Immediate Release: September 22, 2020– Today, the Energy & Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal), released a state-by-state report on the capital cost associated with “electrification” for states and the nation. The report, and its accompanying data spreadsheet, was authored by Tom Tanton, E&E Legal’s Director of Science and Technology Assessment. According to the report, electrifying the entire nation, with a goal of eliminating the direct consumption of fuel and reducing climate change emissions, would cost between $18 trillion and $29 trillion in first costs. Going all renewable will force costs to the high end of the range. Also, constructing and implementing an “all-electric” nation will include two other significant costs: stranded assets and deadweight losses.The bottom line is that electrification is not a cost-effective means of reducing carbon emissions from commercial or residential buildings nor the transportation sector.“Electrification of everything is a poor means to reduce greenhouse gasses and exposes customers to more frequent outages. Further, we’d just be substituting one set of environmental impacts for another,” said Tanton. “There are several other more environmentally-friendly and cost-effective means to accomplish this goal, and we simply can’t afford to electrify everything as the report clearly shows.” Tanton adds that electrification will destroy decades of diversification by the market, tying consumers to a fragile yet monolithic electric grid.The electric grid is ill-equipped for extreme conditions, like extended heat waves or polar vortex cold snaps, without blackouts, like just happened in California. The likelihood of outages will increase with the considerable increase in demand associated with electric cars, removing natural gas from buildings, and other electrification moves. Building a more robust grid to handle such extremes would add perhaps $7 trillion to the costs.The report notes that Texas would lead the way in terms of total electrification costs at $3.157 trillion, followed by California at $2.823 trillion.What’s even more frightening is the per capita costs of such an expensive and destructive experiment. For example, each resident of Louisiana can expect a bill of $166,065, while Wyoming citizens would be on the hook for $158,961 apiece, and those in North Dakota would face a tab of $133,847.Tanton, who lives in California and formerly a Principal Policy Advisor with the CA Energy Commission (CEC), has witnessed first-hand the devastation wrought by attempts at complete electrification.“California’s rolling blackouts and cataclysmic forest fires are not the results of climate change. They are the direct result of poor leadership and destructive energy policies that should be rolled back in my state and others before it’s too late,” Tanton concluded.The Energy & Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal) is a 501(c)(3) organization that champions responsible and balanced environmentalism, which seeks to conserve the nation’s natural resources while ensuring a stable and robust economy through energy dominance.Specifically, E&E Legal advocates responsible resource development, conservation, sound science, and respect for property rights.

-30-

According to the BEA, the USGDP is now negative. The greens should explain how they plan to pay for the “green new deal” under these circumstances:

https://www.bea.gov/news/2020/gross-domestic-product-2nd-quarter-2020-advance-estimate-and-annual-update

Like this:

Like Loading…

Related

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/2EuxRzy

September 22, 2020 at 04:12PM

Posted on September 22, 2020 by tonyheller

“We engage comrades with the intent to learn about and connect with their contexts.”

via Real Climate Science

https://ift.tt/300Z0BB

September 22, 2020 at 04:02PM

 As you know, I have been using CLIMOD 2 a lot lately. It is a very powerful analytical tool for working with official NOAA temperature and rainfall data.

It takes a bit of getting used to, but is easy once you get the hang. So, as promised, here’s the idiot’s guide!!

http://climod2.nrcc.cornell.edu/

CLIMOD is part of the Applied Climate Information System, which is operated by NOAA’s Regional Climate Centres. You can though access data from any part of the US via any RCC – I always use the Northeast, simply because I came across it first.

You can also, apparently access global data, though I’m not sure how up to date any of it is.

Anyway, on to Lesson 1!

If you open the above link, you will see the selection screen – all three boxes need selections.

Product selection offers a variety of reports, and it is best to play around to see what is best in any one situation.

I find Daily Data for a Month useful, as this gives data for the current month (although some stations only update monthly).

The main report I have been using recently however is Seasonal Ranking, which takes you onto this screen for Options Selection:

As you can see, you can select graphs, tables and CSV. You can also pick seasonal or monthly output, and a date range.

The variable drop down box offers Max temp, Min temp, rainfall etc. I have selected Max temp, which then offers the following choices under Summary.

1) Maximum – this gives the highest temperature each year (for whatever month/season you pick)

2) Minimum – the opposite!

3) Mean – this shows the average daily maximum temperature each year, again for the month selected

4) Number of days – this will chart how many days were over a certain temperature (which the system will prompt you to enter.) In the same fashion, you can do the same with rainfall.

5) Percent of days- the same as 4), but as a percentage.

You can choose the number of missing days you want to allow – in the above example, if there is no data for more than five days for a particular month/year, the graph will return a blank field, so I find it better to increase the number, to avoid too many gaps.

And then we get to the fiddly bit – Station Selection.

Type in the location where the  sign is:

I have entered Sacramento, but there are several stations in the surrounding area you can choose from – see drop down box labelled “Station”.

This is a little bit of trial and error, unless you know which specific station you want. Many sites only have a few years of record, but if you click GO, you will soon see which ones are which.

The selection I have made above gives this graph. It is interactive, so by clicking on the graph line, you can get the value for that year:

There is also a table below – by clicking on column headers, you can sort by column.

This box   allows you to download .

Remember that these are all sourced from official NOAA daily data. NOAA make massive adjustments to monthly figures, via various homogenisation techniques. The daily data however tells the truth.

SEPTEMBER 22, 2020

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat

The Caesar Rodney Institute’s David Stevenson explains why the latest bi-partisan climate bill — a legislative effort to circumvent the non-ratifiable Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol for the benefit of multinational rentseekers– is bad for Americans.

Excursions away from free market principles get really expensive for consumers. An energy bill passed out of the US Senate Energy & Public Works Committee Sept. 10 is a case in point. It forbids the sale of inexpensive existing refrigerants, and forces the use of a replacement costing up to fifteen times more. The legislation will likely cost consumers about $13 billion a year just in higher refrigerant cost, and when money is misspent jobs are lost. That cost translates to an extra $100 for a new car, new residential air conditioning, or repair. My testimony on this legislation is available on the Caesar Rodney Institute website.

Ask yourself why people need to be forced to buy a product by federal legislation, and who benefits. Two companies, Honeywell and Delaware based Chemours, lobbied for the same goals in a United Nations treaty, an EPA regulation, and now lobby for the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act to create a monopoly for their patent protected HFO product line that sells for up $65 a pound compared to existing products that sell for $3 to $4 a pound. Two of the prime sponsors of the Act are Senators Tom Carper from Delaware, and John Kennedy from Louisiana where Chemours production facilities are located. This is about money. Lots of it, as that $13 billion a year in higher consumer costs goes directly to these two companies.

Don’t take my word for it. When President Obama did not send the UN negotiated Kigali Amendment to the US Senate for approval as he didn’t have the votes to pass it, he told the EPA to regulate it into being. The EPA complied, but didn’t really have the authority, and the regulation was overturned by the US Court of Appeals, DC Circuit. Honeywell and Chemours appealed the court decision which was denied with these comments from the judge, “Industry intervenors are rent-seekers trying to use the government to foreclose their competitors’ products”, and intervenor “arguments mask their true interest in this case, which is to have government choose market winners and losers, thereby stifling competition”.

The excuse for passing the Act are claims made in a study, paid for by Honeywell and Chemours, stating that US export sales will increase from improved global market share of advanced air conditioning and refrigerant equipment. Supposedly that will add 33,000 US jobs. The forecast of increased exports is highly suspect based on the established historical pattern of U.S Manufacturers of both refrigerants, and air conditioning and refrigeration equipment to move manufacturing to lower labor cost countries. No increase in manufacturing means no increase in jobs.

In 2000 imports and exports of such equipment was in balance. Since then exports grew 10%, but imports grew 240%. A big reason for the increase in imports is equipment manufacturers themselves moved production to other countries along with technology advances. Almost half our imports are now coming from Mexico and Canada, with China and South Korea supplying another 37 percent. The first large scale HFO refrigerant manufacturing plant was built in China in 2010 which now dominates global refrigerant sales. Industry forecasts project most of the global growth for refrigeration and air conditioning will be in Asia, and South America where local manufacturers will serve the market.

The other part of the case for passing the AIM Act is it will reduce global warming as the newer refrigerants have a dramatically lower global warming potential. In reality, US regulations require all refrigerants be recycled, and very little escapes to the atmosphere. The latest EPA greenhouse gas inventory estimates fluorinated products account for 3-percent of net global warming emissions. The EPA MAGICC climate change calculator yields an estimated 6 one-thousandths of a degree reduction in global warming by 2100 if all US fluorinated emissions stop, essentially zero impact.

The claimed economic, and climate benefits of the AIM Act simply don’t exist. The shameful motives behind the Act are very real.

via JunkScience.com

https://ift.tt/3cjVuHw

September 22, 2020 at 01:20PM

From The Daily Caller

Chris White Tech Reporter September 21, 2020

• President Donald Trump has an opportunity to make his environmental regulation rollbacks permanent if he places another conservative on the Supreme Court before Inauguration Day, legal experts argue. 
• Adding another conservative justice will also greatly diminish Justice John Robert’s role as a swing member in which he occasionally sides with liberal justices, one legal expert at the University of Maryland suggested. 
• The president can pave the road for future deregulations with one more justice, Myron Ebell, an analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

If President Donald Trump replaces the deceased Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg with a conservative stalwart, then attempts to pull back on the president’s environmental regulatory rollbacks through the courts could be thwarted, some academics and legal experts say.

Putting another conservative justice on the Supreme Court of the United States before Inauguration Day could also diminish former Vice President Joe Biden’s chances of implementing a wide-ranging climate change plan in the event he defeats Trump in November, according to Jody Freeman, director of Harvard Law School’s environmental and energy law program.

“A further tilt of the Court in the direction it is already going … certainly won’t help the cause of environmental protection,” Freedman told the Washington Post Monday. Freedman cited what he believed was the conservative-leaning court’s skeptical position on regulations as reason to believe that the “cause for environmental protection” is in jeopardy.

Ginsburg, an 87-year-old liberal icon on the SCOTUS, died Friday due to complications from metastatic pancreatic cancer. Trump initially told reporters Saturday that he plans to announce a nominee “next week” before pushing back his timeline Monday, citing memorial services for Ginsburg.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said in a Sept. 18 statement that the Senate would vote on Trump’s nominee.

A legal decision from 2007 giving activists the opportunity to sue over climate change could be at risk under a more conservative court, according to one expert, which could endanger former President Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan.

Obama signed the 2016 rule in an attempt to rein in greenhouse gas emissions from coal power plants. SCOTUS issued a stay on its implementation in 2016.

Conservative justices could use the Clean Power Plan as a Trojan horse to undermine the 2007 ruling in Massachusetts v. the Environmental Protection Agency, which required the agency to regulate carbon dioxide and allowed states and advocacy groups to sue over climate change issues, Michael Gerrard, an environmental law professor at Columbia Law School, told the Post.

“If Trump is able to name Ginsburg’s replacement, that decision becomes a big target for those who want to shut down EPA regulation of greenhouse gases,” Gerrard said, referring to the 2007 case. 

The Environmental Protection Agency under the helm of former Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt introduced a replacement plan in 2018 called the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule, which asks states to improve coal plant efficiency. The Clean Power Plan, on the other hand, mandated that such plants reduce gas emissions.

Some experts believe the Clean Power Plan would force plants to close. (RELATED: Here’s How Trump’s Environmental Legacy Stacks Up With Obama’s Record)

Democrat-led states and environmental groups sued the government to toss out the ACE, leading to a potential showdown at the SCOTUS. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is preparing to hear arguments regarding the ACE in October, according to The Washington Post. Trump’s regulatory rollbacks are pending in the lower courts, legal experts argue.

“The lower courts have played a powerful role in restraining the Trump administration,” Thomas McGarity, an environmental law professor at the University of Texas at Austin, told the Post. “Nearly all of the Trump administration’s rollbacks of Obama administration environmental initiatives are still pending in the lower courts and will therefore be ripe for review” in SCOTUS.

The president rolled back more than 90 environmental rules and regulations during his first three years in office, including many of the regulations imposed by his predecessor, The New York Times reported in December 2019. The NYT relied on an analysis from Harvard Law School, Columbia Law School and other sources to keep tabs on Trump’s numbers during his time in office.

In addition, a SCOTUS containing six conservative justices would create a seemingly insurmountable barrier for a future Democratic president, McGarity added.

“If the people elect a new president and put both houses of Congress in the control of the Democrats, the Supreme Court with six conservatives could provide a hurdle that the agencies under new leadership will have a hard time overcoming,” he said.

Myron Ebell, an analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, agreed that Trump’s nominee, if confirmed, will likely make the president’s moves to peel back Obama’s environmental rules a permanent fixture in government. Ebell worked on Trump’s EPA transition team and is a fervent critic of Obama’s policies.

“I think the Supreme Court before Justice Ginsburg’s death was quite likely to uphold most of the Trump administration’s environmental and energy deregulatory actions,” Ebell told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “The new court could be prepared to go much further in terms of striking down legislation and limiting deference to agencies.”

Chief Justice John Robert’s position as the court’s swing member, occasionally siding with the SCOTUS’ liberal justices, will be diminished, Robert Percival, professor and director of the environmental law program at the University of Maryland, told the Post.

“If a sixth conservative Justice is confirmed before Trump leaves office, Chief Justice Roberts no longer will be the swing vote and the other five conservatives would be free to embrace more extreme interpretations of the environmental laws,” Percival said. Roberts joined Ginsburg in April in ruling that a Hawaiian treatment plant could not exploit a loophole to avoid getting a Clean Water Act permit.

SCOTUS ruled 6 to 3 in April that the wastewater treatment plant could not avoid provisions of the rule prohibiting the release of pollutants into rivers, lakes and seas, by pumping the pollutants first into groundwater. The Trump administration determined that the Clean Water Act permitted the treatment plant to avoid a permit through the measurer, according to the Post.

Like this:

Like Loading…

Related

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/3ctTtZq

September 22, 2020 at 12:05PM

https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/darpa-funded-implantable-biochip-detect-covid-19-could-hit-markets-2021

A DARPA-Funded Implantable Biochip To Detect COVID-19 Could Hit Markets By 2021

by Tyler DurdenFri, 09/18/2020 

Authored by Raul Diego via MintPressNews.com,

The most significant scientific discovery since gravity has been hiding in plain sight for nearly a decade and its destructive potential to humanity is so enormous that the biggest war machine on the planet immediately deployed its vast resources to possess and control it, financing its research and development through agencies like the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and HHS’ BARDA.  (See link for article)

_____________________

**Comment**

Important quote:

As Rossi, himself, puts it: “The real important discovery here was you could now use mRNA, and if you got it into the cells, then you could get the mRNA to express any protein in the cells, and this was the big thing.”

Also, important to note is that Rossi co-founded Moderna Inc. which obtained almost half a billion dollars in federal funding to develop these mRNA vaccines. While retired from Moderna, he still owns stock in it.

The article goes on to state that since 2006, DARPA has been researching how to identify viral upper respiratory pathogens, which resulted in a type of implantable ‚hydrogel‘ nanotechnology.

This is where 5G comes in.

With the help of 5G, this ‚hydrogel‘ put inside the body can transmit light based digital signals, be controlled remotely, and potentially manipulate biological responses.

The author rightly states this technology could result in a nightmare of possibilities, but with applause from those at Google who salivate over the fusion of technology and biology.

Profusa Inc is marketing it with millions in funding from from NIH and DARPA.  The company announced in March an injectable biochip for the detection of viral respiratory diseases, including COVID-19.

Important to note: Moderna’s March 2019 application for an amendment to a declined patent states they had to have a patent on this technology in order to fight a Beta Coronavirus that may come about as a result as an accidental or deliberate release of a Coronavirus into the public. This was done 9 months before COVID emerged.

The article goes on to state that Fauci, NIAID, NIH, are all in bed together https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/07/08/new-docs-nih-owns-half-of-moderna-vaccine/ and have financial stakes in Moderna’s mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. But there is squabbling in the bedroom with Moderna trying to develop a separate delivery system before the federal governments‘. Similarly to a greedy divorce settlement, HHS is investigating Moderna’s patent claiming it failed to disclose government funding.

It appears the vultures are circling Moderna with its executives cashing in stock, raking in $90 million in personal profits, which could be prophetic: https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/09/21/coronavirus-vaccine-patent.aspx

While the conflicts of interest here are troubling to say the least, the issue of a mRNA vaccine’s capacity to change our DNA, utilizing WiFi  pulls the trump card. (Not to mention there’s evidence 5G itself causes health issues:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/04/25/coronavirus-science-policy-politics-5g/

For more:

Moderna’s vaccine has significant side effects:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/06/03/a-coronavirus-vaccine-patient-fainted-and-was-sicker-than-hed-ever-been-after-getting-moderna-injection/

Cansino’s as well:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/07/09/81-of-clinical-trial-volunteers-suffer-reactions-to-cansino-biologics-covid-19-vaccine-that-uses-hek293-human-fetal-cell-lines/

And AstraZeneca’s:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/09/10/vaccine-trial-halted-after-participant-became-ill/

UK Vaccine Unable To Prevent Monkeys From Catching COVID-19

See more

Inovio COVID-19 Vaccine Uses Electricity to Drive DNA Into Body Cells

See more

In this ‚must see‘ video with Ben Swan we learn that both Moderna and NIH are engaged in patent infringement (patent app. # 16-368270) as it evidently belongs to Arbutus Biopharma:  https://truthinmedia.com/exclusive-covid-vaccine-patent-warned-deliberate-release-9-months-before-covid-19/

Moderna was shown favoritism by the NIH and Fauci, and was clearly put in the front of the line.  This sort of favoritism is rife within the NIH/CDC/NIAID which is riddled with corruption:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2016/11/29/spider-attacks-cdc/

September 22, 2020

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/