Three Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee sent a letter to a key Department of Energy (DOE) official on Monday following a Daily Caller News Foundation report that found his office had committed to providing a massive loan for a company that was allegedly defrauding its investors.
Citing the DCNF, Reps. Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington, H. Morgan Griffith of Virginia and Jeff Duncan of South Carolina wrote the letter to Jigar Shah, who leads the DOE’s Loan Programs Office (LPO), demanding answers about his office’s due diligence process. The DCNF reported in November that the LPO had reached a conditional commitment to loan Li-Cycle, a battery recycling company, $375 million while the company was allegedly defrauding investors.
The purpose of the LPO is to provide green energy companies with loans that the private sector would not offer, according to the office’s website.
The LPO conducts its due diligence process before offering a conditional agreement to a potential loan recipient. In Li-Cycle’s case, the loan package, announced in February 2023, would have subsidized the company’s Rochester, New York, facility. The company paused construction on that project in October, and it now faces a class-action lawsuit that alleges the company committed securities fraud by misrepresenting or failing to disclose that the facility’s construction costs were rising to the point of potentially jeopardizing the project. (RELATED: Former CEO Who Made Bad Green Energy Bets Now Doling Out Billions Of Taxpayer Dollars To Green Projects)
Shah had pitched Li-Cycle CEO Ajay Kochhar on the benefits of an LPO loan in September 2022, according to The Wall Street Journal, three months after the company had allegedly started to defraud investors. Kochhar was reportedly worried that his company would be unable to service the debt to the government, but Shah reassured him that his concerns would eventually be rendered moot because the company would be making a lot of money in the coming years.
The company’s stock price is down about 85% year-to-date, according to data from Google Finance.
Republican Wyoming Sen. John Barrasso, the ranking member on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, has also slammed Shah for committing to the Li-Cycle loan and pressed him for answers in an October letter.
Li-Cycle is not the only troubled company that LPO has offered to loan a massive package of taxpayer dollars. The LPO offered a $3 billion package to Sunnova, a solar company that allegedly ripped off elderly customers on their deathbeds by convincing them to sign multi-decade, five-figure rooftop solar contracts, according to The Washington Free Beacon.
Barrasso and Republican Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley also ripped into Shah at a hearing about his continued association with the Cleantech Leaders Roundtable, a green energy trade group that Shah used to run before taking the top job at the LPO. The trade group has seen its revenues and influence surge since Shah started running LPO, and he has continued to speak at its events, some of which charge attendees a fee, according to the Beacon.
The DOE did not respond immediately to a request for comment.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
The nations of the world are pursuing an unprecedented energy transition. Efforts are underway to force a shift from coal, oil, and natural gas to renewable energy sources by 2050. But key elements of the proposed transition suffer from major safety issues, specifically batteries for electric vehicles and electricity storage and hydrogen fuels for industry.
Most energy sources involve safety risks. Gasoline cars can explode or burn, especially after collisions. Natural gas pipelines and processing facilities have been known to explode or combust. Nuclear power plants have caused famous disasters like Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima when cooling systems have failed. But green energy is bringing a new dimension of safety problems to society.
A transition from gasoline and diesel vehicles to electric models is a major part of the green energy revolution. President Joe Biden, other political leaders, and the International Energy Agency call for electric vehicles (EVs) to completely replace internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles by 2050. EVs with high-capacity batteries are new technology that is rapidly gaining market acceptance. Automakers compete to increase EV range by introducing larger and more powerful batteries.
But battery fires may threaten the EV revolution.
Lithium batteries in cell phones and other portable electronic devices are banned from commercial airline baggage compartments because of fire risk. Batteries in electric cars contain graphite, metals, and other materials bathed in flammable electrolytes with thousands of times more energy than your cell phone battery.
Electric cars spontaneously combust. Earlier this year, a father from Elk Grove Illinois was about to pull onto Highway 99 when he felt his Tesla start shaking. He pulled to the side of the road and exited his car, just before it burst into flames. He was unable to save the child car seats from the back of the car and was glad that his children were at home.
This summer, a Florida car owner had her vehicle in for servicing and was given a Mercedes EV as a loaner. The loaner was parked in her garage and not charging when it burst into flames. The flames and smoke caused heavy damage to her home.
BMW, Ford, GM, Hyundai, and Tesla electric cars have all experienced problems with battery fires. In the most visible case, GM recalled all 141,000 Chevrolet Bolts produced between 2016 and 2021. In August, electric truck maker Nikola announced a recall of all 209 of its heavy electric trucks because of battery fires.
In total, the rate of EV fires does not exceed the fire rate for ICE vehicles. But EVs can ignite unexpectedly when charging overnight in the garage or even when just parked in the driveway, locations where gasoline-powered cars typically don’t catch fire.
Battery fires are very hard to extinguish. They can burn for hours while fire departments douse them with water, and even re-ignite after the fire appears to be out. Some fire departments have resorted to lifting the flaming EV and dropping it into a huge tank of water to extinguish the flames.
Grid-scale batteries are being deployed by utilities in Australia, the U.S., and other nations. These are huge batteries, which provide electricity storage to back up wind and solar facilities. When wind and solar systems generate excess electricity, it can be stored in batteries and released when the wind is not blowing or the sun is not shining. But grid-scale batteries also have issues with self-ignition.
Today, grid-scale batteries store only about one millionth of the electricity that the world uses annually, but many of the few batteries that have been deployed already have suffered major fires. Batteries have burst into flames in Arizona, California, New York, Australia, and the United Kingdom. Grid-scale battery fires result from thermal runaway, caused by mechanical damage, poor air conditioning, or overcharging.
What is the current leading cause of accidental fires in New York City? The answer isn’t cooking or smoking. It’s fires caused by e-bike lithium batteries. Batteries on e-bikes spontaneously burst into flames when charging or just sitting idle. After ignition, the batteries burn with a high heat and set fire to storage areas or whole buildings, sometimes killing or injuring residents.
According to the New York City Fire Department, e-bike fires jumped from 44 in 2020 to more than 200 this year. The fires caused 10 deaths and over 200 injuries in the city during the past two years.
Green hydrogen, produced from electrolysis of water, is also proposed as a new fuel for the energy transition. Leaders call for a hydrogen economy to reduce emissions and fight global warming. Hydrogen is touted as a transportation fuel and a replacement for natural gas and coal in heavy industry. More than $280 billion in subsidies have been committed globally to develop green hydrogen.
But hydrogen exists in nature only in compounds. Pure hydrogen is very reactive and takes only a low level of energy in the presence of oxygen to burst into flames. The world’s rush to deploy hydrogen fuel may become a major safety hazard.
In 1937, the airship Hindenburg exploded in Lakehurst, New Jersey. The explosion ended 35 years of efforts to deploy hydrogen airships. More than two dozen airships exploded from 1908 to 1937 from accidental hydrogen fires, killing hundreds of passengers and crew. The world decided hydrogen airships were too hazardous to continue their use.
But green energy advocates now call for a network of hydrogen pipelines, public hydrogen fueling stations for vehicles, and even the use of hydrogen to heat homes. These systems will need to compress hydrogen to 700 atmospheres of pressure, making leaks probable. And unlike natural gas, hydrogen leaks are prone to spontaneous combustion and resultant explosions and fires.
Vice President Kamala Harris recently announced $1 billion in grants for electric school buses. But the number of electric bus fires around the world is growing. God forbid we start seeing spontaneous fires in electric buses full of children.
It’s clear that world leaders are ignoring the growing safety problems of green energy. But these fears are being pushed aside in favor of Climatism, the fear of human-caused global warming.
Steve Goreham is a speaker on energy, the environment, and public policy and the author of the new bestselling book Green Breakdown: The Coming Renewable Energy Failure.
Is there any critical industrial material as bizarre as natural gas?
The stuff holds almost zero interest for the general public, for the same reason no one is interested in the sound of a washing machine. Both boring. Both ubiquitous. Natural gas isn’t even sold on Amazon. But forty-six percent of American homes use natural gas for heat, and surely more in Canada.
But consider the storm below the surface. Traders love it, because it is one of the most volatile commodities in existence, and volatility means trading profits. The volatility, at the slightest provocation, is almost unbelievable at times. The weather pattern shifts for three weeks out over a portion of the US and boom – the entire forward 18 months of prices can collapse or soar.
In the bigger picture though, natural gas today in North America trades at close to the same price it did a quarter century ago – not inflation adjusted, just the same old nominal dollar value, which is astonishing since global gas demand has increased by 60 percent in that time.
Natural gas is a critical fuel for much of the world, and usage is growing, particularly the relatively new field of LNG. According to the Global Gas Infrastructure Tracker website, which doesn’t even like the stuff, there are a total of 2,449 significant pipeline projects underway in the world for a total of 1.2 million kilometers (and that’s the big pipe, not the little straws that go to your house). There are 238 LNG import terminals and 189 export trains in development globally. One hundred and thirty countries either have natural gas systems or are constructing them.
Traders, consumers and businesses love the stuff even if they don’t say it often enough, while others loathe it because it is a ‘fossil fuel’. Natural gas is caught in an existential war whereby said opponents will do everything in their power to just make it go away (they really think they can). The Toronto Globe and Mail, “Canada’s news paper” (note to self: develop ethnocentric balloon head emoji, make millions), recently ran a pricelessly ludicrous opinion piece entitled ‘Natural gas is a dying commodity, and Canada needs to stop supporting it’. The article was written by one of those think tanks (International Institute for Sustainable Development) that produces nothing but ideological amplification, safely distanced from people that actually do stuff, and a mountain of impressive T4 income tax slips (latest fiscal year personnel/consultant expense: $33 million). There is no surprise that their team of political scientists would attack natural gas; their latest financials show that the Government of Canada granted them $40 million, a third of which is from climate activist/federal minister Guilbeault’s office. There’ll be no biting that little hand.
Many climate leadership icons of the world, the US, Canada, Western Europe, Japan… pretty much anyone that can, is building natural gas (LNG or non) infrastructure as fast as they can. Germany, home to the world’s most advanced green energy demolition derby, built an LNG import terminal in an astounding 5 months. Many that want to import LNG but weren’t able to last year because Europe hoovered up every molecule on the market are simply doing what it takes to attain energy security, and that can mean, lord tunderin’, coal. Pakistan is the most notable example – the country plans to quadruple coal fired power output and move away from gas only because it could not obtain it: “A shortage of natural gas, which accounts for over a third of the country’s power output, plunged large areas into hours of darkness last year.” The country’s energy minister went on, “We have some of the world’s most efficient regasified LNG-based power plants. But we don’t have the gas to run them.”
For those fortunate enough to line up LNG supplies, the ante is normally a 15-20 year contract.
To say that “natural gas is a dying commodity” takes either some world-class mental dishonesty, disturbingly blind faith in policy over reality, or some kind of “clouds hate me” philosophical stance on life.
Beyond the silly messaging looking to undermine natural gas though are some very powerful undercurrents that are shaping the world in ways most don’t consider, but they should.
Thanks to the shale revolution in the US and Canada, native natural gas production exploded onto a scene that couldn’t handle the excess, leading to persistently low prices. North America is turning into an LNG export powerhouse, but until that export capacity outpaces productive capability, natural gas prices in North America look set to remain far below global prices.
It is worth remembering how significant this scenario is for North America. Cheap natural gas is an industrial godsend, enabling many strata of industries and enterprises that simply would not exist without. In May of 2022, the head of the Western Equipment Dealers Association, said that the previous winter’s high natural gas prices were unsustainable for businesses that had to heat 30-40,000 square-foot shops. The 2021-22 winter of which he was discontented saw Henry Hub prices average $4.56/mmbtu – about a third of global prices, and a fraction of what the world was to face later that year.
The same article pointed out how the Industrial Energy Consumers of America, a trade group whose members include smelters, plastics and paper-goods makers, wanted the US to stop permitting new LNG export terminals because “The manufacturing sector cannot invest and create jobs without assurances that our natural gas and electricity prices will not be imperiled by excessive LNG exports.”29dk2902lhttps://boereport.com/29dk2902l.html
Those guys aren’t crazy. The US gas market is balanced on a knife edge. A change in next month’s forecast can create havoc in forward prices even up to several years out.
The rise of LNG is making things even more unstable. The Freeport LNG terminal had an 8 month outage due to an accident, removing 2 bcf/d of demand from the market (in a 100 bcf/d market); this single event caused a storage surplus in the US that has depressed natural gas prices ever since. All else being equal, the US natural gas storage scene would be in a deficit to the five year average as opposed to today’s surplus if Freeport hand not gone down, and both spot and futures prices would most likely be significantly higher. The Freeport outage probably knocked US natural gas prices down by at least $1/mmbtu for a period of 8 months, and actually probably much more. But even at that level, in a 100 bcf/d market, where 1 bcf is equal to 1 million mmbtus, the cost savings to US consumers totaled $100 million per day. (Of course, had the price stayed higher, we might have seen far more drilling, which may have caused a collapse as well, just a bit further down the road.)
That $100 million per day cost saving came out of the hide of North American natural gas producers selling into that market, and you’d think they wouldn’t like that one little bit. And they don’t. But gas producers have their own realities and game plans which don’t generally involve sacrificing any of their sales for the good of all other producers, as economically sensible as that strategy may be.
US producers find themselves in an odd situation. Every one of the large producers knows that they could cut production by 5 percent and double their profits; the market is that tightly balanced. Doing so would single handedly drive up NG prices substantially – just observe how the gas market goes ape over a change in weather forecast.
But driving up prices, even if it is in their own self interest, will mean a spike in production, because at sustained $4 US gas, the market becomes flooded. EQT president Toby Rice, the largest US gas producer (EQT, not Toby), says at a sustained $4/mmbtu natural gas price, the US could export 60 bcf/d of natural gas. Keep in mind that $4 gas is a fraction, anywhere from a third to ten percent of global LNG prices.
Mr. Rice may very well be correct, but glosses over the reality of natural gas prices: we will never see a sensible sustained price like $4, even though we may average it – we will see 2 and 8 and 3 and 9 and so on and so on.
On top of this, solution gas from oil plays like Permian us providing massive amounts of gas in itself. The Permian, primarily an oil field, produces more solution gas than the entire country of Canada. Permian solution gas, if a stand alone country, would be one of the world’s top five largest producers.
So who cares? Well, you all do. We all do. The goofballs that wrote the Globe & Mail article do, though they either won’t admit it or simply refuse to understand.
Natural gas is the bedrock of most economies, and cheap natural gas is a special elixir to North America. It is absolutely crucial to the level of industrial activity we enjoy. There is no substitute for the clean burning capability of the stuff. Wander into a typical big box store or more crucially try to wander into an industrial building that you won’t be allowed to because it is unsafe… drive around an industrial park and look at all the magnificent industrial activity that gives us the life we live. Now imagine those being heated by wood stoves. Or solar panels in dead of winter. Geothermal? Sure, if you plan on drilling into the earth’s mantle. And if you live on an appropriate acreage. And have enough money. I guess there’s always coal.
And that sums up a lot of the world’s population’s situation: If countries aren’t building LNG, it’s likely because they are building coal, as in the countries that Europe outbid for LNG last winter in a shocking me-first display of hydrocarbon-swilling (accompanied by fossil-fuel-subsidizing self-loathing?) hypocrisy.
There are storm clouds on the horizon. The drilling efficiency that these companies boast about relentlessly in IR presentations and every 90 days in conference calls consists to a large degree on drilling longer horizontal wells. Do the math on that one. Reservoirs are finite in size. If you increase the length of wells by another mile or two, you’re just draining the reservoir faster. One day we will see true sweet spot exhaustion, which is not a laughing matter when one considers that three fields – Appalachia, Haynesville and Permian – account for more than 70 percent of US gas production, and about a fifth of global production.
But for now, North America reigns supreme with respect to the world’s most coveted heating and industrial fuel. The US, Canada and Mexico remain more or less isolated from global natural gas prices for now, which brings incalculable benefits to North American businesses and citizens, a benefit that shouldn’t be taken for granted.
Energy conversations should be positive and, most of all, grounded in reality. Life depends on it. Find out more in “The End of Fossil Fuel Insanity” at Amazon.ca, Indigo.ca, or Amazon.com. Thanks!
Read more insightful analysis from Terry Etam here, or email Terry here.
In December 2016, Donald Trump had just been elected President. He had been widely accused of calling the climate scare a “hoax.” In a post titled “The Impending Collapse Of The Global Warming Scare,” I went out on a limb predicting that the change of administration could bring about a the rapid demise of the climate scare. The post reported the then-increasing focus of the environmental movement on the climate issue, and ended with this prediction:
The environmental movement has climbed itself way out onto the global warming limb. Now the Trump administration is about to start sawing off the limb behind them.
Well, that didn’t happen. In the event, the Trump Administration was mostly a disappointment to us climate skeptics. Yes, they did take on a few significant regulatory matters, like rescinding the so-called Clean Power Plan (forced closure of fossil fuel power plants). But they never tackled the Endangerment Finding (labeling CO2 a “danger” to human health and welfare); nor did they make any meaningful pushback against the activist bureaucracies or scientific societies; nor did they cut funding for the climate alarm movement to any significant degree.
So we have been left to wait for the climate scare and the energy transition to collapse under the weight of the combination of their own scientific absurdity, physical impossibility, and crushing costs. It has been a long wait.
But you have likely seen over the course of just the past few months that the supposed green energy transition — widely hyped and massively subsidized for two decades — has suddenly started to crumble on multiple fronts. We are rapidly approaching the green energy wall. And yet at the same time, the promoters of the climate scare are not backing down. Not in the least. To the contrary, the New York Times reports just today that the major environmental NGOs are in a process of cutting their funding for their most basic programs, like dealing with toxic chemicals, in order to double down and focus even more on the one big issue — climate change.
More on that in a minute. But first, a small update on the approach of the green energy wall. Here are just a few of the latest data points on the supposed green energy transition not happening due to issues of cost and physical impossibility:
From the New York Times, November 2: “Wind Power, Key to Democrats’ Climate-Change Goals, Faces a Crisis.” The article recounts the developers backing out of four big offshore wind projects off New York a couple of months ago, followed by an overlapping group of developers backing out of two big wind projects of the coast of New Jersey just a few days ago (November 1). (See also my post of October 5 as to other cancelations of offshore wind projects off the mid-Atlantic and New England.). For New York, where offshore wind is supposed to be the magic elixir that will enable us to close all our natural gas plants and at the same time electrify all buildings and cars, we are left with exactly one offshore project currently moving forward, with all of 12 turbines. Excerpt from the Times piece: “Instead of gathering momentum as the long-promised benefits of offshore wind farms are about to be realized, the industry is now mired in an existential crisis. An assortment of recent obstacles to projects in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut are almost certain to delay — and possibly derail — Northeastern states’ grand ambitions to harness the winds blowing over the Atlantic Ocean.”
The darned fossil fuels just won’t go away. From the New York Times today: “Nations That Vowed to Halt Warming Are Expanding Fossil Fuels, Report Finds.”Excerpt: “In 2030, if current projections hold, the United States will drill for more oil and gas than at any point in its history. Russia and Saudi Arabia plan to do the same. They’re among the world’s fossil fuel giants that, together, are on course this decade to produce twice the amount of fossil fuels than a critical global warming threshold allows, according to a United Nations-backed report issued on Wednesday.”
Values of stocks of wind and solar developers have been crashing. Jo Nova reports today that the Invesco Solar ETF is down 40% year-to-date. She previously produced this chart of the stock price of Siemens Energy, with two dramatic drops in the past few months tied to announcements of losses in the wind energy business:
Which brings us to the other New York Times article from today, headline: “Environmental Groups Cut Programs as Funding Shifts to Climate Change.”Even as everyone can see that this whole green energy thing is just not going to work, the Times reports that the entire environmental movement is doubling down, cutting other programs and focusing their funding on climate change to the exclusion of everything else:
A significant shift in donor contributions to nonprofits fighting climate change in recent years has left some of the nation’s biggest environmental organizations facing critical shortfalls in programs on toxic chemicals, radioactive contamination and wildlife protection. The Natural Resources Defense Council is shutting down its nuclear mission and has laid off its top lawyer in the field. . . . The NRDC is not alone. The Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife and the Environmental Working Group, which have been at the forefront of efforts to clean up waste water, regulate pesticides and adopt tougher standards for atomic power plants, are facing similar financial problems.
All the funders and the activists care about any more is climate change:
Meanwhile, global spending to fight climate change by environmental groups and other nonprofits reached $8 billion in 2021, most of it in the United States and Canada, according to a survey released in September by the Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy. . . . “Funders that had a nuclear program or a toxics program have left those fields entirely and have gone to climate change,” said Marylia Kelley, senior adviser and former executive director of a citizens oversight group. . . .
I’d be surprised if the total annual funding of all climate skeptic organizations is as much as $25 million. Well, they have religious fervor and fanaticism on their side, but we have reality.
The whole Green New Deal is falling apart right before our very eyes. Offshore wind is collapsing. Biden’s favorite electric bus company Proterra just filed for bankruptcy…
Morano: “Everything is collapsing on its own now. You can no longer virtue signal this nonsense. We had world leaders at UN summit all proclaim to limit the earth’s temperature to two degrees all go to 1.5 as though they were playing The Price is Righ spinning a giant dial.
It’s no longer possible, as you just laid out, Jesse, on every metric of Biden’s green energy agenda. It is in complete collapse. And this is the key part despite the massive Inflation Reduction Act –so called. Despite subsidies, mandates, tax credits, and I’m talking about not just now but subsidies for many years in the future… It’s easier to transition your gender than your energy. It’s just not happening… This is a celebration. They’re collapsing; it’s time to celebrate.”
Jesse Watters: Primetime has just scored another big victory. The whales have received the stay of execution, along with my beach views. We’ve been telling you for months that Biden’s offshore wind projects are destroying the Jersey Shore. But just yesterday, the Danish Windmill company pulled the plug on two massive projects off the Jersey coast. The company’s admitting Bidenomics doesn’t work. Despite billions and giveaways the windmills still won’t work. They won’t make money because of high rates of inflation and China. But that’s not all. Offshore wind farms in Massachusetts were just cancelled. Offshore wind in Connecticut is collapsing. And offshore wind projects in New York are about to get canceled.
The whole Green New Deal is falling apart right before our very eyes. Biden’s favorite electric bus company Proterra just filed for bankruptcy. It’s what happens when your buses catch on fire. General Motors and Honda just killed their low-price electric car joint venture. Ford just stopped work on their new Michigan electric battery plant. The company is losing $36,000 per Evie per Biden’s handing out $7,000 coupons to buy electric cars and no one’s buying them. This is what happens when companies make cars for politicians instead of companies making cars for customers. No one even thought to ask the customers if they wanted an electric car.
The smart money is an oil. That’s right. Exxon Mobil and Hess have discovered 11 billion barrels of oil off the coast of South America. It’s the biggest discovery in a decade. It appears we’re going to run out of minerals for batteries before we run out of oil for cars.
Joe Biden tried to run our economy like Joe Stalin. But just like the Soviet Union, the math doesn’t add up. And now billions of dollars are gone. And all we have are cars that never made it off the lot and windmills that never made it out of the warehouse. Now we find no Democrats, and I do. We’re about to witness one of the biggest green bailouts in history. Marc Morano is the Climate Depot publisher and author of the Green Fraud. Did you see this coming?
Morano: I hate to say I told you so. But absolutely. I was working in the US Senate Environment Public Works Committee when what was really the first governor to make a splash with climate, was Arnold Schwarzenegger in California. He did it 2006, the California climate bill, the Global Warming Solutions Act, and he was praised as a man saving the planet. It was the ultimate virtue signal. Well guess what? Many other governors, Senators, countries, all wanted in on that virtue signal. So for decades, they kept coming up with the net zero the solar, the wind mandates, the tax credits, the subsidies, and it was small enough that it didn’t really affect the energy mix, or we weren’t feeling it, obviously enough.
And all of this happened as well as the Inflation Reduction Act last year. Everything is collapsing on its own now. You can no longer virtue signal this nonsense. We had world leaders at UN summit all proclaim to limit the earth’s temperature to two degrees all go to 1.5 as though they were playing The Price is Righ spinning a giant dial.
It’s no longer possible, as you just laid out, Jesse, on every metric of Biden’s green energy agenda. It is in complete collapse. And this is the key part despite the massive Inflation Reduction Act –so called. Despite subsidies, mandates, tax credits, and I’m talking about not just now but subsidies for many years in the future. And you’re right. We look to Europe to see the future. Germany is already bailing out offshore wind, they’re already going to double down and start bailing out. A report came out and said we have to spend 75 trillion on these green energy mandates.
It’s easier to transition your gender than your energy. It’s just not happening.
Jesse Watters: Marc, How arrogant you have to be to think you all of a sudden can just build all brand new cars, all brand new energy, put windmills all up and down the coast, put solar panels all over and just change the entire world economy like that. How arrogant you have to be?
We asked the question: ‘Where are the Volvo driving, save the whale liberals, when you need them? Well, the liberals came out and now you have 50 mayors in New Jersey opposing the offshore wind.
This is arrogance at its height. You can’t manage an energy economy. Before save the planet, you need to save the people in it. They forgot that simple rule, and they literally came up with their 5, 10, 20-year plans, and they’re not backing down. This green energy failure is only proof that they haven’t spent enough, or mandated enough.
This is a celebration. They’re collapsing; it’s time to celebrate.
Climate Depot’s Morano: “The Treasury Dept report is complete nonsense. The report claims that ‘climate change’ will have ‘substantial financial costs,’ create unemployment, food shortages, inflation, and make energy bills rise. The Treasury report has it completely backward: it is the Biden administration’s climate & energy policies that are already having ‘substantial financial costs,’ creating unemployment, food shortages, inflation, and making energy bills rise.”
Morano: “Everything is collapsing on its own now. You can no longer virtue signal this nonsense. We had world leaders at UN summit all proclaim to limit the earth’s temperature to two degrees all go to 1.5 as though they were playing The Price is Righ spinning a giant dial.
It’s no longer possible, as you just laid out, Jesse, on every metric of Biden’s green energy agenda. It is in complete collapse. And this is the key part despite the massive Inflation Reduction Act –so called. Despite subsidies, mandates, tax credits, and I’m talking about not just now but subsidies for many years in the future…
It’s easier to transition your gender than your energy. It’s just not happening…
This is a celebration. They’re collapsing; it’s time to celebrate.”
The Heartland Institute’s Jim Lakely, Chris Talgo, Linnea Lueken, and special guest Jason Isaac of the Texas Public Policy Foundation present episode 422 of The In the Tank podcast.
The Biden administration is continuing to mandate the electrification of everything while at the same time pulling offline the reliable and affordable power generation and transmission that would make it remotely possible.
And this is a global delusion, not just a growing problem in the United States. Energy prices are skyrocketing and the “green energy” industry is now demanding even more government handouts – and permission to hike prices even more – to keep the scam going.
But are we seeing signs that a rapid collapse of the scam is near?
Investments in “alternative energy” companies took off in 2020, but all those gains are now gone. General Electric announced that it will post $1 billion in losses in its wind division.
The S&P Global Clean Energy Index is down more than 30 percent this year and still dropping. Siemens, one of the premier German manufacturers of wind turbines, saw its stock price crash by nearly 40 percent in one day last week and now wants a 15-billion-euros handout from the German government.
It also appears that “Big Oil” is giving up on pretending to be a part of the “green energy” future and is consolidating to produce even more oil and gas in the future.
And in signs that the EV bubble is collapsing, Ford announced that it lost $1.3 billion in its EV division during the third quarter of 2023 – which translates into a loss of $62,016 for each of the 20,962 EVs it sold during the period.
The CEO of Mercedes Benz said of the glut of EVs on the market that the public doesn’t want: “I can hardly imagine the current status quo is fully sustainable for everybody.”
Even Elon Musk is warning that demand is just not there for this massive, government-driven push for EVs.
Joining us to talk about all this is Jason Isaac, senior fellow of Life:Powered, a national initiative of the Texas Public Policy Foundation and co-author of the brand new report: “Overcharged Expectations: Unmasking the True Cost of Electric Vehicles.”
With government so invested with OUR MONEY in these schemes, is it inevitable that a massive financial bailout for these boondoggles is coming?
Green energy is not Green.- Renewables” are not “carbon free. – “Renewables” are the antithesis of fair, equitable, and just.- “Renewables” are intermittent and unreliable.
California recently joined other states in suing oil companies for purportedly misleading the public about alleged risks from fossil-fuel-driven climate change, extreme weather, and other dangers.
“Big Oil has been lying to us,” Governor Gavin Newsom asserted, “covering up” facts about “wildfires wiping out entire communities, toxic smoke clogging our air [and] deadly heat waves.”
This stuff belongs on Saturday Night Live. The references to “wildfires” have been debunked as, globally, wildfires have been declining. U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reports America is currently undergoing its longest period in recorded history, with less than 40 percent of the country experiencing “very dry” conditions. Analysts have likewise eviscerated the false hype about hurricanes and the endless, ridiculous attempts to link every calamity to “manmade climate change.”
No, what Newsom is doing has little to do with addressing an abbreviation labeled “CO2.” It’s more like “CYA”. Sadly, it’s become the first and last resort for slick politicians who want to avoid accountability for their incompetence and abysmal failures to protect their constituents from natural disasters. Governor Newsom is a consummate practitioner of misdirection and deception.
But people are still being conned by politicians like him into believing that virtue-signaling actions in their home, city, state, or even country can somehow offset the monumental greenhouse gas emissions from China, India, and other rapidly modernizing nations – and that wind, solar, and battery power will somehow save Planet Earth.
Here are some cold, hard facts that activists and politicians have been hiding.
* Green energy is not Green. Replacing coal, gas, and nuclear power requires hundreds of thousands of wind turbines, millions of solar panels, millions of battery modules, and tens of thousands of miles of new transmission lines sprawling across wildlife habitats, croplands, scenic areas, and coastal vistas. Mining, ore processing, and manufacturing to build those systems are increasingly done overseas, employing zero to minimal environmental standards. Such operations are powered by fossil fuels and discharge mammoth amounts of toxic pollutants into local air and water. Most worn-out, damaged, and obsolete “green energy” equipment cannot be recycled. It will be dumped in enormous landfills, in somebody’s backyard, and could leach toxic chemicals into soil and water.
* “Renewables” are not “carbon free.” Solar panels, batteries, and wind turbines must be fabricated, and this requires enormous uses of fossil-fuel energy for mining, processing, and manufacturing. While such emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases may be spewed far from California and America and thus out of the sight of virtue-signaling liberals, they still go into the global atmosphere.
* “Renewables” are the antithesis of fair, equitable, and just. Solar and wind energy tend to jack up rates wherever they’re widely implemented, and experts acknowledge their widescale use will cost 2-3 times what we’re paying today. Such hikes, naturally, hit those on fixed and limited incomes much harder than they do on the rich. Further, the minerals and components of Green energy are typically garnered overseas, chiefly in China, Africa, and Latin America. What this means is that it will be on the backs of poor Asians, Blacks, and Hispanics to provide the low-cost, cheap labor that will drive a “Green revolution” – to include any potential child and slave labor.
* “Renewables” are intermittent and unreliable. Wind facilities only generate their stated output about 30-40 percent of the time. Solar units typically only kick in 25% of their purported “capacity factor.” That means backup energy must be provided for the other 60-75% percent of the time they’re napping. Huge battery modules could help provide power during the lengthy gaps in wind and solar electricity generation, stabilize our increasingly complex, overstressed, and fragile grid, and reduce recurrent blackouts. But they would cost $23-293 trillion – before we are forced to go all-electric. Home, neighborhood, state, and national electric systems and grids will have to be upgraded to handle the massively increased loads. That will cost trillions more.
Climate activists like Gov. Newsom claim they’re devoted to transparency. They want oil companies and manufacturers to publicly disclose all greenhouse gas and other emissions associated with their products. But it is clear they’re simply blowing smoke.
If they were truly and sincerely interested in transparency and addressing a “climate crisis”, they would also insist that solar and wind “green” energy systems – and companies that make, install, or operate them – disclose all their emissions, environmental, and human rights impacts as well.
But they don’t. And when they’re confronted as to “why they don’t” by activists opposing renewable projects in communities across the nation … the only sound heard is crickets.
Craig Rucker is a co-founder of CFACT and currently serves as its president.
Widely heralded as a leader in the free market environmental, think tank community in Washington, D.C., Rucker is a frequent guest on radio talk shows, written extensively in numerous publications, and has appeared in such media outlets as Fox News, OANN, Washington Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Hill, among many others.
Rucker is also the co-producer of the award-winning film “Climate Hustle,” which was the #1 box-office film in America during its one night showing in 2016, as well as the acclaimed “Climate Hustle 2” staring Hollywood actor Kevin Sorbo released in 2020.
As an accredited observer to the United Nations, Rucker has also led CFACT delegations to some 30 major UN conferences, including those in Copenhagen, Istanbul, Kyoto, Bonn, Marrakesh, Rio de Janeiro, and Warsaw, to name a few.
The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) has expanded the availability of subsidies for green energy, with direct spending estimated to be over $1 trillion the next ten years. In addition to claims that these subsidies will address climate change, a primary justification for this increased spending is the claim that it will increase economic growth and provide millions of new jobs in green industries.
From the Global Warming Policy Foundation: We are keen to receive review comments for our new report which is now available for open review here.
Jonathan Lesser: Green energy and economic fabulism: The mirage of subsidy-propelled economic growth and employment.
The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) has expanded the availability of subsidies for green energy, with direct spending estimated to be over $1 trillion the next ten years. In addition to claims that these subsidies will address climate change, a primary justification for this increased spending is the claim that it will increase economic growth and provide millions of new jobs in green industries. The economic reality is far different.
Given rising U.S. deficits, much, if not all, of the tax credits for green energy, especially wind and solar facilities, will be financed with additional debt. The staggering amounts of money available, more than even was spent by the government during the Great Depression, will have long-lasting and adverse consequences on energy supplies, economic growth, and the well-being of the citizenry. The subsidies will further distort energy markets and raise energy prices. The subsidies will crowd out more productive private investment and reduce the resources available for more efficient energy resources, such as nuclear power. As in Europe, the subsidies will result in higher energy prices that will cause economic and job losses throughout the entire economy. These losses will far exceed the gains provided by the subsidies themselves.
Although policy makers may choose to ignore basic economic principles in favor of political expediency and, in some cases, personal gain, those principles will not ignore them. Eventually, the profligate spending on costly, but low-value green energy will collapse under its own economic weight. The unanswered question is how high an economic and social price the U.S. will pay for this folly before that occurs.
Submitted comments and contributions will be subject to a moderation process and will be published, provided they are substantive and not abusive.Open review here.
The Scoping Plan is the framework for how New York will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and achieve net-zero emissions, increase renewable energy use, and ensure all communities equitably benefit in the clean energy transition.
Consider Manhattan Contrarian as your go-to source for the latest on New York’s progress toward green energy utopia.
Can you remember all the way back to December 19, 2022? That’s the day that New York’s Climate Action Council officially adopted its “Scoping Plan,” telling us all how we are going to achieve, among other goals, 70% of statewide electricity from renewable energy sources by 2030 and a zero-emissions electricity system by 2040. The biggest part of the grand plan consists of some 9,000 MW (nameplate capacity) of offshore wind turbines to be built by 2035. As of the time of the Scoping Plan, the state claimed that some 4,300 MW out of the 9,000 MW of upcoming offshore wind projects were under “active development.”
On the very day that the Scoping Plan got finalized, I had a post titled “On To The Great Future Of Offshore Wind Power.” That post noted that even of the 4.300 MW of offshore wind supposedly under “active development,” not one turbine was operating, or even under construction. Several developers had made bids that had been accepted by the state, and some of those developers were getting kind of close to applying for permits. My prediction was: “Expect long delays and demands for lots more money before anything gets built.” Boy, can I call these things.
Shall we check back in for the latest information?
Just ten days ago, on October 5, I had an update on offshore wind developments throughout the Mid-Atlantic and New England. For New York, the news was that in September essentially all the developers of the New York projects in “active development” had demanded massive price increases, ranging from about 30% at the low end to almost 65% at the high end. The new prices being demanded by the developers would now be between $140-190 per MWh, which would be at least double to more than triple the prices charged by new natural gas plants.
So how did that go over? To its credit, the state Public Service Commission wasted no time in rejecting the price hike demands of the developers. On October 12 the Commission issued its decision on the Petitions of the developers for price relief. Excerpt from the press release:
The New York State Public Service Commission (Commission) today denied petitions filed by a group of offshore wind developers and a state renewable energy trade association seeking billions of dollars in additional funding from consumers for four proposed offshore wind projects and 86 land-based renewable projects. In denying financial relief, the Commission opted to preserve the robust competitive bidding process that provides critically needed renewable energy resources to New York in the fairest and most cost-effective manner that protects consumers.
OK then, what happens next? The New York Times has a write-up here on October 12. The Times quotes the Chair of the PSC, one Rory Christian, as standing up for the sanctity of the public bidding process:
Rory Christian, the chairman of the Public Service Commission, the state’s utility regulator, said that providing relief to the winning bidders would set an untenable precedent. “Taking exception today almost guarantees that we will be asked to do this again in the future,” he said. Mr. Christian added that the state’s ratepayers, who would have borne the cost, could not serve as an “unlimited piggy bank” for companies to tap. “We have a deal,” he said to the developers, calling on them to stand by the terms they agreed to.
Well, Rory, I’ve got news for you: the developers aren’t going to honor the deal. You’re going to have to hold a new auction. And the prices that will be bid will be as high or higher than those just demanded by these developers.
Oh, and then don’t expect any new round of accepted bids to stick either. The developers will come back again and again for new rounds of price increases. What’s to stop them? After all, they have you over a barrel. You have a “Climate Act” and a “Scoping Plan” that basically require you to build out a grid powered by “renewables,” whether that is feasible or not, and then limit your options to mostly offshore wind.
And meanwhile, until the next round of bids is held, we’re back to square one. We have a statutory requirement of 70% of our electricity from “renewables” by 2030, and a “Scoping Plan” that sees that goal being achieved largely through offshore wind turbines. And we have not one single operating offshore wind turbine, nor any under construction, nor, after the recent contract repudiations, any actively moving through the permitting process. At least for now, the whole thing is dead in the water.
The Times quotes a guy named Fred Zalcman, director of the New York Offshore Wind Alliance:
[T]he commission’s decision “puts these projects in serious jeopardy and deals a potentially fatal blow to the progress these projects have made. . . .”
By the way, the prices recently demanded by the offshore wind developers, in the range of $140-190/MWh, do not include anything for the transmission upgrades needed to deliver this power into the grid, nor anything for the storage or back-up needed to transform intermittent wind power into a useful 24/7 resource. The sooner we pull the plug on this whole endeavor, the better. But we are now only in the first phases of the collapse.
UPDATE, October 16, 2023: Meanwhile, I should have mentioned that New York City apartment buildings remain under a mandate from “Local Law 97” to convert to electric heat by 2030 or face large fines. The electricity is supposed to come from the offshore wind farms that, for the time being, are completely suspended. Go to the link in the sidebar to listen to Jane’s podcast on this subject.
Confronted with major decisions, we’re repeatedly told by government authorities to “trust the science.”
But by whose scientific authority?
Is it global institutions like the World Health Organization (WHO) that assured us the COVID-19 virus originated from pangolins in a Wuhan wet market rather than a laboratory that our own government funded?
Is it the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) that assured us masks and shutdowns would help prevent the spread, and that vaccines were safe for low-risk children regardless of the obvious fact no long-term studies were possible?
Is it the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) whose purposes and alarmist pronouncements its key members and government advocates have admitted being about global wealth redistribution and whose theoretical climate models have proven grossly overheated?
Is it our current president and advisers who claim climate change is causing “historically high” temperatures and severe weather events to become more frequent despite readily available records showing this to be untrue?
Is it taxpayer-funded government agencies and “green energy” subsidy seekers claiming to save the planet from climate doom by replacing the 80% of global and domestic energy provided by fossil fuels by increasing the 3% provided by wind and solar combined and adding millions of electric vehicles that depend on rare earth minerals controlled by China to already overloaded power grids?
Is it scientific journals headed by ideologically aligned revolving-door editors who cycle between government and academic positions to close out dissenting scientific findings in favor of politically compliant narratives?
Patrick Brown, climate co-director at the Berkeley, California, Breakthrough Institute, acknowledged this problem by voluntarily admitting to having censored one of his own studies to increase the chances of getting published.
Writing in the Free Press, Brown explained that he omitted “key aspects other than climate change” from a paper on California wildfires because such details would “dilute the story that prestigious journals like Nature and its rival, Science, want to tell us.”
Brown added that editors of scientific journals “have made it abundantly clear, both by what they publish and what they reject, that they want climate papers that support certain preapproved narratives.”
Sadly, tragically, much of what is termed “science” today is fundamentally influenced by all of the above.
The late Apollo 7 astronaut Col. Walter Cunningham summed up a different view of science in a statement he offered for the back cover of my first of two books written more than a decade ago on this subject, “Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax.”
My long-time friend Walt observed: “Those of us fortunate enough to have traveled in space bet our lives on the competence, dedication, and integrity of the science and technology professionals who made our missions possible. … In the last twenty years, I have watched the high standards of science being violated by a few influential climate scientists, including some at NASA, while special interest opportunists have dangerously abused our public trust.”
Included are some researchers at academic institutions whose careers largely depend upon getting funded by government grants and thence published in likewise bias-confirming journals.
As for that science being “settled” regarding a human greenhouse gas-caused climate crisis, a “World Climate Declaration” made public in August by the nonprofit scientific Global Climate Intelligence Group (CLINTEL) endorsed by 1,609 informed scientists and professionals — including two Nobel Laureates, John Clauser (USA) and Ivar Giaever (Norway/USA) — clearly says otherwise.
Among many objections to crisis claims and consequences, CLINTEL notes that climate models are not remotely plausible as policy tools: They exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases while ignoring the enriching and vital vegetation benefits of CO2, which is essential to all life.
Even Gavin Schmidt, who succeeded climate activist James Hansen as head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), admitted to the renowned journal Science in 2021 that “It’s become clear over the last year or so that we can’t avoid this admission that the models can’t be trusted as a policy instrument. … You end up with numbers for even the near‐term that are insanely scary — and wrong.”
IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer clarified the organization’s true agenda in November 2010 when he advised that: “… one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth …”
The late Stephen Schneider, a lead author on three overheated IPCC reports who had previously warned of global cooling, told Discover magazine in 1989 that capturing the public’s imagination about climate risks entails “getting loads of media coverage.”
“So,” he said, “We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of the doubts we might have,” whereby “Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
The next time you hear someone from the government with any such an agenda telling you to trust the science, don’t confuse ideological and/or political motives with legitimate and necessary trust in the scientific method … a rational process of observation, measurement, evidence, logic, debate, and iterative revision of concepts and theories where uncertainties are stated.
No, we can’t always count on scientists being right, but we should demand objectivity, rigor, and honesty.
Our lives, families, and nation’s future depend on this.
CFACT Advisor Larry Bell heads the graduate program in space architecture at the University of Houston.
He founded and directs the Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture.
He is also the author of “Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax.”
Share this:
Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
We use cookies to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners. View more
Cookies settings
Accept
Privacy & Cookie policy
Privacy & Cookies policy
Cookies list
Cookie name
Active
Wer wir sind
Textvorschlag: Die Adresse unserer Website ist: https://climate-science.press.
Kommentare
Textvorschlag: Wenn Besucher Kommentare auf der Website schreiben, sammeln wir die Daten, die im Kommentar-Formular angezeigt werden, außerdem die IP-Adresse des Besuchers und den User-Agent-String (damit wird der Browser identifiziert), um die Erkennung von Spam zu unterstützen.
Aus deiner E-Mail-Adresse kann eine anonymisierte Zeichenfolge erstellt (auch Hash genannt) und dem Gravatar-Dienst übergeben werden, um zu prüfen, ob du diesen benutzt. Die Datenschutzerklärung des Gravatar-Dienstes findest du hier: https://automattic.com/privacy/. Nachdem dein Kommentar freigegeben wurde, ist dein Profilbild öffentlich im Kontext deines Kommentars sichtbar.
Medien
Textvorschlag: Wenn du ein registrierter Benutzer bist und Fotos auf diese Website lädst, solltest du vermeiden, Fotos mit einem EXIF-GPS-Standort hochzuladen. Besucher dieser Website könnten Fotos, die auf dieser Website gespeichert sind, herunterladen und deren Standort-Informationen extrahieren.
Cookies
Textvorschlag: Wenn du einen Kommentar auf unserer Website schreibst, kann das eine Einwilligung sein, deinen Namen, E-Mail-Adresse und Website in Cookies zu speichern. Dies ist eine Komfortfunktion, damit du nicht, wenn du einen weiteren Kommentar schreibst, all diese Daten erneut eingeben musst. Diese Cookies werden ein Jahr lang gespeichert.
Falls du ein Konto hast und dich auf dieser Website anmeldest, werden wir ein temporäres Cookie setzen, um festzustellen, ob dein Browser Cookies akzeptiert. Dieses Cookie enthält keine personenbezogenen Daten und wird verworfen, wenn du deinen Browser schließt.
Wenn du dich anmeldest, werden wir einige Cookies einrichten, um deine Anmeldeinformationen und Anzeigeoptionen zu speichern. Anmelde-Cookies verfallen nach zwei Tagen und Cookies für die Anzeigeoptionen nach einem Jahr. Falls du bei der Anmeldung „Angemeldet bleiben“ auswählst, wird deine Anmeldung zwei Wochen lang aufrechterhalten. Mit der Abmeldung aus deinem Konto werden die Anmelde-Cookies gelöscht.
Wenn du einen Artikel bearbeitest oder veröffentlichst, wird ein zusätzlicher Cookie in deinem Browser gespeichert. Dieser Cookie enthält keine personenbezogenen Daten und verweist nur auf die Beitrags-ID des Artikels, den du gerade bearbeitet hast. Der Cookie verfällt nach einem Tag.
Eingebettete Inhalte von anderen Websites
Textvorschlag: Beiträge auf dieser Website können eingebettete Inhalte beinhalten (z. B. Videos, Bilder, Beiträge etc.). Eingebettete Inhalte von anderen Websites verhalten sich exakt so, als ob der Besucher die andere Website besucht hätte.
Diese Websites können Daten über dich sammeln, Cookies benutzen, zusätzliche Tracking-Dienste von Dritten einbetten und deine Interaktion mit diesem eingebetteten Inhalt aufzeichnen, inklusive deiner Interaktion mit dem eingebetteten Inhalt, falls du ein Konto hast und auf dieser Website angemeldet bist.
Mit wem wir deine Daten teilen
Textvorschlag: Wenn du eine Zurücksetzung des Passworts beantragst, wird deine IP-Adresse in der E-Mail zur Zurücksetzung enthalten sein.
Wie lange wir deine Daten speichern
Textvorschlag: Wenn du einen Kommentar schreibst, wird dieser inklusive Metadaten zeitlich unbegrenzt gespeichert. Auf diese Art können wir Folgekommentare automatisch erkennen und freigeben, anstatt sie in einer Moderations-Warteschlange festzuhalten.
Für Benutzer, die sich auf unserer Website registrieren, speichern wir zusätzlich die persönlichen Informationen, die sie in ihren Benutzerprofilen angeben. Alle Benutzer können jederzeit ihre persönlichen Informationen einsehen, verändern oder löschen (der Benutzername kann nicht verändert werden). Administratoren der Website können diese Informationen ebenfalls einsehen und verändern.
Welche Rechte du an deinen Daten hast
Textvorschlag: Wenn du ein Konto auf dieser Website besitzt oder Kommentare geschrieben hast, kannst du einen Export deiner personenbezogenen Daten bei uns anfordern, inklusive aller Daten, die du uns mitgeteilt hast. Darüber hinaus kannst du die Löschung aller personenbezogenen Daten, die wir von dir gespeichert haben, anfordern. Dies umfasst nicht die Daten, die wir aufgrund administrativer, rechtlicher oder sicherheitsrelevanter Notwendigkeiten aufbewahren müssen.
Wohin deine Daten gesendet werden
Textvorschlag: Besucher-Kommentare könnten von einem automatisierten Dienst zur Spam-Erkennung untersucht werden.
