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.
2023 was an unusually bad year for appliance regulations, and future years won’t be much better unless Congress finds a way to stop the nonsense.
By Ben Lieberman
2023 was an unusually bad year for appliance regulations, and future years won’t be much better unless Congress finds a way to stop the nonsense.
It all started last January when Richard Trumka Jr., a commissioner on the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), announced an investigation into the safety of natural gas stoves and boasted that a ban on them was “a real possibility.” That sparked a powerful consumer backlash, followed up by strong denials from the Biden administration that any such ban was in the works. Fox News has the story.
But CPSC has still gone ahead with its inquiry, and in February, Team Biden launched a second regulatory attack on stoves, this time in the form of a new Department of Energy (DOE) efficiency standard. A careful read of the proposal reveals that it is much tougher on gas stoves than electric versions — part of the administration’s multipronged attack on natural gas use that it justifies on climate change grounds.
— Vice President Kamala Harris Archived (@VP46Archive) November 23, 2023
1. Dishwashers
Dishwashers may already be the most over-regulated appliance, having been subjected to four rounds of successively tighter limits on the amount of energy and water they can use. These DOE regulations are the reason dishwashers now take two hours or more to clean a load of dishes, up from about one hour for models predating the federal standards.
Cleaning performance has also suffered. Many consumers report having to rinse their dishes by hand before or after running them in the dishwasher, which is not only an inconvenience but also undercuts the energy and water-saving rationale behind the rules. But having learned nothing, DOE now proposes to make the requirements more stringent, insisting that doing so will benefit consumers and help fight climate change.
2. Air Conditioners
Residential central air conditioners are being hit by regulations from both DOE and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the cumulative impact is large and still growing. A new DOE efficiency standard that took effect in 2023 is boosting the installed cost of a new unit by $1,000 or more. And climate change measures coming from EPA in 2024 will both raise the cost of refrigerants needed to repair existing systems while further increasing prices for new models.
Adding insult to injury, the new climate-friendly air conditioners about to be introduced come with increased flammability risks.
3. Washing Machines
Like dishwashers, washing machines have endured tighter and tighter water and energy use limits in 1994, 2004, 2007, 2015 and 2018. They now use so little water that homeowners have had to improvise to get clothes clean. Some have learned to add a bucket or two of water midcycle to improve performance, while others risk voiding the warranty by tinkering with their machines to increase the flow.
Mold accumulation — which was never a problem before Washington regulators got involved with washing machines — is now common and can cause bad odors and staining of clothes. A sensible government agency would be looking at ways to fix these problems, but the Biden administration’s DOE is proposing to exacerbate them with tougher energy and water limits.
4. Furnaces
No two homes are exactly alike, which is why it makes sense to allow a wide variety of furnaces on the market. But DOE doesn’t see it that way, and its recently finalized efficiency standard for furnaces effectively outlaws the kind of natural gas furnaces that make the most sense for millions of homeowners.
Specifically, the rule eliminates the option of non-condensing gas furnaces in favor of condensing versions. Condensing furnaces are more efficient and thus comply with the rule, but they are more expensive and not easily compatible with the venting systems in many homes that currently have non-condensing furnaces.
Ahuge new project to build the world’s biggest airport is underway in a city British tourists love, costing a whopping £2.1billion.
By Astha Saxena
Ahuge new project to build the world’s biggest airport is underway in a city British tourists love, costing a whopping £2.1billion.
As Dubai International Airport (DXB) approaches its maximum capacity, the UAE is in the process of formulating plans for its successor, set to be constructed on the outskirts of the city and anticipated to commence operations in the 2030s. The Daily Express has the story.
The planned new airport for Dubai essentially already exists in the form of Al Maktoum International Airport (DWC), situated 23 miles southwest of the city, predominantly catering to freight planes.
Currently, a few passenger airlines, predominantly of Russian origin, are utilizing the facility, and Aeroflot is scheduled to inaugurate services in December.
At present, Al Maktoum Airport accommodates only 1.6 million passengers annually.
However, there are ambitious plans to significantly expand the hub, with the aim of accommodating up to 250 million passengers by 2050.
This expansion is part of a strategy to alleviate the congestion at Dubai International Airport (DXB) by diverting a substantial portion of its passenger traffic to Al Maktoum.
Paul Griffiths, the CEO of Dubai Airports, which oversees both airports, revealed that plans for the new mega-airport are already in the works, recognizing the imminent need for such infrastructure within the next few years.
“Over the next few years, we’ll be receiving 100 million passengers at DXB, and beyond that, we’ll need a new airport because we probably can’t get much beyond 115 million or 120 million,” he articulated during a speech at the Dubai Airshow last month.
The redesigned Al Maktoum International Airport is poised to overcome capacity limitations due to its modular design, facilitating more straightforward expansion.
Climategate apologist Andrew Dessler stated: ““There is no doubt that these emails are embarrassing and a public-relations disaster for science.”
By Robert Bradley Jr.
“Gaygate 2023 and Climategate 2009 reinforce each other. So when will basic honesty and academic standards return to academia? To climate science?”
It’s a whitewash–again. The plagiarism (and data falsification?) of Harvard president Claudine Gay brings to mind the similar exposé of the Climategate emails, whose words, sentences, and paragraphs had to be swept under the rug back in 2009/2010 by an embarrassed establishment protecting its own. [1]
Wiki’s whitewash, for example, brought attention to the source (“denialists”) and then misrepresented the importance of the exposé.
The story was first broken by climate-change denialists, who argued that the emails showed that global warming was a scientific conspiracy and that scientists manipulated climate data and attempted to suppress critics. The CRU [Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia] rejected this, saying that the emails had been taken out of context.
No, the “conspiracy” was violating scientific standards and scheming to take dissenting voices out of the debate in the name of “the cause.” It was about exaggeration and appearances in the name of an agenda. The quotations simply need to be read, not parsed with any agenda in mind. Here are three examples:
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow, even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” — Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, disclosed Climategate e-mail, July 8, 2004.
We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try to find something wrong with it.” —Dr. Phil Jones, Director of the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University, email to Warwick Hughes, 2004.
“Mike [Mann], can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith [Trenberth] re AR4? Keith will do likewise…. Can you also e-mail Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his e-mail address…. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.” — Dr. Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, disclosed Climategate e-mail, May 29, 2008.
Harvard’s Whitewash
Fast-forward to Harvard’s whitewash where the prohibited act is forgiven because of the source of reporting. “‘It’s part of this extreme right-wing attack on elite institutions,’ stated Charles Fried, a Harvard law professor” (quoted in Jennifer Schuessler, the New York Times, December 20, 2023). He continued:
The obvious point is to make it look as if there is this ‘woke’ double standard at elite institutions. If it came from some other quarter, I might be granting it some credence. But not from these people.”
Really? And from a law professor? What a revealing commentary on “elite institutions”–and a slap to honest scholarship from diverse voices.
Conclusion
Climategate apologist Andrew Dessler stated: ““There is no doubt that these emails are embarrassing and a public-relations disaster for science.” Claudine Gay supporters will similarly say: “There is no doubt that her mistakes are embarrassing and a public-relations disaster for Harvard.” But go further in each case to the root problem of the rot: climate exaggeration and DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion), respectively.
Gaygate 2023 and Climategate 2009 reinforce each other. So when will basic honesty and academic standards return to academia? To climate science?
“We never had a vote. It’s all been decided with executive orders, mid-level bureaucrats, corporate-government collusion, executive agencies,” Morano continued. “Do we need to start limiting meat eating? That’s the other question. The answer’s no to both, but even if you believed it, you’re absolutely right, you would have democracy involved, people voting, you would have timetables. I’m not arguing we should do that, I’m arguing we need to challenge this entire premise.”
WATCH:
Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act, which spends $370 billion to combat climate change and is loaded with green energy provisions, including a $7,500 tax credit for electric vehicles, into law in August 2022. Electric vehicle sales have faltered, despite the tax credit and other subsidies provided by the Biden administration.
Only 10% of Americans who responded to an October BlueAnalytics poll said they would purchase an electric vehicle, while 40% of respondents said they knew “nothing at all” about the tax credit.
Biden also cancelled oil leases in Alaska granted late in the Trump administration in September, according to CBS, while proposing new regulations to limit energy production from fossil fuels. Economic and energy experts have criticized Biden’s hostility to domestic fossil fuel production, which some say has caused higher energy prices.
Morano also noted the track record of “green” policies in Sri Lanka and the Netherlands.
“It’s climate policy, not climate change, that is going to drive migration, and the same was true with COVID, by the way,” Morano said. “People in droves leaving California and other states. What we’re finding is people in Sri Lanka followed climate policy to the collapse of their government, their presidential palace was overrun. The farmers in the Netherlands were subjected to climate policy, and they almost crushed all the small family-run farms.”
Morano also hit at former Vice President Al Gore for his rhetoric.
“They are using climate fear to literally restrict and collapse energy, agriculture, transportation, go right after our freedom of movement,” Morano said.
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.
These and many other authoritarian actions impacted American society, freedoms, health, and prosperity in countless negative ways. Far worse, many progressives and leftists hope they will pave the way for obeisance to even more dictatorial mandates promulgated in the name of saving our planet from supposed cataclysms inflicted by fossil-fuel-driven climate change.
I choked on my coffee when I read the headline: “Democrats raise specter of Trump dictatorship to boost Biden.” What a textbook example of “projection,” I laughed, referring to the psychology term for deflecting attention away from one’s own blatant behavior by claiming someone else is doing it.
Partisan media and politicos parroted the accusation, and the Biden campaign doubled down.
In the interest of fairness and accuracy, it’s appropriate then to revisit ways the Biden Administration, Democrats, and their allies have battled wannabe dictators and defended freedom, democracy, and viewpoint diversity in recent years. (Or not.) For example:
* Incessant Antifa rage, riots, rampaging, and legal warfare against “Russia-colluding” President Trump from his election and inauguration throughout and after his term in office.
* School, park, and restaurant lockdowns, “social distancing” and mask “advisories,” mandates for “safe and effective” inoculations with vaccines approved with minimal study under “emergency use authorizations,” and endless misrepresentation and censorship by Biden officials, Democrat governors and “journalists” – in the name of preventing Covid.
* Opening our southern border to untold millions of “undocumented noncitizens” – mostly Latin Americans but also Chinese agents, drug smugglers, sex traffickers, terrorists, and disease carriers.
* Billions in “student debt forgiveness,” forcing taxpayers to pay off huge loans to graduates who struggle to get six-figure jobs despite prestigious degrees in gender studies or community organizing.
* Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) and Environment Social Governance (ESG) programs, from K-12, college to law school, and into government and corporate arenas – to ensure that every component of society reflects racial, ethnic and gender proportionality, but never viewpoint or political diversity.
These and many other authoritarian actions impacted American society, freedoms, health, and prosperity in countless negative ways. Far worse, many progressives and leftists hope they will pave the way for obeisance to even more dictatorial mandates promulgated in the name of saving our planet from supposed cataclysms inflicted by fossil-fuel-driven climate change.
Few will quibble that President Biden directed federal employees to take public transportation, ride bikes or rent electric vehicles for work travel, and hold virtual meetings instead of in-person gatherings.
These rules certainly won’t apply to private-jet globe-trotters like Climate Czar John Kerry, and EVs mostly transfer emissions from tailpipes to distant countries where toxic pollution and child labor accompany the mining and processing of raw materials to make EV batteries. But at least some federal workers will now suffer the inconveniences they’re imposing on us commoners.
However, Team Biden’s endless torrent of executive orders, regulatory mandates, and twisted legal reinterpretations for electricity generation, vehicles, appliances, agriculture, housing, and other matters are already impacting our industries, livelihoods, living standards, and basic rights and freedoms.
These diktats are designed to force us to convert everything we now operate with coal, gasoline, diesel, or natural gas to electric models. The United States will soon need 3-4 times more electricity than today – and still more to power the AI revolution.
But the same bureaucrats are shutting down coal, gas, nuclear, and hydroelectric generators – ensuring that electricity will be in short supply, generated primarily by weather-dependent wind turbines and solar panels, backed up by massive grid-scale battery systems, and thus unavailable or unaffordable during the coldest and hottest days, when electric heat or air conditioning becomes a matter of life or death.
In fact, just the batteries to back up nationwide electricity would cost up to $290 trillion (13 times US 2021 GDP)! Add that to wind, solar, and transmission costs, and the juice to run your all-electric home, business, hospital, school, or transportation will likely cost 30-40 cents per kilowatt-hour instead of the 12-15 cents the average American is paying now.
It’s a prescription for repeated blackouts, economic disaster – and unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats micromanaging every aspect of our lives: what size home we can have; how warm or cool we can keep it; what cars we can drive and how far, or whether we too will be forced to walk, bike or take a bus; how many trips we can take in jetliners, in our lifetime; what foods we can eat (hint: not beef); maybe even how many new clothing items we will be “allowed” to purchase each year!
Earlier this month, every House Republican voted to block President Biden’s electric vehicle mandates. They were joined by just five Democrats. That means 197 Democrats say Team Biden should be able to dictate what kind of car or truck you can drive. And Donald Trump has dictatorial proclivities?
The US and global ecological impacts will be equally harmful and widespread. Here are just a few.
Wind and solar installations, transmission lines, and enormous battery complexes would sprawl across millions of acres of now scenic wildlife habitat and agricultural land. A single solar facility proposed in Virginia would involve 3,000 acres of panels on 21,000 acres (over half the land area of Washington, DC). It’s just one of dozens of Virginia solar plans – on top of onshore and offshore wind turbine projects.
The installations “will power millions of homes,” supporters insist. Perhaps – but only when the wind is blowing and the sun is shining at optimal intensities … maybe 15-30% of the year in northern latitudes, considering winter snow and sunlight, clouds, nighttime, zero wind, and other factors.
Many local residents and other citizens don’t want these massive installations in their backyards, the habitat and scenic vista destruction, bird and bat killings, health problems, and electricity costs and disruptions that go with them, or being turned into energy colonies for progressive urban centers. They’ve already blocked more than 500 wind and solar projects on environmental and other grounds.
That’s why Michigan, California, New York, and Illinois have already enacted laws that give state bureaucrats authority over land use – the ability to exercise eminent domain and other powers over local governments that want to slow or stop the onrush of enormous, heavily subsidized industrial wind, solar, transmission line, and other “green” projects. More are likely to follow – depriving rural communities of their rights, property values, and autonomy – to serve corporate interests that bankroll Democrat pols.
The federal “deep state” is likely to seek similar legislative authority – or simply assert authority – to implement President Biden’s national net-zero “renewable” energy transformation agenda.
UN and Biden “30×30” plans to “conserve” (make off-limits to development) 30% of US and global lands and waters by 2030 will massively increase all these impacts and usurpations of power. Any areas not made off-limits by 30×30, wilderness, park, refuge, and other actions will be developed and desecrated to the hilt by wind, solar, transmission line, mining, biofuel, and other “green energy” projects.
Meanwhile, international climate alarmists and bureaucrats are telling African and other impoverished nations how much they will be “permitted” to develop and improve their health and living standards – using only “sustainable, renewable” wind and solar power. It’s dictatorial colonialism at its worst.
And amid all that, China, India, Indonesia, Vietnam, and other rapidly developing countries are burning more coal, oil, and gas – and emitting more greenhouse gases – than most developed nations combined. That means US and EU economic suicide on the climate altar won’t make an iota of difference.
What might a Trump dictator do? Roll back or cancel these dictatorial decrees. Stop fast-tracking wind and solar projects. End abusive environmental justice, DEI, and ESG programs. Return America to energy independence and affordable energy. Build the wall and control immigration. Above all, follow the law and Constitution. How revolutionary, tyrannical … and refreshing … that would be!
She also begins by noting that her computer said she had a range of 200 miles when she began her journey, but after driving 100 miles, the readout was down to just 63 miles. This proves that you will get much less mileage in real world driving than the theoretical range.
— Climate crisis? There is NO climate crisis (@ClimateThere) December 26, 2023
This is video has been posted on X by an EV driver, filming the public charger as she fills up. You can only watch it on TikTok, but I have taken a screenshot of the interesting bit:
So she has spent £21.60, at 85p per KWh. But this has only added 81 miles worth, a cost of 26.6p per mile. As she says, this is blooming ridiculous, particularly she only has a small car. Even including fuel duty, this is probably twice the cost of a diesel. It has also taken 40 minutes to charge.
She also begins by noting that her computer said she had a range of 200 miles when she began her journey, but after driving 100 miles, the readout was down to just 63 miles. This proves that you will get much less mileage in real world driving than the theoretical range.
She also says her trip is 210 miles, so she may have to stop to charge up again rather risk pushing her battery to the limit.
Investors struggle today to safely measure financial and economic risks, reduce exposures and identify opportunities. Governments must invest to limit exposures to infrastructure risks.
Synthetic pesticides are under constant regulatory pressure, but not organic pesticides
“Green” renewables and EVs have very little regulatory scrutiny
Food additives need to meet tight authorisation controls, but not more toxic natural foods
Tobacco cessation products (like e-cigarettes) are being restricted on the basis of poor evidence
Certain seed breeding innovations are banned even when changes are imperceptible
Billions are funnelled into the war on climate, dwarfing aid for education, health and infrastructure
These are some results from poor righteous risk management.
A righteous risk is a threat of harm to societal well-being that arises when decisions are based solely on widely-shared moral perceptions, social virtues and ethical ideals. This value-based policy approach does not consider facts or data in a consistent manner with certain actors, reinforced by social media tribes, imposing their ideals upon others. Righteous zealots (particularly environmental activists, naturopaths and food puritans) are more intensively forcing their moral dogma upon the policy process. Such value-based regulations are righteous risks that have become a growing threat to entrepreneurs and researchers whose innovations may challenge their traditional ethical norms. In attacking agricultural practices, food choices, energy use, nicotine alternatives and transportation choices, when the righteous feel they have virtue on their side, their reasoning and decision-making become hazardous to others. This is the introduction to a series on how to manage righteous risks.
Investors struggle today to safely measure financial and economic risks, reduce exposures and identify opportunities. Governments must invest to limit exposures to infrastructure risks. Corporate leaders have to manage trade, market and production risks, often environmental-health risks and, perhaps most importantly, potential regulatory risks. But is anyone managing the threat from righteous risks?
Righteous Risks
A righteous risk arises when a decision is taken on the grounds that it is perceived as the right thing, the virtuous answer, what a good leader would do… But the righteous action is not necessarily the best thing to do. Making decisions solely on some ethical dogma, an unwavering virtuous self-appreciation or a fear of some stakeholder moral condemnation can tie policymakers into irrational regulations that do little but harm. The values that guide decision-makers, or the widely expressed social values that decision-makers feel they need to reflect, do not take into account the complexities of policymaking or the compromises that must be made. Politics is a pragmatic profession, but today we seem to have lost the art of Realpolitik, replaced by a “governance by moral aspiration” approach.
Certain cases of “moral reactivism” have had decision-makers assume the virtue position. Be it forest fires, floods and heatwaves, a tragic publicly-viewed murder or a disaster flowing from industrial negligence, leaders who react to public moral outrage with righteous responses may survive a political backlash but risk making bad decisions if they put some moral idealism before pragmatic problem solving. And if issues are too complex or problematic, policymakers can seek the solace of the precautionary principle, claiming to be a caring, concerned leader.
When moral convictions are cleverly used to justify policy actions, who would possibly be concerned about any contradictions or hypocrisy arising from the policies. Leaders who cloak themselves in virtue, from Ottawa to Wellington to Brussels, pretend to be immune to criticism, put economic or social consequences into a larger, moral crusader context and play the progressive card. Those who highlight their failures are moral delinquents, attacking Bambi.
But Bambi is getting pretty smug and their failures are starting to hurt.
The Virtue of Environmentalism
I had lunch recently with a Brussels insider and we were evaluating the achievements of the von der Leyen Commission. Her tenure was seen as basically a failure (even if we factored out the Timmermans effect). The main weakness was that her policies and postures were more virtue-driven than rational, more ethically-postured aspirations at a time when Europe, faced with pandemics, wars, energy and food inflation and economic crises, needed a more pragmatic Realpolitik approach.
The signature policy of the von der Leyen Commission has been the Green Deal. It was touted as the most important moral and political responsibility of our time to do whatever it takes to combat climate change. There was a war on climate, and thanks to the pontifical architect of this policy, Frans Timmermans, it was also framed as a war against evil: against capitalism and industry.
The word “transition” started to be repeated in any official EU Green Deal speech. When we make a transition, we turn away from the bad and toward the good. The need for an energy transition, mobility transition or a food system transition became synonymous with fighting climate change. But this “transition towards…” strategy, as a righteous crusade, became curious as the Green Deal strategies were presented as virtuous solutions. Renewables, organic food, EVs, non-synthetic chemicals … were promoted within a moral framework, under the virtue of sustainability. Whoever would suggest advancing innovations in carbon capture and storage of fossil fuel emissions instead of more subsidies for renewables had crossed over to the dark side and would soon be ostracised by the community of influencers. When you speak in terms of good v evil in the moral imperative to stop climate change (to right the evils of past generations of unenlightened polluters), the Green Deal becomes a mission of the noble and the virtuous.
The EU Farm2Fork strategy, for example, is built on the perception that organic farming practices are morally superior (not industrial, not chemical-based, more environmentally sustainable). Organic advocates perceive themselves as virtuous (conscious) consumers and, right or wrong, the food companies market into this perception, reinforcing this belief. So who would dare question a major EU policy shift toward organic farming, even if it radically disrupted European food supplies or aggravated global food security? Evil chemical companies lobby for destructive, conventional agricultural practices, pesticides and GMOs while the good small farmers who nourish the land organically are concerned for our well-being. And we are not even talking about vegan sanctimony.
This perception though is myopic and as long as the EU’s food and agriculture strategy favours this righteous approach, the consequences will be more dire for farmers, the environment and consumers. After almost three years of consultation, the European Commission has refused to budge on its pro-organic moral crusade, despite the warnings from its own scientists in the JRC. This perception of a war against evil is a righteous risk that will be very hard to manage if the architects continue to remain doggedly dogmatic. Then again, the vote last week in the European Parliament rejecting the Sustainable Use of Plant Protection Products Regulation (SUR) is a sign that idealistic moral convictions alone might not get the votes in next year’s European elections.
Righteous individuals (zealots) are unable to listen to opposing ideas or to compromise. I once was so disgusted by the self-righteousness of activist campaigns that I came out and admitted that, as a human, I pollute. If we don’t start from that admission, if we assume that the problem is with how others pollute, then we will never be able to achieve any reasonable goal (not of zero pollution but of polluting less). Like most other cults, environmentalism is rife with moral sanctimony.
It is not just the moral rectitude these activists are demanding that is questionable, but also the type of values they are putting forward. Zealots will do whatever it takes to win a campaign (so lying, scaring or misleading the public is acceptable for them). The activists’ commitment to social justice creates a bias against industry, globalisation and capitalism so any potential innovative achievements or system improvements are rejected outright. The values these moral crusaders put forward are framed by their anti-establishment dogma, such as diversity, equity and sustainability. We don’t hear much about honesty, accountability, fair-play or respect for evidence in their campaigns (perhaps these are not Machiavellian values). And if we ever dare suggest they be more transparent on who is funding them, then … well … I paid a price for that heresy.
A Redefinition of Leadership
This injection of ethical rectitude into policy strategies is redefining Western leadership. Policies are cloaked in values and expressed with hyperbole and categorically. Moral conviction defines today’s bold leaders, standing up for the ideals and beliefs that ought to define our futures and relentlessly fighting against those infidels who dare to oppose “our common values”.
The use of the prefix “zero” is an indicator of a virtue-driven leader prone to moral hyperbole and putting aspiration over achievement. Zero waste, zero emissions, zero plastics, net zero… all of these aspirations are unachievable nonsense that wastes political energy. We should be directing policy toward improving operations and aiming for the best that can be achieved. But the media expects leaders to be about superlatives, absolutes and great moral confrontations on the evils that have been tolerated for too long. Better is not good enough – we must right the wrongs and eradicate the evil to zero.
Leaders used to be able to stand up and make hard decisions, solve problems and inspire populations. This often involved compromises and an embrace of Realpolitik. Leaders would identify themselves via past achievements (battle-hardened generals, business titans, great negotiators…). Today’s virtue leaders aren’t cut from the same cloth, are often clever consensus-builders and need to identify themselves according to public expectations of propriety. They make decisions based on prescribed values rather than insight or intelligence.
Virtue-driven decisions can have serious consequences in the real world. The world is not divided into clear paths between good and evil. Different interest groups have legitimate claims and often hard choices means that the world of rainbows and butterflies may have to wait. But leaders who grasp onto their defining moral character, vision and high self-esteem will likely make bad decisions while claiming, stubbornly, to stand on principle.
Outrage Optics
Policymaking has always been about optics. In the last two decades (since the EU White Paper on Governance), European policy has been about engagement, stakeholder dialogue and participation. In recent years it has become a cynical process of “steam control” (to borrow on Tom Wolfe) where moral outrage is controlled via little compromises. But social media has brought high-volume ethical disgust into the policy optics game with very little tolerance for compromise. Social media is an insult arena where angry activists can morally emasculate public leaders who don’t do exactly what they tell them to. Leaders need to harden up. Just because some former Reuters journalist in Kansas calls a regulator names for standing by the scientific evidence on, say, glyphosate, does not mean he or she should abandon basic facts and science to be better judged by this little storm in a teacup.
The zealot influencer is the most dangerous lobbyist in the field, excelling at generating outrage optics within a small tribe of loud activists. They use a sociopathic preacher zeal to push policymakers into a moral quagmire. Support this legislation and you are supporting industry, wilfully spreading cancer on innocent children and destroying the environment. The argument is not about evidence or scientific advice, but on whether you, as a leader, are a good person. Outrage optics campaigns work on the idea that people will forget a policy choice in weeks but will never forget an irresponsible leader in the pocket of evil industry. When this emotional quagmire is too difficult and the moral outrage too insufferable, the precautionary principle is introduced as a mea culpa.
Precaution is a righteous risk. When a policymaker is being stabbed with hot moral pokers, they can reverse the tables and play the caring, concerned card. By declaring precaution, cowardly leaders can not only avoid the outrage optics, they can come across as benevolent regulators with a conscience, wanting nothing more than public safety. This little game buys them time since innovators will have to go back to prove with certainty that something is 100% safe (a near impossible task). By then these civil servants should have been promoted to some other position.
Some people are sickened by the smug pontifications of moral zealots and the costs of precautionary restrictions on their lives. There seems to have been a recent increase in extremist party electoral wins, the rise of inexperienced populists and the rejection of traditional, mainstream political parties. Foul language, racist declarations, lawbreaking and radical solutions are becoming more attractive to voters fed up with their virtue-driven leaders. There are many factors, of course, to explain this rise but I can understand the appeal of someone who tears up the political virtue manual and says things his or her electorate wants to hear (however outrageous) rather than the moralisms some out-of-touch leader feels the public ought to hear.
Developing a Righteous Risk Management Strategy
This series will look at case studies where righteous risks were (or were not) managed, the consequences and the lessons learnt. I will break righteous risks down and apply the normal risk management process and consider whether there are idiosyncratic exposures that defy typical responses or a policy trend that needs addressing. One article will look at the policy arena to determine the relationship of righteous risks within a larger regulatory risk management context. Of course we need to follow the money and the rise of new types of philanthropic foundations, led by virtue-seekers, has had an important influence on the rise of value-driven policies. The series will also consider how companies should react? After Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainable Development, will the Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) value hoops be enough to meet the moral approval of the sanctimonious?
Is it wrong to be critical of stronger moral values guiding public officials? Not at all. But when all policies are driven merely by ethical values and unbending zealots; when activists frame every policy debate in simplistic, good v evil poles; when policymakers are inconsistent in their regulatory implementations according to perceived normative interests; and when the public is persuaded to consider capitalism, innovation and entrepreneurship as moral deficiencies; then righteous risks become a threat to rational policies, democracies and the public. I’m afraid that’s where we are today but it is where we go tomorrow that interests me.
Enjoyed this read (free with no ads)? Support The Risk-Monger via Patreon. Become a Gold-Monger patron for 5 € / $ per month and get David’s newsletter.
We know it’s a cult or long-form advertising when every possible consequence is 100% bad, bad, bad, and for everyone, all the time.
Climate change will cause more droughts, except when it rains, and that means more pollen (obviously?!). Even though summers will be longer, and spring will be earlier, and flowers will go extinct, the pollen will be more potent (whatever that is). More people will get asthma, and even though we don’t know what causes allergies, we know that it will get worse with climate change, whatever it is, because everything does.
You too will be locked in your house, afraid to leave, unable to breathe, unless you get solar panels and an EV.
This was Australian’s national news prime time story tonight on our public “news” service. Australians spent some part of 3 million dollars today on their ABC, where regional health reporter Steven Schubert asked no hard questions, did almost no research, and sought no alternative views. He just found an asthmatic trophy victim to use as a poster-girl for F.E.A.R.
Whether Caitlin Ross will go outside on any given day depends on weather and pollen forecasts. If they’re too bad, her severe allergies and asthma mean it can be too uncomfortable or dangerous.
Researchers say pollen is becoming more potent, and seasons longer, as the climate changes
They expect the number of Australian hay fever sufferers to grow by 70 per cent over the next three decades
Poor Caitlin. Her symptoms have got worse these last five years. The ABC news works like hypnosis planting the suggestion that if your asthma got worse lately “it’s climate change”, as if asthma never gets better or worse for any other reason.
Climate change is affecting asthma already — we know because we did an opinion poll:
A recent survey showed climate change was already affecting the health of asthmatic Australia
A survey conducted by advocacy group Asthma Australia in 2023 showed that 91 per cent of people with asthma were very concerned about the impacts of climate change, according to CEO Michele Goldman.
She said 39 per cent of asthmatics surveyed said climate change was already affecting their health, compared to 21 per cent of people without asthma.
It’s like ignorant climate models went on dates with a Women’s Weekly story on asthma from 1985, and gave birth to yet another scary narrative.
In the real world of health and biology the rise of asthma in the last fifty years could be due to diet, pollution, hygiene, loss of gut flora, or a lack of parasites. It could be due to leaky guts, new highly allergenic wheat strains, heavy metals, pesticides, or all of the above. It could be because kids don’t get to eat dirt or play with farm animals, and it could be because kids don’t play in the sun and get their vitamin D.
Asthma is a first world problem, not a climate change one
So these researchers — whoever they are, are starting with models that can’t predict rainfall, humidity, soil moisture, cloud cover and wind speed, and use those errors to not-predict plant growth and pollen movement. Then they take all those failures and run headlong into a medical swamp.
This is lousy science, bad reporting, and incompetent “investigation”.
A is for Alarmism. Make it front and central in everything you write.
B is for Black. Be prepared to argue that it’s white.
C is for climate crisis, climate change, climate chaos. It’s also for carbon (nasty black stuff), but never carbon dioxide (don’t discuss it; never mention that it’s essential plant food).
D is for denier. There is no such thing as a sceptic. Deniers are a disgusting monolithic entity. Never acknowledge that they have legitimate concerns about net zero and climate policy.
E is for electric vehicles. They aren’t expensive, charge anxiety is a myth, they will save the planet, they don’t burst into flames and they definitely have lower overall greenhouse gas emissions than internal combustion engine vehicles.
F is for fossil fuels. Nasty polluting stuff. It has never done anything to lift people out of poverty or to make life better. They have only ever been used by developed countries, and only they must pay for having used them.
G is for global. Everything is going to hell in a handcart on a global scale.
H is for heat. Always emphasise increased deaths from increased heat. Never ever mention that far more people die from extreme cold than do from extreme heat, nor talk about the fact that gentle warming is for the foreseeable future likely to reduce rather than increase deaths from extreme temperatures.
I is for investment. Always refer to spending on renewables, net zero, and all the rest as an investment, never as a cost.
J is for Just Transition. We don’t have a clue how to protect the poor from the damaging effects of net zero policies, but it’s important to maintain the illusion that they’ll be protected by the Just Transition.
K is for Kyoto. It’s not as important as Paris, but always refer to it in glowing terms.
L is for language. The language you use is important. Always use extreme language to get your message across.
M is for methane. People seem to be tiring of “carbon” scare stories, so use methane to up the ante.
N is for net zero. The Holy Grail.
O is for optimism. Never worry that net zero is impracticable. Always be upbeat.
P is for pylons. They are a good thing.
Q is for quolls. They’re Australian animals, so they’re bound to be endangered by climate change.
R is for renewable energy. Don’t listen to engineers who tell you it’s impracticable at scale or to scare-mongers who point out that its costs (ahem, investment levels) are going up, not down.
S is for Smart Meters. They are a good thing too. Never talk about the massive cost of rolling them out – always refer to it as an investment.
T is for turbines. They don’t kill bats and birds, they don’t devastate the environment, they don’t involve cutting down trees and digging up peat, and they are cheap.
U isn’t for unreliable, whatever the deniers say. Renewable energy works 24/7.
V is for volcanoes. They can’t possibly have anything to do with the climate.
W is for whales. They are under threat, from climate change, from naval exercises, from oil and gas exploration, but never from anything to do with wind farms.
X is for XR. They are beacons of truth, suffering so that we may be saved.
Y is for yearly weather. Always make out that this year’s weather was more extreme than the last.
Z is for zero emissions – even better than net zero!
Even for an incoming state premier, Steven Miles has had a busy first week.
…
Miles had already set out to make climate change one of the themes of his first week in office, even before ex-Tropical Cyclone Jasper flooded the state’s north. Two Fridays running, the student of Al Gore has rolled out major green announcements: doubling the state’s emissions reduction target to 75% by 2035 in his first announcement as premier and banning new gas developments from the state’s far western river systems, an election promise dating to 2015.
Miles is eager to build a consensus around the economics of the transition: a link between city and bush, right and left.
…
Miles hopes he has found the answer.
“It’s my job to convince [people] that addressing climate change isn’t a threat to jobs, it’s actually a way to protect jobs,” Miles says.
“If you look at the high-emitting industries in places like Gladstone and Townsville, they’re going to lose their global customers if they continue to be reliant on such high levels of fossil fuel energy.
“So the best way we can protect those jobs is by providing them with renewable energy so that they can sell their products into markets that increasingly want green, aluminium, green steel, green products. And similarly, if we get it right, we can also attract new industries.
“In the past, they we’re attracted to our cheap, plentiful fossil fuel-based energy. In the future we will have cheap, plentiful, firmed renewable energy.”
The problem with this plan is cheap, plentiful, firmed renewable energy does not exist.
Batteries are impossibly expensive. Available dam sites are way too distant and wouldn’t provide enough capacity. And if the plan is to firm using natural gas or coal, there is no need to build the renewables – it would always be cheaper just to build the natural gas or coal, and forget the renewables.
Net Zero cannot and will not happen, with current technology choices.
Why is my home state of Queensland cursed with such a parade of economic fools?
If international demand for coal drops, the industry will scale back and realign on its own. There is no need to talk coal down and try to kill it off.
The one hope of political sanity in Queensland, Queensland is also home to One Nation and Katter’s Australian Party. Katter is aligned with remote rural regions, and supports ethanol mandates, but they also oppose emissions reductions. One Nation has a sound climate policy. Both have more palatable energy ideas than any of the current mainstream parties.
Personally I expect a significant short to medium term drop in demand, but not because of Net Zero. The economically incompetent Xi Jinping Chinese Communist regime is doing every wrong move you can imagine in the face of their realestate sector collapse, their government is pouring money into well connected but already failed industries, and doubling down on useless infrastructure projects – all the failed policies which made the 2008 GFC so painful in the west, and more. But nobody can predict when that circus act will come unstuck.
You must be logged in to post a comment.