Day: January 23, 2025

Germany’s Industry Is Being Destroyed by Constitutional Tampering and Judicial Trickery

In Germany, the good times and prosperity are on the brink … stuck economy is stuck in a multi-year recession… producers laying off staff by the hundreds of thousands…costs for energy, food and rents are going through the roof … the outlook for the future is bleak

From NoTrickZone

By P Gosselin

How did it get this far?

By Fred F. Mueller (EIKE)

In Germany, the good times and prosperity are on the brink … stuck economy is stuck in a multi-year recession… producers laying off staff by the hundreds of thousands…costs for energy, food and rents are going through the roof … the outlook for the future is bleak

Even the online edition of the renowned newspaper FAZ (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung) occasionally flags headlines such as “We are in a terminal multi-crisis“ at the top of its homepage.

How did it get this far?

Who used which tricks, and will we ever get out of it?

Figure 1: The industrial decline of Germany (and with it Europe) is becoming increasingly apparent (YouTube screenshot 1)

If we look for the reasons for this misery, we quickly find a common denominator: Germany’s prescribed “transformation to a CO2-free economy,” which involves an extremely costly total restructuring of almost the entire infrastructure and industry. This begins with electricity generation and the grid and extends to the production of steel and aluminum as well as chemicals and automotive production. At the same time, nuclear power plants, which once reliably supplied up to 30% of Germany’s electricity virtually free of CO2, have been shut down for purely ideological reasons. In addition, the wealth of expertise that our industry has built up over generations is being largely devalued, thus giving away our technological lead over other nations. This is all justified by the alleged “harmfulness to the climate” of the CO2 released by burning coal, gas and petrol. Thanks to an incredibly massive propaganda campaign that has been running non-stop for decades over all the media, in politics and in schools, we are nudged to think that CO2 is warming the climate to such an extent that it is going to make the earth largely uninhabitable. In 2021 already, the highest German court took advantage of the smokescreen created by this media barrage to authoritatively settle the (actually scientific!) question of the harmfulness of CO2 for our climate, Figure 2:

Figure 2: From the ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany in Karlsruhe 2 (BVG) of March 24, 2021 on the so-called Climate Protection Act

The reasoning comprehensively set out in the BVG court’s decision corresponds in principle one on one to the climate doctrines of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) of the United Nations, also parroted by state institutions such as the Federal Environment Agency (UBA) and advisory bodies such as the German Advisory Council on the Environment (SRU). Although there are numerous and some high-ranking (e.g. Nobel laureates) critics of these climate doctrines, the BVG high court did consult any expert opinions to the contrary and has therefore declared itself to be competent. Thus, an issue that is anything but scientifically undisputed has been “clarified” once and for all by pure lawyers.

Figure 3: From the website of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOAA 3)

Figure 3 shows the extent to which the BVG’s ruling is at odds with scientific reality. NOAA is a reputable US authority that has been in existence for decades and whose findings can in no way be dismissed as unscientific. The BVG court’s ruling therefore brings back unpleasant memories of medieval-style judgments against scientists such as Galileo Galilei.

Back in the 17th century, he had shown that, contrary to established doctrine, that the earth was not flat, but a sphere that revolved around the sun and not the other way around. Today, people are no longer tortured for years in inquisition cellars for such dissenting scientific findings, but nevertheless mediatic character assassination and career setbacks as a “climate denier” for such heretics are widely viewed as legitimate procedures.

Violation of the fundamental right to freedom of science and teaching

By elevating the IPCC theses to a legally unchallengeable dogma, the German Constitutional Court also violated the protection of freedom of science and teaching, Figure 4:

Figure 4: The fathers of the Basic Law expressly stipulated the freedom of science, research and teaching in Article 5 (4).

However, the judges in Karlsruhe are in good company with this violation. In particular, our just recently highly decorated former chancellor Merkel had few inhibitions about violating the protection of science from state interference when, in January 2018, she strongly condemned alleged diesel pollutant tests which had been targeted by a media shitstorm against the Rheinisch-Westfälische Universität Aachen 5) and called for an investigation. The same Angela Merkel also acted unconstitutionally in February 2020 on the occasion of the election of Thomas Kemmerich as Minister President of the Free State of Thuringia 6). During a press conference in South Africa, she characterized the parliamentary decision as “unforgivable” and demanded “the result must be reversed”. In Germany, such breaches of constitutional law, even at the highest level, seem now to be considered as peanuts attracting neither public interest nor any consequences. And our constitutional judges will probably only smile away any constitutional lawsuit targeting their verdicts.

The trick with nature conservation

Looking back, we can see that the success of the green ideologues at the Federal Constitutional Court was the result of a clever strategy. The first step in 1994 – under then conservative chancellor Helmut Kohl – was the placement of a seemingly harmless Trojan horse in the German Basic Law, in the form of a completely innocuous-sounding additional Article 20a, Figure 5:

Figure 5: Article 20a 7) of the German Basic Law on the protection of the environment, nature and animals, introduced in 1994 and extended to include animal protection in 2002

Even on careful reading, there is nothing in Article 20a of the Basic Law that would force Germany to destroy its industry and thus its prosperity in favor of the ideological construct of “climate protection”, and that this should also be done at the instigation of non-German plaintiffs. Nevertheless, with its “climate ruling” of March 24, 2021, the Federal Constitutional Court has ruled to enshrine precisely these demands once and for all for Germany.

The original Article 20 of the Basic Law complemented by Article 20a contains self-evident basic principles of democracy and state organization: the statement that the Federal Republic of Germany is a democratic and social constitutional state, and that all power emanates from the people, who exercise it through elections and votes. The bodies established correspond to the classic tripartite division into legislative (parliaments with two chambers), government and judiciary. It is also stipulated that the parliaments are bound by the constitution, while the government and judiciary are bound by law. Finally, the right of all Germans to resist anyone attempting to abolish this order was defined – probably intended at the time as a sedative for opponents of the emergency laws.

Destruction of the foundations of the state, step 2: The new Article 94 of the Basic Law

In its climate ruling, the Constitutional Court went far beyond its remit – compliance with existing laws – and thus granted itself powers that only the legislature is entitled to 8). It would actually have been the parliament’s task to counter this violation of the constitution. Instead, today’s green ideologues and their useful idiots in the old parties are pursuing the goal of stifling the slowly emerging resistance to the forced „transformation“ of our economy by amending the constitution. In doing so, they are using the slander initiated and promoted by Chancellor Merkel against the most important opposing political force – the AfD party, who have been framed as “Nazis” against whom a “firewall” must be erected and maintained. The culmination of this project is the amendment to the Basic Law that has just now been hastily rushed through on December 28, 2024. This timing ensured that the grand coalition of climate doomsayers and warmongers could not be stopped by dissenters that might become much stronger after the snap elections slated for February 23, 2025. The amendment is allegedly intended to protect the constitutional court from the evil AfD and BSW parties. In reality, however, the constitution is being turned completely on its head.

Constitutional courts elevated to lawmakers

We all had “civics“ in our school lessons. We were told that the rule of law includes the principle of the separation of powers. These powers are the legislative (parliaments), the executive (government) and the judicial (courts). This tripartite division is intended to prevent one of the three powers from rising above the others by arrogating additional powers to itself and thereby undermining the balance of power.

The Federal Constitutional Court’s climate ruling discussed above already provided a textbook example of such an encroachment. Even in the current push to disempower the people, the core statement of the revised Article 94 of the Basic Law initially sounds quite harmless to the inexperienced reader, Figure 6:

Figure 6: The decisive passage of the new version of Article 94 of the Basic Law 9) seems completely harmless in principle when you read it. The law was rushed through in view of the upcoming snap elections, in which the AfD could gain substantially more votes. Timeline: Adoption in the Bundestag on December 19, 2024, in the Bundesrat on December 20, 2024, and promulgation in the Federal Law Gazette on December 27, 2024, automatically bringing it into force on December 28, 2024.

The explosive nature of this article is that it gives the judges of the Federal Constitutional Court legislative power, allowing them to patronize not only the government but also the parliament. Their decisions have direct legal force. In stark contrast, parliamentary legal initiatives have to be presented, justified and decided in lengthy and time-consuming manner to the parties, the media and the people. Instead of the tried and tested separation of powers, the constitutional judges now have the power to enact their own laws. All it takes is a conspiratorial group of just five out of eight constitutional judges.

Assessment by Prof. Werner Müller

Prof. Dr. Werner Müller, researcher at the Department of Economics at Mainz University of Applied Sciences until 2023, criticizes the new law 10) in no uncertain terms. It is “a flagrant violation of Article 79 of the Constitution, according to which amendments to the Basic Law which … affect the principles laid down in Articles 1 and 20 are inadmissible. These include the principle of popular sovereignty under Article 20 para. 2 sentence 1 (All state authority emanates from the people) and the separation of powers under Article 20 para. 3 of the Basic Law “…. He continues: “The law of December 28, 2024, now also officially disempowers parliament. According to the new Art. 94 para. 4 of the Basic Law, the constitutional judges, who are selected in back rooms according to their political reliability, can arbitrarily determine what the parliament may still be allowed to decide and are not subject to any democratic control. [Their] power is similar to that of the Guardian Council in the Islamic Republic of Iran. “

Figure 7: Headline of an editorial in the online edition of the FAZ 11) Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung from January 3, 2025 (Translation: Apocalypse researcher: “We are in an end-of-the world multi-crisis” By Melanie Mühl Jan. 3, 2025. Can only radical change prevent the end of the world? An interview with researcher Robert Folger about dystopian scenarios, our apocalyptic tone in debates and the demotivating self-pity of the “last generation” (Image: screen printout, edited).

The consequences

In a roll-call vote in the Bundestag, 600 MPs voted in favor of this law, with only 69 against. Interestingly, 26 out of 28 Left Party MPs also voted in favor. Not too surprising given their communist roots.

This change in the law was a dark day for Germany, as it cements the downward spiral into which we have fallen as a result of the disastrously damaging energy, climate and economic policies of the Greens (to the inclusion of our “climate chancellor“ Merkel, who is conservative only on the surface but deep green inside. Her legacy consisting of a catastrophically dilapidated infrastructure is now being compounded by the Ukraine conflict, which Germany continues to support with billions, even though it has long since been lost militarily, as even Springer’s “Welt” has now had to admit 12).

The green “transformation” will continue to ruin the industry, which is already under severe strain, or drive it abroad. To top it all off, the judiciary is now being handed over to the green forces on a silver platter. Who can protect Germany from green-influenced constitutional judges in the future? Two-thirds majorities are almost impossible to achieve on such highly controversial issues. On the other hand, smirking Green MPs will torpedo any legal resistance to the current course thanks to their secure blocking minority.

Snake-oil selling profit hunters will praise their newest “CO2-free“ technologies, while serious investors will go elsewhere. In three to five years at the latest, the CDU/CSU and FDP MPs who have now voted by name for this amendment to the Basic Law will have to answer to their voters for the country’s inexorable decline. Will then Mr. Lindner, Mr. Merz, Mr. Scholz or Mr. Buschmann still think their support for this green trap was a good idea?

Sources:

Greenhouse Efficiency Insights

Abstract: Using the CERES satellite data, it is shown that over the last ~ quarter century, the increase in greenhouse gases has had no detectable effect on the global average surface temperature. On the contrary, the overall increase in available solar energy after albedo reflections is shown to be sufficient to explain the warming. In support of this, variations in available solar energy are shown to agree quite well with the variations in the observed temperature. Go figure.

From Watts Up With That?

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

Abstract: Using the CERES satellite data, it is shown that over the last ~ quarter century, the increase in greenhouse gases has had no detectable effect on the global average surface temperature. On the contrary, the overall increase in available solar energy after albedo reflections is shown to be sufficient to explain the warming. In support of this, variations in available solar energy are shown to agree quite well with the variations in the observed temperature. Go figure.

I got to thinking again about how to measure the efficiency of the very poorly named “greenhouse effect”, which has absolutely nothing to do with actual greenhouses like the one shown above. Here’s an overview of some of the major energy flows of the climate system.

Figure 1. Monthly surface upwelling longwave (thermal) radiation, along with solar radiation at different altitudes. Equivalent temperatures are calculated using the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. Seasonal variations removed.

The red line shows the 24/7/365 global average solar radiation that strikes the planet, 340 watts per square meter (W/m2) of planetary surface area. However, part of that radiation is reflected back out to space.

The orange line shows the 241 W/m2 of solar radiation remaining after clouds, aerosols, and the surface reflect some of the sunlight back to space. Other than a tiny contribution from the geothermal heat, this is the total energy entering the climate system. It’s all we’ve got.

Then aerosols, water vapor, and clouds absorb some of the remaining solar radiation before it hits the ground. The yellow line shows how much of the solar radiation is actually absorbed by the surface itself. At only 164 W/m2, it’s less than half of the solar radiation striking the top of the atmosphere.

Before moving on to further questions, please take a moment to look at Figure 1 and contemplate the surprising stability of the overall system. The clouds, ice, plants, and snow that determine the albedo are constantly changing on an hourly, daily, and monthly basis. Despite that, Figure 1 shows that the amount of energy entering the system (orange line) and the amount reaching the surface (yellow line) barely change from year to year.

Coincidence? You be the judge. But I digress …

Here’s the perplexitude. All solids and most gases are constantly absorbing and emitting longwave radiation. The amount of radiation emitted depends on the temperature, so this is sometimes called “thermal radiation”. And on average, because of its temperature, the surface of the earth is emitting almost 400 W/m2 of upwelling longwave thermal radiation. See the blue line at the top in Figure 1.

That’s the puzzle. Less than half of the 400 W/m2 energy flux that the surface is emitting comes from the sun. Where is the rest coming from?

The answer is that some of the upwelling longwave energy from the surface is absorbed in the atmosphere by clouds, aerosols, water vapor, and what are called “greenhouse gases” or “GHGs”.

At the same time, these clouds, aerosols, water vapor, and greenhouse gases are constantly radiating the energy flux they are absorbing from both the downwelling solar radiation and the upwelling longwave (thermal) radiation. Of course, it’s emitted in the form of longwave (thermal) radiation.

Since the atmospheric thermal radiation is emitted in all directions, about half of it proceeds to space and the other part goes downwards and is absorbed by the surface. And that downwelling thermal radiation is the source of the extra energy that allows the surface to radiate more than just what it gets from the sun. For further information on this question of the so-called “greenhouse effect”, let me recommend my post below.

People Living in Glass Planets

Looking at Figure 1 reveals that we can measure the overall efficiency of this “greenhouse” system by calculating how much radiation the surface emits for each W/m2 it receives from the sun. Overall, the system receives about 240 W/m2 of energy flux from the sun, and just under 400 W/m2 is emitted by the surface. So the general answer is that the surface emits about 1.65 times the total energy flux that the planetary climate system receives from the sun (solar radiation after albedo reflections).

What I have just calculated, the amount of surface energy flux emitted per 1 W/m2 of incoming solar energy flux, is a measure of the overall efficiency of the greenhouse system. It measures how well the so-called “greenhouse effect” is able to convert solar energy into surface warming. I’ll return to this discussion of greenhouse efficiency in a moment.

Now, the blue line in Figure 1 above shows that over the period of record, the surface upwelling thermal radiation has increased slightly, by about 0.9%. That is because the surface temperature has increased. Here’s a closeup of the change starting in 2000.

Figure 2. A closeup of the surface upwelling longwave radiation shown in Figure 1 above (blue line in Figure 1). As in Figure 1, temperatures are calculated using the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. Seasonal variations removed.

The obvious question is whether this increase in the surface temperature is the result of increasing “greenhouse gases”, which are CO2, methane, water vapor, nitrous oxide, halogenated gases, and other minor greenhouse gases. According to the IPCC and the canonical theory, the increasing greenhouse gases are indeed what is causing the surface warming shown in Figure 2 above.

Now, if the increase in those GHGs is what has been driving the increase in surface temperature (and surface thermal radiation), that would show up as an increase in the efficiency of the greenhouse system. More greenhouse gases would absorb more upwelling thermal energy flux from the surface, leading to more downwelling energy flux. This would make the surface warmer for the same amount of incoming solar energy flux. That change would be reflected as an increase in the greenhouse efficiency as calculated above.

But as Figure 3 below shows, there’s been no observable change in greenhouse efficiency in the last quarter century.

Figure 3. Greenhouse efficiency, a dimensionless number calculated as the thermal energy flux emitted by the surface (in W/m2) divided by the solar energy flux entering the system (solar radiation minus albedo reflections). This measures how efficient the system is at converting incoming solar energy into increased surface temperature.

I must confess, I was surprised by this graph. I’d expected the efficiency to have risen somewhat due to the increase in greenhouse gases. But there’s no significant trend.

This is an important finding. Despite increasing GHGs, there has been no corresponding increase in greenhouse efficiency since the turn of the century. This means that whatever is driving the temperature increase shown in Fig. 2, it’s not increasing GHGs.

Note that I’m not saying that the GHGs don’t increase the downwelling longwave radiation. They do. They absorb more upwelling radiation and thus perforce, they increase the downwelling radiation. I’m saying that the increase in downwelling radiation is NOT showing up as an increase in surface temperature. If it were, we’d see it in the efficiency calculations shown above.

My next question was, is it possible that this greenhouse efficiency measurement is too crude to detect the expected change in efficiency from increased GHGs? To determine if this is the case, I looked at the change in efficiency that we’d expect to see from the increase in CO2 and other greenhouse gases over the period. Figure 4 below shows the trend of the expected change in efficiency from increased GHGs (orange line).

Figure 4. As in Figure 3, but with the addition of the trend of the increased efficiency expected from the increase in the well-mixed greenhouse gases (orange line). Per the IPCC, the total effect of all greenhouse gases (GHGs) combined is about twice the effect of the CO2 alone. So, in Fig. 4, the increase in total GHG radiation is calculated as twice the increase in CO2 radiation. See the end notes for the full calculations.

If the increase in surface radiation were the result of increased greenhouse efficiency from the increased well-mixed GHGs, it would show up in Figure 4 above as the efficiency increasing with a trend as shown by the orange trend line. So the greenhouse efficiency measurement is quite sensitive enough to detect the theoretical increase due to increased GHGs.

But in the event, since the year 2000 there’s been no such increase in greenhouse efficiency. There’s no such trend.

So … what’s going on here? That’s really two related questions.

The first question is, where is the extra energy for the known surface warming coming from? Clearly, it’s not coming from the increased GHGs, or we’d have seen an increase in greenhouse efficiency.

The second question is, what has happened to the increased downwelling thermal radiation from the atmosphere? We know that the increased GHGs are causing increased downwelling radiative flux because we can measure it from satellites … but it’s not causing increased surface temperature. We know that energy can’t be created or destroyed … so what’s happening to it?

Regarding the first question, the extra energy must be coming from the sun. Aside from the GHGs, it’s the only other game in town. To demonstrate that the sun is totally sufficient to explain the rise in the planet’s surface temperature/thermal radiation, Figure 5 below is a graph comparing the surface upwelling thermal radiation to the solar input radiation times the average greenhouse efficiency (~1.652).

Figure 5. Surface upwelling longwave (thermal) radiation in red. Black and black/white lines show the solar input radiation (TOA solar minus albedo reflection) times the average greenhouse efficiency (1.652).

Note how closely the variations in the output (surface radiation) correspond to the variations in the input (the amount of solar energy flux entering the system). Both show the same rise-level-rise-level-rise pattern, in the same amounts and at the same times. This shows that the changes in surface temperature are exactly what we’d expect from the change in solar input, given the average efficiency of the system as a whole.

In other words, a greenhouse gas explanation is not needed and is indeed superfluous over this period—given the known greenhouse efficiency, the surface temperature is responding to the change in solar input exactly as expected … while in the background, Occam quietly hones his razor …

Regarding the second question, which was … hang on, what was it? … oh, ok, it was, what has happened to the increased downwelling thermal radiation from the atmosphere, since we know it’s not warming the surface?

Let me refer folks to my post below entitled “The Details Are In The Devil”. It discusses the problem of relating changes in downwelling radiation to changes in temperature in an actively governed system, which is a large part of the answer to the second question.

The Details Are In The Devil

Another part of the answer to the second question is in the following post:

Rainergy

There are more answers to the second question. There’s advection. There’s sensible heat loss from the surface. There’s Nino/Nina-driven transport of warm water to the poles to speed up energy loss to space. Then there are the giant natural refrigerators we call “thunderstorms” cooling the surface in a myriad of ways …

Air Conditioning Nairobi, Refrigerating The Planet

… but that’s enough for now. Further affiant sayeth naught.

Here, after a foggy week, it’s a bluebird day. I can see the sunlight on the ocean six miles (ten km) from my house, my grandkids are laughing in the next room, what’s not to like?

Best of life to all,

w.

The Usual: When you comment please quote the exact words you are discussing. I can defend my words. I can’t defend your interpretation of my words.

The Math: First, the required trigger warning.

Then, the data. It’s a small (20 kb) .csv file in my public dropbox here.

Next, the math.

The variables are:

coshort—the monthly atmospheric CO2 levels for the period analyzed

surf_lw_up_all_mon—monthly surface longwave up, all-sky conditions (not just clear skies)

toa_avail_all_mon—monthly available solar radiation after albedo reflections

themult—monthly efficiency factor as calculated in Fig. 3, surface thermal radiation divided by available solar radiation

coforce—monthly total GHG forcing in W/m2

theco—GHG forcing expressed as a change in greenhouse efficiency

The functions are:

log2—logarithm base 2

first—first value of a series

mean—average value

getfitted—returns the linear fit (regression line or trend line) of a variable as a series of values

Comments are whatever follows the hashmark “#” on a line.

The calculations in R computer language are:

> coforce = log2(coshort / first(coshort)) * 3.7 * 2 # monthly total GHG forcing over the period
> theco = (coforce + mean(surf_lw_up_all_mon)) / mean(toa_avail_all_mon) # monthly GHG forcing expressed as a change in greenhouse efficiency
> theco = theco - first(theco) + first(getfitted(themult)) # adjust it to start at the start of the red fitted linear regression line in Fig. 4.

President Trump declares a National Energy Emergency (ft. Energy Bad Boys Isaac Orr + Mitch Rollling)

In Episode 482 of District of Conservation, Gabriella welcomes the Energy Bad Boys – Isaac Orr and Mitch Rolling – to the podcast. Isaac and Mitch discuss their energy research work, initial reading into President Trump’s executive actions on energy, why energy abundance is a better message than all-of-the-above, why wind and solar jeopardize grid stability, how to fully unleash nuclear energy, and more.

From CFACT

By Gabriella Hoffman

“When the President is truthing out that he doesn’t want a single wind turbine built during his administration, that’s a real change in the policy wins, if you will. Because even as recently as 2016, 2012 Republicans were talking about all-of-the-above. Mitch and I are really tired of this kind of all above platitude, or all-of-the-above platitudes. We need all of the reliable and affordable power.  All of the above is like…an answer that a college student puts on their final exam when they didn’t study for it.” — Isaac Orr, one half of the Energy Bad Boys

In Episode 482 of District of Conservation, Gabriella welcomes the Energy Bad Boys – Isaac Orr and Mitch Rolling – to the podcast. Isaac and Mitch discuss their energy research work, initial reading into President Trump’s executive actions on energy, why energy abundance is a better message than all-of-the-above, why wind and solar jeopardize grid stability, how to fully unleash nuclear energy, and more.

Listen on Apple Podcasts

EP 579: BAAJA Blast: Permitting Reform or Bust – District of Conservation

In Episode 579 of District of Conservation, Gabriella discusses the permitting reform bill – aka BAAJA – that is gaining traction in Congress now. The Senate will hold a cloture vote starting at 3:30pm ET in a motion to proceed. Gabriella discusses the status quo without permitting reform, how BAAJA is good for the environment and affordability. Tune in!SHOW NOTESBipartisan Policy Center: BAAJA ExplainerEstimating the US Energy System Impacts of the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act
  1. EP 579: BAAJA Blast: Permitting Reform or Bust
  2. EP 578: Midterms, CO Amendment 83, Disneyland Goes Electric
  3. EP 577: Kaylyn Glenn – Florida Gladeswoman & Conservationist
  4. EP 576: Chiricahua National Park & Energy Security Index
  5. EP 575: Menhaden Madness (ft. Whit Fosburgh, Forage Fish Campaign)

About Those Blue Zones

Here’s the pop science lede:  “Imagine living to be over 100 with literally no health problems. You’re still able to walk around your neighborhood or work in your garden, your memory is in-tact enough to recall your favorite childhood memories, and you’re not taking any medications whatsoever.”

From Watts Up With That?

News Brief by Kip Hansen

Here’s the pop science lede:  “Imagine living to be over 100 with literally no health problems. You’re still able to walk around your neighborhood or work in your garden, your memory is in-tact enough to recall your favorite childhood memories, and you’re not taking any medications whatsoever.”

What’s new? 

A new study into the concept of Blue Zones, or regions in which there seems to be a higher percentage of people living to advanced ages, was first posted to the preprint archive in March 2024 by Saul Justin Newman, a senior research fellow at the University College London Center for Longitudinal Studies.  A full-text copy is available on bioRxiv, The preprint server for biology.  The title of the new paper gives away its content:  Supercentenarian and remarkable age records exhibit patterns indicative of clerical errors and pension fraud.

Dr. Newman received the 2024 Ig Nobel Prize in Demography for his work. 

The subject of Blue Zones became a hit ‘field’ of popular science when a book titled “The Blue Zones: 9 Lessons for Living Longer from the People Who’ve Lived the Longest” was published  in 2012 by  Dan Buettner.  As recently as 2023, Buettner was still working the idea and  co-produced a TV mini-series documentary: Live to 100: Secrets of the Blue Zones.   And, of course, Buettner has made the idea into a business.

And what are those lesson for living longer?

According to our friend Perplexity (moderately useful when she is in her right mind):

“People in Blue Zones live long lives by following habits that promote physical health, mental health, and social connections. These habits include:

Plant-based diet: Eating a diet rich in fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and legumes provides essential nutrients and fiber.

Physical activity: People in Blue Zones incorporate exercise into their daily lives through walking, gardening, and other chores. They also try to stand more and limit time spent in front of screens.

Stress management: People in Blue Zones have developed practices and rituals to reduce the effects of stress.

Moderate alcohol consumption: Drinking alcohol in moderation, especially red wine, can have health benefits.

Sense of purpose: Having a strong sense of purpose can improve quality of life and motivate healthy behavior.

The 80% rule: Eating fewer calories may help with longevity.

Getting enough sleep: Getting good sleep can protect against a variety of health issues.

Building strong connections: People in Blue Zones value building strong connections with others.”

And all of those traits [except “plant-based diets” if it is taken to mean eating no meat] are fine ideas and maybe many of us would benefit from incorporating more of them more often in our lives. 

But do the people living in regions classified as so-called Blue Zones actually live exceptionally long lives by keeping those habits?

Not according to Newman:

The following quote is from Newman’s preprint paper.  It is a very thorough deep dive into the demographics of the “Blue Zones” and the claims made for longevity.

“The observation of individuals attaining remarkable ages, and their concentration into geographic sub-regions or ‘blue zones’, has generated considerable scientific interest. Proposed drivers of remarkable longevity include high vegetable intake, strong social connections, and genetic markers.” 

“Here, we reveal new predictors of remarkable longevity and ‘supercentenarian’ status. In the United States supercentenarian status is predicted by the absence of vital registration. In the UK, Italy, Japan, and France remarkable longevity is instead predicted by regional poverty, old-age poverty, material deprivation, low incomes, high crime rates, a remote region of birth, worse health, and fewer 90+ year old people.”   

But, but, but….?

Saul Newman bares all in a 20 January 2025  OpEd in the New York Times titled  “Sorry, No Secret to Life Is Going to Make You Live to 110”. 

The OpEd is well worth your time if you are interested in how decades of seemingly careful science on Blue Zones have led to results which are imaginary or just “wished to be true”.  At 1600 words, it is seven minutes read.

But, Newman handily sums it up for us with this:

“After years of open criticism, basic problems [of longevity research] remain unexplained. Instead, the science of extreme longevity continues as an immense joke.”

# # # # #

Author’s Comment:

Most people seems to want to live to advanced ages, and in the news there is one guy who wants to live forever (or at least “not die”).

I have been writing about Nutritional Epidemiology and its efforts to find diets that will make people live longer (or something…).  

The mini-science-field of extreme longevity and Blue Zones operates on those same erroneous methods which attempt to find “the secret to long life”. 

I’m with Newman, as science, it is “an immense joke.”

You may know of other fields  whose Popular Science manifestations are also immense jokes. 

Thanks for reading.

# # # # #

UK Worse Place in World to Put Solar Power

In 2020, the World Bank published this report on the potential of solar power:

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

h/t Philip Bratby

In 2020, the World Bank published this report on the potential of solar power:

https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/energy/publication/solar-photovoltaic-power-potential-by-country

It was quite a detailed analysis, taking into account not just sunshine itself, but also the impact of air temperature, terrain horizon, and albedo, as well as module tilt, configuration, shading,
soiling, and other factors affecting the system performance.

It was measured thus:

PVOUT is the amount of power generated per unit of installed PV capacity over the long term (the specific yield), measured in kilowatt hours per installed kilowatt peak (kWh/kWp).

Global map showing practical solar energy potential after excluding for physical, environmental and other factors

Out of 230 countries assessed, the UK came in at 229th. Only Ireland fared worse!

Nevertheless the idiot Miliband wants to triple solar power in the UK to 47 GW in the next five years.

According to BEIS Levelised Costs, CAPEX for large scale solar is £410/kW, which works out at £19.3 billion.

Output would be 45 TWh a year, and operational costs would be £10/MWh, ie £450 million a year.

Over 15 years then, the total cost would be £26 billion.

We will still need a full fleet of CCGT plants, with all the costs associated. The only extra cost we would incur if there was no solar power would be for fuel.

DESNZ projections say that natural gas prices will be around 70p/therm between now and 2032, at current prices – that’s £24/MWh.

Assuming 53% fuel efficiency, the fuel cost for a CCGT would be £45.28/MWh of electricity produced. On 45 TWh a year, that’s £2.0 billion, or £30 billion over 15 years.

On the face of it, solar power could save £4 billion, but these costings don’t include cost of capital. A return on capital of 10%, for instance, would cost £1.9 billion annually.

On top of that are storage costs, to manage variable output during the day, and avoid the need to throw away surplus electricity at times of peak output and low demand.

When everything is taken into account, there is no case for solar power.

UK Electricity Prices Jump to Two-Year High as Wind Power Plunges

Low wind speeds have pushed the UK’s power prices to their highest level in two years on Tuesday, with wind generation expected to plunge to the lowest level on Wednesday since September 2023, Bloomberg models show.

Wind turbines at the London Array project, the world’s largest consented wind farm, a partnership between Dong Energy A/S, E.ON AG and Abu Dhabi-based Masdar are seen in the Thames Estuary, U.K., on Wednesday, March 13, 2013. “London Array will soon be the largest operational offshore wind farm in the world,” said Benj Sykes, head of Dong Energy’s U.K. wind business. Photographer: Chris Ratcliffe/Bloomberg

From OilPrice.com

By Charles Kennedy

Low wind speeds have pushed the UK’s power prices to their highest level in two years on Tuesday, with wind generation expected to plunge to the lowest level on Wednesday since September 2023, Bloomberg models show.

The day-ahead power price in the UK hit $296.28 (£241.49) per megawatt-hour (MWh) on Tuesday, with the day-ahead price for the peak evening demand soaring to $760.68 (£620.00) per MWh.

With wind now generating the largest share of UK power generation, periods of low wind speeds tend to result in power price spikes.

Wind power overtook natural gas to become – for the first time ever – the UK’s largest source of electricity generation for a full year in 2024, the National Energy System Operator (NESO) said earlier this month.

Last year, wind was the largest source of electricity generation for the first year ever, accounting for 30%, NESO said in its 2024 electricity review.

In addition, renewables generated more than 50% of Britain’s electricity for four consecutive quarters to the third quarter of 2024 for the first time, averaging 51% during 2024, the system operator noted.

The share of natural gas averaged 26.3% last year, while nuclear accounted for 14%, and solar represented 5% of the UK power generation in 2024.

Last year saw a monumental moment in Britain’s electricity system with the switching-off of the last remaining coal power plant in the country. The plant at Ratcliffe-on-Soar was shut at the end of September, ending 142 years of coal-fired electricity generation in the UK. Britain became the first G7 country to have phased out coal.

While its power system is becoming greener, the UK now sees power spikes when demand is high in the winter while wind generation is low.

Electricity prices in many countries in northwest Europe have jumped in recent months due to falling wind power generation.

Scapegoating climate to hide callous government malfeasance

Wildfires near Los Angeles have left Pacific Palisades looking like Dresden after the WWII fire-bombings. Over 12,000 homes, schools and businesses have been incinerated, dozens of people have died, at least 70,000 have been left homeless, and fires still rage.

animal in the meadow looking right at the camera

From CFACT

By Paul Driessen

Wildfires near Los Angeles have left Pacific Palisades looking like Dresden after the WWII fire-bombings. Over 12,000 homes, schools and businesses have been incinerated, dozens of people have died, at least 70,000 have been left homeless, and fires still rage.

AccuWeather estimates that just two of the fires will destroy $135-150 billion in property!

It’s a doubly horrific tragedy, because most of the death and devastation could have been prevented.

California has 33,000,000 acres of federal, state and private forestland – equivalent to Wisconsin. As the state’s population expanded, forests and wildlife increasingly merged with human habitats. And yet federal and state land managers – compelled by ideology, activists, legislators and judges – have steadfastly refused to permit timber cutting, tree thinning or brush removal, or take other actions that would reduce the likelihood of conflagrations.

So many trees are so jammed together now that they’re starved for space, water, nutrients and sunlight. Many are diseased. They are skinny matchsticks, primed to erupt in flames. Some 36,000,000 trees died just in 2022, across just 8% of these forestlands. But even dead and diseased trees are rarely removed.

Rainy fall and winter months stimulate tree, brush and grass growth. Parched summers dry everything out. Extended dry periods leave all this fuel ready to ignite for more months.

Lightning, sparks from cars or power lines, campfires and arsonists set areas aflame. Dry Santa Ana winds (40-70 mph, with gusts of 120-150 mph) whip fires into infernos. Depleted, defunded fire departments often arrive long after they could extinguish fires in their infancy.

The conflagrations generate still more powerful winds that carry embers, branches, even small trees thousands of feet – often into communities that are ill-prepared to cope.

This barely begins the litany of California government failures that help cause repeated fire calamities. However, state and local politicians adroitly avoid responsibility.

Their most common excuse is manmade climate change. They even have a new fear-inducing term: hydroclimate whiplash! Fossil-fuel-driven climate change supposedly brought two exceptionally wet winters, spurring unprecedented plant growth – and then caused unprecedented arid conditions and previously unheard-of Santa Ana winds that made these infernos unpredictable but inevitable.

Calling the massive, repeated government failures “incompetence” is too generous. Deliberate, callous, destructive malfeasance is more apt. Criminal may be appropriate.

Governor Gavin Newsom wants a special session to discuss spending $25-50 million to “Trump-proof” state policies. He wants to use a new $10 billion “climate bond” to reduce farm and ranch greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, improve “equitable access to nature,” build more parks in “disadvantaged communities,” upgrade ports to handle deepwater offshore wind projects, and more.

California is still pouring billions into EV subsidies, its “clean” energy transition, and the $100 billion “bullet train to nowhere.” It’s spending more billions supporting “sanctuary” status for illegal immigrants, maintaining gender and DEI programs, and ministering to America’s largest number of homeless people – which will now include 70,000+ who’ve lost everything to the 2025 wildfires.

One wonders whether they’ll treat these now-homeless taxpayers as well as they have illegal populations.

Legislated restrictions on how companies may conduct fire-risk assessments and what rates they can charge for homeowners insurance in high-fire-risk areas have caused insurers to leave the state or stop issuing new policies. Hundreds of thousands of families are now uninsured, underinsured or dependent on the state’s FAIR Plan, which has only $385 million in reserves.

Meanwhile, California devoted only $2.6 billion to “forest and wildfire resilience” across all state-managed forestlands, including Topanga State Park, where the fires started, right next to what once was Pacific Palisades – versus $14.7 billion for EVs and “clean renewable energy.”

With memories of the horrific 2018 Paradise (Camp) fire still causing nightmares, Mayor Karen Bass cut $17.6 million from the Los Angeles Fire Department budget, fired 100 firefighters who didn’t get Covid vaccines, and was partying at an embassy reception in Ghana as the fires erupted

LA Fire Department Chief Kristin Crowley (salary: $654,000) has spent millions on DEI programs and hiring more women, gays and minorities. Deputy/Diversity Chief Kristine Larson (salary: $307,000) says victims want to see emergency responders that “look like” them, and if she isn’t strong enough to carry your husband out of a fire, he “got himself in the wrong place.”

They then failed to keep extra firefighters and firetrucks on duty as winds picked up just before the first forest fires were spotted – apparently to avoid paying overtime. That meant the LAFD couldn’t get there before fires roared out of control.

Exhausted firefighters trying to save multi-million-dollar homes in Palisades ran out of water. A major reason was that LA Water and Power Department CEO Janisse Quiñones (salary: $750,000) had the 117-million-gallon Santa Ynez Reservoir drained to repair cracks in its base. A full reservoir would have replenished huge storage tanks that feed and pressurize local fire hydrants.

Quiñones has said her “number one” priority is equity and social justice. Does that explain why the reservoir was drained in February 2024; no contractor was hired until November 2024; and even then no workers, equipment or materials were in place for 24/7 repairs?

Just as callously incompetent, why was there no plan (or no action taken) to utilize fireboats, tugboats, barges and other vessels from Long Beach Harbor and the San Diego Navy Base? Many are equipped with water storage, pumps, hoses and nozzles. They could spray seawater directly on coastal homes or run hoses ashore to connect to fire hydrant systems.

Some salt would remain in soils and kill some plants. However, the choice should be easy. Lose some prized vegetation to lingering salts – or have prized vegetation, homes, priceless heirlooms and artworks, and everything else incinerated by raging infernos. Homeowners never got to make that choice.

The incineration of these forests and communities released far more greenhouse gases than all the state’s now-shuttered coal- and gas-fired power plants would have over many decades.

Further complicating matters, the fires sent ash and pollutants into skies and left toxic chemicals behind – from plastics, paints, batteries, solvents and other materials in homes, buildings and vehicles. They’ve contaminated waters and soils, which could result in long cleanup and rebuilding delays.

Governor Newsom says he wants to expedite rebuilding. But LA health officials say debris removal and reconstruction are prohibited until licensed officials have carefully examined sites for toxics – dangerous or barely detectable levels? New building codes for fire resistance? Or homeowner demands for them?

Citizens need to discuss all this at town hall meetings, before the next conflagration strikes – inevitably, if proper forest and water management and personnel hiring are not implemented immediately. Put simply, the woke idiots responsible for this rampant destruction and loss of life must be replaced with people who understand their Number One Job is protecting citizens from crime, fires and other natural disasters.

Mr. Newsom also wants an investigation into the loss of fire hydrant water pressure. Californians have good reason to suspect he’s merely trying to find excuses and scapegoats, so that he and his favorite legislators can save their political hides.

Golden Staters need to revamp their political, bureaucratic, policy and woke systems. They need to rely less on government – and more on themselves, the way the Getty Villa and several neighbors did in Malibu, thereby saving homes, treasures and lives. Otherwise, these needless tragedies will be repeated.

Poilievre: On Canada and US Partnership

Our entire Trade Surplus and more is due to oil and gas because we export about $120 billion of oil and gas to the United States at enormous discounts to market price because we have been so stupid and our bureaucrats have been so obstructive and woke activists have been so fanatical that we have not been able to develop the infrastructure to refine and transport our own energy to World Markets. So we are stuck with the US; depending on the time we sell a barrel oil to the Americans for 10% up to 30 or 40% cheaper than the world price. There’s a price called western Canada select and it’s significantly lower than WTI.

From Science Matters

By Ron Clutz

Last week Jordan Peterson conducted the above interview What Pierre Poilievre Thinks About Donald Trump. Poilievre is the Conservative leader expected to form the next federal government in Canada.  My lightly edited transcript is below in italics with my bolds and added images. JP refers to Peterson and PP to Poilievre.

JP: Trump famously met with Trudeau and seemed to troll him quite hard. First thing, I don’t know to what degree the Canadian press picked up on this, but Trudeau wasn’t invited to stay at Mar-a-Lago and there’s 126 rooms there. So when Trump invites someone he also invites them to stay there. So, you know that was a message, and then he trolled him hard. He called him the governor of America’s 51st State and let it be known that he had very little respect for him. And then he announced a 25% tariff on Canadian goods.

So I had two reactions to that. You know, because I’m no fan of Trudeau, one was amused pleasure at Trump’s vicious humor let’s say. And the other one, you know he is the leader of our primary ally and a G7 nation, and so maybe that verged on contempt. I’m not exactly sure what to make of that and I’m curious about your response, and also how you feel about negotiating a new relationship with the Americans and with the Trump Administration in particular.

PP: Well, I won’t spend a lot of time on how I feel about it other than to say Trudeau is a weak leader who leads a weakened economy with a weakened dollar and a weakened border. And president Trump has a strong mandate and he he spent his life as a highly successful businessman in the most cutthroat economic environment in the world, New York City. So, in construction yeah and in Chicago. This is a former businessman who can spot weakness a mile away and act on it. So, it’s just humiliating for all Canadians to witness something like that, because this is our country.

But what am I going to do about it? Look, first and foremost we need to show up with strength. We have an American president who has always put America First, he’s very blunt about it. I’ll put Canada First. The good news is that there’s immense overlap in the two countries respective interests and values. We’re both liberal democracies, we both value Freedom, we both share a geography. We have our enemies and our risks, and our threats are the same, so there’s no reason why we can’t both win. If you look at the history of President Trump, he negotiates very aggressively and he likes to win, but in the end, he doesn’t appear to have a problem if his counterparty also wins. So, I think that we can get a great deal that will make both countries safer, richer and stronger. That’s the goal that I’ll be coming with into these negotiations.

JP: Okay, so what would a great deal look like as far as you’re concerned with the Americans on the energy side. One of the things that Trump pointed to was Canada’s Trade Surplus with the US at 1 billion was his estimate.

PP: It depends how you measure it, other estimates have it at around 40 billion, but he’s right, there is a Canadian Trade Surplus with the states. And from a mercantilist point of view you can say that America has been ripped off by China and Mexico. You can see examples of a factory closing in Ohio or Pennsylvania to open in Mexico or in China. But that’s not the nature of the Canadian Trade Surplus. It’s not a matter of the Canadian economy taking American jobs, far from it.

The nature of our Trade Surplus with America is that while it is a rip-off,
it’s Canada ripping itself off and let me explain.

Our entire Trade Surplus and more is due to oil and gas because we export about $120 billion of oil and gas to the United States at enormous discounts to market price because we have been so stupid and our bureaucrats have been so obstructive and woke activists have been so fanatical that we have not been able to develop the infrastructure to refine and transport our own energy to World Markets. So, we are stuck with the US; depending on the time we sell a barrel oil to the Americans for 10% up to 30 or 40% cheaper than the world price. There’s a price called western Canada select and it’s significantly lower than WTI.

Until recently at least 99% of our oil exports to America where they then get to upgrade it and resell it at enormous profits with their welders, pipe fitters and engineers making the six figure salaries that go along with that. We give all of our natural gas exports to the United States because we don’t have an an operating liquefaction terminal to send it away ourselves so they get our natural gas at massive discounts. And then they can decide if they want to liquefy and ship it off to world markets at literally five times higher.

Trudeau’s “Just Transition” to Net Zero

So that is that is the trade surplus he’s talking about. Now if he were to stop that today it would mean that American workers at refineries and in other value-added places would lose their jobs and Americans would pay higher energy prices. So that would not be good for America in the long run.

Being very blunt, I intend to approve refineries and LNG plants and
hopefully pipelines so that I could bring that production
back to Canada and make us more energy independent.

But in the short run if President Trump wants to make America richer the last thing, he should want to do is block the underpriced Canadian energy from going into his Marketplace. In fact, I would encourage him to approve the Keystone Pipeline so that we can create jobs for American workers who will build and install it but also create much more wealth for Alberta and Saskatchewan and have their product reach tide water in the US Gulf Coast and get World prices.

So that’s an economic win. Also, it’s not just oil and gas though. We have in Canada the Strategic minerals that are necessary for Warfare and for the modern digital economy that we could be exporting to the United States breaking both of our dependencies on China. We have the energy, a major Surplus of electricity, a surplus that we could even grow further that could be used for data centers that America cannot build fast enough.

So, there’s enormous opportunities for both of us to get vastly richer if
we actually deepen our trade relationship rather than blocking it.

JP: Right, well it seems highly probable to me that that would be the direction that the Trump Administration would turn in if they were negotiating with people who were playing a straight game and were actually aiming for something like economic Prosperity instead of whatever the hell it is that Trudeau’s aiming for. Now you made brief reference to something quite shocking in its full import which didn’t really strike me until your comments. For example, Trudeau turned away the chancellor of Germany and the leader of Japan when they came cap in hand to Canada asking for increased Natural Gas exports over the long run. Given that we refused them, we ended up maintaining our low-cost contracts with the United States and selling them all our resources at a discount.

PP: Yes, it’s enormously stupid. That’s the business case Trudeau couldn’t make. And I hate to say this, but because we have blocked LG plants and pipelines and other energy infrastructure, and because we’re giving therefore our gas to America at like a 70 or 80% discount to European and Asian prices and our oil at a discount of 20 or 30%, we’re effectively throwing money out a window. What do you do when someone throws money out a window? Stand next to the window yeah right.

So that is the true story, the pathetic story of our Trade Surplus is
that we’re actually handing over our resources stupidly.

It’s not The Americans’ fault, it’s our fault. We’re stupid and we’re going to stop being stupid when I’m prime minister. We’re going to build this infrastructure ourselves but, in the meantime, it would be it would be bad for American workers and consumers for the president to tariff our oil and gas.

And look, we have an integrated economy; I think an automobile crosses the Border something like eight or nine times between Ontario and the manufacturing states of the US before it becomes a finished product. Why interrupt those Supply chains? Also why not allow Americans just to have access to buying our minerals? Or better yet why don’t we process improve them here in Canada before we sell them to the United States to break dependence on hostile foreign powers?

By the way I would say to President Trump that the gains that Canada gets from increased access to the United States, I would spend largely on our Continental defense, on a more powerful Canadian military that truly secures the Arctic that protects us against terrorists and against intercontinental ballistic missiles, against threats, God forbid, from other parts of the world. We could have a bigger and more powerful military with a bigger and more powerful economy and so our interests overlap overwhelmingly.

That’s the case I would make to the incoming president
who has proven that he likes to make deals and is good at it.

U.S. Climate Policy: Turnaround Time for Trump

Is it time for the Mark Trexlers of the world to recalibrate? Decades of climate mitigation policy has produced waste and much trash talk (‘denier’) but not much change in global emissions. The saturation effect (diminishing forcing of CO2 as the atmosphere PPM builds up) makes climate activism a lost cause except for the shouting.

From Master Resource

By Robert Bradley Jr.

“Many full-time climate activists like Mark Trexler need to get real jobs in the private sector producing goods and services that people want rather than engaging in wealth redistribution and net resource loss. A sea change is upon us….”

Mark Trexler of the (alarmist) Climate Risk Red Team (see appendix below) has compiled a list of Trump-related action items for a consumer-first, America-first approach to climate and energy policy. Trexler, worried about Trump, published this useful list that can now be compared to Trump’s executive orders now flowing from Washington, DC:

While I’d heard a lot about the Heritage Foundation’s “Project 2025” blueprint for a second Trump Administration, I’ve never seen a simple listing of specific things being proposed. Note this is just a partial list, is limited to climate change, and is just one of a number of such lists being developed. That said, the implications would be pretty remarkable.

Accelerate the review process for cross-border energy projects
Appoint more judges likely to be unfriendly to climate action
Cut funding for international climate organizations
Delay stricter fuel economy standards
Eliminate climate change clauses in future trade agreements
Eliminate climate resilience requirements for housing projects
Eliminate grants for renewable energy projects
Eliminate international climate change adaptation programs
Elimination of DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Elimination of the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations
End to “pause” on new US LNG export authorizations
Expand grazing and forestry activities on federal lands
Expand oil and gas exploration on federal lands and waters
Expand research on advanced fossil fuel technologies
Finance international oil and gas projects
Increase biofuel production by easing regulations on ethanol production
Increase grant funding for fossil fuel technology startups
Increase training programs for coal and oil workers
Limit climate adaptation at military installations
Limit enforcement of environmental marketing regulations
Limit renewable energy mandates for military installations
Limit shareholder proposals related to climate change
Limit state powers to block energy infrastructure projects
Oppose broadcasting rules favoring climate change messaging
Prevent mandatory climate risk disclosures
Prevent mandatory environmental, social, and governance (ESG) disclosures
Promotion of U.S. energy exports
Re-evaluate regulations on coal mining to promote greater extraction
Reduce climate financing for developing nations
Reduce climate health impact studies
Reduce export controls on coal and oil products
Reduce funding for climate change adaptation programs
Reduce intelligence focus on climate change as a national security threat
Remove climate PSAs from broadcasting regulations
Repeal of the Inflation Reduction Act
Rollback climate-oriented consumer protection regulations
Scale back climate research to focus on weather forecasting
Simplify the approval process for hydropower projects
Stop incorporating climate risk into monetary policy
Stop linking climate change to public health risks
Streamline environmental impact assessments for energy projects
Support bilateral energy agreements with fossil fuel-producing countries
Support hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and coal mining
Support state rollback of zero-emission vehicle mandates
Tweak IRS regulations to make access to IRA tax benefits more difficult
Weaken energy efficiency standards for appliances
Withdraw from international climate agreements

I count 47 items. Are there more? This is prior government’s fault for imposing—not a reform candidate’s fault for repeal/weakening. Free-market energies should be for the masses, not government wind, solar, and batteries re the Climate Industrial Complex.

Executive Orders to Date

The New York Times today listed these ten Day 1 Trump initiatives:

Final Comment

Is it time for the Mark Trexlers of the world to recalibrate? Decades of climate mitigation policy has produced waste and much trash talk (‘denier’) but not much change in global emissions. The saturation effect (diminishing forcing of CO2 as the atmosphere PPM builds up) makes climate activism a lost cause except for the shouting.

Many full-time climate activists need to get real jobs in the private sector producing goods and services that people want rather than engaging in wealth redistribution and net resource loss. A sea change is upon us….

Appendix: A Job in Alarmism

Mark Trexler describes his expertise as follows:

Having studied societal and business climate risks for the last 20+ years, I’ve arrived at several takeaways:

1) We’re substantially under-estimating societal AND business climate risks, near-, mid-, and long-term
2) It’s REALLY hard to get our heads around the potential implications of climate change going forward
3) Knowledge management is a key skillset for accessing actionable climate knowledge
4) Decision-support tools like Assumption Audits, Scenario Planning, and Pre-Mortems are critical

I developed the methodology for the first carbon offset (1989), carried out the first studies of nature-based solutions (1991), founded the first specialized U.S. climate risk consultancy (1991), managed the first corporate carbon footprints (1993), implemented many of the earliest carbon offsets (1992+), took the first company climate neutral (1996), built the first supply/demand carbon pricing model (1996), , and started developing the Climate Web as a collective climate change intelligence in 2010.

I’ve launched successful start-ups, managed global teams of climate consultants, served as a Lead Author and Chapter Editor for the IPCC, and been Director of Climate Risk for the Oslo-based global risk firm DNV.

Election Realities, Progress Ahead

“The enemy is not Donald Trump and never has been. The enemy is Statism. Left libertarians such as David Boaz and Tom Palmer, with their emotions raging, and outfits like the Left-funded, TDS-infested, Kamala-supporting Institute for the Study of Modern Authoritarianism never got it and still don’t.”

From Master Resource

By Robert Bradley Jr.

“The enemy is not Donald Trump and never has been. The enemy is Statism. Left libertarians such as David Boaz and Tom Palmer, with their emotions raging, and outfits like the Left-funded, TDS-infested, Kamala-supporting Institute for the Study of Modern Authoritarianism never got it and still don’t.”

Statism and intellectual elitism took a big hit in the election. Count the reasons, such as this listing distributed on social media.

It was the economy…. migrant mess…. inflation spurred by rampant spending…. green energy idiocy…. electric-everything mandates…. Left’s anti-Americanism. Men in women’s sports. Transitioning children.
Threats to the Supreme Court and the filibuster. Lawfare. Government greed. Lasting damage done to a generation of children from repressive lockdowns. Abandonment of merit in favor of identity politics. Foreign policy idiocy, such as the Afghanistan debacle and sending billions to Iran.

And promised spending binges. Unjustified or excessive TDS. Rampant antisemitism. Disastrous public education system for children. Highly suspect – and telling – selection of Tim Walz rather than Josh Shapiro as Harris’s running mate.

The Deep State. Blatant lying. Open contempt for average Americans. Naked bigotry. Big Tech collusion. Censorship, speech suppression, and ministries of truth. The “coup” that installed Harris.

The utter awfulness of Harris. Unqualified, unable to answer an unscripted question, lacking any track record that would suggest she’s ready for the Presidency, dithering, deceitful, disrespectful, dodging, and apparently capable only of generating word salad.”

Losing Left Politics

Bret Stephens provided a warning to the Left with his pre-election New York Times editorial, “There’s One Main Culprit if Donald Trump Wins” (October 22, 2024). He called out “the way in which leading liberal voices in government, academia and media practice politics today” and listed seven problem areas:

The politics of condescension…. The politics of name-calling…. The politics of gaslighting…. The politics of highhandedness.… The politics of Pollyanna…. The politics of selective fidelity to traditional norms.… The politics of identity over class.

Stephens’ post-election editorial, Done With Never Trump, continued his pre-election analysis (December 17, 2024):

Is it time to drop the heavy moralizing and incessant doomsaying that typified so much of the Never Trump movement — and that rendered it politically impotent and frequently obtuse? Yes, please. But Never Trumpers also overstated our case and, in doing so, defeated our purpose.

Stephens continued:

So here’s a thought for Trump’s perennial critics, including those of us on the right: Let’s enter the new year by wishing the new administration well, by giving some of Trump’s cabinet picks the benefit of the doubt, by dropping the lurid historical comparisons to past dictators, by not sounding paranoid about the ever-looming end of democracy, by hoping for the best and knowing that we need to fight the wrongs that are real and not merely what we fear, that whatever happens, this too shall pass.

Final Comment

All true. The enemy is not Donald Trump and never has been. The enemy is Statism. Left libertarians such as David Boaz and Tom Palmer, with their emotions raging, and outfits like the Left-funded, TDS-infested, Kamala-supporting Institute for the Study of Modern Authoritarianism (publisher of The UnPopulist), never got it and still don’t. [1]

In fact, the large majority of real-world libertarians and the think tanks therein are excited about the prospects of the new Administration compared to the Road-to-Serfdom Democrats. The post-Boaz Cato Institute is back in the political game, offering insight and ideas about maximizing markets and freedom and rolling back Statism in the Trump framework.

Tom “Trumpissmo” Palmer (his slur) has blocked me on social media, so expect more emotionalism, despair, and anger toward a world where normal, hard-working Americans elected Trump (for good reason) and want to be left alone from ‘experts’–and misfit culture warriors.

Here’s to a very interesting 2025!

—————

[1] ISMA (per founder Shikha Dalmia) advertises itself as “a public policy organization committed to defending free societies and opposing the worldwide slide into illiberalism” (whatever that means). The UpPopulist (Substack) describes itself as “a publication committed to defending liberal democracy against new forms of authoritarianism in the United States and around the world.” It sees Trump as “Far Right,” but not Biden-Harris and radical progressivism as Far Left. Very strange….

I was banned from The UnPopulist comment section (“user was indefinitely suspended for this comment”) for this challenge to Tom Palmer, coauthor of this Far Right interpretation: “Your Comprehensive Guide to the Far Right: Part I.”

Tom Palmer should now write a similar piece on the Far Left. Words like authoritarianism and fascism apply. An Op-Ed in today’s NYT gave this as a potential reason for a Trump victory over Harris:

“The politics of name-calling, which happens every time Trump’s voters are told they are racists, misogynists, weird, phobic, low-information or, most recently, supporters of a fascist — and, by implication, fascists themselves. Aside from being gratuitous and self-defeating — what kind of voter is going to be won over by being called a name? — it’s also mostly wrong. Trump’s supporters overwhelmingly are people who think the Biden-Harris years have been bad for them and the country. Maybe liberals should try to engage the argument without belittling the person.

Enough said. Time to substitute scholarship for emotionalism and Statism for Trump.