Tag: Environment

Real Environmental Crisis Is Not Climate Change

What if the worst environmental problem wasn’t the one everyone is talking about? While Western elites sip fair-trade coffee and obsess over carbon footprints, the developing world drowns in a toxic soup of its own making – a crisis entirely distinct from the phantom menace of climate change.

A polluted waterway surrounded by mounds of garbage and plastic waste, with foam visible in the water.

Watts Up With That?

By Vijay Jayaraj

A young child crouches among a large pile of plastic waste in a rundown area, focused on sorting through the debris.

What if the worst environmental problem wasn’t the one everyone is talking about? While Western elites sip fair-trade coffee and obsess over carbon footprints, the developing world drowns in a toxic soup of its own making – a crisis entirely distinct from the phantom menace of climate change.

The real environmental emergency isn’t the modest warming that has helped humans thrive. It’s land degradation, poisoned water and other forms of pollution that are burying the Global South alive.

Yes, we’ve been fighting the wrong environmental war.

The foaming black sludge in the rivers, the mountains of untreated garbage festering in streets and the invisible superbugs breeding in waterways represent a true crisis that extends across continents.

In Ghana, only one-quarter of the daily trash is gathered for disposal. Uncollected waste breeds insect vectors that transmit malaria and dengue fever. In South African townships, nearly three-quarters of the residents report diseases directly attributable to improper waste disposal. Cholera dominates the list.

Southeast Asia now ranks among the largest contributors to marine plastic pollution. Mismanaged waste flows through rivers into coastal waters, damaging fisheries and tourism. Plastic pollution stems from governance failure, not atmospheric chemistry. The solutions are mundane but unapplied: collection trucks, engineered landfills and modern incineration with air-emission controls.

Yet here emerges the peculiar tragedy of our moment: While our children drink poisoned water, our governments have burned billions of dollars at the altar of net zero. They divert precious financial resources, energy and administrative bandwidth toward fighting a ghost. They chase the approval of the United Nations and the World Economic Forum, pledging allegiance to a “war on carbon.” They announce billion-dollar “renewable” targets for solar and wind installations.

In countries where capital is scarce and competing priorities numerous, this reallocation is consequential. Billions allocated to renewable energy transition in poor countries translates into delayed investment in wastewater treatment, sanitation systems and waste management technology.

Environmental ministers in developing nations have been socialized into a hierarchy of concern that places the atmospheric concentration of a botanical nutrient – carbon dioxide – above demonstrable health catastrophes unfolding in their jurisdictions.

The justification for this abysmal stance is rooted in the claim that carbon dioxide (CO2) is causing a climate crisis. The premise that this trace gas drives dangerous global warming is unscientific. The “settled science” is anything but.

Researchers like William Happer and W. A. van Wijngaarden have shown that the greenhouse effect of each CO2 molecule diminishes as its atmospheric concentration increases. Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere is like painting a black window with another coat of black paint; it makes little difference to the light passing through.

Furthermore, new data indicate that the rate of global warming between 1899 and 1940 – before the surge in industrial emissions – may have been higher than the warming rate from 1983 to 2024. If human emissions are the primary control knob of the climate, how can the greater warming of the early 20th century be explained? It cannot.

Every time a city in India or Bangladesh floods, the media shrieks “climate change!”, blaming the rain on the burning of fossil fuels. This is a lie. The rain is real, but the cause of the disaster is fabricated. Analysis of Indian flood deaths show repeatedly that urban planning failures are the culprit.

Recent assessment by the U.S. Department of Energy acknowledges that excessively aggressive mitigation policies targeting CO₂ are likely more detrimental than beneficial to economic welfare. The scientific case for treating CO₂ as a planetary menace has weakened as observational data and physical modeling have matured.

And the irony is that the fossil fuels proposed for abandonment are needed to solve the real problems: High-temperature incinerators, recycling plants and water treatment facilities require massive amounts of reliable, affordable baseload power. Solar and wind cannot provide this.

Robust infrastructure that can withstand floods and storms requires steel and concrete, which is produced by using coal and natural gas. To improve the quality of indoor air, households must transition away from burning dung and wood to clean-burning liquefied petroleum gas.

The climate scare is a luxury adventure for the rich. For most, the fight is for clean water, breathable air and the dignity of a life free from filth. The abstract, unscientific, and profitable carbon targets tailor-made for multi-billion-dollar corporations is not going to save the Global South from the suffocating effect of real pollution.

The longer developing nations remain entranced by climate virtue signaling, the longer they defer the genuine environmental remediation their populations deserve.

Originally published in The Center Square on January 28, 2026.

Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Fairfax, Virginia. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India. He served as a research associate with the Changing Oceans Research Unit at University of British Columbia, Canada.

A polluted area with piles of garbage and plastic waste, a fire burning among the debris, and contaminated water with foam and litter.

Net Zero emission ideologies is destructive to future generations

The vast resources of underground coal, crude oil, and natural gas are all useless unless refined or processed into the fuels and products that support the lives of 8 billion people. Refineries, coal gasification, and coal liquefaction plants—though emission generators—remain indispensable to modern civilization.

Silhouette of a city skyline under a dark, rainy sky with the words 'Net Zero' prominently displayed in light green.

From America Out Loud News

By Ronald Stein P.E. and Yoshihiro Muronaka

A silhouetted scene depicting a stylized night landscape with a blue sky, buildings, a tree, and whimsical glowing eyes in the foreground.

The vast resources of underground coal, crude oil, and natural gas are all useless unless refined or processed into the fuels and products that support the lives of 8 billion people. Refineries, coal gasification, and coal liquefaction plants—though emission generators—remain indispensable to modern civilization.

In less than a few centuries, human ingenuity discovered more than 250 groundbreaking refining and processing techniques to convert those useless underground hydrocarbon resources of coal, crude oil, and natural gas into something useful for humanity. Today, more than 6,000 products and transportation fuels are derived from oil—plastics and synthetic rubber, fertilizers for agriculture, detergents, paints, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, and a wide range of fuels such as LPG, gasoline, kerosene, diesel, lubricants, and asphalt for roads. Nearly half of the world’s population depends on synthetic fertilizers made from fossil fuels.

Infographic illustrating various everyday products made from oil, including items from categories like automotive, kitchen, beauty, and sports, all connected to a central oil barrel.

These materials and fuels are the foundation of longer, healthier lives. In 1900, the average life expectancy was 32 years; by 2021, it had more than doubled to 71 years. Today, it exceeds 75 years. Global transportation, commerce, and even space programs are built upon products refined from oil. Every day, more than 50,000 merchant ships, 20,000 commercial aircraft, and 50,000 military aircraft move people and goods around the world, all built with and fueled by derivatives of petroleum.

Yet, while demand for these essential products continues, building the facilities needed to produce them has become increasingly difficult in developed nations. In the United States, no new refinery has been built in decades, and several existing facilities are shutting down. Environmental regulations, political resistance, and “not in my backyard” opposition make it nearly impossible to permit new projects.

Asia, by contrast, is moving forward. As of 2021, there were 88 new refinery facilities in planning or under construction, especially in China and India. Developing nations are expected to host most of the new refining capacity needed by 2030. Without these additions, the supply chain of fuels and products will face severe imbalance, leading to higher costs and shortages for future generations.

Turning Point: Why “Net Zero” Becomes Destructive

The ideology of “net-zero emissions,” while politically appealing, is in practice destructive to future generations. By discouraging the construction of new refineries and processing facilities in developed countries, it undermines the very foundations of the supply chain that delivers essential fuels and products to society. If this trajectory continues, the outcome will not be a cleaner or safer world, but rather one marked by shortages, rising costs, and declining living standards for billions of people.

Do we simply allow such a dark and uncertain future to be passed on to our children and grandchildren? Surely not. To avoid this destructive path, the present generation must embrace a different way of thinking—a paradigm shift. Instead of pursuing the illusion of “zero” at any cost, we must recognize carbon as a resource to be used wisely, cleanly, and efficiently. The outlines of that paradigm are introduced below.

However, this future need not be framed only in terms of decline and scarcity. Advanced technologies already demonstrate that fossil resources can be used far more cleanly and efficiently. Japan’s USC (Ultra-Supercritical) coal-fired power plant in Isogo demonstrates that even coal can be utilized with remarkably low emissions. In addition, Japan has also introduced Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) plants, another advanced technology that achieves high efficiency with significantly lower emissions compared to conventional coal power. These high-efficiency, low-emission (HELE) approaches prove that innovation can dramatically reduce the environmental footprint of existing fuels.

If CO₂ is not demonized as the enemy of humanity, then high-cost “green hydrogen” is not the only path—hydrogen derived from fossil fuels can continue to support industry and society. Moreover, CO₂ itself, when combined with hydrogen and catalysts, can be a feedstock for producing useful chemicals and synthetic fuels.

The essential task is not to chase the illusion of “zero” but to cultivate wiser use of what we have: minimizing waste, reusing resources wherever possible, and sustaining ongoing exploration of new technologies. Just as ammonia synthesis has remained fundamentally unchanged for over a century, genuine breakthroughs often come not from incremental tweaks but from paradigm-shifting advances—potentially including next-generation nuclear energy, which could transform both electricity generation and industrial processes.

This 4-billion-year-old planet still holds vast reserves of crude oil and coal. What humanity needs is the courage to use them responsibly, while continuing to innovate for cleaner and more efficient processes. The future will not be secured by banning carbon, but by learning to live with it wisely.

The challenge before us is not to eliminate emissions at any cost, but to build a civilization that thrives by weaving prosperity together with carbon, rather than apart from it.

Please share this information with teachers, students, and friends to encourage Energy Literacy conversations at the family dinner table.

Click this Link to Sign up for Energy Literacy from Ronald Stein

USDA’s Rollins Warns Newsom for saving California’s Dams

Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins warned California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Sunday that the Trump administration intends to save several dams that the state intends to tear down.

A large concrete dam with a water reservoir at its base, surrounded by rocky terrain and greenery under a clear blue sky.

Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins warned California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Sunday that the Trump administration intends to save several dams that the state intends to tear down.

Last year, Newsom backed a fast-track plan to remove two dams, the Scott and the Cape Horn, on the Eel River in Mendocino County in Northern California, partly to restore salmon runs. “I got three more years [in office]. And I want to put it all out there,” Newsom said. Breitbart has the story.

His plan is backed by environmental interests and Native American tribes.

But the dams also provide water for local farms and communities and include hydroelectric power plants. The utilities say that the aging hydroelectric plants no longer produce electricity, but local communities say that they will struggle to survive without the water that the dams provide.

There is an effort to find alternative sources, but these will likely prove expensive, including deep wells that many farmers cannot afford.

Rollins issued her warning on X on Sunday:

“The work to protect our farmers against a weaponized and often radical government continues,” Rollins wrote, referring to Newsom’s government as well as to the previous Biden administration. After speaking with “farmers, ranchers, and community leaders” in the community of Potter Valley, she said, she had mobilized other government departments to find “real solutions to secure Potter Valley’s water supply.”

Read the full story here.

Libertarian Party Platform: Energy and Climate

“While energy is needed to fuel a modern society, government should not be subsidizing any particular form of energy. We oppose all government control of energy pricing, allocation, and production.”

From Master Resource

By Robert Bradley Jr. 

“While energy is needed to fuel a modern society, government should not be subsidizing any particular form of energy. We oppose all government control of energy pricing, allocation, and production.”

The Libertarian Party (L.P.), “the party of principle,” is running Chase Oliver for President. “Chase Oliver and [vice-president] Mike ter Maat are on a mission to remove government barriers that stand in the way of your dreams,” the campaign page states. “Be part of the movement—help us break down these obstacles and make your aspirations a reality!”

In 2016, as reported in the New York Times, L.P. candidate Gary Johnson received almost 4.5 million votes, the most in Party history and the highest third-party showing in 20 years. In 2020, Jo Jorgensen fell to 1.1 million votes.

Protesting against Kamala Harris, Oliver stated:

Kamala Harris represents the status quo – a continuation of policies that have led to skyrocketing national debt, deepening economic inequality, and erosion of individual freedoms. My campaign is about breaking away from the duopoly that has failed the American people. Unlike Harris, I’m committed to balancing the budget, reducing government overreach, and ensuring that every American has the opportunity to thrive without being crushed by taxes and regulations.

The relevant planks of the LP platform, adopted every two years, follow:

Economic Liberty

Libertarians want all members of society to have abundant opportunities to achieve economic success. A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.

As respect for property rights is fundamental to maintaining a free and prosperous society, it follows that the freedom to contract to obtain, retain, profit from, manage, or dispose of one’s property must also be upheld. Libertarians would free property owners from government restrictions on their rights to control and enjoy their property, as long as their choices do not harm or infringe on the rights of others. Eminent domain, civil asset forfeiture, governmental limits on profits, governmental production mandates, and governmental controls on prices of goods and services (including wages, rents, and interest) are abridgements of such fundamental rights. For voluntary dealings among private entities, parties should be free to choose with whom they trade and set whatever trade terms are mutually agreeable.

2.2 Environment

Competitive free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Governments are unaccountable for damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights and responsibilities regarding resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Where damages can be proven and quantified in a court of law, restitution to the injured parties must be required.

Energy and Resources

While energy is needed to fuel a modern society, government should not be subsidizing any particular form of energy. We oppose all government control of energy pricing, allocation, and production.

Free Trade and Migration

We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders.

Omission Statement

The all-freedom, all-the-time L.P. ends its platform with this statement:

In every matter, we advocate the consistent application of the principle of the non-initiation of coercion, physical force, or fraud. Our silence about any other particular government law, regulation, ordinance, directive, edict, control, regulatory agency, activity, or machination should not be construed to imply approval.

BOEM Finally Acknowledges the Harm Caused by Offshore Wind Farms

In a surprising yet overdue move, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) has released its Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for the New York Bight. This document, despite its extensive layers of technical jargon and cautious language, marks a pivotal shift. It appears to be a rare admission from BOEM that offshore wind farms are indeed capable of causing harm—biologically, socioeconomically, physically, and culturally.

From Watts Up With That?

By Charles Rotter

In a surprising yet overdue move, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) has released its Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for the New York Bight. This document, despite its extensive layers of technical jargon and cautious language, marks a pivotal shift. It appears to be a rare admission from BOEM that offshore wind farms are indeed capable of causing harm—biologically, socioeconomically, physically, and culturally.

The PEIS covers six commercial wind energy leases off the shores of New Jersey and New York, totaling over 488,000 acres. While its primary focus is to outline measures to “avoid, minimize, mitigate, and monitor” impacts, the fact that BOEM is even considering these measures implies a long-overdue acknowledgment of offshore wind’s potential to harm marine ecosystems and coastal communities. The language in the document hints that these developments are not entirely benign, despite being repeatedly framed as environmentally friendly solutions to the climate crisis.

Impacts Revealed

While BOEM insists that the PEIS is “programmatic” and not the final say on the matter, the document does provide insight into some of the broader consequences of wind energy development. The PEIS details potential adverse impacts across various categories:

Biological Impacts: Marine mammals, sea turtles, birds, and fish could suffer due to noise, habitat displacement, and changes in migration patterns. Even bats, which are not typically associated with offshore environments, could be affected.

Physical and Socioeconomic Impacts: The potential effects on water and air quality, commercial and recreational fishing, tourism, and scenic resources are all outlined. These sections make it clear that local economies and communities reliant on the ocean could experience significant disruptions.

Mitigation Measures are Not Enough: Although the report outlines numerous Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation, and Monitoring (AMMM) measures, it also acknowledges that some impacts are “unavoidable”.

A Major Shift in Tone

The PEIS goes further by recognizing the “irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources.” This bureaucratic phrase translates to the permanent alteration of ecosystems and loss of natural resources due to wind farm construction. It is a striking concession from an agency typically focused on facilitating development.

For years, opponents of offshore wind have argued that the push for rapid renewable energy development has overlooked the consequences for marine life and coastal communities. BOEM’s new PEIS seems to suggest that these concerns may have been valid all along.

Why This Matters

The document comes amid growing criticism of how offshore wind projects are assessed and approved. Many argue that the rapid pace of development is being prioritized over thorough environmental review. With this PEIS, BOEM may be signaling a more cautious approach, perhaps influenced by increasing legal challenges, public backlash, and even emerging scientific research indicating that wind turbines are not as harmless as once believed.

Moreover, the timing of this document is significant. The Biden Administration aims to install 30 gigawatts of offshore wind by 2030 as part of a broader strategy to combat climate change. However, this goal seems increasingly at odds with the realities outlined in the PEIS—realities that indicate a more nuanced balance must be struck between renewable energy expansion and marine conservation.

The BOEM’s PEIS could be seen as a long-awaited admission that the rush for offshore wind might be causing harm. While the document falls short of halting development, it sets the stage for more rigorous scrutiny of future projects. Environmentalists, coastal communities, and fishermen who have long voiced concerns can now point to the PEIS as evidence that their voices are finally being heard.

BOEM’s acknowledgment of offshore wind’s potential downsides is not just a bureaucratic shift—it’s a chance to reconsider how we approach renewable energy development. Balancing climate goals with the protection of marine environments will be crucial, and this PEIS could be the first step in that direction.

,BOEM_NYB_PEIS_Vol_I_Chapters1-4_October2024Herunterladen

Supposed Guardians of Rhode Island’s Waters Sell Out to Big Wind

Once considered Rhode Island’s most esteemed environmental Non-Profit, Save the Bay Rhode Island is now failing to operate in accordance with its mission. With the nation’s first offshore turbine farms, one of the largest marine construction projects in history, going live in waters just 12- 24 miles off the Rhode Island coasts – locals, preservationists, fisherman, and boating enthusiasts are asking, “Where is Save The Bay?”

From Watts Up With That?

Legal Insurrection

Posted by Jody Stone

Once considered Rhode Island’s most esteemed environmental Non-Profit, Save the Bay Rhode Island is now failing to operate in accordance with its mission. With the nation’s first offshore turbine farms, one of the largest marine construction projects in history, going live in waters just 12- 24 miles off the Rhode Island coasts – locals, preservationists, fisherman, and boating enthusiasts are asking, “Where is Save The Bay?”

Since the 1970’s, when citizens came together to fight an oil refinery proposed in Tiverton, Save The Bay has been considered the leader of environmental stewardship in Rhode Island. For over forty years, Save the Bay has “worked to protect, restore, and improve the ecological health of the Narragansett Bay.”

They honor that legacy by claiming to serve, “as the eyes, ears and voice for Narragansett Bay.” Overseen by a board of directors and a board of trustees, as an organization, Save the Bays daily operations are run by Executive Director Topher Hamblett. The board of trustees, appointed Hamblett to his position last January.

A quick review of their website revealed that this project, one that will have implications for the State of Rhode Island, Narragansett Bay, its watershed and adjacent coastal waters for generations to come – is not mentioned. It is not mentioned in their advocacy work or in their legislative agendas. In a web tab titled BAY ISSUES , the organization reminds us that, “Narragansett Bay is truly an environmental treasure that connects communities in Rhode Island and Southeastern Massachusetts with the Atlantic Ocean.

It is our greatest public asset and the symbol of the region’s history and culture.” Why then, is the largest ocean industrialization project in this nation’s history, a project using Narragansett Bay as its electromagnetic cable route, as a wind vessel refuge, and as a cargo lane from shore to farm, not even listed as a bay issue?

To recap, in an auction bidding process, close to one Million acres of Rhode Island and Massachusetts ocean was leased to 9 separate wind companies. These companies have been selected to develop wind farms off the coast of Rhode Island. Upon completion, along with hundreds of miles of cables running up Narragansett bay, 1,000 turbines standing btw 800-1300 feet tall, covering over a million acres of ocean, along with five Substations (with living quarters and helicopter pads for maintenance) will be erected within this lease area.

According to an  April 26, 2024 TAX FILING , the organization’s mission and most significant activities include, “the protection, restoration, and improvement of the ecological health of the Narragansett Bay region, including its watershed and adjacent coastal waters…” With the sonar, ship traffic and construction of these projects levying severe adverse impacts to our fisheries, marine life, habitats and ecosystems, where is the concern from Save The Bay?

Since submitting testimony in 2021, on proposed construction in the critical habitat known as Coxes Ledge, Save the Bay has remained oddly silent. With cable lay preparation currently taking place in the bay, and with the federal government suspending the Vineyard Wind project after the now infamous July 13th blade failure, caused by a manufacturing issue that left Nantucket, Cape Cod and Rhode Island beaches littered with fiberglass and styrofoam, many are concerned.

The blade incident, coupled with sharks, whales and dolphins washing up on both Rhode Island and Massachusetts shores, has many asking – where is the concern of our “ocean watchdog group”? 

The organization’s ‘strategy of silence’ when it comes to offshore wind is even more surprising when comparing the issues they do speak vocally about. This past May, Save the Bay joined forces with the Rhode Island Attorney General’s office to rally the public against a small stone wall erected at a local country club.

With fanfare, Save the Bay and the Rhode Island Attorney General’s office held a seaside press conference where they invited local leaders and the public to share in the outrage. Save the Bay has dedicated an entire webpage to educating the public on this illegal golf course wall which was erected at Quidnessett Country Club . 

They partnered again with the Rhode Island Attorney General’s office in its attempt to change the structure of the RI Coastal Resource Management Council (CRMC). In a May 22nd  Press Release from the Attorney General’s office, Topher Hamblett, Executive Director of Save The Bay said,  “Narragansett Bay is the heart of Rhode Island,” he continued, “Important decisions impacting our coastal resources should not be left in the hands of a council of volunteer political appointees.

No one person, nor the council as an entity, is accountable for bad decisions and overriding expert staff recommendations.” This comment is especially interesting when you consider that Sandra Thornton Whitehouse, wife of our most vocal environmentalist, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, chaired this board for over four years. Save The Bay has added a page for legislative activism, against CRMC, to its website.

Save The Bay and the RI Attorney General’s office partnered again with efforts to take on metal recyclers issuing a RI Recycled Metals Press Statement stating, “For over a decade, Rhode Island Recycled Metals has shown a blatant disregard for environmental laws that protect our right to clean air and water.”

This is important work but these actions only highlight the organizations silence on the recycling needs of Off Shore Wind materials. Thousand’s of steel monopolies, weighing in at 2,000 tons a tube, are being hammered 200 ft deep into our seabeds, covering an area larger than the entire State of Rhode Island.

There has been no press statement by Save The Bay on how 1,000’s of these monopiles will be decommissioned at their end of life (10-15yrs.). The amount of steel used in an offshore wind turbine’s monopile can vary depending on the depth of the water and other factors, but it can be as much as 2,500 tons per turbine. Each Monopile is 40 ft in diameter with a 5 inch thick wall​.

Wind Turbine Blades Not Recyclable

There has also been no concern raised over turbine blades themselves. These blades are not recyclable nor are they biodegradable. They are made up of a composite of very fine strands of plastic and glass, which is extremely difficult to process at the point of recycling. According to Cleanpower.org,  “The blades are made of composite materials (e.g., Fiber-Reinforced Plastics, mostly fiberglass and carbon fiber) and pose a more significant recycling challenge to the wind industry and the composite materials sector. As Fiber-Reinforced Plastics (FRPs) are complex to recycle, the majority of rotor blades are currently going to either landfills or incineration facilities.”

In its 2022 fact sheet, Solid Waste Management officials reminds us that, “ most wind turbine blades are landfilled when decommissioned because as noted above, the materials used to manufacture wind turbine blades render them difficult to recycle or repurpose.”

They did however hold a press conference a few weeks ago with Governor Dan McKee pushing for a $53 million dollar Green Bond that will be on the ballot this November. This is in addition to the $50 million dollar Green Bond voted on two years ago in 2022. A major chunk of these new bonds are for Offshore wind cable infrastructure where the cables come ashore.

From what we can gather, the most significant shift in Save The Bays’ operational actions, going from ocean watchdog to State policy lapdog, align with the 2019 expansion of the organization’s advocacy wing. In April of 2019, Save The Bay hired Jed Thorpe as their first ever Advocacy Coordinator. For the last five months he has served as the organization’s new Director of Advocacy.

In discussing his work with the organization Mr. Thorpe explains, “I’ve always followed the theory that there are two forms of power in politics: money and people.”  “Ultimately, Save The Bay’s political strength comes from the people who support our work and our policy proposals. My role will be to translate our existing “people power” into “political power.” He continues, “I see a huge amount of latent political power out there that can be thoughtfully and strategically mobilized to advance our agenda to protect and improve Narragansett Bay. I love working with and empowering people and helping them engage in the political process. Many folks think “politics” is a dirty word, but politics is simply the process of deciding who gets what, when and how.”

In response to our questions about why Save The Bay has not made OffShore Wind concerns a priority Mr. Thorpe responded,  “So, it’s not that we don’t think offshore wind is a legitimate concern. But, most of the activity is well outside of the Bay.”  But, offshore wind electromagnetic cable lay is currently happening in the heart of Narragansett Bay through November 6, 2025.

With cable routes being dredged up the bay, the unprecedented number of marine life strandings we have seen and the Nantucket turbine debris still washing up, the lack of public concern for our bay and adjacent waters is surprising.

“We hold state and federal agencies accountable for enforcing the laws that protect Narragansett Bay. We are the citizens’ watchdog—and the eyes, ears and voice—for Narragansett Bay.”  – Jed Thopre, Director of Advocacy Save The Bay

With politics, Orsted money and energy market agendas infusing environmental organizations up and down the East Coast, is it a coincidence that they are remaining silent about the adverse impacts we are seeing? Does the ‘strategy of silence’ come from the top? Is the Board of Trustees aware of its fiduciary responsibility to the organization and of their charge to ensure the organizations actions align with their stated mission?

The people of Rhode Island have lost their seat at the table

Save The Bay was founded on the community’s desire to protect our most precious resource — Narragansett Bay (and adjacent waters). While much remains in question, the organization that once spoke for the people of Rhode Island seems to have abandoned its grass root community in favor of political action and agendas.

With its mission in question and its priorities now laser focused on agenda driven, government political action work — does Save The Bay RI deserve to hold its title as the state’s leading environmental watchdog any longer?

Feel-Good Environmental Regulations Won’t Save the Planet, But They Do Harm Consumers

The fight against climate change is increasingly riddled with lawmakers’ feel-good attempts to save the planet by imposing top-down regulations that do nothing in the way of meaningfully reducing global temperatures or cutting pollution. However, these “feel-good” regulations have a familiar habit of harming consumers by eliminating popular goods and services or making them more expensive.

From Watts Up With That?

By Nate Scherer

The fight against climate change is increasingly riddled with lawmakers’ feel-good attempts to save the planet by imposing top-down regulations that do nothing in the way of meaningfully reducing global temperatures or cutting pollution. However, these “feel-good” regulations have a familiar habit of harming consumers by eliminating popular goods and services or making them more expensive.

The latest example of such a regulation comes courtesy of California, where lawmakers recently passed a second ban on plastic grocery bags after the first attempt ended in failure. The first ban, SB 270—which took effect in 2014—prohibited grocery stores from distributing single-use plastic bags at checkout. It was designed to reduce plastic waste and encourage consumers to use reusable bags.

However, a study published by the California consumer advocacy organization CALPIRG recently found that the ban may have inadvertently led to a 47% jump in plastic bag waste between 2014 and 2022 due to consumers’ tendency to throw away thicker reusable plastic bags after a single use. That means that rather than reduce plastic waste, SB 270 created more of it, all the while charging consumers 10 cents per reusable bag. Plastic bag bans in other states have produced similar results, such as in New Jersey where plastic consumption was found to have tripled after the ban took effect.

While California policymakers now hope to close this apparent loophole by prohibiting grocery stores from selling thicker plastic bags and requiring them to offer only recycled paper bags at checkout, it is not difficult to envision there being additional unintended consequences. Policymakers are trying to control consumers’ subjective behavior and preferences—a strategy that rarely, if ever, works.

Other noteworthy examples of environmental regulatory failures include plastic straw bans. Motivated by cliché slogans like “The Last Plastic Straw Campaign,” which rely on viral turtle videos to drum up public support, policymakers have passed bans on plastic straws in states and cities across the country. Supporters argue such bans reduce plastic waste—some of which makes its way into rivers and landfills—while encouraging consumers to use reusable or paper straws. However, the success of such bans has been questionable at best, as plastic straws make up a negligible amount of plastic waste. Moreover, supposed green alternatives like paper straws have been found to pose their own environmental challenges, such as being comprised of greater amounts of water-resistant forever chemicals that are slow to biodegrade.

Bans on gas appliances also seem to be a fan favorite of policymakers who see natural gas and fossil fuel hook-ups as antithetical to a carbon-free future. Cities like Los Angeles, Seattle, and San Francisco have each recently implemented such bans in new buildings, as has the state of New York. While policymakers say such bans are needed to help curb greenhouse gas emissions, they require residents to make unnecessary sacrifices, such as using less popular appliances like gas stoves that are slower to heat up, provide less precise temperature control, and often mean higher monthly bills.

It is also worth noting that eliminating gas appliances has little impact on reducing carbon emissions if the city or state derives its power from oil or natural gas. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, 60% of U.S. electricity generation still comes from fossil fuels, and no state relies entirely on renewable energy. Likewise, most large population centers rely on many different forms of energy to meet their needs. Bans on gas appliances, straws, and plastic bags will not change consumer preferences, but they will deprive them of choice.

Countless other feel-good attempts at environmental regulation by policymakers intent on fighting climate change exist and many exact a similar toll on consumers, whether they be water-saving faucet requirements that reduce flow rates, bans on incandescent light bulbs, or restrictions on the type of yard a homeowner can have. While not all such regulations are bad or overly burdensome, they do quickly add up and have the overall accumulative effect of limiting people’s freedom to decide what good or service works best for them. While some Americans may view these limits as a necessary sacrifice to help save the planet, chances are most would not feel that way if they learned few meaningfully move the needle on halting climate change or reducing waste.

Nate Scherer is a policy analyst with the American Consumer Institute, a nonprofit education and research organization. For more information about the Institute, visit us at www.TheAmericanConsumer.Org or follow us on X @ConsumerPal

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.

Nuclear power stations can be a beautiful part of the environment.

Over the past 25 years, the world electricity demand doubled. All indications are that it will double again over the next 25 years. In fact, the time span is likely to be much shorter. The emergence of more electricity-intensive consuming technologies such as data centres is causing electricity demand to rise more steeply. Then one must add the rising demand of developing countries in which. People are moving from cooking dinner over an open fire outdoors to acquiring an electrical stove and fridge.

From Watts Up With That?

Dr Kelvin Kemm

Over the past 25 years, the world electricity demand doubled. All indications are that it will double again over the next 25 years. In fact, the time span is likely to be much shorter. The emergence of more electricity-intensive consuming technologies such as data centres is causing electricity demand to rise more steeply. Then one must add the rising demand of developing countries in which. People are moving from cooking dinner over an open fire outdoors to acquiring an electrical stove and fridge.

The image of electricity demand is a large boulder rolling down a hill, it is not stopping or slowing. In fact it is rolling faster and faster.

Without doubt fossil fuels will continue to be the backbone of world electricity generation for decades to come. But equally certain is that nuclear power is making a rapid advance across the globe. That means not only for the traditional large, industrialised countries, but also for the less developed, or much smaller countries. Rapid development of Small Modular Reactor technology is also accelerating the options for the adoption of nuclear power on a large scale. South Africa was the first country in the world to start developing a commercial Small Modular Reactor, and has continued with the work for over 30 years.

Some years ago, South Africa announced its intention to add an additional 2500 MW of new nuclear to its existing nuclear base. Early in 2024, the energy minister confirmed the acceleration of this goal. The intention, from inception, was to build a new 2400 MW coastal nuclear plant, but also to dedicate 100 MW to the development of SMR’s for inland use. In September 2024, the energy minister gave a public address in which he stated that we must go ahead on the basis of science and facts, and not be ‘fighting in the mud’ with activists who rely more on emotion than reality.

South Africa is forging ahead with a new nuclear build. This is excellent news. The current initiative is for an additional 2500 MW of nuclear, composed of a 2400 MW new large nuclear power station on the coast, plus 100 MW dedicated to Small Modular Reactor (SMR) development.

The announcement of the continuation of the project was greeted with applause by many, but as always, the anti-nuclear lobby were frothing at the mouth about all the imagined problems associated with nuclear power.

But let us digress for a moment, to consider the macro-implications of this initiative.

Building a large nuclear plant is essentially following in the footsteps of the traditional route, that being; placing a large plant on the coastline at an ideal site. The resulting power is then transmitted over some distance to consumers.

But what of SMR’s? The crucial difference with a gas-cooled SMR, which does not need a large body of water for cooling purposes, is that you can take the reactor to the consumer. You can place the rector anywhere you like. This reality enables planners to embrace. Embark on a highly flexible. Nuclear solution across the entire country.

Think about it!

Let us now make a comparison with a cell phone system. Prior to the advent of cell phones, a telephone network consisted of major exchanges, interconnected by means of long-range connections. Then cell phones arrived. The cells are something like the honeycomb of a beehive, and each cell has its own main base station antenna. Each cell handles calls within the cell.

The emergence of Small Modular Reactor (SMR) systems onto the modern scene, essentially makes a nuclear cell system a reality. One can now place a gas-cooled SMR anywhere, and it can serve its own ‘cell.’ This ‘cell’ could be a mining complex, a municipality, a collection of factories, or an agricultural area encompassing the farm, proceeding to processing, packaging, and transport. Such a ‘cell’ does not even need to be connected to the National Grid, and can be owned by a Province, Municipality, or private company.

The SMR revolution effectively means that the fundamental planning options available for the distribution of electricity have changed significantly.

A gas-cooled SMR, such as the South African HTMR-100 is walk-away-safe. The fuel cannot suffer a meltdown under any circumstances. Such an SMR emits absolutely nothing during normal operations, no solids, no liquids, no gases. The fuel is in the form of balls, the size of a tennis ball, and each ball lasts between two and three years in the reactor. So, the amount of refuelling required is extremely small, in comparison to coal, gas, or oil plants. So no continuous refuelling structure is required, such as a conveyor belt, pipeline, or railway line.

What all this means is that small nuclear plants can be safely and effectively placed in industrial areas or agricultural areas, or near an idyllic town. One of the accusations of the extremist anti-nuclear lobby has always been that nuclear reactors are ugly industrial structures which spoil beautiful scenic coastlines

With modern SMR’s we can totally remove that accusation. Since then is a bomb, it’s nothing during operation. And what’s more? Is totally silent. It can be integrated into the Vista of any setting. With this in mind, the developers of the HTMR-100 range of reactors approached Johann Koch of Johann Koch Design Architects (JKDA) with a proposal to work together to develop SMRe complexes for a range of customers.

Stratek Global originally developed the HTMR-100 for a classic industrial setting in South Africa, such as a gold-mining complex, far inland, and far away from any large water body. However, Stratek Global has been approached by potential customers from around the world, including the Middle East, Australia, a number of African countries, and also island states.

Furthermore, site factors such as the altitude, have varied from sea level to high altitude. The prevailing weather conditions have varied from hot and dry, to cold and wet, including snow.

As a result, Stratek Global is in a position to offer any type of nuclear power complex which can be designed to fit, not only any site but which can also be skilfully designed to match the scenery or cultural nature of the people and area.

Since nuclear is completely clean and green, emitting no gasses, liquids, or anything else, during normal operations, there is no reason why nuclear power stations must be viewed as ugly industrial buildings. They can be made as attractive as a hotel complex or holiday resort.

Illustrated here or four of the designs developed as a result of customer requests. They are named; the Impala Design, Kudu Design, Oryx Design, and Sable Design.

The Kudu Design was developed for an African savanna setting. It is shown here with a single reactor of 100 MW thermal output, or 35 MW electrical output.

Kudu Design: For a temperate setting near a town or agricultural cluster

A most useful aspect of the. HTMR-100 is that an SMR complex can be designed to take up to ten reactors. All ten can be run from a single control room. Obviously, building more reactors per site reduces the unit cost, because you don’t have to duplicate the administration building, the workshops, or a variety of other facilities. Furthermore, if a site is designed for, say, ten reactors they do not all have to be constructed at the same time. An owner can add reactors, in later years, as the demand rises, or as finances become available, thereby allowing for immense planning flexibility.

The Oryx Design was developed as a result of a request from the Middle East. It also features a single reactor, but can easily be adapted for more reactors.

Oryx Design: A one reactor setup for a desert region
Computer graphic showing the interior arrangement of the reactor building. Approximately 60% of the reactor is underground. Ground-level is at the bottom of the ventilation stack.

The single reactor Impala Design is a workhorse design for an industrial setting such as a South African gold mining complex. This design was developed to fit into any existing industrial complex. It illustrates that other than the actual nuclear reactor itself, in the cylindrical concrete containment vessel, the rest of the power station consists of perfectly normal industrial buildings.

Impala Design: A basic one reactor design for an existing industrial setting

The Sable Design was developed as a result of a request from a country which experiences snow conditions. The request was for a ten-reactor complex. The reactors can be added, over a period of some years, as the customer sees fit.

Sable Design: Showing eight reactors, in a snow region

Dr Kelvin Kemm is a nuclear physicist and is Past Chairman of the South African Nuclear Energy Corporation (Necsa). He is currently Chairman of Stratek Global, a nuclear project management company based in Pretoria, South Africa. The company carries out strategy development and project planning in a wide variety of fields for diverse clients. They are working towards building an HTMR-100 nuclear reactor in Pretoria.   Kelvin.kemm@stratekglobal.com.

http://www.stratekglobal.com

The Department of Interior (Project 2025)

The Heritage Foundation’s 922-page Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise (Project 2025: Presidential Transition Project) prominently includes political prescription for various energy and environmental reforms in the U.S. Department of Energy, Department of Interior, and Environmental Protection Agency.

From Master Resource

By Kennedy Maize

The Heritage Foundation’s 922-page Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise (Project 2025: Presidential Transition Project) prominently includes political prescription for various energy and environmental reforms in the U.S. Department of Energy, Department of Interior, and Environmental Protection Agency.

While Donald Trump has tried to distance himself from the document, it is virtually certain that if elected, he would move swiftly to try to implement the blueprint. Many of its authors were his appointees in his administration and likely would lead his government beginning in 2025.

The Heritage project for the Interior Department programs and policies is back to the future. Essentially, the chapter wants to erase the Biden administration’s policies and actions, many of which replaced Trump administration policies.

After describing the roles of the far-reaching agency, the chapter lays out its goal:

Given the dire adverse national impact of Biden’s war on fossil fuels, no other initiative is as important for the DOI under a conservative President than the restoration of the department’s historic role managing the nation’s vast storehouse of hydrocarbons, much of which is yet to be discovered.

William Pendley

The author of the chapter, William Perry Pendley, 79, was a chief architect of some of the Trump administration’s Interior Department activities, which often themselves overrode actions by prior Democratic and Republican administrations.

After law school, Pendley joined the new conservative “public service” Mountain States Legal Foundation, founded by fellow Cowboy State native James Gaius Watt (1938–2023). The foundation was a leading advocate of the Sagebrush Rebellion, a movement to turn over federal lands to local ownership.

When Ronald Regan named Watt as his first Interior secretary, Pendley became Watt’s deputy assistant secretary for energy and minerals. He was forced out as a result of the department selling Powder River Basin coal leases at rock-bottom prices after the agency’s minimum bids had been leaked to the coal industry. The scandal also resulted in Watt’s defenestration after he bragged that the panel he appointed to dissect the lease sale was balanced because it consisted of “a black, a woman, two Jews, and a cripple.”

Pendley again ran into trouble in the Trump administration where he was Interior’s Bureau Land Management deputy director and named acting director in 2019. As acting director, he ordered most of the BLM’s Washington-based workforce to relocate to Grand Junction, Colo. The Interior secretary extended Pendley’s “acting” status repeatedly, avoid Senate confirmation, which he likely would have lost, as had five Trump nominations since 2017. In Sept. 2020 a federal judge in Montana ruled that Pendley “has served and continues to serve unlawfully as the Acting B.L.M. director.” The ruling became moot when Biden won the 2020 presidential election.

Among the notable 2025 Heritage recommendations related to energy:

  • A “new Administration must immediately roll back Biden’s orders, reinstate the Trump-era Energy Dominance Agenda, rescind Secretarial Order (SO) 3398, and review all regulations, orders, guidance documents, policies, and similar agency actions made in compliance with that order…. The April 2021 order by Biden Interior Secretary Deb Haaland, titled ‘Revocation of Secretary’s Orders Inconsistent with Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis,’ rolled back much of Trumps’ overturning previous DOI policies and practices.”
  • “Review all resource management plans finalized in the previous four years and, when necessary, select studied alternatives to restore the multi-use concept enshrined in FLPMA and to eliminate management decisions that advance the [climate policy] 30 by 30 agenda.”
  • Conclude the programmatic review of the coal leasing program, and work with the congressional delegations and governors of Wyoming and Montana to restart the program immediately.”
  • In one of the longest sections in the chapter, labeled IMMEDIATE ACTIONS, “BLM headquarters belongs in the American West. After all, the overwhelming majority of the 245 million surface acres (10 percent of the nation’s landmass) managed by the agency lies in the 11 western states and Alaska: A mere 50,000 surface acres lie elsewhere. Moreover, 97 percent of BLM employees are located in the American West.” Pendley’s initiative to move BLM to Grand Junction “was the epitome of good governance….”
  • “Reinstate the 2020 Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) by secretarial order and lift the suspension of the leases.”
  • Congress never intended for the National Environmental Policy Act to grow into the tree-killing, project-dooming, decade-spanning monstrosity that it has become….The Trump Administration adopted common-sense NEPA reform that must be restored immediately.”
  • “Relocate the [Office of Surface Mining] Reclamation and Enforcement headquarters to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, to recognize that the agency is field-driven and should be headquartered in the coal field. Reduce the number of field coal-reclamation inspectors to recognize the industry is smaller. Reissue Trump’s Schedule F executive order to permit discharge of nonperforming employees.”
  • In an “American Indians and U.S. Trust Responsibility” section, the report says, “End federal mandates and subsidies of electric vehicles.” The rationale for this broad recommendation? EVs, “because of their remote locations, the absence of increased electricity demands for charging electric vehicles nearby, and the distances to be traveled, are not a choice for Indian communities.”

Reform is in the air. Expect major changes should Trump be elected come November, as with energy and the environment otherwise.

—————

Kennedy Maize blogs at The Quad Report, from which this post was adapted. Maize has been a Washington-based journalist covering energy and environmental topics for more than 40 years.

Coming Clean on Clean Energy: It’s a Dirty Business

Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you are probably aware of the massive push to transition to green energy. The goal is to have wind and solar replace coal and natural gas; the electric vehicle (EV) will supposedly replace internal combustion engines. Directives are coming from the highest office in the land; the current administration has made green energy a large part of its agenda.

From Watts Up With That?

By Kristen Walker

August 06, 2024

Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you are probably aware of the massive push to transition to green energy. The goal is to have wind and solar replace coal and natural gas; the electric vehicle (EV) will supposedly replace internal combustion engines. Directives are coming from the highest office in the land; the current administration has made green energy a large part of its agenda.

We are being told that these technologies are clean and will save the planet from climate change. However, these alternative forms of energy being espoused are riddled with their own problems.

Hidden behind the solar panels, wind turbines, and EV batteries are some dirty secrets that get swept under the rug and ignored by climate enthusiasts. Fossil fuels are constantly put under a microscope and condemned as an evil destructive polluter; green energy is typically put on a pedestal. Green energy, however, is not as perfect and wonderful as we are made to believe. Yet, we are putting a lot of trust into these energy sources, without considering their ramifications.

The American Consumer Institute just released a report detailing many of the environmental impacts associated with the so-called green energy forms being heavily promoted. The life cycle of all three—the wind turbine, solar panel, and EV battery—involve significant environmental consequences that should not be overlooked and need to be part of the discussion when implementing energy policies.

One of the biggest issues involved with these forms is the extraction and manufacturing processes of various critical minerals that are required for wind turbines, solar panels, and EV batteries. Many underdeveloped nations, where there’s an abundance of minerals, are at risk. The operations and procedures not only overtake land but contaminate surrounding soil and water sources. In the worst cases, this work is accomplished through slave labor.

Various toxins and other greenhouse gases are released into the atmosphere, where workers and even nearby communities are potentially affected. Landscape is tarnished and various animal habitats are shrinking and/or experiencing stress. The massive amount of land occupied by both wind and solar may never be recoverable.

China dominates the green energy supply chains, but their environmental standards are subpar. CO2 emissions associated with refineries in China are 1.5 times greater than those in the EU or U.S.

All three energy sources are also creating a huge waste problem. Since any kind of recycling is very limited on a large scale, more than 90% wind turbine blades, solar panels, and EV batteries end up in landfills. By 2050 it is predicted that used turbine blades will exceed 43 million tons of waste worldwide. Solar waste is predicted to be close to 80 million tons. And with the U.S. projecting 33 million EVs on the road by 2030, that is a lot of batteries to end up in landfills.

Ironically, the same folks who want to charge customers for every plastic bag they use at the grocery store, out of fear of single-use plastics ending up in landfills, don’t seem to have a problem with potentially toxic machinery filling that space instead.

In a penchant for trying to solve one crisis, we are creating others.

Some of the environmental impacts and hazards posed by green energy are far more detrimental than fossil fuels, and yet the latter is often dismissed. Such risks associated with green technologies should actually be an argument against vigorous pursuit of them.

Each energy source, including fossil fuels, should be considered as part of an all-of-the-above strategy for supplying the necessary energy to power homes, businesses, and the U.S. economy at large. All of them come with some degree of environmental concerns, and each should be weighed and measured—along with costs, logistics, reliability, and geopolitical factors—when developing public policy. Instead of completely trying to phase out fossil fuels, a robust and healthy energy mix ought to be established; we need a balanced approach that does not breed additional problems.

It is past time to come clean on so-called clean energy. The real-life consequences and detrimental effects of it demand more honest conversations and a thoughtful course of action.

Kristen Walker is a policy analyst for the American Consumer Institute, a nonprofit education and research organization. For more information about the Institute, visit http://www.theamericanconsumer.org or follow us on Twitter @ConsumerPal

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.