Tag: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

In practice, ‘Net Zero’ Was Exactly How Much Such Pledges Were Worth

The public “net zero” pledges by countless corporate and political entities in recent years were always baffling. How could the United States or much of the industrialized world reach “net zero” emissions without destroying modern living?

A scenic view of solar panels on grass with wind turbines in the background and modern buildings under a blue sky.

From Watts Up With That?

By Gary Abernathy

This article was originally published at The Empowerment Alliance and is re-published here with permission. 

The public “net zero” pledges by countless corporate and political entities in recent years were always baffling. How could the United States or much of the industrialized world reach “net zero” emissions without destroying modern living?

As a reminder, “net zero” is a term coined to illustrate a goal of “eliminating greenhouse gas emissions produced by human activities, which is accomplished by decreasing global emissions and abating them from the atmosphere,” as defined by Net0.com, a company that describes itself as “the market leader in AI-First Sustainability, enabling governments and enterprises worldwide to enhance their environmental performance and decarbonize profitably.”

Net0 posits that “the global scientific community agrees that to mitigate the most severe impacts of climate change, we must reduce worldwide net human-generated carbon dioxide emissions by approximately 45 percent from their 2010 levels by the year 2030 and achieve net zero emissions by around 2050.”

In a political atmosphere shaming anyone who didn’t join the climate cult – led in the U.S. by the Biden administration and globally by the U.N. – attempting to outdo each other for the most aggressive “net zero” policy was all the rage.

“As of June 2024, 107 countries… had adopted net-zero pledges either in law, in a policy document such as a national climate action plan or a long-term strategy, or in an announcement by a high-level government official,” boasted the United Nations. “More than 9,000 companies, over 1,000 cities, more than 1,000 educational institutions, and over 600 financial institutions have joined the Race to Zero, pledging to take rigorous, immediate action to halve global emissions by 2030.”

But as politicians know, promises and actions are often unrelated. Most people endowed with even a modicum of common sense and a grade-school understanding of basic science knew that meeting “net zero” goals would require a reduction in the use of our most affordable, effective and reliable energy sources to a degree that would devastate modern economies.

The fact that “net zero” pledges were nothing but a cruel joke was made clear last month in a story by NPR headlined, “Leaders promised to cut climate pollution, then doubled down on fossil fuels.” Most thinking people were as surprised by that headline as by discovering wet water, hot fire or flying birds. It was not necessary to read further. “Of course,” they said to themselves, moving on to the next story.

But there are, sadly, climate cult converts who, in their shock, likely needed more details.

They discovered: “The world is producing too much coal, oil and natural gas to meet the targets set 10 years ago under the Paris Agreement, in which countries agreed to limit climate pollution and avoid the worst effects of global warming,” NPR reported.

“A new report, led by the nonprofit research group Stockholm Environment Institute, shows countries plan to produce more than twice the amount of fossil fuels in 2030 than would be consistent with limiting global heating to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit),” the story said.

For the true believers, here’s the real punch to the gut: “The SEI report shows the 20 most polluting countries, including China, the U.S. and India, actually plan to produce even more fossil fuels than they did two years ago, when the report was last updated.”

Of course, as he did in his first term, President Trump is pulling the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement as he unleashes American industry and works to ensure energy affordability, independence and security for the nation. Legislation to roll back taxpayer subsidies for “renewables” and return to “reliables” has already been passed or introduced in various states and is soon likely to be fortified at the federal level.

After wasting billions of tax dollars on wind and solar subsidies that could have been directed toward schools, healthcare or other real needs, the fever is finally breaking. The world is slowly but surely awakening from the delusions of climate zealots who insisted that we were on the verge of catastrophe with constantly worsening weather disasters.

Just last May, for example, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration predicted an “above-normal 2025 Atlantic hurricane season.” And just a few months earlier, PBS NewsHour reported on a study showing that “human-caused climate change made Atlantic hurricanes about 18 miles per hour (29 kilometers per hour) stronger in the last six years.”

The message was clear. More hurricanes. Stronger hurricanes. This year’s reality so far?

“The 2025 Atlantic hurricane season is the first time in 10 years that a hurricane has not made landfall in the United States through the end of September,” according to American Press. While “hurricane season” extends through November, September is usually the busiest month.

The weather is – and has always been – unpredictable. Severe weather events like hurricanes, tornadoes, monsoons, floods, blizzards and drought have always been with us, and always will. The attempt to demonize humankind for the frequency and severity of the weather has been politically motived and economically disastrous.

“Net zero” pledges are being revealed for the false promises they most often were, designed mainly to win plaudits from the Lecturing Left. For leaders grounded in facts, real-world needs have always meant that no one is easing off the gas.

Gary Abernathy is a longtime newspaper editor, reporter and columnist. He was a contributing columnist for the Washington Post from 2017-2023 and a frequent guest analyst across numerous media platforms. He is a contributing columnist for The Empowerment Alliance, which advocates for realistic approaches to energy consumption and environmental conservation. The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Empowerment Alliance.

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

Anxious NOAA scientists feel Trump’s “target on their back”, drop climate change and call it “air-quality”

The Trump clean-out has not even started and the bow wave is washing off some of the faded advertising.

Just as ESG and DEI are quietly disappearing into the bushes, soon, “climate change” will vanish too.

From JoNova

By Jo Nova

And so it begins, scientists start peeling off the climate change labels from the ideology

The Trump clean-out has not even started and the bow wave is washing off some of the faded advertising.

Just as ESG and DEI are quietly disappearing into the bushes, soon, “climate change” will vanish too.

One day most scientists will say “we always knew it was overdone”. But right now, brave scientists are sticking to their beliefs … playing the victim card and adopting new advertising to keep their funding.

Anxious scientists brace for Trump’s climate denialism: ‘We have a target on our backs’

Oliver Milman, The Guardian

The prospect of an even more ideologically driven Trump administration slashing budgets and mass-firing federal staff has given America’s scientific community a sort of collective anxiety attack. “We all feel like we have a target on our backs,” said one National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientist, who added that agency staff are already seeking to “pivot” by replacing mentions of the climate crisis with more acceptable terms such as “air quality”.

“My god, it’s so depressing,” said another federal scientist about the incoming administration. A doctoral candidate, when asked about entering the workforce under Trump, simply puffed her cheeks and groaned. “If someone offered me a departmental position now, I’d jump,” said one Nasa researcher.

It’s not like modern science is a lap-dog serving whoever feeds them the biggest biscuits…

Science is in such a crisis, even the Guardian staff realize something is wrong:

But scientists in the US face a broader crisis beyond the next president, amid a swirl of misinformation and declining trust in the profession among the American public. Overall trust in scientists has fallen by 10% since the pandemic, Pew polling has shown,…

And the AGU President, who helped turn science into a religion, accidentally explains some of it:

“When we get that kind of polling data, it is concerning,” acknowledged Lisa Graumlich, a paleoclimatologist and the current AGU president.

“The conspiracy theories are out there, the misinformation is there,” said Graumlich. “Social media engines and the algorithms can take a person that isn’t necessarily prone to a conspiracy mindset and have them end up in this rabbit hole of misinformation.”

Where was Graumlich when NASA and NOAA were spreading misinformation that science is done by groupthink and consensus? Or when they pretended evidence came from computer simulations of Earth, and not the real thing?

And yet, already, in The Guardian desert of journalism — one tiny sensible shoot appears:

Some researchers think scientists should adapt to this hyper-partisan environment by sticking to unadorned facts, rather than anything that could be seen as campaigning. “We have been come to be seen as just another partisan lobbying group,” said Ken Caldeira, a climate scientist.

That’s a good start.

H/t to Willie Soon.

Alarmists must be feeling the shock,
As ‘settled science’ now hits a roadblock,
Fearing their climate pipe dreams,
Will come apart at the seams,
With Donald Trump in charge, taking stock.

–Ruairi

Image by Helen Boulton from Pixabay

No, Washington Post, Antarctica Didn’t Have the “Most Intense Heat Wave Ever Recorded”

 Kasha Patel, a writer for The Washington Post (WaPo) created a story that is likely in the top 10 most false and egregious climate scare stories ever published. Titled, “Scientists found the most intense heat wave ever recorded — in Antarctica,” the story isn’t just false, it is doubly so because the research paper it is based on is also seriously flawed. In this case, peer review at Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) failed to catch and correct the most basic abuse of the definition of a “heat wave.”

From ClimateRealism

By Anthony Watts

On September 24th, 2023, Kasha Patel, a writer for The Washington Post (WaPo) created a story that is likely in the top 10 most false and egregious climate scare stories ever published. Titled, “Scientists found the most intense heat wave ever recorded — in Antarctica,” the story isn’t just false, it is doubly so because the research paper it is based on is also seriously flawed. In this case, peer review at Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) failed to catch and correct the most basic abuse of the definition of a “heat wave.”

The leading paragraph of the WaPo story said:

In March 2022, temperatures near the eastern coast of Antarctica spiked 70 degrees Fahrenheit (39 degrees Celsius) above normal — making it the most intense recorded heat wave to occur anywhere on Earth, according to a recent study. At the time, researchers on-site were wearing shorts and some even removed their shirts to bask in the (relative) warmth. Scientists elsewhere said such a high in that region of the world was unthinkable.

WaPo also provided a normal temperature, for reference with some “unbelievability” from the lead author of the paper.

Temperatures in March, marking a change into autumn on the continent, are typically around minus -54 degrees Celsius on the east coast near the Dome C. On March 18, 2022, temperatures peaked to minus -10 degrees Celsius. That’s warmer than even the hottest temperature recorded during the summer months in that region — “that in itself is pretty unbelievable,” said Blanchard-Wrigglesworth, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Washington.

First, it is important to point out that the so-called “heat wave” really wasn’t warm at all; the shorts and shirt removal was completely for show, rather than science.  Since most people in the United States use the Fahrenheit temperature scale, which isn’t mentioned at all in the WaPo article citing the actual high temperature recorded, it was easy for reporter Kasha Patel to sneak by the idea that it was actually warm at the time.

-10 Celsius is actually 14 degrees Fahrenheit – which isn’t warm, much less a “heat wave” by any definition. Patel can’t be forgiven for not mentioning this in the article because anyone can get the conversion simply by typing it into Google, like this example.

But that isn’t the worst journalistic violation Patel makes. She mentions “70 degrees Fahrenheit (39 degrees Celsius) above normal” in the first paragraph, but neglects to offer the same reference when it comes to the actual temperature “minus -10 degrees Celsius,” clearly to hide the fact that at 14°F, it is still well below freezing (32°F) and not warm at all.

The author of the paper also makes a false claim in the GRL paper right in the title: “The Largest Ever Recorded Heatwave—Characteristics and Attribution of the Antarctic Heatwave of March 2022.”

By several meteorological definitions, the Antarctic temperature event doesn’t qualify as a heat wave at all. For example, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in their website “SciJinks” for kids defines it as:

A heat wave is a period of unusually hot weather that typically lasts two or more days. To be considered a heat wave, the temperatures have to be outside the historical averages for a given area.

At -10 Celsius/14 degrees Fahrenheit in Antarctica, “hot” is not even close. Even kids will understand this.

On an academic level, a peer reviewed paper “On the Definition of a Heat Wave” published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, clearly defines what a heat wave actually is, in table 7:

As you can see, at 14°F, Antarctica’s March weather event wasn’t even close.

And finally, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) defines a heat wave as:

“…a period during which the daily maximum temperature exceeds for more than five consecutive days the maximum normal temperature by 9 degrees Fahrenheit (5 degrees Celsius).”

In the case of the March Antarctic temperature event, according to the GRL paper abstract, it only lasted 4 days, and so failed that test too. Clearly, despite GRL and WaPo wanting to call it a “heat wave,” by three different definitions, it was not, and the paper author and the WaPo reporter abused the definition.

Finally, there’s this in the GRL paper: “We find that the heatwave was made 2°C warmer by climate change, and future end of century heatwaves to be 5–6°C warmer, suggesting the possibility of near-melting temperatures over the East Antarctic ice cap during extreme heatwaves.”

But the WaPo reporter, who failed to catch that this wasn’t a heat wave at all, reported properly:

The complete role of climate change is still under investigation, although the new study asserts that the warmer atmosphere didn’t play a large role boosting temperatures. The team ran a suite of computer models running scenarios that included increased greenhouse gas emissions vs. a world that did not. They found climate change only increased the heat wave by 2 degrees Celsius.

At -8°C (17.6°F) versus -10°C (14°F), there’s still no significant effect. Antarctic ice didn’t melt, and there was no “shirtless” weather even though it was hyped in the article. It was all for show, roping in low-information readers who wouldn’t question “science” and the journalistic skills of WaPo.

Of course, the damage is in the headline, which most people read without reading such explanations further down in the article, much less in the scientific literature itself. Readers come away with the false impression that Antarctica has a heat wave like what they might experience in the summer where they live, and that’s the biggest lie of all.

Shame on WaPo’s Kasha Patel for not catching and correcting this, and double shame on the editors of GRL for not catching and correcting the false claim of a heat wave in the paper before they published it. We deserve better than this sort of half-baked science and reporting.

Anthony Watts

Anthony Watts is a senior fellow for environment and climate at The Heartland Institute.

Watts has been in the weather business both in front of, and behind the camera as an on-air television meteorologist since 1978, and currently does daily radio forecasts.

He has created weather graphics presentation systems for television, specialized weather instrumentation, as well as co-authored peer-reviewed papers on climate issues.

He operates the most viewed website in the world on climate, the award-winning website wattsupwiththat.com.

Don’t panic over reefs

Are these dire pronouncements accurate? Could a two-degree change in water temperature knock out a species that has survived for more than 40 million years?

From CFACT

The Pristine and Colorful Coral Reefs of Komodo, Indonesia

BY VALERIE CHECK:

“More than half the world’s reefs have perished in the past 30 years,” Newsweek announced in an article claiming that ocean warming is driving bleaching events that have devastated reefs around the globe. Bleaching, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, occurs when coral tissue expels algae, causing the coral to turn white.

“There is at least a reasonable expectation that if current carbon dioxide emission trends continue, corals will not survive this century,” Ken Caldeira, a senior scientist with the Carnegie Institution’s Department of Global Ecology, told USA Oceana.

Climate change advocates like Caldeira say that CO2-induced warming has driven an increase in the frequency and magnitude of bleaching events since the 1800s. This claimed rapid change suggests coral reefs are reaching a tipping point, “after which runaway climate change intensifies beyond humanity’s ability to arrest it,” according to Seaver Wang of the Breakthrough Institute.

Are these dire pronouncements accurate? Could a two-degree change in water temperature knock out a species that has survived for more than 40 million years?

Research evaluated by CO2-science.org, an organization that publishes weekly reviews of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles, shows “little evidence for climate change affecting reefs in a linear fashion.” The climate has warmed before, but reports linking reef expansion and decline to climate change fail to explain why previous temperature changes have not caused reef transformations similar to those happening now.

“Previous analyses failed to find any significant cross-correlation between changes in [the partial pressures of] CO2 and changes in reef attributes,” said Wolfgang Kiessling, a German researcher, and professor at Friedrich-Alexander-University of Erlangen-Nürnberg. Kiessling’s research shows that increases in atmospheric CO2 and water temperature fail to explain reef changes throughout history.

Corals have survived warming and also recovered from widespread bleaching events over the past 400 years. A 2015 study conducted by UCLA researcher Ruth D. Gates and California State University researcher Peter J. Edmunds called bleaching an adaptive mechanism. The diversity of corals provides them the opportunity to shuffle symbiont genotypes or to replace one species of cooperative algae with another species that resists either cold or heat, as needed. A 2001 study found that “coral bleaching can promote rapid response to environmental change” by making development in coral communities work better. The study concluded that coral bleaching may “help reef corals to survive” the potential stress of temperature changes.

In 1996, 1998, and 2002, the Arabian Gulf suffered from high-frequency temperature-related bleaching events. Acropora, a small polyp genus of stony coral, experienced the fastest bleaching and the highest mortality of all coral varieties reviewed in 1996 and 1998. But in 2002, Acropora bleached less than all other corals. This improved survivability suggests that the coral found a way to adapt to warmer conditions.

A model made in 2018 by a team of American and Australian researchers corroborates this research. They combined genomics with biophysical and evolutionary modeling and found that coral populations are able to “successfully adapt to changing temperatures” along the Great Barrier Reef. This, researchers say, should allow coral reefs to survive comfortably for at least another century.

Corals have also demonstrated an ability to shift and expand their range, helping them remain in ideal water temperatures. Reachers who used 80 years of national records from the temperate areas of Japan concluded that four out of nine studied coral species showed poleward expansion at up to 14 kilometers, or about nine miles per year, since the 1930s; this is significantly faster than is the case with other species. The other five species researchers looked at remained stable without shrinkage or extinction. Mature coral colonies in the expanded areas also exhibited spawning, which indicates their potential to widen their range even further. If corals in tropical areas suffer declines due to rising water temperature, they may simply shift to more temperate areas.

Though corals have several tactics to tolerate a warmer climate, temperature change is not their only threat. One significant challenge is eutrophication, or nutrient pollution, caused by fertilizers from agricultural runoff. But as previous Mackinac Center research concluded, “Addressing agricultural runoff is complicated, and there is no simple fix.”

Coral health is a legitimate concern. Coral reefs are home to over 25% of all marine life, containing one million aquatic species, which include over 4,000 species of fish alone. Reefs are reported to contribute $29.8 billion to the global economy each year, and an estimated one billion people depend on coral reefs for food, income, and flood protection.

When considering solutions to eutrophication, it is important to remember the benefits synthetic fertilizers have on crop growth and food security. Stopping fertilizer use entirely to promote healthy coral reefs would increase food prices drastically, leaving consumers paying roughly $2.9 billion more each year. It is possible to reduce fertilizer runoff while still increasing food production, thus helping the environment without harming humanity.

Though Caldeira and other researchers say coral reefs are in grave danger from fossil fuel-induced warming, research shows that reefs are durable. Their ability to adapt to changing conditions gives us confidence in their continued future health.

Don’t panic over reefs

Valerie Check is an energy and environmental policy intern at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.

This article originally appeared at Mackinac

El Niño and the Coming Climate Madness

By making the official proclamation that El Niño has begun, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) just sent the corporate media into a flurry of doomsday predictions. Who’s fault is it? Ours of course. We blew past the so called 1.5°C limit set by the Paris accord.

The Heartland Institute

By making the official proclamation that El Niño has begun, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) just sent the corporate media into a flurry of doomsday predictions. Who’s fault is it? Ours of course. We blew past the so called 1.5°C limit set by the Paris accord.

On today’s show, we’ll hold up these apocalyptic claims to actual science, looking at historical data as a gauge for the “severity” of modern times. The true story here is that these pundits are fear mongering about a natural event that has happened for millennia.

Join host Anthony Watts as well as expert panelists H. Sterling Burnett and Linnea Lueken for episode 67 of Climate Change Roundtable, live every Friday at 12pm CT.

50 years after the oil embargo crisis of 1973, no American policy for energy independence

America continues to increase its energy dependence on China for “green”, and on OPEC and Russia for oil.

Cars line up at a gas station in New York City on Dec. 23, 1973. The Arab oil embargo caused gas shortages nationwide and shaped U.S. foreign policy to this day.

From Watts Up With That?

America continues to increase its energy dependence on China for “green”, and on OPEC and Russia for oil.

Published April 21, 2023 at Heartland https://heartland.org/opinion/50-years-after-the-oil-embargo-crisis-of-1973-no-american-policy-for-energy-independence/

Ronald Stein  is an engineer, senior policy advisor on energy literacy for the Heartland Institute and CFACT, and co-author of the Pulitzer Prize nominated book “Clean Energy Exploitations.”

The oil embargo of 1973 imposed by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and other Arab oil-producing nations was imposed in response to the United States’ support of Israel during the Yom Kippur War.

The embargo led to a sharp increase in oil prices and a shortage of fuels for the military, airlines, ships, and vehicles in the United States and other countries, as well as a shortage of products from oil.

Few may remember the long lines at gas stations which were one of the most visible effects of the oil embargo. In some cases, people waited for hours to fill up their tanks. The shortage of oil also led to price increases, and many people were forced to make sacrifices to conserve fuel.

The oil embargo of 1973 was a major event in the history of the United States.  It led to a recession in the United States and other countries. It also led to thoughts of a needed energy policy in the United States. The United States began to develop alternative sources for oil and for electricity, such as solar and wind power.

President Richard Nixon played a key role in the construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, which carries oil from Prudhoe Bay on Alaska’s North Slope to the port of Valdez. Nixon signed the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act into law in 1973, and he worked to overcome environmental and political opposition to the project. The pipeline began operating in 1977 and has since transported more than 15 billion barrels of oil.

President Richard Nixon gave a speech on America’s energy policy on November 7, 1973, in which he outlined his plans to reduce national energy consumption and called on U.S. citizens to follow his lead in achieving energy independence. In his speech, Nixon acknowledged that the United States was facing an oil crisis for the American economy’s demands for fuels, and the products that are based on crude oil, and he blamed the crisis on several factors, including the Arab oil embargo, the growth of the U.S. economy, and the country’s continued reliance on foreign oil.

Now, 50 years later, none of the administrations that followed Nixon have done anything to establish a policy for America’s energy independence from another embargo disaster. We’re talking about a 50-year span of administrations from Presidents Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush, Jr., Obama, Trump, and now Biden.

As World War I and II historians Russia, China, and OPEC know, the country that controls the minerals, crude oil, and natural gas, controls the world!  They all know there is no substitute for fossil fuel product dominance in the foreseeable future, even on a longer-term horizon. To believe a transition to just electricity from renewables is possible from the products manufactured from fossil fuels and act accordingly is suicidal for humanity. As former Congressman Don Ritter of Pennsylvania wrote  “It’s the real “existential threat.”

Today, President Biden and California Governor Newsom remain oblivious to the fact that wind and solar only generate electricity. Neither Biden or Newsom can identify one product that wind and solar can manufacture for mankind. And worse, neither has a backup plan to replace all the products and fuels that are based on oil!

Biden is campaigning to rid America of oil, and Newsom, by continually decreasing California’s in-state oil production, Newsom’s personal energy policies continue to force California, the 4th largest economy in the world, to be the only state in contiguous America that imports most of its crude oil energy from foreign countries. That dependence, via maritime transportation from foreign nations for the state’s crude oil energy demands, has increased imported crude oil from 5 percent in 1992 to almost 60 percent today of total consumption. California’s growing dependency on other nations, like Saudi Aramco is a serious national security risk for America.

Today, both Biden and Newsom campaign to go green with EV’s, and wind and solar for electricity generation. Through the encouragement of tax incentives and subsidies to go green, they are providing financial incentives to China, who already controls the supply chain for the minerals and metals to go green, furthering our total dependence on China to achieve the green goals of America.

In the 1970s, Nixon also took steps to increase domestic energy production. He opened more federal lands to oil and gas drilling, and he encouraged the development of new sources for electricity, such as solar and nuclear power. He also created the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA), which was responsible for researching and developing new energy technologies.

Nixon’s energy policies were not without their critics. Some argued that his policies were too focused on conservation and not enough on production. Others argued that his policies were too expensive and that they would harm the economy. However, Nixon’s energy policies were generally successful in helping the United States to weather the energy crisis of the 1970s.

Here is a list of some of President Nixon’s energy successes in the 1970s:

  • Opening more federal lands to oil and gas drilling
  • Created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1970
  • Created the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) in 1970
  • Created the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in 1970
  • Created the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) in 1972
  • Signing the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act into law in 1973
  • Creating the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA) in 1974
  • Passage of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975

Those 1970s agencies were created in response to several challenges facing the United States at the time, including environmental pollution, occupational safety and health hazards, and consumer product safety. The creation of those agencies helped to improve the quality of life for Americans and to protect the environment.

Today, America is offering tax incentives and subsidies to go green at any cost, and implementing policies to rid the country of oil with no backup plan for a supply chain of products from oil that are the basis of the economy. Instead of achieving energy independence, America continues to increase its dependence on China for “green”, and Russia and OPEC for oil products demanded by our economy.

With no policy for energy independence, God help America!

Ronald Stein, P.E.

Ambassador for Energy & Infrastructure

https://expertfile.com/experts/ronald.stein

Please sign up here for more Energy Literacy from Ronald Stein