Category: Press Release

“A family barbecue creates almost as much air pollution as doing a 100-mile car trip, scientists claim,” according to The Sun, a UK news company.

By “pollution,” the author means greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide, the gas used by plants to make food and release oxygen. A beefburger barbecue is claimed to be responsible for 23,048 grams of CO2, compared with 12,648 g from a chicken barbecue, and 8,236 g from a veggie sausage barbecue.

“Experts…claim by simply switching from cheese-topped beefburgers to chicken, families could nearly cut their carbon footprint in half. Not only do cows need lots more farmland than poultry, they scoff large amounts of grain and also burp greenhouse gases as they chew.”

Of course, one barbecue is completely insignificant; it’s about symbolism or perhaps the “optics.” The Green New Deal is part of UN Sustainable Development goals that include a war on meat. Some proclaim that meat consumption should be less than 1 oz per day. We are said to need a “Great Food Transformation” because “civilisation is at risk.”

When politicians call for “fundamental transformation,” find out what this means for the way you live.

For more on the Green New Deal, see Civil Defense Perspectives, January 2019.

For the effect of a drastic reduction in atmospheric CO2, see Climate Change IQ Question #5.

Democrats running for President are very vague about the Green New Deal that they all seem to favor. “Smart,” “energy-efficient,” and “environmentally friendly” sound great. But what if it means 320 sq ft per person living areas, no parking places, and shared kitchen facilities?

Single-family houses in the suburbs may be a thing of the past. Without cars, people will need to live close to work. Most people may be unable to afford to retrofit their homes to meet energy standards: the cost to meet California requirements for an average home is $58,000. And as demands for “renewable” energy production cause electricity bills to soar (like in Germany), few will be able to afford to heat or cool a large home. Walk-up stack-and-pack aPodments might be in your children’s future.

The Green New  Deal is not Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s original idea. It’s part of the UN’s Sustainable Development agenda. A French nongovernmental organization, Novethic, proposes forbidding all new construction of single-family homes except trailers.

Let’s not wait to pass the Deal before we find  out what is in it.                

For more on the Green New Deal, see Civil Defense Perspectives, January 2019.

Democrats running for President all seem to be in favor of a Green New Deal. Americans need to ask them: Exactly what does this mean—to us?

Joe Biden promises to build 500,000 charging stations for the new all-electric fleet.  If we are going to wean ourselves off our “addiction” to fossil fuels, that means we need to get over our love affair with the internal combustion engine. That means replacing—or junking—260 million cars.

Questions to ask your candidates:

1. How many batteries for electric cars can we manufacture?

2. How much will the basic electric car cost?

3. Will it be big enough to carry the kids and the groceries?

4. Will AAA add a new benefit: a diesel-fueled truck carrying a diesel generator to rescue cars stranded between charging stations?

5. Will you still be allowed to drive your old car? Or will gasoline be unaffordable or unobtainable when Bernie Sanders finishes taking the profits out of the oil industry?

6. Will there be a place to park your car?

7. What if the charging station doesn’t have enough juice? The “green” economy will require twice as much electrical generating capacity as we have now. And the more wind and solar we add, the more unstable the grid and the more wastage of power.

 8. What will become of our current fleet, including the cars not yet paid for?

         

Kamala Harris was in prosecutor mode during the second Democratic presidential debate, and said it’s not “climate change,” but “climate crisis,” which threatens our very existence as a species. Joe Biden promises 500,000 charging stations for our new, all-electric automobile fleet. Bernie Sanders wants to “up the ante” on the Paris climate accord and make the rest of the world go along with a drastic transformation of the energy system. Millions need to rise up in a revolution against the fossil-fuel industry, the insurance industry, corporate greed in general, he said, and “we only have 12 years.” Gov. Hickenlooper said Colorado is leading the way on tough methane regulations.

Some follow-up questions that didn’t get asked:

1. Would they outlaw gasoline-powered cars and diesel-powered trucks? How about trucks carrying diesel generators to rescue electric cars stranded between charging stations? How about emergency vehicles or farm equipment or excavation equipment with internal combustion engines?

2. What would supply back-up generating capacity when solar and wind facilities are not generating any power (say to supply those charging stations and keep the lights on in the operating room)?

3. How do we prosecute China for building hundreds of coal-fired generating stations?

4. Where do we get jet fuel for our public officials if our own industry is destroyed? From Iran?

5. Who will pay the hundreds of billions of dollars to Third-World dictators in reparations for our driving cars and using coal-generated electricity?

6. Does AOC think her mentor Bernie Sanders has the “social intelligence of a sea sponge” to believe her 12-year deadline for Doomsday?

7. What did Gov. Hickenlooper do about methane-emitting cows and termites in Colorado? Should we still be allowed to eat meat?

For other major issues related to atmospheric carbon dioxide and climate (wildfires, health effects, ocean acidification, sea-level rise, Arctic ice, hurricanes, and more), see Climate Change IQ test. How well does your favorite candidate do?

During the first Democratic presidential debate, a number of candidates stated that climate change was an existential threat, one of our biggest national security threats, or their first priority. Here are some follow-up questions they all should be asked:

1. Would they outlaw gasoline-powered cars and diesel-powered trucks? How about trucks carrying diesel generators to rescue electric cars stranded between charging stations? Emergency vehicles or farm equipment or excavation equipment with internal combustion engines?

2.  Would they restrict meat consumption, air conditioning and heating, elevators, or home appliances such as clothes driers?

3. What would supply back-up generating capacity when solar and wind facilities are not generating any power?

4. How much increase in electrical bills is acceptable? What do they think of increases in Germany and Australia?

5. How much should homeowners be expected to pay to retrofit their homes for new energy-efficiency standards?

6. How many jobs will be lost in mining, oil and gas production, automobile manufacturing and servicing, other industries that require large amounts of reliable electricity, the trucking industry, etc.?

7. What will happen to living standards?

8. How much will climate change will result?

For other major issues related to atmospheric carbon dioxide and climate (wildfires, health effects, ocean acidification, sea-level rise, Arctic ice, hurricanes, and more), see Climate Change IQ test. How well does your favorite candidate do?

More than 300 scientists have sent a letter and background information to the president of the American Museum of Natural History in response to demands to remove Rebekah Mercer, a generous donor, from the Board of Trustees, reports Physicians for Civil Defense.

These demands come from agitators waving signs in front of the museum and an open letter circulating on the internet that amassed signatures from self-styled scientists. These include well-known proponents of the catastrophic, human-caused global warming (now climate change) hypothesis, along with many with no apparent scientific credentials, observes Physicians for Civil Defense president, Jane M. Orient, M.D.

The protestors complain that the Mercer Family Foundation has donated to politicians they don’t like and to supporters of scientists who dissent from the climate-change narrative, defaming them as “ringleaders of climate denial.” In fact, dissent is essential to science, and those who attempt to silence it are truly anti-science, Dr. Orient stated.

The letter to AMNH reads: “The case for harm from catastrophic global warming is growing weaker as more is learned about the Earth’s climate system, and about the poor predictive power of computer climate models. The Earth has supported abundant life many times in the geological past when there were much higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It is quite likely that future generations will benefit from the enrichment of Earth’s atmosphere with more carbon dioxide. And there is no doubt that policies advocated by many of the protestors will cause economic harm across the world, especially to those hoping to climb out of poverty.”

Signers of the letter include two Nobel laureates, Ivar Giaever (physics, 1973) and Kary Mullis (chemistry, 1993), and many other esteemed, highly accomplished scientists, notes Dr. Orient. “The American Museum of Natural History should not tarnish its long and honorable tradition by allowing political pressure and street theater to dictate its policy,”

Physicians for Civil Defense distributes information to help to save lives in the event of war or other disaster.