Skip to content

Air Conditioning as Dangerous Climate Threat

August 26, 2016

According to environmental extremists, air-conditioning has been a disaster for the environment.

Secretary of State, John Kerry said, “Air-conditioners and refrigerators pose as big a threat to life on the planet as the threat of terrorism.”

Kerry made this claim because hydrofluorocarbons (HCF) refrigerants are a source of green house gas emissions that, according to extreme environmentalists, threaten the climate.

Gina McCarthy, EPA Administrator, said, during negotiations in Vienna last month, “[A] global deal would match new EPA regulations to ban HFCs in the United States and promote alternative chemicals for use in appliances.”

Eliminating HCFs would create a problem for homeowners and businesses.

Home Air-conditioning unit located in Florida

Home Air-conditioning unit located in Florida

At present, HCFs that harm the Ozone layer are no longer being used in air conditioning units or refrigerators. Freon has been outlawed.

New HCFs, that don’t harm the Ozone layer, are used today. All air-conditioning units in the United States use these new HCFs. Here are some examples of refrigerants currently in use:

R-410A

  • Often referred to by a brand name such as Puron®, Suva® 9100, or Genetron® AZ-20®
  • It is a hydro-fluorocarbon (HFC) that does not contribute to ozone depletion

R-407C

  • Often referred to by a brand name such as Suva® 407C or Genetron® 407C
  • R-407C is a hydro-fluorocarbon (HFC) that does not contribute to ozone depletion
  • It provides the simplest conversion from R-22, i.e., Freon, due to its similar pressures

R-134a

  • Widely used in many air conditioning and refrigeration systems globally
  • It is a hydro-fluorocarbon (HFC) that does not contribute to ozone depletion

Eliminating HCFs will affect all Americans, and increase their costs unnecessarily.

Homeowners, automobile owners and businesses will all be affected.

It should be noted that HCFs are used because they are the most efficient low-cost chemical available for operating refrigeration units, including air-conditioners. They are also safe, and don’t present a fire hazard.

There are other chemicals that can be used as refrigerants.

For example, ammonia is an effective low-cost refrigerant, but it isn’t safe. An ammonia leak will drive people from their homes. As a youngster, I remember having to evacuate our apartment building because a refrigerator using ammonia in an apartment above us leaked. Chloroform can also be used as a refrigerant, but it has a major downside.

Automobiles will shift to HFO-1234yf in 2017, but older cars will find it increasingly difficult, and probably more expensive, to find R134a, the currently approved refrigerant for automobiles.

CO2 can also be used as a refrigerant, but it operates at much higher pressures, at over 1450 psi, or ten times the pressure of current air-conditioning units. CO2 as a refrigerant will result in more heavily constructed, and more expensive air-conditioning units.

Even if a new refrigerant is developed for home air-conditioning units, new units will probably operate at higher pressures, requiring more expensive components resulting in more costly new air-conditioning units. Homeowners will find they will have to replace their existing air-conditioning units with new units that comply with the new EPA regulations when supplies of currently approved HCFs run out.

Europeans won’t feel the impact of doing away with HCFs, since only a small percentage of the population uses air-conditioning. Europe is requiring CO2 to be used as the refrigerant.

Americans will bear the brunt of any ban on HCFs.

Older refrigerators will have to be scrapped.

Think of people living in Florida, or other states that have high summer temperatures, such as Arizona, who will be required, at some point, to buy new, more expensive air-conditioning units.

Kerry says air-conditioning is a greater threat to the world than ISIS. Tell that to homeowners in Florida and the desert southwest.

* * * * * *

Nothing to Fear, Chapter 14, An Impossible Objective, explains why it’s impossible to cut CO2 emissions 80% without destroying America’s standard of living.

Nothing to Fear is available from Amazon and some independent book sellers.

Link to Amazon: http://amzn.to/1miBhXy

Book Cover, Nothing to Fear

Book Cover, Nothing to Fear

* * * * * *

NOTE:

It’s easy to subscribe to articles by Donn Dears.

Go to the photo on the right side of the article where it says email subscription. Click and enter your email address. You can unsubscribe at any time.

If you know people who would be interested in these articles please send them a link to the article and suggest they also subscribe.

© Power For USA, 2010 – 2016. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author, Donn Dears LLC, is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power For USA with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

EPA Milage Gap & Paris Climate Accord

August 23, 2016

EPA insists automobile manufacturers must exceed the 54 mpg mileage requirement in 2025, so that the U.S. can meet carbon targets agreed to at the Paris COP Climate meeting.

Christopher Grundler, director of EPA’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality, said:

The U.S. will have to accelerate carbon reductions beyond current regulations … to meet targets called for in the global climate agreement reached in Paris last year.”

This conforms to the Democrat Platform, that said:

“We will transform American transportation by reducing oil consumption through cleaner fuels, vehicle electrification, and increasing the fuel efficiency of cars, boilers, ships, and trucks.”

The automobile manufacturers have already indicated they will not be able to meet the existing 2025 mpg requirements if they are to produce the type of cars Americans want.

This chart shows the huge disparity between the reality of todays actual 2016 mileage of 25.2 mpg, and the required 2025 mileage of 54 mpg, adjusted for allowances. See, Collision of Mileage Regulations and Technology, for information on these allowances.

Chart depicting large increase in mpg required by 2025.

Chart depicting large increase in mpg required by 2025.

Some might say car manufacturers have always cried wolf, but then met safety requirements despite their protestations. It’s difficult, however, to see how the mileage GAP can be addressed without the public buying tiny cars or expensive electric vehicles.

The public has demonstrated a desire for SUVs and pickup trucks, so the government will be forcing its wishes on Americans in order to meet the Paris climate, carbon agreement.

The mileage gap is around 30 mpg, or double existing actual mpg.

Yet, the EPA infers it wants even larger mileage mpg targets, so as to comply with the Paris climate, carbon accord.

EPA’s Grundler went on to say:

“We’re going to need to see a lot of zero and near-zero emissions technology coming into the fleet,” if we are to reduce CO2 emissions, as required by the Paris climate, accord.

This confirms the need for large numbers of expensive EVs, powered by batteries, if the U.S. is to meet the commitments of the Paris climate, carbon accord.

Americans will be forced by the EPA to buy these cars, or do without.

Is this the future Americans want?

* * * * * *

Nothing to Fear, Chapter 15, An Alternative Hypothesis, describes why the sun is the far more likely cause of global warming..

Nothing to Fear is available from Amazon and some independent book sellers.

Link to Amazon: http://amzn.to/1miBhXy

Book Cover, Nothing to Fear

Book Cover, Nothing to Fear

* * * * * *

NOTE:

It’s easy to subscribe to articles by Donn Dears.

Go to the photo on the right side of the article where it says email subscription. Click and enter your email address. You can unsubscribe at any time.

If you know people who would be interested in these articles please send them a link to the article and suggest they also subscribe.

© Power For USA, 2010 – 2016. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author, Donn Dears LLC, is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power For USA with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

At Stake: America’s Energy Future

August 19, 2016

There is a profound difference between the Democrat and Republican platforms, with each platform advancing diametrically opposed visions for America’s energy future.

The Democrat platform is based on a blind adherence to the Paris Climate Accord, proclaiming that cutting CO2 emissions is of paramount importance, specifically by “reducing greenhouse gas emissions more than 80 percent below 2005 levels by 2050.”

The platform declares:

“Our generation must lead the fight against climate change and we applaud President Obama’s leadership in forging the historic Paris climate change agreement. We will not only meet the goals we set in Paris, we will seek to exceed them …”

Screenshot of Democrat Platform Drafting Committee from CNN

Screenshot of Democrat Platform Drafting Committee from CNN

The Democrat platform’s extreme focus on cutting CO2 emissions ignores the real needs of Americans.

For example, the Democrat platform’s:

  • Support of wind and solar over traditional methods for generating electricity will impose higher electricity prices on all Americans
  • War on methane, i.e., natural gas will increase the cost of heating American homes
  • Proposed mandates for renewables of all kinds, with increased subsidies, will impose additional taxes on all Americans
  • Proposal to “transform American transportation” by imposing electric vehicles and biofuels on Americans, regardless of cost, will harm Americans
  • Proposal to impose a carbon tax on greenhouse gasses, including natural gas, i.e., methane, will drive up energy costs for all Americans
  • Support for banning fracking will create a shortage of natural gas and cut domestic oil production, which not only drives up the cost of heating homes and using electricity, but will also result in a need to import more oil from Mideast countries
  • Request to have the Justice Department investigate those who do not agree with the Democrat’s views on climate change is a threat to the freedom of all Americans

The Republican platform is the precise opposite of the Democrat platform, and places emphasis on stopping “unelected bureaucrats” from imposing their will on Americans.

The differences are both stark and profound.

There is no need to editorialize on the differences, because they speak for themselves.

Yet, the media virtually ignores these differences.

If it were merely a political issue, one might ignore the media’s continuing support of Democrats.

But this goes beyond politics.

It’s about America’s future, and the media, for the most part, shows a complete disregard for America and Americans. Five conglomerates own most of the newspapers and radio and TV stations in the United States, and this stifles the dissemination of information.

Without a free press, that is objective in its reporting, Americans are in danger of falling prey to mindless, uninformed social media rhetoric.

The differences between the two platforms are so profound that they deserve wide dissemination.

Unedited quotations from the Democrat and Republican energy platforms are at Energy Platform Comparisons.

* * * * * *

Nothing to Fear explains why CO2 isn’t to be feared. Chapter 15, An Alternative Hypothesis, describes Dr. Svensmark’s hypothesis on cosmic rays.

Nothing to Fear is available from Amazon and some independent book sellers.

Link to Amazon: http://amzn.to/1miBhXy

Book Cover, Nothing to Fear

Book Cover, Nothing to Fear

* * * * * *

NOTE:

It’s easy to subscribe to articles by Donn Dears.

Go to the photo on the right side of the article where it says email subscription. Click and enter your email address. You can unsubscribe at any time.

If you know people who would be interested in these articles please send them a link to the article and suggest they also subscribe.

© Power For USA, 2010 – 2016. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author, Donn Dears LLC, is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power For USA with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Now, Environmentalists Oppose Corn Ethanol

August 16, 2016

In a dramatic reversal, environmentalists now oppose ethanol produced from corn.

Groups such as Friends of the Earth, The Environmental Working Group and the National Wildlife Federation now say that producing ethanol from corn generates more greenhouse gasses than does gasoline, and that it harms the environment.

These same groups are now urging Congress to modify or do away with the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) requiring that ethanol be used in gasoline.

The EPA and this Administration have been urging just the opposite, by endorsing a higher percentage of ethanol for use in gasoline. Currently, ethanol content is limited to 10% because most manufacturers say ethanol in higher amounts will damage automobile engines, unless the vehicle has been specially built for larger amounts of ethanol.

In 2004, The Natural Resources Defense Council used a 96-page report proclaiming boundless biofuel benefits, such as slashed greenhouse gas emissions, improved air quality and more wildlife habitat.

Of course, it’s now clear this was merely typical misinformation from the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Eight states are the largest producers of corn, and these are the states that will be affected by changes to the RFS. Representatives Peter Welch (D) of Vermont, and Bob Goodlatte (R) of Virginia, are cosponsoring such changes.

  • Iowa
  • Illinois
  • Nebraska
  • Minnesota
  • Indiana
  • South Dakota
  • Kansas
  • Ohio

“Collin O’Mara, president of the National Wildlife Federation, told a House committee last month that the RFS program has wreaked severe, unintended consequences, including the loss of prairie land and water-supply damage that threatens wildlife.”

If these environmental groups have been wrong on this issue, why should they be believed about other issues, when there is substantial evidence they are wrong?

PV rooftop solar is a good example of programs promoted by environmental groups, and the Democrat Platform, that actually hurt Americans with higher costs for electricity and more tax payer money used for subsidies.

Only one state, Hawaii, might possibly be able to use PV Rooftop solar economically. Without subsidies, PV Rooftop solar is uneconomic in every other state, with payback periods ranging from 8 to over 20 years.

There are, of course, some proponents of ethanol who want to cling to the use of corn based ethanol, including the Renewable Fuels Association, an organization with an obvious self interest in perpetuating the program.

Corn-based ethanol has been a drain on American pocketbooks, without environmental benefits.

Chart showing required amounts of ethanol by type, by year. Yellow: Corn based, Blue: Cellulosic, Green: Other advanced, Red: biodiesel

Chart showing required amounts of ethanol by type, by year.
Yellow: Corn based, Blue: Cellulosic, Green: Other advanced, Red: biodiesel

Beyond corn, cellulosic ethanol has been a failure, in that volumes have been far below what had been promised, with subsidies harming ordinary tax payers.

The accompanying chart shows how much cellulosic ethanol is required by the existing RFS, where it is now obvious that it is impossible to produce the required amounts of cellulosic ethanol.

The RFS program is intellectually bankrupt. See, False Promise of Biofuels.

Ethanol was promoted to cut CO2 emissions, and cutting CO2 emissions is at the heart of the Democrat platform. See, Energy Platform Comparisons.

* * * * * *

From Chapter 10 of Nothing to Fear:

“The possibility of producing biofuels economically and in required quantities seems remote … if not absurd.”

Nothing to Fear is available from Amazon and some independent book sellers.

Link to Amazon: http://amzn.to/1miBhXy

Book Cover, Nothing to Fear

Book Cover, Nothing to Fear

* * * * * *

NOTE:

It’s easy to subscribe to articles by Donn Dears.

Go to the photo on the right side of the article where it says email subscription. Click and enter your email address. You can unsubscribe at any time.

If you know people who would be interested in these articles please send them a link to the article and suggest they also subscribe.

© Power For USA, 2010 – 2016. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author, Donn Dears LLC, is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power For USA with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

How Outlawing Fracking Would Hurt Americans

August 12, 2016

The Democrat party platform calls for outlawing fracking wherever states have done so.

What would be the effect on Americans if fracking was outlawed?

To determine what would happen to Americans if fracking was outlawed, it’s necessary to view the situation before fracking was used to extract oil and natural gas from shale.

Natural Gas, i.e., Methane

Prior to the advent of fracking, the United States was running out of natural gas, and LNG import terminals were being built. It should be noted that Democrat activists opposed the building of LNG import terminals, which would have resulted in greater shortages of natural gas if fracking hadn’t been invented.

The price of natural gas was peaking at around $13 per million BTU in 2006 and 2009, compared with the recent henry hub price of around $2 per million BTU.

Eliminating fracking would result in a huge increase in the price of natural gas, which would increase the cost of heating American homes, and increase the cost of electricity for all Americans.

It would also kill jobs.

Since 2009, several chemical companies have been building new facilities in the United States to utilize the low-cost natural gas produced by fracking, to produce chemicals and fertilizer.

Eliminating fracking would result in much higher natural gas prices, causing chemical companies, once again, to export jobs to areas of the world, mostly in the Mideast, where there was low-cost natural gas. Over 400,000 jobs were lost during the 1990s and early 2000s as companies moved chemical plants to where the cost of natural gas was cheap.

Eliminating fracking would also eliminate the possibility of exporting natural gas, with the loss of additional American jobs.

Oil

In 2005, the United States imported 10 million barrels of oil daily, or roughly half of US oil consumption.

By 2015, oil imports had been reduced to 7.3 million barrels per day.

 

Oil imports, as reported by the EIA

Oil imports, as reported by the EIA

The ability of the United States to increase its oil production, as the result of fracking, had an important effect on the U.S. trade deficit.

 

Chart from the EIA

Chart from the EIA

 

As the chart shows, oil imports have a huge effect on the U.S. trade balance. With a nearly 30% reduction in oil imports, the trade deficit was substantially reduced. The exporting of petroleum products and crude oil also has a beneficial effect on America’s trade balance.

Without fracking, America’s balance of trade will be badly damaged, with a resulting increase in the, already huge, national debt.

Eliminating fracking also kills oil field jobs, just as the war on coal killed coal mining jobs.

Fracking has forced OPEC to stop attempting to control the price of oil. If fracking is eliminated, OPEC has nothing to prevent it from policies that result in higher oil prices.

Summary

Eliminating fracking, when even the EPA has said there was no systemic negative effects on water supply, would cause serious economic harm to the economy and to every American … especially the poor who can least afford higher prices for heating, food and electricity.

  • The cost of natural gas to heat homes would increase dramatically
  • Industries that use natural gas for producing materials such as steel would see their costs increase
  • The cost of electricity would increase, harming Americans and American industry
  • The cost of natural gas to chemical companies would increase substantially, with the resulting elimination of thousands of American jobs, just as happened in the 1990s and early 2000s
  • The cost of gasoline will increase as OPEC regains control of oil prices
  • The cost of food will increase as the cost of operating farm equipment and the cost of transporting farm produce increases as the result of higher oil prices
  • Jobs will be killed in the oil field and in manufacturing
  • The deficit, which is already over $19 trillion, will increase as trade balances deteriorate

Eliminating fracking would cause great harm to America and Americans.

* * * * * *

Nothing to Fear, Chapter 9, The Utility Death Spiral, explains why displacing fossil fuels with wind and solar will result in the bankruptcy of Utilities and the possible takeover of the industry by the government.

Nothing to Fear is available from Amazon and some independent book sellers.

Link to Amazon: http://amzn.to/1miBhXy

Book Cover, Nothing to Fear

Book Cover, Nothing to Fear

* * * * * *

NOTE:

It’s easy to subscribe to articles by Donn Dears.

Go to the photo on the right side of the article where it says email subscription. Click and enter your email address. You can unsubscribe at any time.

If you know people who would be interested in these articles please send them a link to the article and suggest they also subscribe.

© Power For USA, 2010 – 2015. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author, Donn Dears LLC, is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power For USA with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Energy Platform Comparisons

August 9, 2016

What follows are quotations from the platforms of the Democrat and Republican parties relating directly to energy issues.

Emphasis has been added, but no changes to words have been made. Each statement is a direct quote.

These platforms are dramatically different.

There is a clear choice between the Democrat party’s energy policies, and those of the Republican party. Except for highlighting differences, the platforms speak for themselves.

Trump & Hillary

Democrat Platform

Democrats share a deep commitment to tackling the climate challenge; creating millions of good-paying middle class jobs; reducing greenhouse gas emissions more than 80 percent below 2005 levels by 2050.

We believe America must be running entirely on clean energy by mid-century.

We are committed to getting 50 percent of our electricity from clean energy sources within a decade, with half a billion solar panels installed within four years and enough renewable energy to power every home in the country.

We will cut energy waste in American homes, schools, hospitals, and offices through energy efficient improvements; modernize our electric grid; and make American manufacturing the cleanest and most efficient in the world.

We will transform American transportation by reducing oil consumption through cleaner fuels, vehicle electrification, increasing the fuel efficiency of cars, boilers, ships, and trucks.

Democrats believe the tax code must reflect our commitment to a clean energy future by eliminating special tax breaks and subsidies for fossil fuel companies as well as defending and extending tax incentives for energy efficiency and clean energy.

Democrats believe that carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases should be priced to reflect their negative externalities, and to accelerate the transition to a clean energy economy and help meet our climate goals.

Democrats are committed to defending, implementing, and extending smart pollution and efficiency standards, including the Clean Power Plan, fuel economy standards for automobiles and heavy-duty vehicles, building codes and appliance standards. We are also committed to expanding clean energy research and development.

Democrats are committed to closing the Halliburton loophole that stripped the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of its ability to regulate hydraulic fracturing, and ensuring tough safeguards are in place, including Safe Drinking Water Act provisions, to protect local water supplies.

We believe hydraulic fracturing should not take place where states and local communities oppose it.

We will streamline federal permitting to accelerate the construction of new transmission lines to get low-cost renewable energy to market, and incentivize wind, solar, and other renewable energy over the development of new natural gas power plants.

The impacts of climate change will also disproportionately affect low-income and minority communities, tribal nations, and Alaska Native villages — all of which suffer the worst losses during extreme weather and have the fewest resources to prepare. Simply put, this is environmental racism.

The fight against climate change must not leave any community out or behind — including the coal communities who kept America’s lights on for generations. Democrats will fight to make sure these workers and their families get the benefits they have earned and the respect they deserve …

All corporations owe it to their shareholders to fully analyze and disclose the risks they face, including climate risk.

Democrats also respectfully request the Department of Justice to investigate allegations of corporate fraud on the part of fossil fuel companies accused of misleading shareholders and the public on the scientific reality of climate change.

We oppose drilling in the Arctic and off the Atlantic coast, and believe we need to reform fossil fuel leasing on public lands. We will phase down extraction of fossil fuels from our public lands, starting with the most polluting sources …

Democrats will work to expand the amount of renewable energy production on federal lands and waters, from wind in Wyoming to solar in Nevada.

We believe that in order to be effective in keeping our air and water clean and combating climate change, we must enlist farmers as partners in promoting conservation and stewardship.

Republican Platform

The EPA’s Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule, issued jointly with the Army Corps of Engineers, is a travesty. It extends the government’s jurisdiction over navigable waters into the micro-management of puddles and ditches on farms, ranches, and other privately-held property. Ditches, dry creek beds, stock ponds, prairie potholes, and other non-navigable wet areas are already regulated by the states.

Unelected bureaucrats must be stopped from furthering the Democratic Party’s political agenda through regulatory demands forced upon citizens and businesses beyond that which is required by law.

We support the opening of public lands and the outer continental shelf to exploration and responsible production, even if these resources will not be immediately developed.

Because we believe states can best promote economic growth while protecting the environment, Congress should give authority to state regulators to manage energy resources on federally controlled public lands within their respective borders.

Keeping energy in the earth will keep jobs out of reach of those who need them most. For low-income Americans, expensive energy means colder homes in the winter and hotter homes in the summer, less mobility in employment, and higher food prices.

Clean Power Plan — the centerpiece of the President’s war on coal — has been stayed by the Supreme Court. We will do away with it altogether.

The taxpayers will not soon forget the current Administration’s subsidies to companies that went bankrupt without producing a kilowatt of energy. The same Administration now requires the Department of Defense, operating with slashed budgets during a time of expanding conflict, to use its scarce resources to generate 25 percent of its electricity from renewables by 2025.

Climate change is far from this nation’s most pressing national security issue.

We support the development of all forms of energy that are marketable in a free economy without subsidies, including coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear power, and hydropower.

A federal judge has struck down the BLM’s rule on hydraulic fracturing and we support upholding this decision.

We will end the Administration’s disregard of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act with respect to the long-term storage of nuclear waste.

We encourage the cost-effective development of renewable energy sources — wind, solar, biomass, biofuel, geothermal, and tidal energy — by private capital.

The United States is overwhelmingly dependent on China and other nations for rare earth and other hardrock minerals. … We support expediting the permitting process for mineral production on public lands.

We support lifting restrictions to allow responsible development of nuclear energy, including research into alternative processes like thorium nuclear energy.

We oppose any carbon tax.

American energy producers should be free to export their product to foreign markets.

We remain committed to aggressively expanding trade opportunities and opening new markets for American energy through multilateral and bilateral agreements, whether current, pending, or negotiated in the future.

Energy is both an economic and national security issue. We support the enactment of policies to increase domestic energy production, including production on public lands, to counter market manipulation by OPEC and other nationally owned oil companies. This will reduce America’s vulnerability to energy price volatility.

We propose to shift responsibility for environmental regulation from the federal bureaucracy to the states and to transform the EPA into an independent bipartisan commission, similar to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, with structural safeguards against politicized science.

We will strictly limit congressional delegation of rule-making authority, and require that citizens be compensated for regulatory takings.

We will put an end to the legal practice known as “sue and settle”, in which environmental groups sue federal agencies whose officials are complicit in the litigation so that, with the taxpayers excluded, both parties can reach agreement behind closed doors.

We will likewise forbid the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide, something never envisioned when Congress passed the Clean Air Act.

Congress shall immediately pass universal legislation providing for a timely and orderly mechanism requiring the federal government to convey certain federally controlled public lands to states.

Information concerning a changing climate, especially projections into the long-range future, must be based on dispassionate analysis of hard data.

We reject the agendas of both the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement, which represent only the personal commitments of their signatories; no such agreement can be binding upon the United States until it is submitted to and ratified by the Senate.

We demand an immediate halt to U.S. funding for the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in accordance with the 1994 Foreign Relations Authorization Act.

Closing comment:

Climate change is at the core of the differences between the two visions for our energy future, with the Democrat platform fully committed to the CO2 hypothesis.

The Democrat platform confirms this by saying:

“Our generation must lead the fight against climate change and we applaud President Obama’s leadership in forging the historic Paris climate change agreement. We will not only meet the goals we set in Paris, we will seek to exceed them and push other countries to do the same by slashing carbon pollution and rapidly driving down emissions of potent greenhouse gases like hydrofluorocarbons.”

The entire platforms can be read by using these links.

Democrat 2016 Platform http://bit.ly/2akcEcg
Republican 2016 Platform http://bit.ly/2ayM38z

* * * * * *

Nothing to Fear explains why CO2 isn’t to be feared. Chapter 15, An Alternative Hypothesis, describes Dr. Svensmark’s hypothesis on cosmic rays.

Nothing to Fear is available from Amazon and some independent book sellers.

Link to Amazon: http://amzn.to/1miBhXy

Book Cover, Nothing to Fear

Book Cover, Nothing to Fear

* * * * * *

NOTE:

It’s easy to subscribe to articles by Donn Dears.

Go to the photo on the right side of the article where it says email subscription.

Click and enter your email address. You can unsubscribe at any time.

If you know people who would be interested in these articles please send them a link to the article and suggest they also subscribe.

© Power For USA, 2010 – 2016. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author, Donn Dears LLC, is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power For USA with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Deceitful Studies

August 5, 2016

Some organizations publish studies purporting to demonstrate why their proposals are good for America, but the studies are based on opinions masquerading as facts.

The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEE) recently published another study, quoted by the liberal media in Canada and the US, establishing that the US remained behind Germany in energy efficiency.

The ACEEE uses a methodology in their reports that include non-tangible policy issues, such as whether a government has enacted the types of legislation desired by the ACEEE.

Governments adopting these policies rank highly in ACEE studies, while countries that don’t adopt their environmental policies rank poorly.

Yet, these biased studies are used by the media to illustrate how backward the United States is in developing energy programs to cut CO2 emissions.

Germany, for example, as reported in the Canadian Globe and Mail, “Won its top position because it has set targets to reduce energy consumption 50% below the level of 2008 by 2050.”

Once again, ACEEE ranks China ahead of the United States in the ACEE’s overall measurement.

Their earlier studies have also shown the same bias against the United States. See, Calling For Government Mandates.

An interesting comparison is in the category of buildings, where China, with a score of 18, is almost tied with the United States, with a score of 18.5, for energy efficiency of buildings.

Anyone who has visited China knows that this ranking is absurd, if energy alone was the metric.

New apartment buildings in China don’t have heating or air-conditioning and lack elevators below the fifth floor. The government assumes people don’t need heating with temperatures of 40 degrees F since they can put on sweaters or jackets. People also don’t need air-conditioning with temperatures of 95 degrees F, temperatures that are not uncommon in much of China.

Interestingly, people who buy these apartments try to add heating and air-conditioning, as can be seen in this picture. They also hang out their wash on the balconies because they don’t have clothes dryers.

Air-conditioning units and clothes hanging to dry. Photo by Dears

Air-conditioning units and clothes hanging to dry. Photo by Dears

And, these new buildings are a huge improvement over buildings in rural areas that probably have little heating, and virtually no air-conditioning.

It’s also interesting to see how the United States compared with China in other areas, according to the ACEEE.

  • Water efficiency policy: China better than U.S.
  • Energy saving goals: China better than U.S.
  • Energy efficiency spending: China better than U.S.

The ACEEE uses their opinions as to what is important when it comes to energy.

Cost, reliability and availability of energy have no bearing on the ACEEE’s evaluation.

The fact that electricity costs the average German 4 to 5 times as much as the average American is of no import, according to the ACEEE.

While the results determined by the ACEEE are obviously biased and slanted toward eliminating CO2 emissions, the fact that the media promotes the results of these phony studies demonstrates how biased and uncritical the media has become.

* * * * * *

Nothing to Fear, Chapter 14, An Impossible Objective, explains why it’s impossible to cut CO2 emissions 80% without destroying America’s standard of living.

Nothing to Fear is available from Amazon and some independent book sellers.

Link to Amazon: http://amzn.to/1miBhXy

Book Cover, Nothing to Fear

Book Cover, Nothing to Fear

* * * * * *

NOTE:

It’s easy to subscribe to articles by Donn Dears.

Go to the photo on the right side of the article where it says email subscription. Click and enter your email address. You can unsubscribe at any time.

If you know people who would be interested in these articles please send them a link to the article and suggest they also subscribe.

© Power For USA, 2010 – 2016. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author, Donn Dears LLC, is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power For USA with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 447 other followers