Category Archives: Environment

The Great Regression, by Eric Peters

Once upon a time progress meant things got better, but under the new definition of progress, that’s not necessarily true, especially when it comes to government-favored technologies. From Eric Peters at ericpetersautos.com:

 
 
 

Volkswagen is touting the 260 mile range of its new ID.4 electric crossover, up 10 whole miles from what the EPA had previously estimated.

This means you can travel as far as 130 milesone way – before you are forced to stop for a long time in order to keep going that way. Or you can turn around and make it home – maybe. At the risk of maybe not quite making it and having to wait for a long time before you can get home again.

This is what you get for $40,000 to start, the base price of the ID.4.

Well, technically, $39,995. Gotta keep it “under “40k,” which appears to be the new benchmark for EV entry-level.

Here is what you used to be able to get from VW for $22,460 back in 2015 – which was the year before VWs like the TDI diesel-powered Jetta TDI sedan got in trouble with Uncle:

652 miles before you had to stop for a couple of minutes in order to be back on your way again.

To be fair, that was on the highway.

In city driving, the Jetta TDI could only go 449 miles – which is only just shy of twice as far as the ID.4 can go, anywhere – for just shy of twice as much.

Only in a world gone loopy could such a reversion and diminution be cause for anything other than embarrassment – and ridicule. But it is of a piece with the bizarro oh, thank you massa eructing from people who have been graciously allowed to walk around again, provided they wear a Face Diaper and provided they don’t stand too close to anyone else. Or the curious, obsequious gratefulness of restaurant owners allowed to open, provided they only serve half the people they used to be able to – while still being obliged to pay all of the rent and taxes, etc. 

It’s pathological.

That goes double-plus-good for for the car press, which in saner times would have ridiculed a car that went half as far and cost twice as much being purveyed as some sort of boon to the car-buying public.

Continue reading→

“You’d Have To Shut Down The Internet” To Ban Bitcoin, Says SEC’s Hester Peirce, by Tyler Durden

Will governments ban Bitcoin and other private cryptocurrencies? Tread carefully, it’s not clear what the outcome will be. From Tyler Durden at zerohedge.com:

Any government efforts to ban Bitcoin would be “foolish,” said Hester Peirce (aka “Crypto Mom”), a very Bitcoin-friendly commissioner at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), during a MarketWatch virtual conference earlier this week, according to Cryptoslate reporter Liam Frost.

“I think we were past that point very early on because you’d have to shut down the Internet,” Peirce said, adding, “I don’t see how you could ban it. You could certainly make the effort. It would be very hard to stop people from [trading Bitcoin]. So I think it would be a foolish thing for the government to try to do that.”

Not only that, but the government would immediately wipe out $2 trillion in net wealth – the market cap of the crypto sector – an event that would have profoundly deleveraging consequences, and since much of that wealth is now backed by debt, for example all those debt-funded purchases of bitcoin by Microstrategy, such a move by the government would immediately destabilize the all important debt market.

The statement came on the heels of Ray Dalio, a billionaire investor and founder of Bridgewater Associates, arguing that there’s “a good probability” that governments around the world would ban Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.

Dalio told Yahoo Finance:

“Every country treasures its monopoly on controlling the supply and demand. They don’t want other monies to be operating or competing, because things can get out of control. They outlawed gold, that’s why also outlawing Bitcoin is a good probability.”

However, according to Peirce, the main issue for authorities—at least when it comes to cryptocurrencies—is to find an approach to regulation that would be productive and non-restrictive at the same time. She noted:

“We’ve seen other countries take, I would say, a more productive approach. We really need to turn that around. And I’m optimistic, with a new chairman coming in with a deep knowledge of these markets, that is something we could do together—build a good regulatory framework.”

At the same time, Peirce also pointed out that she doesn’t know when—or if—a Bitcoin exchange-traded fund (ETF) will finally be approved in the U.S. Recently, we’ve seen a new wave of major investment companies, such as Fidelity Investments, SkyBridge Capital, and VanEck, filing their applications for Bitcoin ETFs with the SEC.

The regulator, however, never approved a single filing of this kind so far, which as discussed earlier, may be a good thing for not only bitcoin but the entire nascent DeFi ecosystem where hundreds of billions in very real money is now intertwined.

Continue reading→

Greenwashing The Ugly Truth: Box-Ticking ESG Investment Stupidity Exposed, by Bill Blain

The oceans and the life that inhabits them are being destroyed. From Bill Blain at MorningPorridge.com via zerohedge.com:

“Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, teach him to fish and he will destroy the planet…”

Seaspiracy is a shocking, flawed, yet critical film. It should set the market thinking about what sustainability really means, addressing how we skirt the real issues on climate change and environmental degredation. It should provide a much-needed kick up the a**e to box-ticking ESG investment stupidity.

It’s the weekend, so I am allowed to have a rant…

If you haven’t yet watched Seaspiracy, the Netflix shock documentary about the global fishing industry – then I suggest you do. It is an impact film. It might just be the most important documentary you watch this year. If you think the global environment matters, and you aren’t watching what’s happening to the oceans, then you are looking in the wrong direction.

Continue reading→

Masks Are a Ticking Time Bomb, by Joseph Mercola

Wearing masks is not only bad for you, the billions that are being worn are an environmental disaster. From Joseph Mercola at articles.mercola.com:

Story at-a-glance

  • It’s estimated that 129 billion face masks are used worldwide each month, which works out to about 3 million masks a minute
  • Not only are masks not being recycled, but their materials make them likely to persist and accumulate in the environment
  • Because masks may be directly made from microsized plastic fibers with a thickness of 1 mm to 10 mm, they may release microsized particles into the environment more readily — and faster — than larger plastic items, like plastic bags
  • Microbes from your mouth, known as oral commensals, frequently enter your lungs, where they’ve been linked to advanced stage lung cancer; wearing a mask could potentially accelerate this process
  • The “new normal” of widespread masking is affecting not only the environment but also the mental and physical health of humans

The planet may be facing a new plastic crisis, similar to the one brought on by bottled water, but this time involving discarded face masks. “Mass masking” continues to be recommended by most public health groups during the COVID-19 pandemic, despite research showing masks do not significantly reduce the incidence of infection.1

As a result, it’s estimated that 129 billion face masks are used worldwide each month, which works out to about 3 million masks a minute. Most of these are the disposable variety, made from plastic microfibers.2

Ranging in size from five millimeters (mm) to microscopic lengths, microplastics, which include microfibers, are being ingested by fish, plankton and other marine life, as well as the creatures on land that consume them (including humans3).

More than 300 million tons of plastic are produced globally annually — and that was before mask-wearing became a daily habit. Most of it ends up as waste in the environment, leading researchers from the University of Southern Denmark and Princeton University to warn that masks could quickly become “the next plastic problem.”4

Continue reading→

What Will The Western Half Of The United States Look Like During “The Second Dust Bowl”? by Michael Snyder

Historically the western US has had extended droughts, and it may be embarking on another one. From Michael Snyder at themostimportantnews.com:

Scientists have begun using the term “megadrought” to describe the multi-year drought that has been plaguing the western half of the country, and now we are being told that it looks like 2021 will be the worst year of this “megadrought” so far by a wide margin.  That is extremely troubling news, because major water reservoirs have already dropped to dangerously low levels, some farmers have been told that they will not be allowed to use any water at all this year, and the dust storms in the western U.S. are becoming so large that they can actually be seen from space.  This is a major national crisis, and it is only going to get worse.

As you can see from the latest U.S. Drought Monitor map, nearly the entire western half of the nation is experiencing some level of drought at this moment.

But even more alarming is the fact that much of that territory is currently in one of the three most serious levels of drought

A year ago, about 4% of the West was in a severe drought. Now, about 58% of the West is classified as being in a severe, extreme or exceptional drought.

As conditions just get drier and drier, many farmers have become deeply concerned about what that will mean for growing season in 2021.

Continue reading→

It Got Serious In A Hurry, by Robert Gore

He’s a joke, but nobody’s laughing.

Trump’s five years were fun. He said things that provoked outrage among all the right people, often because they were true. You could laugh at their hypocritical idiocies, hysterical posturing, and sputtering anger. To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, anyone who can watch Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow without laughing has a heart of stone. Frothing anger fueled effort after effort to depose Trump until success was realized with overblown pandemic panic, riots, and a clearly rigged election. If nothing else, Trump exposed the mendacity, arrogance, incompetence, venality, and criminality of the Corruptocracy.

Reality doesn’t invert. A corollary is that the severity of consequences from an inversion is the square of the distance between the inversion and reality. Consider the US military. It has disregarded the realities of the wars it has fought—the relative difficulty of invasion versus defense, the deadly effectiveness of guerrilla warfare and insurgency, the corruption, tyranny, and lack of domestic support for our puppets, and so on—losing every conflict since WWII, often after lengthy and in some cases ongoing engagements.

The current crop of corruptocrats have introduced yet another inversion in the military, the woke inversion. The military will now be graded on its commitment to combat-irrelevant factors: the racial, ethnic, gender, sexual preferences and political creeds of its forces, and their professed fealty to regnant political dogma. In other words, “diversity” in everything but thought.

This inversion is huge and given the distance squared corollary, it will soon render the armed forces incapable of fighting even a war for the protection of the United States proper. Given its ineptitude fighting offensive wars, the military will be completely useless. The defense budget, however, will grow ever more bloated.

Amazon Paperback Link

Kindle Ebook Link

Joe Biden aspired to mediocrity in his prime and it’s been downhill ever since. As for Kamala Harris: some are born hacks, some achieve hackness, and some have hackness thrust upon them. She’s all three. They and their string-pullers have taken things from fun to serious—deadly serious—in a little over two months.

Continue reading

Undeniable fact: “Carbon Dioxide” is NOT a “pollutant” but a Giver of Life, by Dr. Klaus L.E. Kaiser

With all the measures out there against carbon dioxide and global warming, maybe we can get rid of carbon dioxide entirely, and maybe humanity as well. From Dr. Klaus L.E. Kaiser at iceagenow.info:

Open Letter to the Canadian Prime Minister from chemist Dr. Klaus L.E. Kaiser.

Dear Prime Minister,

Presumably, you’ve welcomed the Supreme Court’s ruling on the “carbon tax”.

It never fails to amaze me how “climate change” is being equated with “carbon dioxide” (commonly referred to simply as “carbon”) or even termed “carbon pollution.”  In fact, carbon dioxide (chemical symbol “CO2”) is the substance that is absolutely vital for all life on Earth!

The ruling only mentions “carbon” and “pollution.” That’s simply more misunderstanding, confusion, and “politics.”

Yes, “climate change” has been going on (up and down) ever since this planet came into existence. Just 22,000 years ago, the whole eastern part of Canada was covered with a 1 to 3 km thick sheet of ice. Since then, over a period of around 15,000 years, it just melted away with natural “climate change.”

Does any sane person really think it was because of some camp-fires by the few earthlings then inhabiting the continents? And, why should that natural process have stopped once the ice was gone? Furthermore, analyses of deep ice core samples showed that the carbon dioxide rose well after the ice began melting, with a time lag of nearly 1000 years.

Continue reading→

Better Than Banning, by Eric Peters

Governments bent on denying things to their subjects often find that it’s easier to make ownership prohibitively expensive rather than an outright ban. From Eric Peters at ericpetersautos.com:

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Bans are problematic when the thing being targeted is already in wide circulation. Gun being an obvious example. They can decree no new sales but what about the ones already sold – already possessed – by literally millions of people?

Door-to-door confiscation risks physical resistance and is logistically difficult regardless. It is much easier and equally effective to not ban possession of guns outright but rather to require that those who wish to continue continue possessing them pay for the privilege.

That they pay a lot for it. Not just once, either.

An annual registration fee, for instance. With the threat of criminal repercussions for failure to pay, if discovered (as during a “routine” traffic stop, for instance).

Also make ammunition expensive – as via heavy taxes. Not illegal, per se. Just generally unaffordable.

Presto! You have banned without actually banning.   

This method will likely be applied to cars that aren’t electric cars and – most particularly – cars that are not modern cars; i.e., those without built-in spyware (marketed as “apps” and “concierge services”) which present the threat – to the electric car agenda – of  being an alternative to them.

The electric car agenda is about more than just electric cars. It is about connected carsand electric cars are the apotheosis of connectedness.

The source of motive power is almost incidental to the fact that the powers-that-be can remotely control a connected electric car. Its range, for example, can be increased over-the-wire via a “software update.” It ought to be obvious what this implies. If the range can be extended, it can also be reduced.

To zero.

Continue reading→

California’s Deciders, by Eric Peters

Increasingly, California’s politicians believe that whatever they decide is good for California should be the law of the entire land. From Eric Peters at ericpetersautos.com:

California’s deciders want to ban everyone’s cars. If we’re talking about cars that aren’t – cough –  “zero emissions” electric cars.

The state’s Chief Decider – Gauleiter und OberGesundheitsFuhrer Gavin Newsome – has already decreed via “executive order” that only electric cars shall be legal for sale within the borders of what was once the Golden State by 2035.

Now, two of the state’s national-level Deciders – Senators Alex Padilla and Dianne Feinstein – are urging the ban on other-than-electric cars be applied nationally.

“We believe the national baseline should, at an absolute minimum, be built around the technical lead set by companies that voluntarily advanced their agreements with California,” says Padilla, who replaced Kamala Harris in the Senate. “California and other states need a strong federal partner.”

Ein Volk! Ein Reich! Ein Car!

The electric car.

The vehicle for this will not be marketed as a ban outright, however. Instead, it is being marketed as the “rewriting of emissions rules,” which were  purportedly “slashed” under the regime of the villainous Orange Man. This is a piece of rhetoric up there with the marketing of the “Patriot” Act and – earlier precedent – The Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and the Reich.

Orange Man did not “slash” any “emissions” regulations. What he did was dial back the scheduled increase in federal MPG mandatory minimums, an altogether different thing being used to systematically but oleaginously shadow ban gas and diesel-powered cars without formally banning them.

The federal apparat has been issuing “executive orders” – i.e., regulatory edicts – since the 1970s regarding how many miles per gallon every car (and truck) sold in America must go else its manufacturer receives a “fine” – that is to say, is extorted – as punishment for not having met whatever the standard is. These fines are then factored into the sticker price of the offending new car, thereby making it more expensive and thus progressively less and less affordable.

Continue reading→

“Environmentally Friendly”, by Eric Peters

Environmentally friendly cars are not all that friendly when you look at the plastic and all the extra weight modern cars carry in the name of safety. From Eric Peters at ericpetersautos.com:

The American driver is being nudged into electric cars like the Tesla and most Americans are already driving cars like the Tesla in that almost all cars made over the past roughly 25 years or so emulate the Tesla via the use of plastic extensively – and specifically, for parts of the car that, prior to about 25 years ago, were generally made of steel.

The front and rear “clips,” for instance – which are also literally that in that they clip on to the rest of the car’s body and for that reason are easily torn off the car. It is why it’s a common sight to see a car with its entire front (or rear) clip ripped away after what, in past years, would have been a minor fender-bender. One that could be easily fixed as well as an accident easily driven-away-from. But you can’t drive away from an accident that’s left you without a front or rear clip – which clips also often house the car’s plastic headlights and turn signals, among other things.

These clips are more disposable than repairable – and that brings us to the “environmentally friendly” object of this discussion.

Plastics are usually made of  . . . wait for it . . . oil.

How much oil is used to make the millions of plastic front and rear clips (and other plastic parts that used to be made of things like glass, such as the modern car’s headlight assemblies, as well as the parts of the front clip that used to be made of various metals, such as the grill and no-longer-extant external bumpers) is hard to know for sure – but one can be certain it is great deal more than used to be used when plastic wasn’t used for these parts of the car.

Continue reading→