It Is Necessary To Destroy The Environment To Save It

By Roger Caiazza, Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York

Oliver McPherson-Smith from the American Consumer Institute writes that “To fight climate change, President Biden needs to retire NEPA”.  The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires Federal agencies to assess the environmental effects of proposed major Federal actions prior to making decisions.  McPherson-Smith argues that “Biden needs to take the climate fight to NEPA and its byzantine review process.”  The parallel between the infamous Vietnam War era quotation “It became necessary to destroy the town to save it” and this argument was too tempting to not comment.

NEPA ensures that any actions by Federal agencies consider significant environmental consequences through a proscribed environmental assessment procedure.  Section 102 of NEPA establishes procedural requirements, applying that national policy to proposals for major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment by requiring Federal agencies to prepare a detailed statement on: (1) the environmental impact of the proposed action; (2) any adverse effects that cannot be avoided; (3) alternatives to the proposed action; (4) the relationship between local short-term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity; and (5) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that would be involved in the proposed action. 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C). It has spawned similar requirements at many jurisdictions and certainly can be characterized as a “byzantine” process.  On the other hand, environmental quality has certainly improved since the law was signed in 1970.

McPherson-Smith’s background shows no apparent relevant background with NEPA.  He “writes about economic policy for the American Consumer Institute. He received his Bachelor’s degree in Land Economy from the University of Cambridge, before working as a television journalist in the Middle East and Africa. Oliver received his Master’s degree in Middle Eastern Studies from Harvard University and is currently completing a DPhil in Politics at the University of Oxford.”

Mcpherson-Smith writes:

“The 2035 carbon pollution-free electricity target is just one heady aspiration within Biden’s remarkably ambitious climate agenda. By teaching miners to code, building charging stations for Tesla owners, and increasing the number of union membership subscriptions, Biden’s team are sparing no creativity to reshape America, while trying to make the economy “net-zero” by 2050 along the way.”

“But the administration’s renewable ambitions are on a collision course with the regulatory roadblocks of reality, particularly due to the bureaucratic process associated with the National Environmental Policy Act. Enacted in 1970, NEPA introduced the basic premise that federal agencies must take note of how their actions affect the environment. These actions include issuing grants, loans, and permits to private companies, triggering the need for an environmental assessment (EA) or a longer environmental impact statement (EIS).”

“However, no good deed goes unpunished. Despite the legislation’s basic, common-sense agenda, NEPA has become a convenient tool for opponents of infrastructural expansion to stall development through lengthy and expensive court cases. Given the risk of drawn-out litigation, EAs and EISs have become mammoth tasks that can take years upon years to complete. For example, EISs that were published in 2018 were already 4.9 years in the making.”

New York’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA) is a test bed for national GHG emission reduction programs.  Ever the leader in virtue signaling New York has a permitting process for major electric generating facilities that makes the NEPA requirements pale in comparison.  Once it became clear that renewable projects would have to endure that process, Governor Cuomo stuck the Accelerated Renewable Energy Growth and Community Benefit Act (AREGCBA) into the FY2020-2021 state budget at the height of the uncertainty regarding the COVID-19 pandemic.  AREGCBA is best described by a knowledgeable friend as “Once again the idiots in Albany have proven they are willing to dive from the high board without looking to see if there is any water in the pool.”  The end result is that New York now has a Office of Renewable Energy Siting that will “Streamline and expedite the siting of major renewable energy projects and associated transmission facilities to help achieve the State’s clean energy and climate goals, while maintaining the State’s strong environmental and public participation standards”.   Cynics like me see this as another state bureaucracy that will run roughshod over local concerns about renewable development in their communities.

As part of the CLCPA process to meet the 2030 target of a 40% reduction of GHG emissions from 1990 levels, seven advisory panels have submitted their enabling strategies to the Climate Action Council.  I have been reviewing and commenting on these strategies and want to highlight one particular inconsistency.  The Agriculture and Forestry panel recommended maintaining current farmland and forests levels as a carbon sequestration strategy.  The Land Use and Local Government panel recommended incentives for clean energy siting development without acknowledging the space requirements of diffuse solar and wind energy.  As a result, there is a major inconsistency between the agriculture and forestry enabling strategy to minizine the loss of farmlands and forests versus the land use planning strategy that does not acknowledge the conflicting need to develop those areas for renewable energy. 

The fact is that in order to transition the electric energy system to wind and solar resources will require enormous numbers of turbines and panels.  New York’s current wind capacity is just under 2,000 MW of on-shore wind and no off-shore wind.  A recent study of the resources necessary for the New York transition estimated 35,200 MW of on-shore wind and 21,063 MW of off-shore wind.  Comparing the space necessary for just the wind turbines needed to the amount of agricultural land suggests that if all the wind turbines were sited on agricultural land it would take up over half.  There is no way that this won’t be a significant land use issue.

The environmental problem is cumulative environmental impacts.  In New York one wind farm environmental impact analysis estimated that 85 bald eagles would be killed at a 124 MW wind facility over the 30-year lifetime of the project.  Extrapolating that to the total number of turbines needed comes up with an estimate of hundreds of bald eagles per year.  Keep in mind that this is just the direct environmental cost.  That does not include the impacts of rare earth metal mining for the materials needed for the turbines or construction impacts of the sprawling wind facilities.

The innumerate of society that imagine the transition to Biden’s 2035 carbon pollution-free electricity target will have such insignificant environmental impacts that they should be ignored because of the existential threat of climate change are wrong on many levels.  Every time we see this baloney, we all need to speak up and say check the numbers.  Otherwise, we could see the environment destroyed to save it from a non-existent threat.

4.7 14 votes
Article Rating
51 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
May 25, 2021 6:10 pm

I do feel considerable schadenfreude at an apparent green opposing NEPA, or really, the executive order under Carter establishing procedure under the law. As the major intent of the Carter era rules was a successful effort to make nuclear power and large scale hydro very, very difficult to build, a green opposing the deliberately extended review procedure is precious. Karma, anyone?

Duane
Reply to  Tom Halla
May 26, 2021 8:52 am

This coordinated attack on NEPA reminds me of that famous scene in Treasure of the Sierra Madre, when the banditos show up and are challenged as to their authority, the leader, “Gold Hat”, played by Alfonso Bedoya replied:

 “Badges? We ain’t got no badges. We don’t need no badges! I don’t have to show you any stinkin’ badges!”

In other words, authority is conveyed by power, not by legality, when it suits the perps.

Don Thompson
Reply to  Tom Halla
May 26, 2021 9:45 am

Scadenfreude, indeed. Dontcha know that regulations that impede regulators are bad, but regulations that impede forestry, farming, fishing, mining, oil drilling, pipelines, or manufacturing are enlightened? Can’t have too much consuming goin’ or enjoyment on out there.

spangled drongo
May 25, 2021 6:20 pm

Surely this is an issue involving the integrity of science?

So why aren’t our great halls of learning screaming their heads off?

dk_
Reply to  spangled drongo
May 25, 2021 6:51 pm

Both arguably journalists with different degrees of experience and training. Look up MacPherson-Smith and Caiazza’s bios (probably self-written). I don’t know why they seem to disagree. I could make an argument that neither has much of anything to do with science, nor academia.

Last edited 20 days ago by dk_
Ken Irwin
Reply to  dk_
May 26, 2021 12:06 am

Academia no longer has anything to do with science!

dk_
Reply to  spangled drongo
May 25, 2021 7:00 pm

Seconds: I also wouldn’t characterize either Caiazza or ACI as totally green. Both seem to be riding the fence. Luke-warmunists?

dk_
May 25, 2021 6:29 pm

I looked at a couple of the links, this has the feel of a friendly fire incident. Author blogger Caiazza almost disparages editorialist MacPherson-Smith’s education at Cambridge, Harvard, and Oxford (such disparagement being a really ballsey move IMO), as well as his work experience and publisher, but then almost seems to be in violent agreement with Smith’s overall aim as well as that of the publisher. I don’t understand Caiazza’s defense of NEPA, and find myself almost agreeing with Smith. Perhaps Caiazza sees some good in NEPA, but is really good about hiding it. Caiazza is quite good at criticising NY and Gov. “Killer” Cuomo’s policies, and I tend to agree with him on those. Not sure what the disconnect is here, but I’m sure both parties could articulate their positions better. Until I see or understand a reasoned disagreement, I don’t believe either side is right on this one.

Reply to  dk_
May 25, 2021 7:27 pm

Sorry I was not articulate. Tom Halla nailed where I am coming from – a green opposing environmental review. If you really care about the environment then you follow all the rules to make sure that you are not having unacceptable environmental impacts. NEPA is a pain in the neck but it works. New York picks and chooses which rules to follow for renewable development but forces fossil fueled power plants to go through every excruciating detail and requirement. All the projects I worked on required total compliance. Frustrating yes, but it was the cost of doing business. Now the so-called environmentalists want to avoid doing that work despite real environmental impacts. The hypocrisy is overwhelming.

By the way I have no doubt the McPherson-Smith has a great education but nothing suggests that he had any courses related to environmental science and permitting. Anyone can go to a great university and still be ignorant on particular issues.

dk_
Reply to  Roger Caiazza
May 25, 2021 8:09 pm

Roger,

Thank you for an unexpected and understandable clarification. Much appreciated.

If I did it, it would be ballsey either way. If you deny that term, okay.

A quick read/scan of other McPherson-Smith articles and titles gives me a mixed picture if he’s on one side or another of environmental issues. I thought in addressing a public agency, he might have been drawing on his current doctoral study of politics. I would call it political science, but he describes it at ACI as you do.

I’ll re-read the piece in light of your clarification, perhaps I will get a better understanding overall.

I think that I might have been disparaging in my other comments. After your clarification, your position is also much clearer.

Thanks again.

Last edited 20 days ago by dk_
hiskorr
Reply to  dk_
May 26, 2021 8:12 am

I was quite pleased when my son’s university dropped his major of “Political Science” and called it what it was: “Politics” LOL

tonyb
Editor
Reply to  Roger Caiazza
May 26, 2021 1:09 am

You don’t save the environment by trashing the countryside. It is a great shame that ‘Climate ‘Change’ And concern for the “Environment” have become so thoroughly joined as undoubtedly we need to be much more careful of the environment and most of us would enjoy the benefits that would bring..

Seems unless you support the climate change zealots however you are automatically assumed to want to destroy the planet

tonyb

chickenhawk
May 25, 2021 6:39 pm

Environmentalists, aren’t they wonderful…

Kill the Birds and Destroy the Forest…all to save the world

May 25, 2021 7:13 pm

Climate Alarmists want to save the environment by destroying it, the Democrats and Socialists want to save the economy by destroying it and Antifa and the Democrats want to save society by destroying it. These are all examples of self-hate determining actions.

Richard Page
Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
May 26, 2021 5:05 am

Some people just want to sit back and watch the world burn.

Drake
Reply to  Richard Page
May 26, 2021 7:56 am

True enough. Many watch NASCAR, not to see cars run an oval on a continuous left hand turn, but for the crashes.

That being said, all groups mentioned by Nicholas are actively working toward reaching their goals. No sitting back and watching for them. Look at the dems in congress. 50 Senate votes and they are pushing for everything they thought they would have by now if Hillbillery won in 2016 with them winning the House and Senate and filling the SCOTUS with activists leftists. They are SOOOOO frustrated they can’t stand it. Hopefully their overreach will cost them BIGLY next elections.

I know religion is pretty much off topic on this site, but how can anyone explain TRUMP! coming down that escalator and running the table to the Presidency at just the time he was NEEDED to stop all that the dems would have done over the last 4 years. They would have institutionalized their control of elections, look at HB 1, and it would have taken an armed revolution to stop the communist takeover of the US government. By this time they would be following the path of all dictatorial regimes out of democracy based constitutions, revising the constitution to suit their never ending nee for power and control. This being a republic and requiring the support of the states would be a minor roadblock to their goals. The SCOTUS of leftists would just decide a national referendum would be good enough, and that would be that.

So was it just plain luck? Or was divine providence involved?

CD in Wisconsin
May 25, 2021 7:52 pm

“In New York one wind farm environmental impact analysis estimated that 85 bald eagles would be killed at a 124 MW wind facility over the 30-year lifetime of the project. Extrapolating that to the total number of turbines needed comes up with an estimate of hundreds of bald eagles per year.”

************

I say this one more time: KILL WIND TURBINES, NOT AVIAN WILDLIFE.

Damn hypocrites.

StephenP
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
May 25, 2021 11:41 pm

At the rate suggested you will soon run out of bald eagles.

saveenergy
Reply to  StephenP
May 26, 2021 12:08 am

Could we save the bald eagles by fitting them with wigs ??
asking for a friend

Richard Page
Reply to  saveenergy
May 26, 2021 5:06 am

Helmets and body armour might work better?

Sommer
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
May 27, 2021 4:25 pm


Felling of 90 Mitsubishi 1000A Wind Turbines – Controlled Demolition, Inc

markl
May 25, 2021 8:05 pm

In order to “build back better” you have to destroy everything first. Why are people so conflicted about this narrative?

PCman999
May 25, 2021 9:11 pm

“By teaching miners to code
“Despite the legislation’s basic, common-sense agenda”

Mcpherson-Smith forgot the /sarc tag!

Environmentalists upset with environmental protection laws?! “Hoist ed on their own petard”!

Yes: KARMA!

Last edited 20 days ago by PCman999
Joel O'Bryan
May 25, 2021 9:28 pm

So once again we have a environmental Marxist clamoring for a totalitarian Tyrant US President. Oliver McPherson-Smith, not even a US citizen, wants Dementia Joe Biden to ignore federal statute in executing this action (ignore NEPA) thus ignoring his Constitutional duties to faithfully carry out the laws and Constitution and by those appointed under him.

What’s really amusing is that the outside Leftists actually think Dementia Joe is in charge of anything, except may be his meal menu and his Depends changings.

Climate believer
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
May 25, 2021 10:48 pm

It’s bad now, but god help us all when the wicked Witch of the West becomes president.

Drake
Reply to  Climate believer
May 26, 2021 8:01 am

That cackle of a laugh, yes, good analogy.

Vincent Causey
May 25, 2021 11:28 pm

This is the point that needs to be made to “environmentalists” – it’s the only way we can get through to them, particularly with regard to the mining, manufacture and disposal of these monstrosities.

tonyb
Editor
May 26, 2021 1:16 am

AS regards ‘rare earth mining’ with regards to Turbines and solar panels

Not only do they ruin the very view tourists and residents may cherish, but energy out put is only approximately a quarter of that stated on the nameplate, so there are huge reliability and cost effectiveness issues.

However, worst of all is that the raw materials needed to create them are often mined and processed in the most appalling conditions by virtual child slave labour, using materials of which there is simply not enough to meet growing demand.
 
“Today, six of the world’s seven largest solar-panel makers are Chinese, and the seventh—Canadian Solar—has such a large presence in China that it’s planning to list on a stock market there……” As Politico recently reported, most PV cells originate in the region that has gained worldwide infamy for Chinese government violations of Uyghurs’ human rights.” So not sustainable, cost effective, nor socially or environmentally friendly. Does the word “Green,’ trump all these negative factors?
 
Hopefully those promoting these intermittent sources of power generation will actually read up on how they are made and the minimal contribution they make to energy, especially when most needed, during winter nights. Or does the ‘word ‘Green’ trump every other consideration?

tonyb

Drake
Reply to  tonyb
May 26, 2021 8:18 am

To your last question, YES. I know of a friend ho went crazy for the Ford ECOBoost engine, cause ECO! I ran into a guy smoking a cig leaning on his ford PU while traveling across the country doing my part to support the oil companies. I asked him about his truck. It was new, but did not have the ECO on the side. He told me he had one of those but he traded it in on a good old reliable V8 instead of the ECOBoost V6 with turbos and all that crap. He said he gets about the same mileage and the V8 pulls as well without working so hard.

That friend had the first ECOBoost with one turbo, but traded it in for one with TWO turbos so she could pull her boat. The V8 would have done the job just fine for less, but not ECO! enough. Yes she voted for Hillbillary and Joe.

She rented a house from me for a couple of years about 10 years ago. When she moved out and I was preparing it for the new tenant, she left it in excellent shape but I had to change out about every lamp in the place. She had replaced all the incandescent lamps with compact fluorescent lamps. Now that is a real ecowarrior.

And of course I followed all the rules for disposal of those mercury filled environmental disasters. Or I might have just thrown them in the trash to go to the landfill.

Peta of Newark
May 26, 2021 3:47 am

Hang on a minute – are me/you/we/ <insert alphabettispaghetti> saving ‘The Environment‘ or ‘The Climate
There isn’t a tacit admission that ‘Environment’ has something to do with ‘Climate’

Interesting, as Spock would say – Which came first – does climate cause environment or vice-versa?

Do deserts, with their particular climates, just spontaneously appear, And for no other reason than ‘because the climate changed’

It does leave wide-open (beg the question) of “Where did all the plants, life and greenery come from?
Surely Shirley, Earth actually started as a perfect complete desert 4 and 5 billion years ago.
Thus, desert would be the default condition and we’re then left wondering what sort of (anti) Climate Change brought about the greenery?

Think about it.

Meanwhile, feel perfectly free to hate my guts as a tree hugging eco-loo-warrior when, I assert that ploughs, cultivators, paddy fielding, forest and other burning plus all variations on tillage tools are destroying the environment – thus destroying climate.
Tillage tools to include nitrogenous fertiliser and not least: Roundup ##

Why would I say that?
All that tillage and fake fertiliser is required to grow annual plants and crops.
Because only the annuals have the inbuilt genetic urge/drive to produce large amounts of viable seeds (what we eat) in a single growing season.
We depend on that, especially if we want diabetes, obesity, heart disease and dementia which we patently do – as a clear signal of ‘never betterness’
Our Mileages May Vary

So why don’t we grow perennial plants for our food supply and save all that digging, burning, tilling, drowning, poisoning and fertilising?

Simples, they don’t have the yield.
The perennials are much more laid back and, if you really want A Measure of ‘climate’, perennial plants are surely your gauge. They are exquisitely sensitive to ‘climate’

As French wine growers discovered recently ***
Aw, non non non Monsieur, Il fait Le Bad Weather qui’ll est destroyed notre vino

But we humans are sooooo clever, we keep telling ourselves so it must be true, why don’t we engineer perennial plants with the yields of the annuals.
More obvious than a really obvious thing yet patently impossible to achieve.

Do you think that maybe ‘Someone is trying to tell us something?

## Remove Roundup from any farm that uses it, make no other changes, and 3 or 4 years later the farmer will be exclaiming how he is growing the same amount of ‘stuff’ but with only 70% of the fertiliser he used to buy

*** A significant indicator of the Roman Warm Period was/is/seemingly the fact that the Romans grew grapes and made wine as far North as York.
OK…
Where I am is about 40 miles South of York and I have (inherited, came with the garden) a monstrous grape-vine plant/tree/triffid/thing.

It grows massive amounts of fruit.
(Or it did until I pruned it, it was in the roof of my house and just everywhere)
Maybe it didn’t grow nice fat seedless ‘table grapes’ – but what it did grow in epic profusion were basically, oversize blackcurrants.
Very juicy. Somewhat acidic but containing masses of sugar. Lots of seeds too.
From experience, I know that blackcurrants make some of the easiest to make (3 weeks start to finish) and most intoxicating ‘wine’ you ever wished to meet.

I call BS on the Roman Warm Period – apart from the fact that The Romans themselves created it, by desertifying all the lands around the Mediterranean. +++ (using Greek slaves as tillage tools)
Bit like what we’re doing right now except with tractors as our ‘slaves’
That’s why Rome ended up importing grain from West Africa and olive oil from Spain

+++ Apart from Syria & Lebanon – the Phoenicians trashed those places 1,000 years earlier.
Using sheep and goats. Strangely enough, Syria being where sheep, as we know and (some of us) love, actually originated

AleaJactaEst
Reply to  Peta of Newark
May 26, 2021 4:33 am

PoN – you’d have not wanted to be on Earth’s surface any time before 300Ma and even then, you’re likely to have been at the bottom of the foodchain.

Humankind is at the bleeding edge of life on Earth, and Boy, is it fun (except for dealing with headfake Progressives)

griff
May 26, 2021 3:52 am

I’d give this writer more credit if he could show all the articles he wrote about how the Trump administration was damaging the natural environment, by cutting regulations, hampering federal agencies and opening up federal land to exploitation by mining, etc…

I can’t believe a few solar farms on parts of the desert are somehow ‘wrong’ but an expansion in mining in similar areas is OK

Drake
Reply to  griff
May 26, 2021 10:11 am

Please give your links and references to all the environmental damage caused by TRUMP’S! roll back of environmental regulations.

I know you have none, there are none. BTW, anything TRUMP! would have opened up to exploration would just have returned the regulations to what they were before Obama’s leftist loons began their eco-excesses.

Unlike where you live, where EVERY piece of land has been used for centuries, the US still has vast areas of underdeveloped natural resources. Those on “public” land are owned by all Americans. They should be used to benefit ALL Americans. Not locked away for no benefit to this country.

Being from a Monarchy, I can understand why you think differently. The KING owns EVERYTHING, and the serfdom get only what the Monarch allows. I am sure you, as does the American Democrat party, agree with this premise. I do not.

To quote the US constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Note the first phrase: “WE THE PEOPLE”. Not WE THE GOVERNMENT. Not WE THE MONARCH.

Also note: SECURE THE BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY, something ALL of the countries still part of your monarchy DID NOT DO with respect to the covid farce. Someone here posted that you brits can’t travel X far from your home without risking arrest, even to today? some liberty for you. And you want to use that power to force everyone else to do what you think is best based on your CAGW religion.

The fact that someone like you exists scares the hell out of me. No one can be that stupid, ignorant and evil, can they?

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  griff
May 26, 2021 10:29 am

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/09/19/solar-panels-generate-mountains-of-waste/

“Ms. Folk admits that sustainability requires proper e-waste management. Yet she laments, “Solar presents a particular problem. There is growing evidence that broken panels release toxic pollutants … [and] increasing concern regarding what happens with these materials when they are no longer viable, especially since they are difficult to recycle.””

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/03/29/politico-fears-most-rooftop-solar-panels-manufactured-by-chinese-muslim-slaves/

“Panels include components produced in the Chinese region of Xinjiang, where there are concerns about forced labor camps for Muslim minorities, including Uighurs.”

There are many more articles about the problems with solar panels Griffy-poo, but I think you get the idea. In addition Griffy-poo, are you aware that the silicon for solar panels needs coking coal as one of its input ingredients?

Your comment above sounds more political than anything else. It doesn’t matter how much you hate Trump, because your hate and political belief systems do not make the problems/issues with solar (and wind) energy go away. Nuclear is the only technology that will displace your hated fossil fuels. If you can’t handle that, you are at a dead end with no place to go.

“It is better to be thought a fool rather than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.”

Sunsettommy
Editor
Reply to  griff
May 26, 2021 3:03 pm

I don’t think you read the article at all since your attack on Trump isn’t the point of the article.

Here is the very first paragraph you didn’t read:

Oliver McPherson-Smith from the American Consumer Institute writes that “To fight climate change, President Biden needs to retire NEPA”. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires Federal agencies to assess the environmental effects of proposed major Federal actions prior to making decisions. McPherson-Smith argues that “Biden needs to take the climate fight to NEPA and its byzantine review process.” The parallel between the infamous Vietnam War era quotation “It became necessary to destroy the town to save it” and this argument was too tempting to not comment.

Try reading and thinking on the articles you reply to first, then you won’t make people think you trolling so openly.

Your drive by comments have grown stale, maybe you can do better next time?

fretslider
May 26, 2021 4:09 am

It Is Necessary To Destroy The Environment To Save It

This principle is best seen in the example provided by second technician Arnold J Rimmer of the mining ship, Red Dwarf in the episode ‘Meltdown’ (Series IV Ep 6)

Where the aforementioned hero declares victory over fascist dictators despite the fact that both armies were wiped out.

Joseph Zorzin
May 26, 2021 4:12 am

Very tiny Massachusetts with 6 million people will have to destroy several hundred thousand acres of forest to install solar “farms” to arrive at net zero by 2050.

Mr.
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
May 26, 2021 9:02 am

Sounds like they’re aiming for net zero IQ there Joseph.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Mr.
May 26, 2021 4:43 pm

There is virtually zero debate in MA on the state aiming for net zero. Very few people in MA are not believers in impending climate catastrophe. I feel like an atheist in Mecca. It is a one party state like no other in America.

Joseph Zorzin
May 26, 2021 4:19 am

Meanwhile, “Clean electricity standard, key to climate fight, awaits definition”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/clean-electricity-standard-key-to-climate-fight-awaits-definition/ar-AAKoKO3?ocid=Peregrine

“Tucked in the Biden administration’s public works proposal is a requirement that could remold the country’s electricity network, decarbonize the grid and wind up as one of the most dramatic steps to address climate change the U.S. has taken. But the administration has offered scant information on how its proposal for a so-called clean electricity standard would work, leaving it to Congress to fill in the details.”

As if Congress is capable of such a task.

Beta Blocker
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
May 26, 2021 8:50 am

Joseph, please see my extended response below. It explains why I think the Biden administration is laying the groundwork for blaming the Congress when it becomes clear that Biden’s own highly ambitious climate action goals cannot be met without imposing significant personal and economic sacrifice on America’s voting public.

Last edited 19 days ago by Beta Blocker
Bruce Cobb
May 26, 2021 4:42 am

It appears that “Clean Energy” has a dirty secret. Or lots of them. In order to love “Clean Energy” you have to hate humanity as well as the environment. Interesting juxtaposition.

Drake
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
May 26, 2021 8:28 am

“Interesting juxtaposition”

Only partially so. “Environmentalists” have always hated humanity. It is just the new god of their religion, CLIMATE CHANGE, required new sacrifices.

Owen
May 26, 2021 4:58 am

I’m sure most of the readers of this blog know about the Manhattan contrarian blog. He does a bang up job of really digging into the numbers needed to implement the psycho control freak pipe dreams.

Drake
Reply to  Owen
May 26, 2021 8:29 am

His posts are regularly reposted here. Thanks CTM.

Walter Sobchak
May 26, 2021 8:04 am

The only thing that NEPA does is to transfer power to a coterie of lawyers and judges. It certainly has nothing to do with the environment. By all means get rid of it.

Beta Blocker
May 26, 2021 8:29 am

Referring back to the comment Joseph Zorzin offers above in reference to this MSN article, “Clean electricity standard, key to climate fight, awaits definition” Mr. Zorzin says this:

 “Tucked in the Biden administration’s public works proposal is a requirement that could remold the country’s electricity network, decarbonize the grid and wind up as one of the most dramatic steps to address climate change the U.S. has taken. But the administration has offered scant information on how its proposal for a so-called clean electricity standard would work, leaving it to Congress to fill in the details.”

As if Congress is capable of such a task.

The MSN article lays out the conflicts which arise from pitting the competing agendas of the various climate activist groups against each other when making the difficult decision as to which agendas get priority over the others. 

Historically, the difficult task of sorting out competing policy agendas has been given to the president and to the various agencies inside the Executive Branch. The Congress establishes a starting point in law and in the federal budget, but the day-to-day work of managing policy and its implementation lies with the president.  

One of the more successful of the historical outcomes of giving the president and the Executive Branch the responsibility for day-to-day management of policy is the great reduction of air and water pollution in the US over the last fifty years. For all its faults, and there are many, NEPA has done the job of doing what the US voting public wanted done in the area of environmental protection.

What about the Biden Administration’s climate action plan?

It is impossible to reach a 50% reduction in our GHG emissions by 2030 without imposing stringent energy conservation measures on the average Joe and Jane American citizen on Main Street. The Congress will not impose those measures directly through new legislation. But on the other hand, the Congress doesn’t need to, because it has already granted all the necessary authorities to the president and to the Executive Branch.

What is it we are seeing here?

By not offering a clearly enunciated plan for reaching 50% by 2030, a plan which guarantees success, the Biden administration is laying the groundwork for blaming the Congress when it becomes clear that their own highly ambitious climate action goals cannot be met without imposing significant personal and economic sacrifice on America’s voting public.

David Wojick
May 26, 2021 12:44 pm

The good news is I doubt NEPA can be abrogated, so the greens are hoist on their own petard. They wanted to stop development and now they want to rebuild the power infrastructure but cannot. All off shore wind requires a federal license. Onshre wind and solar may require NEPA review too, maybe just because of the federal tax credits. This alone might make the Biden plan toast. A good research question.

The irony is delicious.

David Wojick
May 26, 2021 12:46 pm

One technical point. Wind farms on ag land normally do not change its use. You only lose the part actually occupied by the towers.

ResourceGuy
May 26, 2021 1:42 pm

How do I get plugged back into the CCP Matrix? I don’t want to remember anything and I want to be someone famous like a Hollywood actor or a climate activist.

goracle
May 26, 2021 7:38 pm

just like the greenies saying “To fight climate change, President Biden needs to retire NEPA” indicates it’s not about the environment but instead all about power and control, former pres Bush saying “We’ve got to give up our free market principles to save the free market” indicated he wasn’t a conservative or that it wasn’t about free market principles but instead about power and control… unfortunately, all democrats and at least 80% of republicans are about power and control…we’re screwed.

%d bloggers like this: