In his January 27 “Executive Order on Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad,” US President Joseph Biden declares that his administration aims at “putting the climate crisis at the center of United States foreign policy and National Security.” //

implication, Biden’s executive orders make the release of CO2 in any corner of the world into a US national security issue. The forthcoming National Intelligence Estimate would provide the basis for using the resources of the US intelligence community and national security apparatus to enforce administration climate policies on a global scale. //

That has ominous implications. The construction of a new highway, pipeline, factory or power plant in a developing country, which might lead to increased CO2 emissions, could in principle be classified as a threat to US national security.

Depending on the case, the US administration would thereby feel justified or even compelled to stop such projects. Green imperialism thus becomes a duty of the US government. One should consider the magnitude of the interventions and conflicts which may result. //

Climate goals provide ample justification for strong interventions into the domestic politics of nations, including support for selected parties, social movements and NGOs.

Naturally, everything will be done with 100% political correctness. Moreover, Biden evidently regards it as his prerogative, in the name of saving the planet, to dictate to other nations which projects they may or may not finance and build. //

Biden has made it clear that China is the number one target of his climate-leveraged foreign policy. China has over 250 gigawatts (GW) of coal-fired power now in development, with 97 GW already under construction. The 250 GW total is roughly equivalent to the entire coal power capacity of the US, which Biden has pledged to shut down.

Tom Elliott
@tomselliott
Biden on when America might return to normal: “My hope is by this time next year” //

“I’ve been cautioned not to give an answer to that,” Biden says, again saying the quiet part out loud. Cautioned by who? Who’s telling him what to do? And shouldn’t he know that yes, obviously, one can’t give a definitive. But then his answer seems to have no connection to present reality, with him saying, “My hope is that by this time next year we’ll be back to normal or before that — my hope. But it depends upon if people continue to be smart”

The first thing I noticed upon arrival and all the way through until I handed the valet his gratuity, hopped in my truck and headed home, was that everyone there was happy. They were glad to be there, to be part of what candidate Trump had first discovered into and what President Trump had tapped into and grown to vibrant vitality. They were excited and joyful. You could tell by the ambient noise level throughout the 3 day event. The excitement was palpable. //

want to focus on this unity thing. There was a lot of talk, especially by the pundits about unity. “Can the Republican Party unify?” was the question intoned by oh-so-serious pundits and political prognosticators of every political persuasion. Just what does that mean?

Thinking of that reminded me of the movie The Princess Bride. Throughout the movie, the “bad guy,” named Vizzini is continually saying words to the effect of, that’s inconceivable! Finally, the hero, Inigo Montoya responds You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. See video clip below. //

Unify the Republican Party? I’m all for it. But I don’t think that means what the establishment thinks it means.

Stay tuned

Added Bonus: Inigo Montoya was also known as a personal networking expert. Here is a sample his simple process for meeting other professionals in his line of work.

Polite Greeting: Hello.
Name: My name is Inigo Montoya.
Relevant Personal Link: You killed my father.
Manage Expectations: Prepare to die.

Simple. Effective.

See the video below

“I’m sure there are other journalists out there who feel the same way. I found myself reading news copy that I didn’t believe was fully truthful, or only told part of the story. And I began to feel that I was contributing to the fear and division in this country by continuing on in this profession.” //

Lake told Arizona Daily Independent that the COVID pandemic was her breaking point.

“It really got difficult for me when Covid hit. I felt the stories I was reading were not fully truthful. The cancel mob’s insistence that certain Covid-related stories not be told or even whispered, while others were told over-and-over made me feel as if I was not giving a balanced view of the situation to viewers.”

First in a four-part exclusive Asia Times interview with renowned physicist and Big Bang theory critic Eric Lerner
By JONATHAN TENNENBAUM

The Big Bang is probably the most famous scientific theory since Einstein’s relativity. The Big Bang theory says that our Universe began with a gigantic explosion, about 14 billion years ago, and has been expanding and cooling down ever since.

Until relatively recently this theory has been regarded as the foundation of modern cosmology, the branch of science devoted to the study of the Universe as a whole.

But not all scientists agree with the Big Bang theory, and some even say it is completely wrong and contradicted by a growing mountain of evidence. In fact, in recent years one hears more and more talk about a “crisis of cosmology.”

I am talking now to one of the most well-known, outspoken critics of the Big Bang, the American physicist Eric J Lerner.

Nuclear energy, to start with, is ultimately not safe, and the Germans have always been particularly uneasy with it. After the nuclear accident at the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan in 2011, Chancellor Angela Merkel ordered the “Atomausstieg,” the exit from nuclear energy once and for all. Why? Because, as Ms. Merkel put it back then: “The residual risk of nuclear energy can be accepted only if one is convinced that — as far as it is humanly possible to judge — it won’t come to pass.” After Fukushima, Ms. Merkel, a trained physicist, was no longer able to believe that a nuclear disaster would not occur. That there was a catastrophe even in a high-tech country like Japan made her change her mind.

But what about the near-certain catastrophic consequences of the second evil, climate change enhanced by coal-fired plants? Ms. Merkel recognized recently that “climate change is happening faster than we had thought a couple of years ago.” At the same time, she had to admit that Germany was struggling to fulfill the promises of the Paris climate accord: Despite new hopeful figures, the targeted 40 percent reduction of carbon emissions by the end of 2020 may not be met. One could argue that knowledge about the severity of climate change has deepened since 2011 and that countries should do everything they can to shift away from fossil fuels — yet there’s no sign that Ms. Merkel might change her mind about scrapping nuclear. //

The tragedy about Germany’s energy experiment is that the country’s almost religious antinuclear attitude doesn’t leave room for advances in technology. Scientists in America, Russia and China believe that it is possible to run nuclear power plants on radioactive waste — which might solve the problem of how to store used fuel elements, one of the core arguments against nuclear. Certainly, these so-called fast breeder reactors have their dangers too. But as we transition to a completely renewable energy supply, wouldn’t they be a better alternative to coal and gas plants? //

By shutting down its entire nuclear sector in a rush, Germany loses more opportunities than dangers. It forfeits the capacity to connect to a technology that might prove the safest and most climate-friendly mankind has yet seen. At the very least, using Germany’s existing nuclear plants would make an expeditious move away from fossil fuels possible.

Is it irrational not to do so? Maybe, maybe not. But letting this chance slip away could turn out to be one of the gravest mistakes of the Merkel era.

So if Biden is cancelling mention of Seuss, when can we cancel mention of Joe Biden? We can point to all his racist remarks over the years, including his more recent remarks about “you ain’t black” if you don’t know to vote for him and about “Hispanic and African-American” people having trouble knowing how to get online to register for the Wuhan coronavirus vaccine. //

Rich Lowry
@RichLowry
Let’s definitely begin airbrushing from history the author who has brought delight to countless millions of children, and helped open the way for them to the world of reading and books.

How stupid, humorless, and disturbing

https://nypost.com/2021/03/02/biden-removes-mention-of-dr-seuss-from-read-across-america-day/?utm_source=twitter_sitebuttons&utm_medium=site%20buttons&utm_campaign=site%20buttons via @nypost
Biden removes mention of Dr. Seuss from ‘Read Across America Day’
nypost.com

Advanced designs in various development stages promise to remedy the drawbacks of conventional nuclear energy

One should bear in mind that, from 1 kilogram of enriched uranium, present-day light water reactors (LWRs) can produce the energy equivalent of roughly 150,000 kilograms of coal. A uranium-breeder reactor can derive from 1 kg of natural uranium the equivalent of over 1 million kilograms of coal. A similar ratio applies to thorium in a thorium breeder reactor. //

Could nuclear power be expanded rapidly enough to eliminate the use of fossil fuels for electricity generation in the foreseeable future? //

In a speech on national television in March 1974 French Prime Minister Pierre Messmer announced an ambitious plan to make nuclear-generated electricity the foundation of the nation’s energy system. He declared “France has not been favored by nature in energy resources…. There is almost no petroleum on our territory, we have less coal than England and Germany and much less gas than Holland…. Our great chance is electrical energy of nuclear origin…. We will give priority to electricity and in electricity to nuclear electricity.”

Following the Messmer Plan, France’s nuclear power expansion proceeded at a rapid pace. During the 1980s, 44 new nuclear power stations went on line – an average of 4 per year. Nearly all were standardized in design, with two basic types producing 900 and 1300 MW of electric power each. Standardization reduced costs greatly, and construction times for most of the plants were between 5 and 7 years.

In less than 15 years the percentage of electricity generated from nuclear plants rose from about 7% percent in 1975 to over 75% in 1990. //

The irony of the situation is that the environmentalist movement is to a significant extent responsible for the continued dependence on coal and gas power plants.

It is quite conceivable that we would have had practically CO2-free electricity today if it had not been for the intense campaigns against nuclear energy, mounted continuously for over half a century in the United States and Western Europe.

Although there are good reasons to be concerned about the safety of nuclear power plants – reasons we will discuss – the political opposition to nuclear energy has on the whole been characterized by ideology and hysteria rather than rationality.

In my view the rational response to the accidents in Chernobyl (1986) and Fukushima (2011) would have been to demand fundamental innovations in the design and operation of nuclear power plants – such as those I shall describe later – rather than attempting to block the development of nuclear energy altogether. //

Unfortunately, in the transition to commercial electricity production by nuclear reactors, most of the innovative reactor designs developed in the early period, were dropped in favor of a single basic type: the light water reactor (LWR). Here the starting point in the West was the successful US Navy program to develop reactors to power submarines. Other reactor types, such as so-called fast breeder reactors, have so far played only a marginal role.

In retrospect the fixation on LWRs as the mainstay of civilian nuclear energy, to the virtual exclusion of other types, was a mistake. The main reason was cost-cutting in the field of R&D, more than intrinsic advantages of LWR reactors. Through lack of developed alternatives, nuclear energy became stuck with the limitations of LWRs. We need to correct this.

“I will not vote to pack the courts. I think — and I will not vote to end the filibuster. Bret, this system, the Senate, this so unique body in the world, it was made to work together in a bipartisan way. And once you start breaking down those barriers, then you lose every reason that we are the institution that we are, the most deliberative body.” //

Manchin isn’t the only Democrat with this position, as he’s also joined by Arizona Senator Krysten Sinema.