Happy New Year from Lyford Cay! I can’t imagine being anywhere else but here—away from border closures and shuttered shops. We are proving that there is life during Covid. Common sense would tell us that commercial flights and large resorts are a recipe for shutdown. Here… we wisely have none of that.
After big fireworks last night we ended up dancing on the beach, but it was mostly the guests of residents who don’t know the way of things here and stayed out late. That’s the thing with the non-residents… even if they weren’t frightfully easy to spot, one can always sense them nervously tugging at their pockets for vibrating cell phones that are a big no-no in this club and so many others that they obviously haven’t frequented.
The residents are of course mostly all lovely people, who’ve made their mark and can now focus on the things that matter. Speaking of just that sort, I had so wanted to talk to philanthropist Louis Bacon about all things environment. We’ve a strong contact in that one of my clients -- well, my former client -- is a big to-do in the Audubon Society. And Louis has received the actual Audubon Medal.
I haven’t had the chance to talk to him owing to the fact that my hosts are on the Nygard side -- that’s Peter Nygard, who shares a property border with Mr Bacon and for whom a once-peaceful adjacency eventually led to duelling feuds and some sort of federal racketeering suit in Manhattan. I had hoped to at least bump into his wife but she’s a second wife and… well you know how those things go.
I've heard whispers that he's not really as committed to the environment as he seems to be, and he did sue Wikimedia for publishing some bits he considered libelous, and there was even some suggestion of foul play when his estate manager was found floating naked in a hot tub, but I refuse to believe that someone who gives millions of dollars and thousands of acres for easements and wildlife could be in it for the wrong reasons.
I have to assume such a beef was bound to happen as their houses (the Bacons and the Nygards) are on the beachfront where the homes get quite close to each other, and in that area, one man’s dining room is only 200 feet from the other’s revolving acrylic discotheque.
As for Mr Nygard, my hosts maintain there is mostly nothing to the FBI raid and arrest at his fashion empire on charges of sex trafficking and racketeering. Here in Lyford he’s mostly disliked for his efforts to dredge the sea floor around his estate that eventually caused his cay to be seized by the Bahamian government. And then something caused a puddle that caused a feud between neighbours and here we are. As I’ve heard daddy say, one man’s cocktail party is another man’s sleepless night. Whatever the ruckus—he was awarded the Queen Elizabeth Diamond Jubilee Medal.
Which got me to thinking… I should just go and chat up Her Majesty’s newly remarried (and newly gay) cousin Lord Ivar Mountbatten. He and daddy are quite chummy, and I met him with his daughter Ella at the Royal Windsor Horse Show. Surely he’ll make the introductions—landowners tend to be big environmentalists.
This year, rather than silly resolutions I’ll be making significant intentions that support, empower, and manifest a joy-filled existence. I think it’s so important.
I made my way down to the New Year’s brunch in the pink tented dining pavilion. I was seated with some Austrians and I got excited that they might know Mr Bacon. Yes I know he’s an American but he obtained Austrian citizenship due to a special treatment for celebrities who have provided notable achievements for Austria. No one seems to know what the notable achievement was, but I hoped they were his guests. Sadly they were not, and didn’t know the least thing about him despite his celeb-status.
Once they heard I lived in Los Angeles they wanted to talk election stuffs and rant about Trump. I wasn’t sure what he’d done to them specifically but they seemed in favour of the Paris Climate Agreement. Well, so am I! Very much so, but I wasn’t stupid enough to think anyone could slip it past the Americans and hope they wouldn’t realise they had to comply more and pay more than anyone else.
I was quiet for a bit. Where were the Austrians who stood on principle so very many times? Not to mention they were the first to say there was “no path back” when one of their stupid teens ran off to be a brood mare for ISIS. This was a puzzlement. And so I began:
“Is it Americans you dislike? Or do you simply share an all-consuming love of our planet?” I asked in the queen’s English. What followed was such nonsense I wondered how they could claim to stand for anything. I changed the subject so deftly I’d have made even Judith (mummy) proud. I just don’t get the blanket hatred for America thing… all things considered-they really are good caretakers of our earth.
I asked them where they stood on Austria’s drastic move away from coal? They had no informed opinion. On their very own MAGA (Make Austria Great Again) rockstar Sebastian Kurz? Didn’t know. Nygard vs Bacon? (OK that was totally unfair but these two were getting on my nerves). But they somehow knew they were right to hate America for pulling out of the Agreement and didn’t have to be the informed sort of haters.
I lied about how much I’d enjoyed talking to them and excused myself. These two were such boors and were hardly going to help me manifest my higher purpose to save the planet. And no sooner had I focused on my destiny than I found a handsome hedge fund billionaire to chat up. Happy New Year Everyone!
Greetings again from Lyford Cay. I’m here at the house of some lovely friends I met at Annabel’s “Thanksgiving” party. I put Thanksgiving in quotes because it was an accommodation for me… a reasonably recent resident of Los Angeles who got quite used to the tradition in just a few short years, and Annabel being my dearest friend-and rather eager hostess, jumped at the chance to out-hostess everyone else.
I’d been holed up in London, in my childhood home, as Covid started cutting into my peripatetic life, and now found myself in Lyford, happily sunning and meeting other wonderful people. There was a bit of a flap over “some Americans” from New York who had a large party and one (yes, one) hostess tested positive. Other Lyfordians were purportedly “furious” but that’s mostly bluster since Americans are always assailed wherever they go. Luckily I can rely on my very posh British accent even if Judith (mummy) says I shouldn’t use the word posh anymore.
Over cocktails last night I’d met a lovely gay couple from France, by way of California, by way of London who like myself, take a huge interest in the health of our planet. They also live very near where I am staying and are purported to have a pool and ballroom to die for.
I’m looking forward to seeing it and discussing the intersections of our interests, even if I was confused as to why they claimed they’d had to relocate to France just to get married when California had been issuing licenses some five years prior.
They returned today for Christmas brunch and didn’t seem as eager to talk to me as I’d hoped, but I made my way over to them anyway. I was interested to hear their take on the Great Reset, as all I had was one Google search and daddy’s ever-informed dismantling of my shaky facts. They were less passionate about the environment than I’d understood—it was as if last night’s conversation didn’t happen and they seemed only to want to talk about how Covid had marginalised the LGBTQ community. Intrigued I listened. Apparently the Coronavirus had led to “a loss of safe spaces and the gay community was hardest hit”. Or so said Stephen, as his partner ditched us both.
At the risk of sounding like Daddy, I was beginning to think he was right and that the Great Reset affected every agenda the most. Meaning… if it mattered to you, you were affected.
“HOW?” I asked. And Stephen responded,
“Legal rights of trans people have eroded, and young LGBTQ are further harmed by the closure of safe spaces.”
“I see.” I said. Even though I really didn’t. I only knew that Japanese women had succumbed to suicide under Covid-19 in numbers greater than all of Japan’s other Covid deaths combined. I hadn’t heard this happening to any other bastion of society but I asked:
“Could safe spaces not migrate online as others have done?” I asked.
“Online are not safe spaces to be,” he said, “This is where they can face abuse, or get outed.”
And at which point I decided this conversation was nuts, in person-safe, yet online was a risk of being outed? And although supported by the World Economic Forum as fuel for the Great Reset, I wasn’t having it. Clearly NO ONE cares about the planet, least of all the man with the fabulous pool; and his London accent was sounding a bit more Lambeth if you asked me.
Just then I overheard another conversation about the Great Reset and I nearly flew to their side. It was coming from a tall and very good-looking South African-accented gentleman named Galen. Never mind the sticky Rum Dum Sour dripping down my wrist.
“Hello I’m Jenny and…”
No sooner did I arrive when Galen said, “In the post-Covid Era…”
“Excuse me? I lobbed. “It’s now it’s own era?”
“Well there is no arguing that the Great Reset needs to happen and that capitalism has empirically failed.”
“Well, I believe there is such an argument.” I said, "and might I present Exhibit A: Lyford Cay.”
“What I am TRYING to say…, he began, “is we envision a better, fairer world, integrating the next generation to be in harmony with nature again.”
“What you are SAYING…is Marxism.” I insisted.
Galen gave me the why don’t you go back to the nursery look which was not going to work on me. I brushed my voluminous curls to one side and looked at him with fresh eyes. He was trying to convince himself as much as me, and having taken this moment I could see that.
“What I’m saying IS…” He began again, “is we can take the technologies of the fourth industrial revolution and provide everyone with better lives.”
I could hear Daddy shouting in my ear or maybe it was just blood welling in my temples. Better lives? He was just parroting the ridiculous stuff I’d heard from that very mixed- up fellow, Klaus Schwab.
“Fascinating” was all I replied, and before I could take my leave he asked,
“What is it you do?”
“DO???” I responded. “Surely you remember from the pre-Covid era… one does not just ask what one does at a social gathering.”
His eyes steeled against mine and now it was me panicking. I was just not going to tell him I was a life coach… he would never understand the importance.
“My family is in oil exploration. I declared. And speaking of a commitment to making things once again in harmony with nature… fracking.”
I could smell a bit of Rum Dum Sour I’d transferred from my hand into my hair, but of course he couldn’t.
“Anyway… Happy Christmas!” I added. And split.
Earlier this year Prince Harry, like so many frustrated young men before him, left home and ran off to California with a pretty girl in the hope of hitting it big and changing the world. Of course, being royalty, he didn't move to Haight-Ashbury to start a mediocre folk group and get stoned at anti-war protests. Instead, he and Meghan moved into a $14.7M mansion in Beverly Hills, signed a mega-deal with Netflix, endorsed Joe Biden, and became environmentalists.
Still, like the folkies, Harry has felt it necessary to inflict his faux-poetic thoughts on the rest of us. Here he is speaking at an event for WaterBear, a new subscription service for environmentalist documentaries:
Every single raindrop that falls from the sky relieves the parched ground. What if every single one of us was a raindrop, and if every single one of us cared?
Far out, man. You can almost hear this being sung by Scott McKenzie or the Mamas and the Papas. No word on whether he thinks the universe might be just a single atom in the finger nail of some enormous being. Of course, to change the world you have to tackle the tough issues of the day, and Harry didn't disappoint on that score. He made it a point to tie the ongoing pandemic to the environment, saying:
[I]t’s almost as though Mother Nature has sent us to our rooms for bad behavior to really take a moment and think about what we’ve done.... We take so much from her and we rarely give a lot back.
But, as Joanna Williams points out in the Spectator, we really shouldn't laugh. For all of his vapidity, Harry is clearly making a play for increased cultural cachet, and he's doing so by parroting the sentiments of our cultural elite. These are all common views among our beneficent rulers.
Consider another of the prince's insights: "But the moment you become a father, everything really does change... you start to realize, well, what is the point in bringing a new person into this world when they get to your age and it’s on fire?" This is a perfect encapsulation of elite climate hysteria, and it is becoming increasingly normalized.
Williams discusses the fact that this image of the world burning irresponsibly encourages eco-anxiety, a growing problem for both adults and children, many of whom have been psychologically harmed by the propaganda, as Greta Thunberg apparently was after watching a (now-debunked) David Attenborough film.
But there's also Harry and Meghan's longstanding vow to have no more than two children, for environmental reasons. Their public declaration is clearly meant to influence the choices of regular people, making them feel that it would be irresponsible to have more (or any) children, despite the fact that our country has below-replacement birthrates and Americans already have fewer children than we claim to want. Who are these people to say your dream of being a parent is irresponsible?
Talk about privilege.
Climate change and COVID – 19 have far more in common than meets the eye. Both are direct results of secular portions of society in desperate need to battle an external villain. Because leftists lack any concept of faith, the only purpose that they have in life exists in the material world. It's essential to understand the root cause of the fear of climate change and of coronavirus in order to effectively combat it.
A fundamental notion of Christianity, as well as depth psychology, is that good and evil are not something external to man. Both good and evil reside within each and every one of us. In Christianity, the evil that is within us can be forgiven because Christ died for our sins. In depth psychology, achieving a full and true understanding of oneself is rooted in the recognition and acceptance that good and evil are both intrinsic parts of the human experience. The key with depth psychology is awareness that balance must be achieved in all aspects of life – we are good and we are evil. It just is.
Leftists have no understanding of either Christianity or depth psychology. Instead, they are so unable to accept the darkness and evil and unflattering elements of themselves that they project them out into the world. Carl Jung, who pioneered depth psychology after breaking from Freud, called these unflattering elements of personality The Shadow.
The Shadow, after being projected outward, has to be projected onto something. A vessel of some kind must hold it. Thus, some real or imaginary villain must be created and imbued with this negative energy.
This is exactly where climate change comes from. Unable to accept their own Shadow and associated negative energy, leftists projected theirs onto other people. President Trump was the perfect vessel. He literally became Satan. Besides him, the Shadow is projected on to everyone who disagrees with leftist ideology.
In Leftism’s collectivist vision, the earth belongs to everyone and it is being spoiled by everyone else's bad behavior. Of course, it is never leftist’s own bad behavior that is causing the earth to die and the oceans to rise. It is always someone else, the so – called “climate denialists" who engage in irresponsible behavior towards the earth.
Because they have nothing spiritual to devote themselves to, leftists then become the equivalent of religious zealots and terrorists. They insist upon behavioral changes by everyone else, lest the Apocalypse befall us. The leftist version of the Book of Revelations is the compendium of so – called "settled science" floating around out there -- a book they've never actually read.
Now, no movement is worth getting behind unless the movement itself has urgency. Where does the urgency come from? All of the well-funded dark money and offshore bank accounts of true-believing climate alarmists. Rather than engage in fact – finding, reason, and logic and translating it all into reasoned behavior -- leftists are being duped by the equivalent of the fake faith-healing preacher traveling through the 1930’s Dustbowl with his big tent revivals.
They then go out into the world and preach this nonsense gospel, insisting that if we don't do something soon, were all going to die. Remember, they never talk about climate change destroying the human race many thousands of years from now. The Apocalypse is always imminent. Of course, press them on what they are doing to stop this impending man-made apocalypse, and they’ll tell you they recycle cans and bottles; like most zealots, they are actually hypocrites.
What is this have to do with the coronavirus? The exact same set of circumstances exists, with one exception. Climate change hasn't killed anyone. The coronavirus has killed people (although we can't seem to get exact data on the number of people who perished directly and solely from the virus). Yet demands on behavior and compliance in lieu of thoughtful and reasoned interpretations of data are exactly the same.
It is remarkable to see compliance with alleged mitigating protocols, such as wearing masks and social distancing, divided right along politically ideological lines. Conservatives and libertarians are far more concerned about infringements upon liberty, whereas leftists once again must find villains out in the real world and blame them for all the trouble. Rather than look at the data and use logic and reason to formulate behavioral responses and commit to policy directives that make sense, leftists believe that curfews must be established because the virus starts hunting at a particular time of night.
Ultimately, climate change and coronavirus alarmists insist on controlling other people's behavior in the name of the "greater good." This comes despite the fact that climate change is not a real threat to human existence and that with COVID-19, all we really need is reasoned and prudent caution, particularly in regards to the known vulnerable populations.
Thus, we return to the fact that it is fear that results in the quashing of personal liberty -- fear generated by Leftists because they lack faith and understanding of themselves. They push it out into the world and it becomes policy.
So what can we do about this? The last thing we should be doing is complying with leftist demands that relate to climate change or coronavirus. We must be individually vocal in our beliefs, and back those beliefs with data and evidence. There is no backing down from a fight, because every one of us is a David confronting Goliath. The leftist climate change alarmism is extremely well-funded. So if you have a voice, use it. That's why social media exists.
With respect to coronavirus, taking responsible and necessary precautions is obvious. Inundating local, state, and state authorities with regular email and phone calls to loosen coronavirus restrictions is a power that you have and one that can be effective.
This is particularly true at the local level. Local officials rarely have constituents turn out in any kind of meaningful number at regular meetings. Show up. If the meetings are virtual, show up. If you start screaming at local officials to open businesses up again, they will feel the pressure. That's particularly true if you let them know that you'll be actively campaigning against them in the next election if they do not.
Encourage your local business to enter speakeasy mode. Paper over the windows and invite the best customers to come and dine in through the back door. Visit your local mom-and-pop stores instead of the big box stores, particularly if you can convince them that wearing a mask is unnecessary.
You do have the power. Now you must use it. The only thing you have to lose is fear itself.
There's a lot about this 2020 election which remains uncertain, but one thing that we know for sure is that the projected Blue Wave, which had the Democrats retaking the Senate and making double digit gains in the House, didn't happen. Thus far they've only picked up one senate seat, and even if they win the two run offs in Georgia -- an outcome that is not at all certain -- the best they can hope for is a 50-50 tie, with the vice president as tie-breaker.
And that's not even taking into account the possibility that West Virginia's Joe Manchin, the last of the Blue Dog Democrats, finally accepts that there's no longer a place for him in AOC's party and decides to cross the aisle.
In the House, Republicans have already picked up eight seats. If GOP candidates win all of the races where they're currently leading, they will have 213 seats (with 218 a majority), a far cry from the 196 GOP seats FiveThirtyEight projected just before the election. As Jim Geraghty pointed out, "[I]f ten Democratic members got stuck in traffic or on a delayed flight, Democrats would temporarily not have a majority in the chamber."
Party leadership is so anxious about this that Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer are reportedly pressuring members not to accept positions in a Biden administration if they're offered, for fear that it would whittle away at their already razor thin majority.
This isn't the type of dominance which the Democrats had been banking on, and it goes a long way towards undermining their boldest electoral promises. Consequently, it wasn't surprising that stocks fell for so-called renewable energy firms in the days following the election, as the market reacted to the improbability that the left would be able to implement their environmental agenda in any permanent way.
First Solar, a manufacturer of solar panels, dropped 8.6%, while home solar provider SunPower fell 2.8%. SunRun, another provider of residential solar, closed flat after declining earlier, and fuel cell maker Plug Power slipped 2%. All have outperformed the broader market this year, with the solar power companies in particular gaining momentum in recent months as the polls swung in favor of Joe Biden in the presidential race and Democratic Senate candidates.
Which isn't to say that a President Biden couldn't do a lot of damage on his own to the economy overall, the oil and gas industry specifically, and to the environment ultimately. He is reportedly already planning to create a White House National Climate Council and embed climate specific offices in all (or most) executive departments.
But without the senate, with a precarious majority in the House, and without the backing of the Supreme Court, a Biden Administration would be prevented from sweeping changes. We shouldn't stop fighting, but we should also thank heaven for small favors.
President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr., eager to elevate climate change throughout his administration, is already drafting orders to reduce planet-warming pollution and seeking nominees who will embed climate policy not only in environmental agencies but in departments from Defense to Treasury to Transportation.
Top candidates for senior cabinet posts, such as Michèle Flournoy for defense secretary and Lael Brainard for Treasury, have long supported aggressive policies to curb climate change. Mr. Biden’s inner circle routinely asks “is the person climate-ambitious?” of candidates even for lower profile positions like the White House budget and regulatory offices, according to a person advising the transition.
Transition team members have been instructed to identify policies that can improve pollution levels in Black and Latino communities. And one of Mr. Biden’s early executive orders is expected to require that every federal agency, department and program prepare to address climate change.
Having convinced a gullible and fearful public of the "danger' of Covid-19 -- and if they get away with stealing the 2020 election -- the Democrats plan to move swiftly to apply the lessons of Covid to the equally phantom dangers of "climate change." These measures will be arbitrary, willful, and punitive and will be enforced by the full power of the federal government -- which means that at some point the IRS will get involved.
America's own version of Pravda continues:
Interviews with more than two dozen advisers and members of Mr. Biden’s transition team reveal an incoming administration acutely aware of the challenges ahead, with a narrowly divided Congress and the outsized expectations that some voters have for action on climate change after four years of regulatory rollbacks and presidential hostility.
“There’s no doubt that Covid is the issue of the moment which has to be addressed right out of the box,” Mr. Moniz said. “But we’re going to see climate addressed right out of the box as well.”
And there you have it. As we've been saying practically from this site's inception, the goal all along has been to gauge the public's receptivity to unconstitutional restrictions on their freedom. So far, the ovine public has passed the test with flying colors. If "safety" trumps liberty, we are in more trouble than we thought. As a potential Democrat administration is about to make perfectly clear.
Oh, Boris, you have got to be kidding me! I thought we went over this… herd immunity only comes if we have exposure. I don’t understand how he thinks it’s OK to shut us down again. The small businesses that managed to survive will surely perish in an additional lockdown.
Now what? No restaurants, no gyms, and no chance I can return to California any time soon. Worse yet, this means daddy is having one of his crusty old MP friends round -- to discuss god knows what… probably the 2008 Climate Change Act, which apparently never changes. And Judith (mummy) is headed to a friend’s house for a socially-distanced coffee; and to avoid getting the dreaded Covid from daddy’s MP friend.
And that’s the thing Boris doesn’t understand… the behaviours of a virus, and the behaviours of a people. Let alone the fact that he wasn’t elected Prime Socialist. But with daddy’s meeting now moved here, I’ll just stay up in my childhood room and avoid all of it.
I don’t know how long daddy’s friend was downstairs but I woke up with my legs over the exercise ball and a crick in my neck. Is this what you wanted Boris? I decided to head downstairs and see what we were doing about dinner. Judith’s coffee must have turned into a gin and tonic. She’s nowhere to be found and daddy reported we have frozen steaks and fish fingers, but he’s sure everyone that was open yesterday is doing delivery today. He clicked off the radio and announced,
“We had to know we couldn’t trust a fat man who bicycled around London to be a true conservative.”
“Have you seen his bum on a bike or one rational decision since he caught the dreaded Covid? No, you have not.”
I hadn’t. And I knew the £800m cycling initiatives were mostly Sadiq Khan and not Boris but daddy would make the point that the invading cycle lanes had ruined London, and he would be right.
“Well, we know what we are getting with Biden at least” I beamed, “…and it will be fantastic for the environment.”
“Yes, fantastic”, he scoffed. “He promised to decimate the energy industry and I’m sure he’ll do damage enough. Unlike your boyfriend Trudeau… who promised legalised pot and Canada was too stoned to realise that when Alberta goes, so too goes Canada.”
I knew on this point he was right. I’d heard he and Patrick discussing the death of so many pipeline projects in Canada compared to the very real gains in the US, better for the economy and the environment.
“Well, be that as it may”, I began, “having a green president in the White House has got to be a good thing at the end of the day.
“Got to be?”
“Yes!” I said emphatically.
“Yes, indeed. Let’s look at… you, shall we? You’re a U.S. taxpayer now, and forgetting that your energy-efficient flat and car were provided by the money your dear father earned as a geophysical engineer and responsible oil executive… what will be the really big gains? Top three…”
I ran through a million things in my head, knowing that they all led to higher taxes, lower profits, and business busting results. But I wasn’t giving up on my beloved planet that quickly.
“ Well… upgrades to infrastructure, and a carbon tax, and jobs guarantees…”
“That’s three taxes actually. But the point is I want you to think about the consequence of your passions. The consequence of a carbon tax will mean higher airline fares and might mean fewer seminars for your clients, fewer clients, less income… you see the result, yes?”
"Yes, of course but what’s the alternative?”
“The alternative to what? Socialism?”
“Daddy, it’s not the planet or socialism -
“No, but everything you suggested is,” he said, with a sad finish.
I can’t talk to him when he’s like this. And also I didn’t have any good argument. I went back up to my childhood room to change for dinner and decided to find some evidence in my favour before I let it rest.
My search just kept taking me to coal vs natural gas, and although I already knew that some radical environmentalists despised natural gas, I also knew their argument was indefensible.
I had covered all this with my father years ago, lest I continue to go on making unfounded arguments. Truth was, that by every metric natural gas is cleaner than coal, it emits 40X less sulphur dioxide, a fraction of the nitrous oxide, almost no mercury, less water, and it’s why carbon emissions from energy declined. Perhaps I’m not in the mood to be right.
Just then I noticed a text from a client asking how I was, and if it was true that Christmas was cancelled in England? Boy, she had some nerve! I had half a mind to write back and ask if it was true that Thanksgiving was cancelled in New York or only moved outside? But I realised that would be as tough to swallow as dry turkey. And mean.
Lockdown redux was getting to me. But apparently not to Judith who I heard coming in downstairs, and by the sound of it had many bags with her. I scrolled past another article entitled How Greed, not Greenpeace Saved the Whales. OMG enough for tonight. I hope she bought cake.
Let’s start with the axiomatic: the green lobby hates the environment. How do we know this?
Who are these “greenies?” They same people rallying for various and sundry lefty causes – abortion, womyn’s rights, the environment, whatever. And what do they leave behind these rallies? Tons of trash. Do rallies for GOP causes leave this much trash behind? No. Is this trash all over sidewalks, curbs, street, parks, a sign of loving the environment? Nope.
Maybe they were too busy putting on weird hats.
Were the BLM/Antifa riots, burning down cities, torching hundreds of cars, good for the environment? Well – no. If cows farting is bad for the environment, what do you suppose thousands of tons of ash, CO2, CO, methane, oil-smoke, burning tires and burning car batteries are going to do to the air and climate?
How about “environmental” “warriors” burning cars at car dealerships? Good for the environment? Umm. No.
In San Francisco, Los Angeles, and other large – Democrat – metros, people … uh… relieve … themselves on the street, on the sidewalk. Results? Feces washing into storm drains that run directly to the ocean. Filth and disease are not good for the environment. In fact, one could say that those supporting this filth are enemies of the environment – and one would be correct. Even the indigenous peoples in North America didn’t just drop and leave it – they cared more about the environment, disease, smell, sanitation – than today’s “modern” lefties.
These are the same people calling for socialism. What are the environmental results of socialism? After the USSR opened up (when socialism failed utterly), we saw what it had wrought: Environmental catastrophe. The book about it was called “Ecocide.” That’s not a journal of environmental care.
Where do people care about the environment? Where they can afford to. Where their normal needs for food, shelter, safety are met. If you’ve traveled to the third world (Or California’s Central Valley, or Skid Row in Los Angeles, or just about any street in San Francisco) you know that the environment is the last thing on their minds. Why? Lack of capitalism – rejection of capitalism at the behest of the same academic and NGO lefties that fill-up our streets and parks with trash after a rally celebrating their care for the environment.
Look at the results of Democrat polices in California. If you think miles of homeless living in tents at the side of the road, lacking access to sanitation are good for the environment, then you probably also think that socialism results in wealth used by first world countries to care about their environment. Problem? It doesn’t; it’s the opposite.
But the Green Lobby wants to get rid of all those polluting systems that create electricity, replacing them with wind farms, right? Better?
No – the metal needs to be mined, transported, smelted, formed, transported, erected. And, 10-15 years later, it needs to be removed, transported – and dumped into a landfill because it doesn’t degrade. Not good for the environment. In fact, absent the demand by the left for windmills, these millions of tons of ore wouldn’t be mined, smelted, transported and then thrown away. This is good for the environment… how?
But – solar! Ok. What does solar require? Rare earths. Where are those mined? China, Afghanistan, Africa. Raise your hand if you think these countries have solid environmental records. No hands? Shocker.
But – batteries! Cool – mine the world’s lithium to make batteries to store electricity.
How about we just make electricity as we use it? You know, in a “power plant?” No lithium, no millions of tons of iron ore, no 200-foot blades buried for thousands of years.
These – all – are pathologies of a left that pretends to care about the environment: Waste on the streets, burning down cities, strip-mining the planet, ensuring society goes broke.
The Green Agenda has just about zero positive, and innumerable negative consequences for the environment and society. Add the socialism demanded by this same cohort? Ecocide on steroids.
And all to reduce the global temperate in 100 years by less than one degree C. Maybe. For $100 TRILLION dollars. Actually. Either these people are dumb as bricks – or they hate the environment. There is no middle ground here.
If these people did not hate the environment and did believe in reducing the impact (if any) of greenhouse gases on the climate, what would they support, unflinchingly? Nuclear. You know, as does one of the founders of Greenpeace. Do you want baseload energy? A modern world? A clean environment? No more GHG released (well, at least other than the billions of tons from volcanoes – the left hasn’t yet figured out how to plug those menaces…)?
There is one and only one answer, and the lefties hate it: Nuclear. Progress the left wants to give away. So they can leave tons of trash on the ground. So they can make the economy such that no excess wealth exists for cleaning-up the environment. So they can despoil thousands of acres of earth with strip-mining for rare earths – well, at least it won’t be in their backyards…
If they did not hate the environment and wanted it cleaner than today, the left would support nuclear power and capitalism. That they don’t leaves only one response: They hate the environment – and all this “climate change” nonsense is just about control. But you knew that.
As we enter the final week of the U.S. presidential election campaign, the alarming truth is that the political issue dominating all else is whether the mainstream media and Big Tech are justified in refusing to cover news about a possible corruption scandal linking the Biden family, Ukraine, and China which might influence the election result.
That’s an acid commentary on the quality of election debate, of course, since it concedes that most of the formal election issues from foreign policy to taxation haven’t seriously captured the attention of voters as they have in most elections since 1945.
Though President Trump and challenger Joe Biden went through the motions of discussing them in the final (relatively calm) debate—and though the election will broadly determine which of two very different approaches will be followed—the voters don’t seem very excited by these bread-and-butter choices. They give the impression of being absorbed instead in a larger cultural struggle over the meaning of America which is also, oddly enough, a struggle with strong overtones of social class.
Interestingly, Mr. Biden himself referred to this in an 2019 interview with the New York Times editorial board when he described how even Democrat politicians were drifting away from their working class base:
We stopped showing up at the Polish American club. We stopped showing up, and we all went to you, the really smart people. We had a new kind of coalition we were putting together. College-educated women and college men and boom, boom, boom and so on.
To be clear, Biden was not endorsing this drift. He argued that there was no necessary conflict between progressive values and working class values, and he urged Democrats to make the progressive case to their traditional supporters. But even if that were true—and it is at least questionable—there is clearly a conflict between progressive policies and blue-collar interests. And it has come out into the open in the debate over natural gas and fracking.
Fracking is an important matter because it has revived America’s energy independence, shifted much energy production from dirtier fuels to clean natural gas, enabled America’s pre-Covid economic boom to take place alongside lower carbon emissions, and created energy industry jobs in several states, notably “swing state” Pennsylvania, where today the employment of tens of thousands of Americans is dependent on fracking. So it’s an issue that has to be handled carefully.
It would be fair comment to say that Joe Biden has mishandled the issue carefully. From the early primaries to last week’s debate with Trump, Joe Biden has taken every possible position on the fracking issue depending on who was his main opponent at the time. He’s been for fracking, against fracking, and in favor of encouraging it while removing government “subsidies” to it.
And that opens up a vulnerability in the Biden campaign. Indeed, an article in The Nation (which is strongly against fracking) gives Biden firm advice, exquisitely tailored to reflect voter preferences in a specially commissioned opinion poll, that he should back off any idea of a fracking ban: “[W]e observed significant movement away from a fracking ban, support for which dropped seven points, from 46 percent before the debates to 39 percent after them."
“Don’t mention the ban,” however, is a strategy that can only work if the media plays along with it. And by and large the media has been, ahem, compliant. Biden has not been subjected to any serious media cross-examination over his contortions on fracking—nor, indeed, over his previous incautious statements that he wants to phase out fossil fuels altogether.
If the media were to subject Biden’s wider energy policies—"achieving a 100 percent carbon-pollution-free electricity grid by 2035 [and] a $2 trillion investment in new clean-energy infrastructure,” as The Nation describes them—to a cost-benefit analysis that offered realistic estimates of substantially higher taxes and electricity prices as experienced in Germany under similar policies, it can be reasonably guessed that they would become as unpopular with the voters as the fracking ban is currently.
That is unlikely to happen, however, as everyone knows even if they formally deny it for the record. Though popular concern has concentrated in the last few weeks on the “scandalous” aspects of the Biden campaign, the real increase in media bias—and the willingness of media professionals to justify it openly—has developed above all in relation to climate change and energy. On those topics, major news organizations such as the BBC have stated as a matter of principle that they regard the science of climate change as settled and that climate change skeptics should be treated as a lesser breed of experts.
Admittedly, it is true that the degree of media bias over the evidence of corruption in Hunter Biden’s laptop has been extreme. For Twitter and Facebook to lock the New York Post’s story about it out of their systems amounts to outright censorship which, incidentally, is not improved because it is imposed by a private company.
Worse than that, not only have journalists not objected loudly to it, as they almost invariably did in the past to lesser infractions of press freedom, but some have attacked the minority of mainstream reporters who have developed the Post story further, and others have advanced justifications for suppressing it that suggest a nascent totalitarian mindset in the trade: for instance, the Washington Post column which argued that blocking its New York rival was justified even if the story was true.
Message: the media gatekeepers are back, and we should all be grateful for the fact. Biden’s “really smart . . . college-educated women and college educated men,” will be controlling the narrative again.
Might this have gone unnoticed if the motives of the censors were not transparently partisan and their actions occurring in the two weeks before an election? Probably not. Censoring one side in an election campaign is simply too outrageous to be ignored. What makes a bigger difference, however, is that the election has given the people on the other side of the class divide a rare opportunity to protest their being treated as too stupid and reactionary to decide for themselves what to make of the news.
That is the explanation, I think, of the lively, multi-ethnic crowds of ordinary patriotic Americans who have been turning up in amazingly large numbers not only at Trump’s rallies but also at points on the routes to the rallies. They’re saying “We know the game is rigged against us, and we’re not going take it lying down.” It is a great and glorious collective “No!”
It may not forecast a surprise Trump victory, however. The really smart side of the conflict is fired up too, and it controls not only the narrative but most of the institutions that will decide a very close election. That said, every election leads . . . to the next election. Goldwater’s landslide defeat inspired the routed GOP conservatives to turn their insurrection into a political movement that led . . . to a conservative landslide in the 1966 mid-term elections and to Richard Nixon’s narrow victory in 1968. Politics never goes on vacation.
In the meantime, depending on the result, both sides will be re-designing their institutional armor for the next battle—the new blue-collar Right its “alternative” media and social media (suggested title: Samizdata), and the “really smart people” more effective ways of controlling the narrative, if possible covertly, since some of them are queasy about open censorship.
And they’ll have problems—especially on the big scientific issues where most people don’t usually pay close attention but which they now find intruding massively into their everyday lives and become “woke” to them.
For instance, the science underpinning Covid-19 “lockdown” is coming under serious criticism as the lockdowns grow more draconian and a solution to the pandemic more distant. British and Australian political writers are predicting U-turns by their governments on pandemic policy. Similarly, as climate science becomes a more crowded field, so the number of skeptics increases, and the publication of “inconvenient facts” grows, not exponentially perhaps but impressively and worryingly.
As we have seen, Joe Biden and The Nation offer "achieving a 100 percent carbon-pollution-free electricity grid by 2035 [and] a $2 trillion investment in new clean-energy infrastructure” as their climate policies. That’s a lot of money. But how well have we spent similar sums in the past?
That question is answered in a recent study by five Irish and American scientists who examine how much money was spent worldwide on climate and energy policies between 2011 and 2018. Here is an extract from their executive summary:
US$3660 billion has been spent on global climate change projects over the period 2011–2018. Fifty-five percent of this expenditure has gone to wind and solar energy. According to world energy reports, the contribution of wind and solar to world energy consumption has increased from 0.5% to 3% over this period. Meanwhile, coal, oil, and gas continue to supply 85% of the world’s energy consumption, with hydroelectricity and nuclear providing most of the remainder.
I traced that information to its original source from an article by James Delingpole on Breitbart—a samizdat writer appearing in an alternative news website who added his own characteristic touch of tabasco: “Renewable energy is cripplingly expensive, hopelessly unreliable, massacres wildlife, destroys landscapes, destabilises the grid, harms indigenous peoples, and causes climate change. But apart from that it’s great.”
While such samizdata exists and reports genuine news, the attempts of mainstream media and Big Tech at controlling the narrative can never really succeed. On current trends, however, how long will that be?