EPA staffer tells coal industry she’s here for them
“We’ll do a lot more. We’re going to keep going.” This Jan. 25, 2017 photo shows the Gallatin Fossil Plant in Gallatin, Tenn. Environmental groups are taking the Tennessee Valley Authority, the nation’s largest public utility, to trial over whether waste from the coal-fired power plant near Nashville polluted the Cumberland River.
Source: EPA staffer tells coal industry she’s here for them…
King Coal: ‘It takes 79 solar workers to produce same amount of electric power as one coal worker’
About the author
Inconvenient energy fact: It takes 79 solar workers to produce same amount of electric power as one coal worker
In an April 25 New York Times article (“Today’s Energy Jobs Are in Solar, Not Coal“) reporter Nadja Popovich wrote that “Last year, the solar industry employed many more Americans [373,807] than coal [160,119], while wind power topped 100,000 jobs.” Those energy employment figures are based on a Department of Energy report (“U.S. Energy and Employment Report“) released earlier this year that provides the most complete analysis available of employment in the energy economy.
But simply reporting rather enthusiastically (see the NYT headline again) that the solar industry employs lots of Americans, more than twice as many as the number of coal miners and utility workers at electric power plants using coal, is only telling a small part of the story. Here are some important energy facts that help provide a more complete picture about how much energy is being produced in different sectors, how many workers it takes to produce a given amount of electric power, and which sectors receive the most generous taxpayer handouts.
To start, despite a huge workforce of almost 400,000 solar workers (about 20 percent of electric power payrolls in 2016), that sector produced an insignificant share, less than 1 percent, of the electric power generated in the United States last year (EIA data here). And that’s a lot of solar workers: about the same as the combined number of employees working at Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Apple, Johnson & Johnson, Microsoft, Pfizer, Ford Motor Company and Procter & Gamble.
In contrast, it took about the same number of natural gas workers (398,235) last year to produce more than one-third of U.S. electric power, or 37 times more electricity than solar’s minuscule share of 0.90 percent. And with only 160,000 coal workers (less than half the number of workers in either solar or gas),
Bill Nye’s Edits Gender Selection Episode Proving His Priority Is PC Not Science
Bill Nye The Steve Martin lookalike contest winner turned “Science” Guy is back with a new Netflix series, humbly titled “Bill Nye Saves The World”, and one particular episode is causing an uproar for parents on one side and transgender people on the other.
Given that Nye is a die-hard liberal with a mechanical engineering degree, what would be more natural than to have the television personality teaching our children about the birds and the bees, right? After all he already claims to be an expert in climate science, religion, and social science (he believes that Jews have brought European antisemitism upon themselves).
The bow-tied buffoon covered probability in his new Netflix series using clips from his old broadcast television series “Bill Nye The Science Guy,” taken from an episode also about probability.
One of the segments that aired in the original version explained:
“Inside each of ourselves are these things called chromosomes, and they control whether we become a boy or a girl,” the narrator explains. “There are only two possibilities: ‘XX,’ a girl, or ‘XY,’ a boy.”
That’s how I learned it in school. But not how it was edited for Netflix.But in the new version of his probability episode, Nye demonstrated that both sex and gender choice are non-binary. That is to say that a person’s sex selection and the gender to which they identify, appear on a scale as opposed to in a check box labeled “male” or “female”.
But that’s not scientifically correct. Gender choice may be non binary, but normal sex selection is based on either XX or XY chromosomes. Gender is a social construct, not a scientific one, it may be caused by legitimate parts of people’s consciousness, and society may recognize a person’s gender selection– but it doesn’t change the fact that sex is based on DNA.
Jonah Goldberg: The Left Took the Bait on Bret Stephens
His first New York Times column exposed the sanctimonious condescension of the self-appointed defenders of the planet. The last weekend of April delivered one of the more enjoyable spectacles of 2017. It wasn’t Donald Trump’s tent-revival rally in Pennsylvania.
Source: Jonah Goldberg: The Left Took the Bait on Bret Stephens…
Environmentalists Flood The Courts With Lawsuits To Stop Trump’s Agenda
‘Won with years of research, lobbying and organizing’
Source: Environmentalists Flood The Courts With Lawsuits To Stop Trump’s Agenda…
Trump’s EPA: Coal Is A ‘Safeguard’ Against Attacks On Electric Grid
‘This country need[s] fuel diversity’
Source: Trump’s EPA: Coal Is A ‘Safeguard’ Against Attacks On Electric Grid…
CEI press release: The Legal and Economic Case Against the Paris Climate Treaty
…CEI press release: The Legal and Economic Case Against the Paris Climate TreatyWashington, May 3, 2017 – Today the Competitive Enterprise Institute released “The Legal and Economic Case Against the Paris Climate Treaty,” a new report outlining why President Donald Trump should withdraw the United States from the agreement.
According to the report’s authors, CEI’s Chris Horner and Marlo Lewis, the Paris Climate Agreement is a costly and ineffectual solution to the alleged climate crisis, and quite plainly, a treaty. Worse, the Agreement’s mid-century emission reduction target can’t be met without putting energy-poor countries on an energy diet.
“Failure to withdraw from the Paris Climate Treaty would entrench a constitutionally damaging precedent, set President Trump’s domestic and foreign policies in conflict, and ensure many years of diplomatic blowback, imperiling America’s capacity for self-government,” said CEI senior fellow Marlo Lewis. “The agreement makes our country beholden to the demands of foreign leaders, U.N. bureaucrats, and international pressure groups, disallowing American consumers from determining our own energy needs and wants—including at what price.”According to the report, in addition to being detrimental to America’s political and economic interests, the Paris Climate Treaty pursues an anti-energy agenda throughout the developing world that is both unjust and dangerous. The agreement, producing no detectable climate benefits, diverts trillions of dollars from productive investments that would enhance global welfare to feeding political ambitions.New arguments from the U.S. State Department to remain in the Paris Climate Treaty are misguided, contrary to the language in the Paris Climate Agreement, and ignore serious legal consequences, says author CEI Senior Fellow Chris Horner. Horner responds to these arguments:
“The argument that we can simply renegotiate the Paris Climate Treaty is false; that’s not an option under the deal. The agreement’s language in Article 4 is clear and deliberate. According to this treaty, any revision must be more stringent—we cannot revise downward, and we are required to make it worse, every five years, forever. This is a truly terrible deal for U.S. consumers and the economy.The Paris treaty is “politically binding,” like prior climate treaties, but carries huge potential legal consequences, and the State Department is misleading the White House by ignoring these risks. If President Trump stays in this treaty and follows through in his energy agenda, every climate-activist state attorney general, environmental group, and the entire climate industry will surely litigate on the basis of