Legally good news on climate, new trails in Santa Barbara and San Francisco, Permit price hikes, wolves head south, rebounding plants, camp cooking tips, and more
So the solution is to pave wild places with windmills? Stop using natural gas which is the cleanest burning fuel on the planet? Tell people in 3rd world countries that they cannot heat their homes with clean burning fuel but must rely on solar arrays or hydro which are either too expensive or destructive to the environment? Tell them they must drive electric cars which no one wants obviously since they must be charged every 300 miles, have no room in them, and are very environmentally unsound--needing to be charged often by coal fired plants? The climate hysteria that is being pushed by the Left makes no sense. In addition, no one is really considering nuclear power. If we were realistic at all, we would.
By the way, there IS a set metric which accounts for people who have frozen to death in their homes because they could not afford to turn on the furnace. You will see more of that unless energy bills stop escalating. The energy policies in California include measures which deny people the freedom to use clean burning gas appliances. As an example, Casey, have you ever tried to clear your driveway of 6 feet of snow with a corded electric snowblower, the only kind you were allowed to purchase in CA because gas powered blowers are “undeliverable” in California because they caused climate change? I have. It’s pretty much impossible.
Thank you, Antonia, you have done quite enough extrapolation over a very narrow court decision that just says one state is constitutionally obligated to take future environmental impact into consideration in its present day decisions.
In addition, I welcome disagreements of opinion and information I might have missed, but the tone of your comments is 'dark age social media inflammatory,' and not at all what I would like to foster from the community that reads and engages with this newsletter. If that kind of community is not of interest to you, no one is making you read this, and I am certainly not making you read it for free.
Read Lomborg. We are already spending billions that would solve problems costing far more lives and costing less dollars than green agendas. If you are “not sure”, time to read his book. He is not a climate change denier. Did you use Google for your “cursory search”. Or another type of search engine that champions censorship? That might be a problem.
I suggest you become familiar with Bjorn Lomborg’s work--he has proven that all the billions thrown at climate change will have a small effect indeed: to wit--1 degree reduction in Earth’s temperature which will be seen in the next 100 years. There is more bang for the buck if you stop torturing the poor, by raising their heating costs ( more people have died of freezing to death than dying of heat) and/or throwing the green billions at curing diseases like TB which kills a lot more people than climate change. So, no. The kids are not alright, they are deluded and indoctrinated.
Well, the planet has warmed about 2 degrees since 1880, according to NOAA, and I think we can all agree that the increased severity and frequency of formerly rare weather phenomena are things worth tackling in the long term. If we could halve that number and get it to plateau, I bet we'd have a lot more predictable weather on the planet, and I kind of think it IS worth the effort.
I am not familiar with Lomborg but as far as I know there is not a set metric for people whose deaths are attributed directly to the effects of climate change, nor is there yet an agreed-upon way to measure economic cost, either. So I'm not sure what he would be comparing things to.
Based on a cursory search of his work, it seems like he's run into some issues with formal accusations of academic dishonesty and data cherry-picking in the past. He said that global warming took a hiatus from 1998-2012 but ignored the larger trend from 1880-2012 and the subsequent record-shattering years that followed? I don't know if that's a source I would trust wholeheartedly.
So the solution is to pave wild places with windmills? Stop using natural gas which is the cleanest burning fuel on the planet? Tell people in 3rd world countries that they cannot heat their homes with clean burning fuel but must rely on solar arrays or hydro which are either too expensive or destructive to the environment? Tell them they must drive electric cars which no one wants obviously since they must be charged every 300 miles, have no room in them, and are very environmentally unsound--needing to be charged often by coal fired plants? The climate hysteria that is being pushed by the Left makes no sense. In addition, no one is really considering nuclear power. If we were realistic at all, we would.
By the way, there IS a set metric which accounts for people who have frozen to death in their homes because they could not afford to turn on the furnace. You will see more of that unless energy bills stop escalating. The energy policies in California include measures which deny people the freedom to use clean burning gas appliances. As an example, Casey, have you ever tried to clear your driveway of 6 feet of snow with a corded electric snowblower, the only kind you were allowed to purchase in CA because gas powered blowers are “undeliverable” in California because they caused climate change? I have. It’s pretty much impossible.
Thank you, Antonia, you have done quite enough extrapolation over a very narrow court decision that just says one state is constitutionally obligated to take future environmental impact into consideration in its present day decisions.
In addition, I welcome disagreements of opinion and information I might have missed, but the tone of your comments is 'dark age social media inflammatory,' and not at all what I would like to foster from the community that reads and engages with this newsletter. If that kind of community is not of interest to you, no one is making you read this, and I am certainly not making you read it for free.
Don’t be enraged or in the cancel mode, Casey. You are way too young for that. I still recommend Bjorn Lomborg.
Read Lomborg. We are already spending billions that would solve problems costing far more lives and costing less dollars than green agendas. If you are “not sure”, time to read his book. He is not a climate change denier. Did you use Google for your “cursory search”. Or another type of search engine that champions censorship? That might be a problem.
I suggest you become familiar with Bjorn Lomborg’s work--he has proven that all the billions thrown at climate change will have a small effect indeed: to wit--1 degree reduction in Earth’s temperature which will be seen in the next 100 years. There is more bang for the buck if you stop torturing the poor, by raising their heating costs ( more people have died of freezing to death than dying of heat) and/or throwing the green billions at curing diseases like TB which kills a lot more people than climate change. So, no. The kids are not alright, they are deluded and indoctrinated.
Well, the planet has warmed about 2 degrees since 1880, according to NOAA, and I think we can all agree that the increased severity and frequency of formerly rare weather phenomena are things worth tackling in the long term. If we could halve that number and get it to plateau, I bet we'd have a lot more predictable weather on the planet, and I kind of think it IS worth the effort.
I am not familiar with Lomborg but as far as I know there is not a set metric for people whose deaths are attributed directly to the effects of climate change, nor is there yet an agreed-upon way to measure economic cost, either. So I'm not sure what he would be comparing things to.
Based on a cursory search of his work, it seems like he's run into some issues with formal accusations of academic dishonesty and data cherry-picking in the past. He said that global warming took a hiatus from 1998-2012 but ignored the larger trend from 1880-2012 and the subsequent record-shattering years that followed? I don't know if that's a source I would trust wholeheartedly.