• Home
  • New Green Republics: Utopia or the Elites Inherit the Earth?

New Green Republics: Utopia or the Elites Inherit the Earth?

William L. Kovacs

August 2022

New Green Republics:  Utopia or the Elites Inherit the Earth?

As governments and their institutions, big business, financial institutions, environmental groups, and the radical left are consumed with anxiety over climate change, they seem to ignore every other issue confronting humanity. Or, is their use of climate change a false narrative to hide their real intent? The recent baffling actions by governments in Sri Lanka and the Netherlands point to the establishment of “New Green Republics.” The Biden administration is attempting to pursue a similar course.

Sri Lanka is an island nation off the coast of India. It had been rebuilding itself for decades after years of authoritarian rule. Its agriculture yield had so dramatically increased it had become a middle-income nation until its government banned the use of fertilizers for growing crops. The nation quickly became a nightmare with people starving, a third of its land dormant, crop yields cut in half, energy shortages and skyrocketing inflation. The people revolted.

At the same time, the Netherlands government announced plans to cut emissions of nitrogen and ammonia thereby forcing the closure of thousands of family farms. Another baffling move since Dutch farmers are the second largest food exporters in the world. The farmers launched protests similar to the Canadian truckers. The protests are ongoing.

Across the world, governments are seeking to ban new factory farms, pesticides, and even the use of pesticides on private property, beef, turkey, chicken, and cheese. Environmentalists are even organizing a revolution against factory-made food. To some, the entire food system is a threat to the environment.

Several commentators attribute Sri Lanka’s fall to its president’s “being under the spell of western green elites peddling organic agriculture and seeking a high ESG” (Environment, Social and Governance) rating. Sri Lanka has a near-perfect ESG score of 98. The U.S. has a 51, down with Cuba and Bulgaria. The Netherlands has a 90.7 ESG score.

These woke-type governments are choosing “climate and ESG goals at the expense of feeding their populations and enabling citizens to keep their homes warm during the winter.” These governments, including the Biden administration, seem to be under some type of a spell that blocks their use of common sense to work for the betterment of their people.

Unfortunately, for all who somehow give credence to ESG scores, they are like all other ranking efforts, subjective to the narrative to be achieved. An ESG score is defined as a numerical measure of how a corporation or country is perceived to be performing on a wide range of environmental, social, and governance topics. The operative word in the definition is “perceived.” How is the nation perceived? There is a gap between what is real and what is perceived. It’s simply a branding effort.  Moreover, for government ratings, an ESG rating “explains” how a nation’s risk factors impact the long-term sustainability of the economy, in addition to its debt.

This is where government decisions become baffling. Why would a country with a growing economy and high ESG rating intentionally ban pesticides and harm the economy and health of its people? Why would the Biden administration want to eliminate fossil fuels and the 6,000 essential products made from the components, to sabotage the living standards of most citizens?

These decisions simply do not make sense.

Decisions to throw a nation into turmoil actually conflict with the goal of ESG which is to help investors assess the sustainability of a country. A nation in chaos is not sustainable under any circumstances. These arbitrary decisions more closely resemble decisions made by Caligula, the Roman emperor who gave his horse a majestic house and, to prove his absolute power, sought to appoint the horse to the high office of consul, before being assassinated.

A “spell” to protect the environment should cause the bewitched ruler to protect the environment; whereas destroying the means to produce food or energy, the ruler is forcing the nation into chaos, perhaps revolution. Both outcomes would destroy the environment. There must be a more existential reason.  Either it is a drive to form a utopia, or it’s the implementation of the long-held belief of the radical environmental community that humanity is a cancer on the earth, and must go.

Finding utopia has been a dream of philosophers for centuries. Their dreams are structured around a beneficial elite; religious dogma, science, machine rule, communism, or totalitarianism. Perhaps the elite would retry one of these worn-out systems, but it is almost impossible to keep seven billion people down on the farm after they had some exposure to freedom, food, and energy.

If the ruler takes the utopian path, it would have to take the path described by some as the “Great Reset.”  ESG would become a “social credit system to drive ownership and production away from the non-woke or non-compliant.” It is a system in which profitable monopolies and the state rule by controlling big data, artificial intelligence, genetics, nanotechnology, and robotics. Humans would only know what the elite allow them to know. All human thought would be transferred to the elite. The human mind would be in an “inescapable prison. “The major problem with the utopian model is the difficulty of feeding seven billion humans. The elite would have to develop a massive food production system which would be extremely expensive, especially with bans on many foods. It would literally require the enslavement of much of the population. Since the cost of all living in utopia is too high, the elite need an easier plan to implement.

Plan B, is the plan the radical community has written about for a century, the mass reduction of humans. The Left’s Little Red Book on Forming a New Green Republic is a collection of quotations from the radical left that supports this view in their own words.

The famous undersea explorer, Jacque-Yves-Cousteau noted “It’s terrible to have to say this. The world population must be stabilized and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day This is so horrible to contemplate that we shouldn’t even say it. But the general situation in which we are involved is lamentable.”

One of the wishes of Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh, President of the World Wildlife Fund International was “If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.” And, our college-age students are being taught that government must focus on reducing the world population by at least 80%.

Perhaps the most honest discussion of humans being cancer on the earth is presented in a 2019 essay in Culturico, a Swiss Cultural platform that bills itself as fighting misinformation.  Culturico compares humans to cancer cells. The environment is our host and the selfish, harmful actions of humans are destroying the host, just as a tumor would destroy living organisms in our body. The platform goes through the five steps of how tumors spread cancer. The essay ends with the question, “Can we conclude that humans are a cancer? Yes, we are.”

If the environmental community believes its own writings, and there is no reason to doubt its beliefs, its long-term goal is to radically reduce the human population on this planet. So, the next time some ruler, be it president, minister, or chief, performs a baffling act that harms a large number of people for some inexplicable reason, ask yourself what the rulers’ real intentions are. The ruler may be stupid, evil, or power-hungry but the ruler may be following the elite’s playbook of wanting humans gone so the elite can inhabit the earth without us cancer cells threatening their reign of the planet.

 

William L. Kovacs has served as senior vice-president for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, chief counsel to a congressional committee, and a partner in law D.C. law firms, and his book Reform the Kakistocracy is the winner of the 2021 Independent Press Award for Political/Social Change. His second book, The Left’s Little Red Book on Forming a New Green Republic is a collection of quotes from the Left on how to control society by eliminating capitalism, people, and truth.

  • Home
  • The Heavy Environmental Costs of the Green New Deal

The Heavy Environmental Costs of the Green New Deal

William L. Kovacs

October 2021

The Heavy Environmental Costs of the Green New Deal

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, “RCRA,” the primary federal law regulating solid and hazardous waste, was signed into law on October 21, 1976. Its 45 years of life has profoundly changed the American landscape; however, it will be needed again as proponents of the Green New Deal (“GND”) blindly advocate trillions of dollars for clean energy without addressing the waste impacts of the projects.

Before RCRA’s enactment, waste was an afterthought to American industry. Waste was dumped in pits, ponds, lagoons, roadsides and burned in the open air. Rivers were on fire. Local governments managed waste with little knowledge of the issue. Only California had a comprehensive waste management plan. EPA could only identify 50 persons in 25 states that were full-time waste managers.

RCRA changed waste management overnight. It created a cradle-to-grave regulatory structure for the generation, transportation, treatment, and disposal of hazardous waste, established guidelines for managing municipal waste, banned open dumping, transformed the recycling industry, and imposed significant criminal and civil penalties on violators. Today, RCRA manages 293 million tons of municipal solid waste disposed at 1296 facilities and around 35 million tons of hazardous waste generated at 23,700 facilities, with few incidents of improper management.

RCRA’s passage would be unlikely today. It passed at a time when members of Congress spent time discussing issues in committee, not on cable news sowing conflict. Both political parties agreed the nation needed a waste management law and proceeded to make it happen. Members instructed the majority and minority staff to work together on the legislation. The bill’s House sponsors Fred Rooney (D-PA), the subcommittee chair, and Joe Skubitz (R-KS) ranking member, and Senator Jennings Randolph (D-WV) – were legislators without big egos.

RCRA passed in an election year which made floor time extremely scarce. The Senate passed its version in June 1976 by a vote of 88-3. The House Committee, having a more comprehensive approach, did not report the bill out of Committee until September 9 and could not get floor consideration until September 27, 1976, four days before the end of the session. With time short, the members directed staff to meet over the weekend before adjournment to produce a comprehensive, workable final product that could pass both Chambers. To maneuver in the time available, the House took up the Senate-passed bill. It kept the Senate Bill number, struck the Senate text, inserted the negotiated text; passed it by 367-8; and sent it back to the Senate, which passed it by voice vote on Thursday, September 30, the last day of the session. RCRA was sent to the president for signature.

EPA calls “RCRA is one of the great environmental success stories of the past 40 years.” The only question is whether GND proponents, like American industry before 1976, will again ignore the waste?

Caraballeda Solar Panels, 78 million tons of panels will reach the end of their life by 2050. Solar is only 2.3% of our electric generation; however, extrapolating to 50% of electric generation by 2050 would mean almost 2 billion tons of solar panel waste. There is currently little recycling of solar panels due to the low value of the materials and the high cost to recycle. Moreover, landfilling may not be possible since solar panels contain silver, copper, cadmium, and lead, i.e., hazardous wastes, making disposal enormously more expensive than disposing of solid waste. Average landfill costs are $54 per ton; hazardous waste is priced by the pound.

buy Lyrica medication Wind Turbines, an estimated 720,000 blades, 100 to 300 feet long, will require disposal over the next 20 years. They are too large for landfills, and transportation costs are high. The cost to decommission each wind tower is around $532,000. Harvard estimates the cost at four times that amount. Wind capacity is anticipated to double by 2030 and quadruple by 2050.

Another finding in the  buy antabuse online australia Harvard study “…is that transitioning to wind or solar would require five to 20 times more land than previously thought, and, if such large-scale wind farms were built, would warm average surface temperatures over the continental U.S. by 0.24 degrees Celsius.”

Cost estimates for the GND range from  $2.7 trillion to $93 trillion. Serious experts, however, believe costs are not calculable without specific policy proposals. Since the objective of RCRA is to prevent this type of problem, Congress should undertake a thorough analysis of the waste issues from green energy before spending trillions to create an avoidable waste problem.

William L. Kovacs was the chief counsel for the House Subcommittee on Transportation and Commerce during the development and enactment of RCRA in 1976.

This article was originally published in The Hill on October 21, 2021.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Home
  • Green New Deal ideologies, fantasies and realities

Green New Deal ideologies, fantasies and realities

Paul Driessen

January 2021

Green New Deal ideologies, fantasies and realities

Your life, living standards, country, and planet will take a big hit under the Green New Deal

Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, AOC, the Democrat Party, and US environmentalists are committed to making climate change, the Green New Deal, and replacement of fossil fuels with wind, solar, battery, and biofuel power the centerpiece of their foreign and domestic policies.

They claim the transition would be easy, affordable, ecological, sustainable, and painless. That’s ideology and fantasy, not reality.

Wind and sunshine are certainly clean and renewable. Harnessing them to power America is not.

The GND would hit American families, jobs, living standards, and environmental quality hard. Western states would feel the brunt, because their fossil fuel rents, royalties, jobs and tax receipts would disappear, as drilling, fracking, and coal mining on federal lands are closed down. Their open spaces, scenic vistas, wildlife habitats and wildlife would be desecrated by wind turbines, solar panels, and transmission lines to serve distant urban voting blocs that dictate energy and land use decisions far beyond city lines.

Coal, oil, natural gas, and petroleum liquids still provide 80% of US energy. In 2018, they generated 2.7 billion megawatt-hours (MWh) of electricity – which would have to be replaced under an all-encompassing Green New Deal costing tens of trillions of dollars.

Another 2.7 billion MWh worth of natural gas-powered factories, emergency power systems, and furnaces, ovens, stoves, and hot water heaters in restaurants, homes and other buildings. Cars, trucks, buses, semi-trailers, tractors and other vehicles consumed the equivalent of yet another 2 billion MWh.

Altogether, that’s 7.4 billion megawatt-hours per year that the GND would have to replace! On top of that, we’d need at least another 150 million MWh of wind and solar generating capacity to charge batteries over and over to maintain just one week of nationwide backup power, to avoid blackouts.

The more we try to do so, the more we’d have to put turbines and panels in low-quality wind and solar sites, where they’d generate electricity only 15-20% of the year, 80-85% below “nameplate capacity.”

Of course, we could replace all this fossil fuel energy with nuclear power. But radical greens inside and outside the soon-to-be Biden Administration detest and oppose nuclear as much as they do fossil fuels.

That means this transformation to an all-electric nation would require millions of onshore wind turbines, thousands of offshore turbines, billions of solar panels, millions of vehicle battery modules, billions of backup energy storage battery modules, thousands of miles of new transmission lines, millions of charging stations, tens of billions of tons of concrete, steel, copper, plastic, cobalt, rare earth elements and countless other materials – and digging up hundreds of billions of tons of overburden and ores!

If the United States and world could summon the will to mine, process and smelt enough metals and minerals – and manufacture, transport and install all those turbines, panels, batteries and transmission lines – the GND would require the greatest expansion of mining and manufacturing in human history.

But radical greens inside and outside of the Biden Administration detest and oppose US mining and manufacturing almost as much as they despise fossil fuels. That means we would have to go overseas for these essential metals and minerals – primarily to China and Russia, which have them within their boundaries or under their control in various African, Asian and Latin American nations.

They also have no reservation or hesitation about digging them up and processing them – without regard for child, slave or forced labor, workplace safety, air and water pollution, mined land reclamation or any other standards that we insist on in America. And it’s highly unlikely that Team Biden would demand that those countries implement such standards – or that it would refuse to import the metals, minerals and finished “green” technologies unless China, Russia and their foreign subsidiaries abide by our rules and regulations. The entire GND (and much more) would collapse without those unethical raw materials.

Moreover, nearly all this mining, processing and manufacturing would require gasoline, diesel, natural gas and coal in those foreign countries, because those operations cannot be conducted with wind, solar and battery power. The fossil fuel use and emissions would take place outside the United States, but would not go away. Indeed they would likely double or triple. The carbon dioxide emissions would increase global atmospheric levels and, Team Biden insists, worsen climate chaos and extreme weather.

In fact, most wind, solar and battery mining, processing and manufacturing already take place overseas, under few or nonexistent workplace safety, fair wage, child labor and environmental laws. Some 40,000 Congolese children labor alongside their parents, for a couple dollars a day, while exposed constantly to toxic, radioactive mud, dust, water and air, to meet today’s cobalt needs. Imagine the GND toll.

Replacing oil and gas for petrochemicals, pharmaceuticals and plastics would require importing those feed stocks, as well – or planting millions of acres in canola, soybean and other biofuel crops. The water, fertilizer, pesticide, tractor, harvester, processing and transportation requirements would be astronomical.

All that work, and all those industrial facilities, would impact hundreds of millions of acres of scenic areas, food crop lands and wildlife habitats. Raptors, other birds, bats, and forest, grassland and desert dwellers would suffer substantial losses or be driven into extinction.

Most of those impacts would also occur in Midwestern and Western America, far from the voting centers and suspicious voting patterns that put Team Biden in office. But as they say, out of sight, out of mind – in someone else’s backyards.

The GND would also mean ripping out perfectly good natural gas appliances, replacing them with electric models, installing rapid charging systems for vehicles, and upgrading household, neighborhood and national electrical systems to handle the extra loads – costing more trillions of dollars.

Families, factories, hospitals, schools and businesses accustomed to paying 7-11¢ per kilowatt-hour for electricity would pay 14-22¢ per kWh, as they already do in “green” US states – or even the 35¢ that families now pay in Germany. Once they use more than some arbitrary “maximum baseline” amount of electricity per month, they will pay closer to 45¢ per kWh, as families already do in California.

How companies will survive, how many jobs will disappear, how many families will join the ranks of those who must choose between heating and eating – is anyone’s guess.

GND technologies are nearly 100% dependent on metals and minerals from China, Russia, Ukraine, and Chinese companies in Africa and Latin America. Emails from Hunter Biden’s laptop underscore concerns that America’s foreign, defense and domestic policies would be held hostage, while certain well-connected politicians, families and wind, solar, battery and biofuel companies get rich.

All these issues require open, robust debate – which too many schools and universities, news and social media outlets, corporate and political leaders, and Antifa thugs and arsonists continue to censor and cancel. That censorship and silencing must end before any votes or other actions are taken on any Green New Deal. Unfortunately, the opposite is happening.

Big Media and Big Tech are conspiring with Democrats, Greens and other authoritarian elements to shut down any and all discussion by anyone who does not support their agendas. Others are moving to persecute and prosecute President Trump and anyone associated with his administration and policies.

As anger and frustration build among the increasingly disenfranchised, America and the world could be heading into a frightening future indeed.

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of books, reports and articles on energy, environmental, climate and human rights issues.

  • Home
  • The Left’s Little Red Book on Forming a New Green Republic

The Left’s Little Red Book on Forming a New Green Republic

William L. Kovacs

October 2020

The Left’s Little Red Book on Forming a New Green Republic

The radical Left vigorously claims its Green New Deal and regulations to control climate change, will create a utopia with an abundance of free energy from the sun, bicycle paths for morning commutes, walking trails for contemplation, and magnificent pastures, unspoiled by pollution. A beautiful state of existence for the few selected humans occupying it?

When one, however, reads the actual words of the Left, there is a disconnect between promises and intent. The Left manipulates words such as “green” (referencing environmentalism, a positive concept to many), to cover up its “red” or socialist agenda (a negative concept to many). The manipulation of words is a proven political approach used to diminish freedom.

George Orwell noted, “Political language…is designed to make lies sound truthful…and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” Thus, necessity, many times, requires those seeking power over us to corrupt words so we believe something other than the advocate’s true purpose.

My new book, The Left’s Little Red Book on Forming a New Green Republic, is a collection of quotes from the Left that advocate “capitalism must go,” “truth is not relevant,” “humans must go to save the planet,” and that without following its mandates, “the world will end in twelve years.” In the day of Covid-19, it is frightening to read the words of Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh – “If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”

Jacques Cousteau, one of the world’s most noted conservationists, using precise numbers, proposes “World population must be stabilized and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day.”

The reference to a “Little Red Book” alludes to Chairman Mao’s book of quotations: words proclaiming “truth” and a vision of utopia. His book educated the masses on politically correct thinking. Mao’s actions, however, were some of the most brutal in all of history.

The Left emulates Mao’s tactics. It preaches utopia and correct thinking while seeking domination. In 2020 America, The Left’s Little Red Book on Forming a New Green Republic describes how the political left uses concern for the environment (Green New Deal, climate change) to attack capitalism and scare the country into socialism.

The Left’s Little Red Book captures the complex interrelationships between the radical Left, socialism, and environmentalism in under a half-hour, easy read. These small books are called “chapbooks.” They have been around since the 16th century. Initially used as educational books, The Left’s Little Red Book, is an educational effort to expose the words of the Left so citizens can compare the actual spoken words against the promises of “utopia.”

There is no substitute for understanding the Left other than reading its actual words. General descriptions of their words would not be believable in a society that protects the rights of citizens. Reading the actual words of the Left equips one to recognize how the Left is misleading the American people with a promise of a Green New Deal and claims this is the moment “when the rise of oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal…”

The reader will quickly appreciate where the Left wants to take this country. The New Green Republic will be a perfectly designed political state with a well-functioning regulatory machine that ensures “politically correct-thought” by the “masses.”

Of the literally millions of statements by the Left on the benefits of their Green New Deal and the regulation of society to “reduce the impacts of climate change,” there is not one utterance about the rights of people in a society. Every statement by the Left “puts us in our place,” “tells us how to live,” and “what to think.” The quotes from the Left merely confirm its goal of creating a country where free people cannot live.

To quote Peter Berle, president of the National Audubon Society, 1985-1995, “We reject the idea of private property.”  Welcome to the New Green Republic