Today: 21.Aug.2017

Paul Driessen, Senior Policy Analyst, Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow: It’s amazing how we are bombarded by accusations that our technologies and living standards offend basic principles of fair trade, human rights, sustainable development and social justice. Except, it seems, when the technologies are electric vehicles, wind turbines, solar cells, cell phones and other gadgets so beloved by progressives and environmentalists. ... Where are the demands for justice, the student protests, sit-ins and boycotts against Nokia, Apple, Vestas and Tesla? Why are Fair Trade and Living Wage activists not speaking out on behalf of rare earth workers in Baotou, Inner Mongolia – or parents and children mining cobalt and lithium under even more horrendous conditions in Congo?

Published in People - The Americas

David Henderson, John Cochrane, Wall Street Journal: Climate change is often misunderstood as a package deal: If global warming is “real,” both sides of the debate seem to assume, the climate lobby’s policy agenda follows inexorably. It does not. Climate policy advocates need to do a much better job of quantitatively analyzing economic costs and the actual, rather than symbolic, benefits of their policies. Skeptics would also do well to focus more attention on economic and policy analysis. To arrive at a wise policy response, we first need to consider how much economic damage climate change will do. Current models struggle to come up with economic costs consummate with apocalyptic political rhetoric. Typical costs are well below 10% of gross domestic product in the year 2100 and beyond.

John Shanahan, civil engineer, President of Environmentalists for Nuclear - USA: In order to promote use of nuclear energy, it is necessary to understand how it fits in with other forms of energy, mainly fossil fuels. It is very likely that fossil fuels will be used until they are no longer economical to mine and extract from the earth. Fossil fuels produce H2O and CO2 as their main by-products. A debate rages whether CO2 from fossil fuels is causing irreversible, catastrophic global warming and many other severe weather phenomena. This website presents over 200 articles on all sides of this debate. Go to HOME and the main tab, ENVIRONMENT. This debate is important for nuclear power because we shouldn't use unsound scientific arguments about CO2 from fossil fuels. This article presents photos from around the world to help you decide on the current condition of Earth's climate and how it compares with the past. Is it good or bad? Is it getting seriously worse or not?

Paul Driessen, Senior Policy Analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow, www.cfact.org: But more than 1.2 billion people (more than the USA, Canada, Mexico and Europe combined) still do not have electricity; another 2 billion have electrical power only sporadically and unpredictably. In Sub-Saharan Africa, 700 million still cook and heat with “renewable” wood, charcoal and animal dung. Al Gore, the IPCC, alarmist modelers and researchers, and EPA’s “social cost of carbon” scheme and carbon dioxide “endangerment” decision have all depended on the climate bogeyman. Eternal vigilance, education and pushback by the rest of us will be needed for years to come.

Subscribe to Newsletter

  • Latest
  • Popular
  • Mark Hibbs, Senior Fellow, Nuclear Policy Program,…
  • Cheryl Rofer, Nuclear Diner: Two South Carolina…
  • Dan Yurman, with links to similar important…
  • David Cherry and Ramasimong Phillip Tsokolibane: South…
  • Bryan Leyland, power systems design, mechanical engineer:…